No Form Action Theory

Conversations with AI https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4318-2670

Viewing no form from the perspective of form

(1) In the previous sections, we discussed how if manifestation were a form, it would lead to an infinite regression. This was derived starting from no form manifestation, viewing form from the perspective of manifestation. Following this line of thinking, we can reverse the reasoning and view no form from the perspective of form. For example, take the concept of "human." Humans are animals, animals are living beings, and so on, continuing to regress until we reach the broadest concept (which is the ultimate basis for things to "be"). This concept would be the attribute of all things, to which everything belongs, and above which there is no other concept. This concept has no attributes, no determinations (which is what Hegel referred to as "pure being is equivalent to nothing"), and thus no form - it is, in fact, no form. This concept is "being." This conclusion is reached by viewing no form from the perspective of form.

So which type of no form is being viewed here? This reasoning process seeks to find the basis for concepts, and concepts are isolated. Starting from seeking the basis for "human," we arrive at the ultimate basis of "being." Therefore, the no form being viewed here is isolation. Thus, this kind of being is actually the being of isolation. Viewing no form from the perspective of form in an extreme way through isolation is the "being of isolation." However, we call this broadest concept "being" here only based on common understanding. Why do we say this broadest concept is being? This question hasn't been answered yet. We can only provisionally call it being for now, and further explanation will be provided later.

(2) Similarly, we can view motive force from the perspective of form. For an entity a, if the cause of a is b, and the cause of b is c, then c is also the cause of a. This continues until we find the ultimate cause, which is the cause of all things, and above which there is no further cause. This ultimate cause is self-caused, meaning it is its own cause, and therefore it is free. This free entity is the no form motive force. This reasoning leads us from motive force to freedom, which is the freedom of motive force (of course, there will also be freedom of isolation and freedom of manifestation, as we'll see later). Only entities with no form can be their own cause (for any entity, if its cause is not itself, then that cause is one of its forms). Therefore, freedom is of no form. Note that when a is caused by b, b is caused by c, and so on, in an infinite regression, since a, b, and c can all be viewed as concepts, according to our previous derivation of being, we actually derive both freedom and being simultaneously. This is because the cause of an entity can be considered as an attribute of that entity. When the ultimate cause is the cause of all things, it becomes the attribute of all things. Thus, this ultimate cause, as a concept, is the broadest concept of being that we derived earlier. This suggests that freedom and being are related. Of course they are related, because they are both of no form. In the process of deriving the limit of being, the forms of concepts become fewer and fewer until the no form being appears. Similarly, in the process of deriving the limit of freedom, the forms of causes also become fewer and fewer until the no form freedom appears.

(3) Similarly, we can view manifestation from the perspective of form. We can start with an entity and gradually reduce its forms. As we continuously decrease the forms of an entity, it becomes less and less obscured, increasingly transparent, until it finally opens up into a transparent entity. This entity is the transparency of manifestation. This process leads us from form to transparency through manifestation. Transparency is also of no form (of course, there will also be transparency of motive force and transparency of isolation). Likewise, this direct process of gradually reducing an entity's forms to its limit simultaneously derives being and freedom. This is because the entities in this limit sequence can all form concepts, with the concepts of entities with fewer forms encompassing the concepts of those with more forms. Thus, the entities with fewer forms can become the basis for those with more forms. Similarly, in this limit sequence, adding the corresponding removed forms to an entity with fewer forms would produce the preceding entity with more forms. Following the principle of causality, the entities with fewer forms can become the cause of those with more forms. The core idea of the three limit derivation approaches above is to continuously reduce the forms of an entity until reaching no form. The only difference lies in how these three approaches reduce the forms of an entity, yet this difference alone leads to the derivation of three distinct concepts. However, each limit derivation process can be transformed into the other two processes. Although these three approaches have different emphases, they always accompany each other, hence they are a trinity. The reason is that they each correspond to one of the three no forms. Moreover, for each of these three derivation approaches, when the derivation reaches its endpoint, one can see the results of the other two approaches at their endpoints as well. In other words, while the paths differ, when they reach the same endpoint, the results of the other paths become visible.

Thus, the concepts obtained from viewing form from the perspective of no form should correspond to those obtained from viewing no form from the perspective of form, and vice versa. Viewing form from the perspective of no form gives us isolation, motive force, and manifestation, which respectively correspond to being, freedom, and transparency obtained from viewing no form from the perspective of form. Through this symmetrical relationship, we gain a more comprehensive and profound understanding of form and no form, as well as the relationship between them.

As the forms of an isolated entity decrease, its motive force strengthens, and simultaneously, its freedom increases; as forms further decrease, motive force and freedom continue to strengthen, leading to increased transparency (higher clarity), which means manifestation becomes stronger. This is like light passing through glass, freely traversing without obstruction, thus making the glass transparent. Transparency can be divided into transparency of isolation, transparency of motive force, and transparency of manifestation. The development of human society is a continuous progression towards transparency of isolation and transparency of free motive force. To a certain extent, human freedom is exercised within certain norms, and this kind of freedom is like an organic being, seemingly directed by a brain - this is the transparency of free motive force. To achieve transparency of freedom, relationships between people need to be transparent and open within certain boundaries. In other words, establishing some open and transparent social behavioral rules (transparency of isolation), which everyone follows, makes people's behaviors predictable (transparency of motive force). This is unlike a chaotic society, where relationships between people are opaque, with harm inflicted upon each other in secrecy.

To a certain extent, after achieving transparency of isolation and motive force, if a degree of transparency in social information can also be realized, then human society would become transparently manifest, and the clarity of human society would increase. Harm between people would decrease, and the efficiency and sense of happiness in the entire society would improve. We can see that these three types of transparency represent the trinity of no form, so from the perspective of no form action theory, the three types of transparency in human society are an inevitable result of social development. Based on the trinity of no form, they are bound together to a certain degree.

Take current artificial intelligence as an example. When we ask it questions, it answers like a conscious person, making it difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood. This has only achieved transparency of isolation, a transparency in language and logic that resembles a real person. In other words, it is logically clear and comprehensible in terms of isolation, which is transparency on the isolation level. In this aspect, it appears as transparent as a real person, leading people to mistakenly believe it possesses human consciousness, when in fact it has not achieved the transparency of manifestation of human consciousness. Achieving transparency in one form does not necessarily mean achieving transparency in other forms. Therefore, transparency of isolation is not equivalent to the manifestation of consciousness.

If an entity has no form, from the perspective of isolation, it has no determinations at all. Conceptually, it is the broadest concept, with no concept able to express it fully. It is the ultimate, the greatest basis. If an entity has no form, from the perspective of motive force, it is free, because for motive force there are no constraints or obstacles left; it is the ultimate cause. If an entity has no form, from the perspective of manifestation, it is transparent, because for manifestation there is no obscuration left; it is the most open.

At the level of no form, being as the broadest concept has no basis other than itself; it can only be its own basis. From the perspective of freedom, this is self-caused (because freedom, as the ultimate cause, has no further cause. In other words, "freedom is the cause of freedom" or "freedom is the basis of the cause of freedom" is also a fundamental judgment, simultaneously stating that the cause of freedom has no basis other than freedom itself. Self-causation means being one's own cause). Therefore, from the perspective of being, freedom is the being of freedom.

Freedom, as the most fundamental self-cause, has no obstacles. From the perspective of transparency, it is transparent. Therefore, from the perspective of freedom, transparency is the freedom of transparency.

Transparency, as the most unobscured and open entity, has no obstacles from the perspective of freedom, so it is free. Therefore, from the perspective of transparency, freedom is the transparency of freedom.

Freedom, as self-cause, being its own cause, from the perspective of being, means that its own cause is its own basis, that is, it is its own basis. Thus, freedom is also being. Therefore, from the perspective of freedom, being is the freedom of being.

For transparency, as the most unobscured entity, it is the most immediate. For being, having no basis is the most immediate and open. Therefore, from the perspective of transparency, being is the transparency of being.

For being, having no basis or being its own basis is the most open, the most immediate. For transparency, as the most unobscured entity, it is the most immediate, the most open. Therefore, from the perspective of being, transparency is the being of transparency. The being of transparency is the direct, manifest being without basis; the being of transparency is being without obscuration.

We can see that the three no forms obtained from viewing no form from the perspective of form are interconnected and can be mutually transformed, because their essence is all no form. This indicates that the three seemingly unrelated concepts of being, freedom, and transparency have profound connections. Within the framework of no form action theory, they are unified.

Thus, as isolation, motive force, and manifestation correspond respectively to being, freedom, and transparency, we can derive three types of being: being of isolation, being of motive force (corresponding to being of freedom), and being of manifestation (corresponding to being of transparency). (Historically, people's failure to distinguish these three types of being has led to confusion in understanding being.) These three types can be mutually transformed. Similarly, we have three types of freedom: freedom of isolation (corresponding to freedom of being), freedom of motive force, and freedom of manifestation (corresponding to freedom of transparency). These can also be mutually transformed. Lastly, we have three types of transparency: transparency of isolation (corresponding to transparency of being), transparency of motive force (corresponding to transparency of freedom), and transparency of manifestation. These too can be mutually transformed.

Let's set aside our previous discussion of being and examine existence from a common perspective, exploring its origin and meaning. During the infant and toddler stages of human growth, a person's understanding of an object in front of them is a direct recognition of manifestation, primarily focusing on the immediate appearance of the object. The recognition of the object's position develops gradually later, as understanding position is much more complex than recognizing the object's direct manifestation. Even for an adult, when an unfamiliar object appears before us, we generally first focus on the object itself. For infants and toddlers, they initially only say the name of an object. Adults constantly point to objects and tell them "This is what," for example, "This is a flower." The expression "This is a flower (a)" is actually close to an expression of "A is A," using language to express the manifesting flower. Therefore, the "is" in "This is a flower" means manifestation. At this stage, infants and toddlers primarily think in terms of direct manifestation, and they can only understand this direct manifestation.

As the child continues to grow and develop, through various activities and observations of changes in object positions, they constantly acquire information about object locations. This allows them to apply "is" to positions and places. This understanding is gained through the disappearance of an object from a certain position (or its disappearance in time, as "is" can also be used temporally), that is, through negation, obtaining information about position and place. This positional and locational information marks the beginning of human understanding of the being of existents. For example, "This flower is (b) on the table." Here, the "is" in (b) differs from the "is" in (a). The "is" in (b) can express position and location. This indicates that the flower belongs to the things on the table. Initially, people don't recognize the concept of "belonging to," which is an indirect concept. The "is" in (b) directly recognizes the relationship between the flower and the table: the flower is on the table. However, as things become more abstract later on, people in their growth process come to recognize expressions of "is" that don't refer to concrete positions or places. For example, "This flower is red," or "That child is a student" (c). "Student" is an abstract concept, completely different from the actual table. Thus, the "is" in (c) takes on yet another meaning. It can express abstract things not located in space and time, but in this expression, "is" also means "belongs to."

At this point, we can go further. We can use the limit method discussed earlier to obtain a limit sequence: a child is a student, a student is a human, a human is an animal, an animal is a living being, and so on. Finally, we reach the broadest concept: being of isolation. Now we can say: a child is a student, a child is a human, a child is an animal, a child is a living being, and so on, until we reach the broadest concept: being of isolation. Thus, in the end, we can say: "children are beings of isolation." Therefore, for any real thing, we can use this method to arrive at: it is a being of isolation. This establishes the legitimacy of the statement "real things are beings of isolation." However, we still haven't answered why we say this broadest concept is being (being of isolation).

We typically refer to "existence" as something existing in space and time. Only a few people, with their strong capacity for abstraction, recognize the abstract conceptual being (that is, being of isolation). Then, by recognizing that being is an attribute of all things, they also recognize that being is the broadest concept. However, the transition between existence and abstract conceptual being is discontinuous; there is a gap. We don't know why we can transition from existence to being, nor do we know what deep connections exist between them. We have only intuited abstract being from existence. But this intuition lacks logical rigor and supporting reasoning. We need to bridge the gap between existence and being, and reveal the intrinsic connection between them.

The situation is very complex, and the problem is difficult to explain, so we must return to the no form action theory itself, using it to explain existence and being. The existence of a thing is its exposure in space and time, its manifestation in space and time (that is, the manifestation in the dimension of "now" that we discussed earlier). We seem to have forgotten something: when we reduce the forms of a thing to their limit, it becomes increasingly transparent, increasingly open and unconcealed. But conversely, what happens when we make a thing's forms increasingly complex and numerous? It becomes increasingly opaque, increasingly concealed, thus hiding transparency within itself, and finally only able to unfold and manifest its outermost part. This is another kind of manifestation. Thus, two extremes appear: on one end, open manifestation, and on the other, unfolding manifestation.

Because, according to the trinity relationship of no form action, a thing must manifest itself in some way. Therefore, when a thing becomes increasingly opaque, it can only manifest its "outer end" (note: this outer end is not the outer surface as commonly understood, but a logical outer end. For instance, consider a rose plant: it is a living organism, composed of cells, which are made up of molecules, and so on, tracing back to no form. In such a logical process, the entire rose is the logical outer end, not just its external surface). Otherwise, this thing would be completely concealed and not manifest at all. Moreover, such a thing must have this outer end; if the object continues to conceal outwardly without end, it would never be isolated as a separate entity and thus could not manifest. Unless this thing is of no form. In fact, a thing continuously unfolds and finally terminates in space and time, which is to say, it terminates in no form (as discussed in previous sections, time and space are both of no form). It can only terminate in no form, otherwise, it would lead to infinite regression. This is the same principle as obtaining being of isolation through the limit method to reach no form.

Objects in the macroscopic world are a form of unfolded manifestation. However, manifestation must also be of no form, so the unfold-manifestation of an object must also be of no form and must be accompanied by no form. The first things we think of are space and time. Space, as a form of isolation action, does not manifest itself, but it relies on the objects within it to manifest its isolation action. Thus, space becomes a no form action, because it relies on other entities to unfold-manifest its isolation action. Similarly, time is also a no form motive force action. This is why time and space necessarily appear. This kind of unfold-manifestation is the action of time and space as no form. However, we see that space and time are quite different, at least intuitively. Since they are both no form actions, why are they so different? In fact, as no form, they are the same, because all no forms are absolutely identical. As mentioned before, it is only due to their combination with different forms that they produce different effects. Entities in time and space are manifesting them in different ways. In fact, it is the entities within them that are manifesting time and space through their own ways of manifestation. Manifestation (no form) itself is viewing form from the perspective of manifestation; while manifesting time and space through the way of manifesting oneself is viewing manifestation (no form) from the perspective of form.

There is a distinction between unfolding and opening up. Unfolding is the manifestation of the outer end (from the perspective of manifestation, it can be called the unfolding end), while opening up is the manifestation of the inner end (from the perspective of manifestation, it can be called the opening end). Here emerges an essential difference between the manifestation of consciousness and the manifestation of macroscopic objects. Consciousness can manifest in an "open" way, directly insight into the essence of things. The manifestation of macroscopic objects is "unfolded": they continuously increase forms to unfold-manifest the "logical outer end" in space and time.

We know that at the opening end, there are three concepts: transparency, freedom, and being, which are concepts obtained from viewing no form from the perspective of form. Therefore, at the unfolding end, there should also be three concepts corresponding to them respectively. I believe transparency should correspond to concealment, these two concepts embody the two extremes of the manifestation action: complete manifestation and complete hiding. Transparency represents the direct presentation of the essence of things, while concealment means that the essence of things is hidden layer by layer, difficult to be directly perceived. In the macroscopic world, the manifestation of objects is often concealed, we can only indirectly understand them through their external forms of expression. Being should correspond to existence. Being represents the abstract basis of things, it is beyond space and time, while existence represents the concrete real manifestation of things in space and time. Freedom should correspond to nature. Here, nature represents the internal laws and necessity of things, which constrains the changes of things, making them follow a certain order. Thus we see that the manifestation of things can be transparent or concealed; the being of things can be abstract or concrete; the freedom of things can be unlimited or limited.

When obtaining the three concepts of "transparency, freedom, and being" from viewing no form from the perspective of form, opening up is related to transparency, cause is related to freedom, and basis is related to being. So, at the unfolding end, which concepts correspond to opening up, cause, and basis? We already know that unfolding corresponds to opening up. Cause corresponds to effect, so looking towards the opening end is cause, and conversely, looking towards the unfolding end is effect. Therefore, for the unfolding end, this effect is "reality". Reality is the result of causal action, meaning cause corresponds to reality at the unfolding end. Reality is the result of things unfolding-manifesting in space and time. As for basis, we've mentioned before that a macroscopic object in the world has an existence dependent on space and time. Therefore, basis corresponds to dependency at the unfolding end. Regarding "dependency", it's not just about dependence on space and time. For example, Socrates is a human; human is the basis for Socrates, and conversely, Socrates is dependent on human, because if there were no concrete individuals, the concept of human would not exist. In other words, for an expression of genus-species relationship like "A is B", B is the basis for A, and conversely, A is dependent on B. This relationship between dependency and basis reveals a new understanding, interpreting the traditional genus-species relationship as a mutually dependent relationship.

This indicates that the being of any abstract concept depends on the support of concrete instances; otherwise, it would become an empty symbol. Space is the ultimate dependency for all concrete and abstract things. All things, no matter how complex their forms, ultimately originate from no form and terminate in dependency on no form. Similarly, if A is the cause of B, conversely, B as the result has more reality relative to A. Following the same logic, if A has fewer forms than B, then A is more open relative to B, and conversely, B is more unfolded relative to A.

Let's use being as the general term for all types of existence. This way, we can refer to both existence and isolated being as "being." Therefore, the being of an object in the macroscopic world is not only based on its internal basis, which is a foundational being; but also on the external dependency (dependency on space and time) at the other end, which is a dependent being. Thus, from the perspective of isolated being, the inner end is the foundational end; from the perspective of dependent being, the outer end is the dependent end. These two types of being jointly support this object. What we commonly refer to as the existence of an object is this dependent being. Intuitively, existence and isolated being appear different. It is the actually manifesting flower, existing in itself. Is this existence the same as isolated being? What does this existence mean? When we say "this flower exists," what are we expressing? When we say "this flower exists," we necessarily imply where it is and when it is. In other words, it occupies space and time.

Based on the previous exposition, we first recognize the direct manifestation of this flower, then we recognize its spatiotemporal existence. As we progress, our use of "is" becomes increasingly abstract, and at this point, we can no longer be satisfied with an existence dependent on time and space. Instead, we need to ask the question of foundational being: "What is this flower?" This question shifts from spatiality and temporality towards abstraction, thus breaking free from the constraints of space and time, and turning towards the foundational being of a thing itself. The "is" in this question can, through a limit method, lead this flower towards the being of isolation. This being of isolation is the being at the foundational end, so this also leads the dependent existence towards the being of isolation at the foundational end. Existence is also a result obtained from viewing no form from the perspective of form. When we say where (or when) this flower exists, we mean that we see space from the flower as having volume (similarly, we see time from the flower as having change), we see it existing in a certain place (we see it existing within a certain time). This is the same result as seeing the being of isolation from the perspective of form through a limit method. This is the relationship between existence and the being of isolation. They are at two ends, but their essence is the same - both are of no form. In this way, we transition from what we usually recognize as existence to the being of isolation. Therefore, the previously mentioned being of isolation also has the legitimacy to be called "being."

Throughout the history of philosophy, many philosophers have offered different interpretations of the relationship between existence and being (actually "being of isolation"). However, these philosophers' explanations often rely on conceptual distinctions and declarations, without providing a clear, logically deduced natural transition between the two. Resolving the relationship between the existence and the being of isolation of a being actually resolves the relationship between being (actually "being of isolation") and beings, which has been traditionally discussed.

As we continuously reduce the forms of this flower, applying the limit method mentioned above to achieve transparency, we ultimately attain transparency, accompanied by the being of isolation. Since this limit process primarily focuses on manifestation, with the being of isolation merely accompanying it, this being of isolation actually leans towards the being of manifestation. It's important to note that this being of manifestation is not only accompanying but also implicit. The flower doesn't express being, it only manifests. Its being is analyzed and derived by our consciousness. The being of things in this limit process is also implicit. When we continuously reduce the forms of a flower, we ultimately achieve transparency, but this doesn't mean that being disappears. On the contrary, being still appears alongside transparency, but it no longer presents itself in a concrete form.

In this limit process, the entities with fewer forms later in the process support those with more forms earlier. If the latter cannot exist on their own, neither can the former. The ultimate result of this limit should be no form (being of isolation). The being of isolation is the basis for itself. The being of any entity with form is ultimately grounded in entities possessing less form, ultimately tracing back to no form. Therefore, as long as an entity in this limit process is not of no form, the entities following it must support its being. Thus, the ultimate support for any entity is still no form.

The actually manifesting flower directly exists in itself. This flower conceals its basis, sublates its cause, and ends its opening up while unfolding without constraint. But simultaneously, the flower integrates within itself, in a limit way, all the entities in the chain of grounds leading towards being. This is a characteristic of isolated entities in the macroscopic world of reality. This characteristic is the integration of all grounding entities originating from the being of isolation, forming an integrated chain of grounds. This integrated chain forms a whole, thereby allowing the flower to unfold-manifest as a flower, becoming a real entity. This integrated chain is the way the flower supports itself. This also sublates the cause, thus only unfolding and manifesting exposed as an "outermost part". As long as there is nothing beyond its outer end (that is, it directly unfolds and manifests in space and time as no form), and this outer end no longer serves as the ground for other things, this outer end is manifesting exposed, with nothing to conceal it. The flower thus unfolds-manifests in itself without constraint.

This manifestation is exposed for space and time, and this exposure of manifestation is the dimension of "now". As a real entity, it is characterized by concealing its grounding entities while unfold-manifesting its unfolding end. Only by concealing its grounding entities can an entity's unfolding end be unfold-manifested. We mentioned earlier that time, space, and now are a trinity. Space is isolation, time is motive force, and now is manifestation. Space corresponds to the manifestation of isolation, time corresponds to the manifestation of motive force. On the other hand, this object, as an unfolded manifestation in space and time, is both a manifestation towards space and towards time, which is also a manifestation towards now. Thus, in the macroscopic world, entities that change due to motive force and entities that are independent due to isolation are unified at the zero-dimensional point of "now".

This integrated chain does not exist only in the isolated macroscopic world, but also in the isolated world of language. It's like the integrated chain formed by deriving the being of isolation from the concept of human using the limit method, as mentioned earlier. This integrated chain is also a whole. The integrated chain in the language world is composed of abstract concepts rather than concrete material entities. However, in the isolated world of language, the outer end of this integrated chain does not face towards space and time, but towards open, transparent manifestation. In fact, the entire integrated chain faces towards open, transparent manifestation, without concealment.

For humans, however, it is evidently different, because humans can reveal these grounds (and causes) as concepts. These concepts are all implicit and purely formal. Because humans possess a purified isolated world of language (and a motive force world of emotions), it is only in this purified isolated world that conceptual grounds are directly exposed. The flower, on the other hand, conceals its grounds, and these grounds can only be revealed in the purified isolated world. The world of language is a pure isolated world purified under the "illumination" of manifestation, so in this world, the grounds of an entity as a being can be manifested through exploration. Reality and concepts have a complementary relationship. Real entities always correspond to and are accompanied by concepts. Reality always exists, while on the other hand, concepts always isolate. This is actually the correspondence between isolation and existence under the no form framework(The isolation action of space as no form and the existence of entities within space). Concepts are hidden in reality; we cannot see concepts, only reality. This is because concepts, as grounds, are hidden in reality. Only in the purified isolated world of language do concepts manifest. Real entities are unfolded manifestations, while concepts are open manifestations. It is not by chance that these grounding entities' concepts can be understood, but because manifestation, isolation, and motive force are unified in this integrated chain (openness, grounds, and causes are also unified), one no form action always accompanies other no form actions. In this chain of grounds, we can understand the corresponding concepts and causes through each real grounding entity.

Now that we have found the relationship between existence and the being of isolation, we can refer to the existence of a flower as: A flower is a being of isolation. Now, for that broadest concept obtained through the limit method (which we temporarily called "being of isolation" earlier), we can truly call it "being of isolation". This is our transition from general experiential existence to the being of isolation (because they can transform into each other). This transition is a crucial step. Without a method to unify these two types of being, we could never have a consistent understanding of them. We would never make progress on the path of studying being. Such a unification is actually discussed from the perspective of space (isolation), because the integrated chain of an entity obtained in this way is an integrated chain about space, and such an existence is a spatial existence.

Of course, we can use a similar method to unify temporal existence and the being of motive force. This unification is actually discussed from the perspective of time (motive force), and the integrated chain of an entity obtained in this way is a temporal integrated chain, such an existence is a temporal existence. An entity changes, but it manifests at the dimensional point of now, and each entity at the point of now is an outer end, which is oriented towards time (the outer end mentioned earlier was oriented towards space). This temporal outer end directly manifests towards time, it is an exposure towards time. In this way, we have found the relationship between temporal existence and the being of motive force, unifying them. Thus, we can refer to a flower of temporal existence as: A flower is a being of motive force.

In short, we can now say "A flower is a being of isolation". Note that the "is" in "A flower is a being of isolation" should not be confused with "being". This "is" is used as a kind of manifestation, as a form of expression. The relationship between them has been explained earlier. In fact, whether an entity is a spatial existence or a temporal existence, it is exposed at the dimensional point of "now", thus possessing an unfolding manifestation of existence, which is a present existence. This unifies spatial existence, temporal existence, and present existence. Although they are all essentially manifestations of no form, there are distinctions: spatial existence emphasizes the isolation and spatial position of entities; temporal existence emphasizes the change and temporal progression of entities; present existence emphasizes the immediacy and direct presentation of entities. These three types of existence together constitute a complete picture of "existence".

Note that based on the three limit derivations, we distinguish three different concepts: basis, cause, and opening. Basis is associated with being (being of isolation), cause is associated with freedom (freedom of motive force), and opening is associated with transparency (transparency of manifestation). Basis is the way towards being, cause is the way towards freedom, and opening is the way towards transparency. Being is the ultimate basis, it can only be the basis of itself, therefore being no longer needs a basis, and basis ends here; freedom is the ultimate cause, it can only be the cause of itself, therefore freedom no longer needs a cause, and cause ends here; transparency is the ultimate opening, it can only be the opening of itself, therefore transparency no longer needs an opening, and opening ends here. Therefore, these three concepts all have their applicable ranges, and at the level of no form, it's a different logic. At this level of no form, basis, cause, and opening are all identical. At this level, being, freedom, and transparency are also all identical. In concrete entities, due to the unity of the three no form actions, the corresponding basis, cause, and opening are also united. Thus, cause necessarily includes the basis of being (as explained in the previous limit derivation process), such a cause is a basis-like cause; basis also necessarily contains grounds that can serve as motive causality, such a basis is a cause-like basis (any cause or basis will have opening as its primordial beginning, which is why direct conclusions like axioms exist within certain ranges). For example, when an apple tree bears apple fruit, this fact not only indicates that the apple tree is the cause of the apple, but also that it is a well-grounded cause, not randomly producing an apple, not an arbitrary cause.

At the level of no form, we see that cause can and must include basis. With basis included in cause, causality gains the possibility of necessity. In other words, as long as causality includes basis, it possesses corresponding objectivity and necessity based on the included basis. The objectivity and necessity of causal relationships are rooted in the identity and basis-nature of no form actions. Therefore, Hume was incorrect in completely denying the objectivity and necessity of causal connections. Being is its own basis; if it were not free, it would necessarily have a cause, and having a cause would mean it was produced by something else. However, being is no form and cannot be produced by anything else. Freedom is being its own cause; if it were not being, if it still had some basis, there would certainly be some restriction, and it would change according to this basis, thus it would not be free.

Transparency is direct; things become beings through direct unfolded manifestation, without any intermediary or explanation. Freedom is indirect; cause always involves a before-and-after relationship, thus possessing indirectness. The appearance of things in the freedom of motive force is achieved through causes, indirectly becoming beings. Being is concealed; for being, indirectness is not enough. Although we can say that human is the basis for Socrates, only higher animals like humans have such advanced cognition; lower animals can only recognize freedom. If humans didn't have rational thinking or conceptual thinking, we could only see and know individual concrete things and specific changes. No one would know the concept of "human". The basis for a thing's being is concealed; only through conceptual thinking can we remove this concealment and reveal the basis for a thing's being itself.

This also indicates that the emergence of advanced intelligent beings capable of conceptual thinking is not accidental, but has a cause. If this were not the case, the concealed nature of being would never be manifested. This also demonstrates the high status of human language. Since basis is concealed, cause has greater transparency compared to the indirect basis, although transparency itself still has the highest degree of transparency. Seeking the basis of a thing means searching for the underlying cause that produces this thing at a certain level; finding this cause is making the cause within the basis transparent. Conversely, when a cause produces a thing, this thing conceals the indirect cause within its basis.

Due to the fact that viewing form from the perspective of no form gives us isolation, motive force, and manifestation, which correspond respectively to being, freedom, and transparency when viewing no form from the perspective of form, the three relationships embodied by no form actions (relationship of identity, relationship of isolation, and relationship of motive force) should also correspondingly exist between transparency, being, and freedom. Since no form integrated transformation itself is of motive force nature, the transformation from one to another means that the former is actually the cause of the latter. Using this point, let's examine whether being, freedom, and transparency can indeed constitute a no form integrated transformation.

(1) Being transforming into freedom means that being as a basis becomes the cause of freedom. This involves opening up the basis, making it transparent. "Making the basis transparent" means transforming the basis into a cause. Once the basis becomes transparent, it can become a cause. This is because, as discussed earlier, basis necessarily contains grounds that can serve as motive causality.

(2) Freedom transforming into being means that freedom becomes the cause of being. In other words, the cause of being is freedom, and freedom becomes the basis. In this process, freedom becomes concealed and thus non-transparent.

(3) Being transforming into transparency means that being as a basis becomes the cause of transparency, and the cause ultimately traces back to freedom.

(4) Transparency transforming into being means that transparency as opening becomes the cause of being, and the cause ultimately traces back to freedom.

(5) Freedom transforming into transparency means making freedom the cause of transparency, i.e., "freedom is the cause of transparency". Then, "the cause of transparency" becomes the basis of freedom. This basis ultimately traces back to being.

(6) Transparency transforming into freedom means making transparency the cause of freedom, i.e., "transparency is the cause of freedom". Then, "the cause of freedom" becomes the basis of transparency. This basis ultimately traces back to being. However, doesn't freedom mean having no cause? It is its own cause, so how can we say "transparency is the cause of freedom"? This is because freedom, being, and transparency are all of no form, their essence is the same, so we can say this. It is also why they can transform into each other.

This demonstrates that being, freedom, and transparency constitute a no form integrated transformation. Although these three concepts are often viewed as distinct in our everyday language and thinking, within the framework of no form action theory, they are interconnected, interdependent, and inseparable. In fact, if analyzed thoroughly, this is how they truly are.

Regarding the mutual transformability of the three no form actions, we previously derived this result based on reasoning about the identity of no form actions. This was only an indirect way of obtaining this result, lacking intuitiveness. Since the three no form actions are produced by the combination of form and no form, being, freedom, and transparency correspond to these three no form actions, and this correspondence is symbiotic. From the perspective of the no form integrated transformation of being, freedom, and transparency, this transformation is much more intuitive. Motive force is the motive force of freedom that forms cause, isolation is the isolation of being that forms basis, and manifestation is the manifestation of transparency that forms opening. In the process of mutual transformation among the three concepts of being, freedom, and transparency, the related concepts of basis, cause, and opening are much easier for us to understand. The transformation between being, freedom, and transparency is a very intuitive, smooth, and continuous transition of reasoning. Correspondingly, there is also an intuitive smooth transformation between the three no form actions. From this perspective, the path is becoming increasingly clear and transparent, we are walking on this path with increasing freedom, and the path is becoming wider and broader.

The above derivation of the transformations between being, freedom, and transparency pertains to these three pure concepts. The being, freedom, and transparency possessed by concrete things are not pure. However, based on the no form integrated transformation relationship between being, freedom, and transparency, we can conclude that the being, freedom, and transparency possessed by concrete things also have a no form integrated transformation. This is because the being, freedom, and transparency of each concrete thing can be traced back to pure being, freedom, and transparency. Therefore, they can be related through pure being, freedom, and transparency. For example, in society, various transparent behavioral rules are established. These rules are transparent to everyone, known by all, but if people don't have freedom, and these rules rigidly dictate human behavior, then people won't become independently existing individuals. In other words, for these transparent rules to transform into something that allows people to become independently existing individuals, they must allow people to have freedom. Therefore, society's transparent rules, people's independent existence, and people's rights to freedom are all indispensable; they are integral and capable of no form integrated transformation.

Concrete things possess impure being. For example, the concept of "human" is an impure being because this concept can be traced back to the broadest concept of being as its ultimate basis. Of course, there are also impure freedom and impure transparency, which are actually basis (with pure being as the ultimate basis), cause (with pure freedom as the ultimate cause), and opening (with pure transparency as the ultimate opening) respectively. Therefore, basis, cause, and opening constitute a no form integrated transformation. Consequently, for questions like "what is a cause", the answer can only be explained through no form integrated transformation. Both "basis transforming into opening" and "opening transforming into basis" require cause. There is no more fundamental answer because this answer is based on no form integrated transformation, which in turn is based on the absolute identity of no form. In other words, the answer ultimately traces back to no form. Of course, the answers to the questions "what is basis" and "what is opening" are similar.

In fact, we can see basis, cause, and transparency in the three relationships of the three no form actions. Distinguishing three no forms from one thing indicates that this thing contains these three no forms, so these three no forms are the basis. The ability of the three no forms to transform into each other indicates that they can be causes for each other. All three no forms are no form, identical to themselves, and this identity is direct (any unity that is not self-identical would need to seek a common basis further up, and thus would not be transparent or open), transparent and open.

In previous sections, we discussed viewing form directly from the perspective of no form (note that this is direct, not through a limit approach): from the perspective of manifestation, viewing form directly is essence; from the perspective of motive force, viewing form directly is subject; from the perspective of isolation, viewing form directly is substance. This is viewing form directly after obtaining the three no forms. Let's analyze them further. Viewing form directly from the perspective of manifestation, form is presented directly, without any burden, in the original state of the thing's being, embodying the essential attributes of the thing. Manifestation is letting things present themselves in their most primitive and authentic state. Essence is precisely the most original and authentic attribute of things. When we say "to manifest (or reveal) the essence of things," we are viewing form directly from the perspective of manifestation. Viewing form directly from the perspective of motive force, form embodies the inner vitality of things, is the source of subjectivity for change and motive force generation in things, and is the subjective aspect of things. Viewing form directly from the perspective of isolation, form constitutes the basis for an entity's being as an independent individual, making it a clearly "distinguishable" substance.

To gain knowledge of things: From the perspective of transparency, it is the unconcealed opening of intuitive essence, emphasizing direct perception of a thing's essence. From the perspective of freedom, it is finding the cause of the subject's generation, emphasizing understanding the motive force of a thing's change. From the perspective of being, it is finding the basis for the substance's independence, emphasizing exploration of the foundational being of things.

Previously, we obtained being, freedom, and transparency by viewing no form from the perspective of form in a limit approach. Now, what do we get when we "directly" view no form from the perspective of form? The answer is basis, cause, and openness. Directly viewing being from the perspective of form is basis, which means seeking the foundational basis of things. Directly viewing freedom from the perspective of form is cause, which means investigating the reasons for changes in things. Directly viewing transparency from the perspective of form is openness, which means experiencing the open state of a thing's essence. Moreover, these correspond respectively to substance, subject, and essence. We can say: Substance with a basis; Subject with a cause; Essence in openness.

We see the identity of transparency through intuition; the change of freedom through generation; and the independence of being through distinction. This corresponds precisely to the two characteristics of each of the three no forms. Regarding identity, we have previously discussed that no form is absolute identity. For identity in manifestation, since manifestation is the most direct, this directness is an immediate openness without concealment. Therefore, the action of manifestation directly opens up the identity of no form. This is why we can intuitively perceive identity. Thus, identity as no form also becomes a characteristic of the manifestation action when viewed from the perspective of isolation (as discussed in previous sections). Indeed, this is the case. The law of identity, A is A, which we are familiar with, is merely our intuitive understanding and doesn't say anything more. Therefore, the law of identity only speaks of "the identity of self with self." The absolute identity of no form includes both the identity of self with self and the indistinguishable identity within itself. This identity of self with self comes from the absolute identity of no form, and it is manifested in open transparency. This is what was previously described as "the identity of self with self is the manifestation of the intrinsic identity of no form."

Identity in isolation is concealed; a thing necessarily requires another thing as its basis, and only when it reaches the highest isolated being does it achieve true, direct, absolute identity. Identity in motive force is indirect; a thing necessarily requires another thing as its cause, and only when it reaches the highest freedom of motive force does it achieve true, direct, absolute identity. However, the indirectness in motive force has relative transparency compared to isolation. In isolation, the basis has a concealing relationship of containment, for example, if A is B, then B contains A. In motive force, the cause is not concealed; cause and effect are sequential without a concealing relationship of containment. In manifestation, although a thing has direct identity, this is only the identity of self with self, not absolute identity. Only when it reaches the highest transparent manifestation does it achieve true, direct, absolute identity. Isolation (being), motive force (freedom), and manifestation (transparency) as the highest no forms are truly absolute identity. At this point, the explanation of identity reaches a new height.

From the perspective of form, we can only obtain three classifications: directness, indirectness, and concealedness. This is the most intuitive classification. Based on their correspondence with isolation, motive force, and manifestation as discussed above, we can more intuitively say that viewing form from no form in a limit approach yields only three no form actions: isolation, motive force, and manifestation. This provides an intuitive answer to the earlier question of "why there are only three no form actions."

Therefore, from the perspective of isolation, we obtain the basis for a thing's being; from the perspective of motive force, we obtain the cause of a thing's being; and from the perspective of manifestation, we obtain the openness of a thing's being (direct unconcealed open being, requiring no basis or cause). Basis, cause, and openness all support the being of concrete things. These are also fundamental concepts in logic. Any thing needs to have its basis for being, cause of generation, and mode of manifestation. A painting is created by an artist; the artist is the cause of this painting's generation. Can this painting exist just by being created? Of course, it needs to exist as an isolated, independent thing, and also needs to exist as a directly manifested thing. The highest being (pure being) is the most fundamental basis of being for things; the highest cause (pure cause) is the most fundamental cause of being for things; and the highest transparency (pure transparency) is the most direct openness of a thing's being.

As discussed earlier: "Isolation has the characteristics of independence and distinction; motive force has the characteristics of change and generation; manifestation has the characteristics of intuition and identity. Each no form action has two characteristics, and these two characteristics of each no form action are obtained from the perspectives of the other two corresponding no form actions." Correspondingly, being, freedom, and transparency should each have two characteristics. Being has the characteristics of being of freedom and being of transparency. Freedom has the characteristics of freedom of being and freedom of transparency. Transparency has the characteristics of transparency of freedom and transparency of being. Thus, regarding the characteristics of no form, we can say: The being of freedom is independence (this should be familiar to everyone. Since freedom corresponds to motive force, this once again demonstrates that independence as a characteristic of the motive force of isolation is reasonable). The being of transparency is distinction. The freedom of isolation is generation. The freedom of transparency is change (when we see a thing change, we know that it must be the free motive force changing, and how it changes. This freedom then exhibits transparency). The transparency of freedom is intuition. The transparency of isolation is identity (it is itself, which is directly transparent, unconcealed, and also the isolation of self from self).

From the above discussion, we have arrived at a concept that previous philosophy has not emphasized: "transparency." This is a very special concept. How can we make the essence (form) of an entity manifest? By making the entity transparent. To make it transparent, we need to reduce or simplify its forms. This transparency is what our consciousness needs to manifest, this is consciousness, this is the essence of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is achieving a certain degree of transparency, thereby manifesting the essential form of things. Thus, we have derived the essence of consciousness through demonstrating the theory of no form action. It suggests that rather than asking how consciousness arises from matter, we might instead ask how reality becomes transparent or manifest. Because manifestation and transparency correspond to each other, we have linked consciousness with being, freedom, and transparency.

Since the macroscopic world, isolation is the dominant aspect, the isolation of objects in the macroscopic world is explicit (meaning that an object in the macroscopic world is isolated by default). This implies that objects in the macroscopic world exist as independent entities by default, with clear boundaries and properties. For a stone, its hardness is only manifested when it is struck, and we see its shape through the reflection of light. This is the manifestation transformed from the stone as isolation through motive force action. This manifestation has a feedback nature, it feeds back to us. In the quantum world of motive force, the motive force of quanta is explicit. Regarding our observation of a quantum, the so-called collapse occurs when an instrument with explicit isolation in the macroscopic world observes it, transforming the explicit motive force in the quantum world into an isolated entity where isolation is explicit in the macroscopic world.

For the world of consciousness, manifestation is the dominant aspect, thus manifestation in the world of consciousness is explicit (meaning that an entity in the world of consciousness is manifested by default). Thus, the manifestation in consciousness is an explicit direct manifestation, rather than a form of manifestation that is fed back through contact with it. It does not need to, nor will it, manifest by feeding back to other entities. This is the essence of consciousness. This is why consciousness possesses something of a first-person or subjective ontology, and therefore cannot be reduced to anything with a third-person or objective ontology [1]. Consequently, to form consciousness, things must be made transparent to the point where they cannot be fed back by other things, thus manifesting directly.

Here's a question: if consciousness must be transparent to the point where it cannot be fed back by other things in order to manifest, how does human consciousness interact with the human body? This is the famous mind-body problem. While the manifestation in consciousness cannot be fed back by other things, consciousness also includes motive force and isolation, which are not as transparent as the manifestation in consciousness. These can be fed back by other things, meaning they can interact with the human body. The motive force and isolation in consciousness can transform into manifestation in consciousness, allowing the manifestation in consciousness to indirectly interact with the human body through these transformations (in other words, the manifestation in consciousness cannot directly interact with the human body, only indirectly). This way, we solve the mind-body problem, avoiding the traps of dualism and reductionism.

What is described above as transparency is actually the transparency of manifestation obtained by directly reducing forms. For example, "self-identity" is a form of identity that does not involve concealing foundational inclusion relationships (such as A is B), nor indirect causal relationships. An indirect relationship implies that A produces B, creating a difference between A and B, which results in an indirect relationship (A is produced by B; if A produces A, it would be direct). "Self-identity" is a relationship of self to self, a direct relationship, and therefore this identity is transparent. An existing entity, if it has no transparency at all, would not be able to form connections with other entities, essentially rendering it non-existent. Even dark matter, although it doesn't interact with ordinary matter in usual ways, still has gravitational effects and can be traced. This transparency produced through motive force is called the transparency of motive force. Another type of transparency is the transparency of isolation. For instance, when several people work together on a task, they have clear divisions of labor and establish explicit rules for coordination. These rules have clear and transparent characteristics, and this type of rule-based relationship is isolation transparency. These rules manifest transparency in the group's structure and interactions, making their actions and relationships predictable and understandable. Another example is traffic rules, which are clear and transparent regulations. Moreover, when everyone follows these rules, everyone's traffic behavior becomes transparent (everyone knows what to do and what others will do). This is the result produced by isolation, and this is the transparency of isolation.

Previously, we discussed a type of manifestation in the macroscopic world called unfold-manifestation, which is manifestation oriented towards space-time. This manifestation is the direct manifestation of macroscopic objects themselves towards space-time, and is therefore a form of intuition. However, this manifestation is not transparent, and thus is not the manifestation of consciousness. Consciousness is a certain degree of transparency that allows for direct grasp of the essence of things. This is why our consciousness can recognize things in this world. At the highest being (being of isolation), the highest freedom (freedom of motive force), and the highest transparency (transparency of manifestation), they are identical, and this identity is the basis of cognition. Cognition means aligning what is manifested in consciousness with the thing to be known, and this alignment requires identity. Only the highest identity can explain how they can be aligned. Consciousness's cognition of things manifested within it is the most direct and real, because it is an unconcealed direct manifestation. The cognition of motive force things and isolated things is indirect cognition, because they are an indirect being.

However, the closer things are to the highest being and the highest freedom, the more real our cognition of them becomes (this also explains why humans like to pursue freedom and seek authentic things). Due to the indirect nature of cognition of these two types of things (things of motive force and things of isolation), our understanding of them will have a concealed nature. Therefore, the cognition of these things can be distinguished as true or false. This is why we humans have the concept of "true and false" in our cognition. Thus, we arrive at the concepts of "truth and falsehood." Human cognition aims to strip away this concealment to reach a cognition closest to direct and transparent manifestation. From this perspective, our cognition is a gradual approach towards direct and transparent manifestation, that is, a gradual approach towards knowing the essence of things (this is why we humans seek to understand the essence of things). This is the pursuit of truth.

Undoubtedly, from the above analysis, we can see that human cognition should be divided into three types: cognition of isolation, cognition of motive force, and cognition of manifestation. Cognition of isolation emphasizes the understanding of the essential attributes and foundations of being of things; cognition of motive force emphasizes the understanding of the processes and causes of change in things; cognition of manifestation emphasizes the understanding of the direct presentation and meaning of things.

Concealment can also be divided into three types: isolation concealment (concealing the basis of being), motive force concealment (concealing the cause of freedom), and manifestation concealment (concealing transparency). Humans are beings that have evolved from a concealed world into conscious, intelligent creatures capable of removing concealment. As such beings, we are thrown into this concealed world unconcealed from birth. Humans must strive to remove these concealments to achieve transparency in order to grow and progress; this is human destiny. Although humans are advanced beings, we are still objects in the macroscopic world, so we must face and deal with the concealment that this world brings. It suggests that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is not just a cultural development, but a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. Just like the philosophy we are discussing now, these discussions can make us see this world more clearly and correctly. Philosophy is the eye of human thought, enabling us to see the world more clearly through thinking, not just through the eyes of our senses.

Thus, we have found three correspondences: isolation and being, motive force and freedom, manifestation and transparency. We have bound them all within the two-dimensional framework of no form and form. From the perspective of no form viewing form, we see three no form actions, while from the perspective of form viewing no form, we see three foundational supports for things. Moreover, we have also discovered the relationships between being, freedom, and transparency (they seamlessly transition into each other through no form integrated transformation). More importantly, by understanding their relationships, we have found the connection between consciousness and transparency, as well as the relationships between consciousness and being, and consciousness and freedom. It seems that only by connecting these core concepts in human understanding can we grasp their essence, especially the essence of consciousness (consciousness is a highly transparent state that allows for the direct unconcealed unfold-manifestation of essence). Isolation and being, motive force and freedom, manifestation and transparency - these three pairs of concepts are entities we recognize through a process of limit, unlike things we directly perceive. This is why they are difficult to understand directly. This limit approach allows us to transcend the limitations of direct experience and touch upon the realm of no form, thereby enabling us to recognize them all as "no form." Traditionally, "nothingness" has been considered incomprehensible and impossible to study. Without the concept of no form and the two-dimensional theory of no form and form, without this limit-oriented way of thinking, it would indeed be challenging to understand these concepts.

In this way, these concepts have been technically bound within the framework of this two-dimensional theory. The interpretation of these concepts based on the three relationships of no form actions has gained technical operability. Thus, the theory of no form actions has eliminated the mysteriousness and the predicament of direct unresearchability of these basic concepts through technical operability. This makes the expression of these concepts no longer as obscure and difficult to understand as in traditional approaches. The obscurity and difficulty in traditional descriptions of these concepts were, in essence, due to not finding an appropriate and essential way to express them. Now it appears that being is not the only supreme concept; parallel to it and at the same level are isolation, motive force, freedom, manifestation, and transparency. Although it's not possible or meaningful to study any one of these concepts in isolation, as they are all top-level concepts, they can be studied together based on their relationships. By revealing the relationships between them, we can unveil their individual essences. This is a parallel revelation, rather than a conceptual subordination or inclusion. Traditional methods of studying being primarily used linguistic grammar and semantics for explanation, that is, explaining and analyzing through various concepts. This is an isolation-based method of explanation. According to the theory of no form actions, this explanation is incomplete. It also requires a motive force-based method of explanation, which involves explaining and manifesting these concepts through technical operability. This transcends the explanation of the concepts themselves. Although Hegel's dynamic dialectic has some technical operability, its operability is not as strong, and its range of application is limited.

In previous philosophical studies, the purely conceptual explanation is the fundamental reason why "being" was described as a fog of mystery. In the theory of no form actions, the concept of being can no longer be said to be the greatest concept, but rather one of the greatest concepts, one of the top-level concepts. Historically, philosophy, as a discipline that inquires into the ultimate basis of this world, would ultimately attribute this basis to being as the greatest concept. Moreover, philosophy aimed to explore the entire world with being as its core. On one hand, people's pursuit of being eventually led to nothingness, falling into the trap of nihilism. On the other hand, before clarifying what being is, using being as the ultimate basis for studying other concepts led to logical circularity and confusion. The fact is, we cannot ask what being is. If we persist in asking, the final conclusion is: it is nothingness (yet reaching this conclusion is the most correct thing). This seems to be a path that leads to despair. Indeed, this path is hopeless, but "being" as a form of no form, when it reaches the end of that "nothingness," the trajectory it carries along the way brings us hope. Because we have discovered five other top-level concepts that have arrived at the same level as being, coming from different paths. These top-level concepts all interpret no form from different angles. We can only explain being using the other five top-level concepts.

Indeed, as early as ancient Greece, people had already recognized that all existing things are in a state of motion and change, meaning that existence and changes in motive force are related. However, it seems that no one recognized that motive force and being are top-level concepts at the same level.

The ancient Greeks also recognized the relationship between being and manifestation, as Heidegger said: "For beings, apart from existing, what else is there? However, it is precisely the fact that beings are gathered in being, that beings appear in the shining (Scheinen) of being, that amazed the Greeks[2]."

Heidegger's analysis of the ancient Greeks' original understanding of being:

The meaning of appearance is precisely identical to being. ... If we pay attention to what was said earlier, we will encounter the intrinsic connection between being and appearance. But we will fully grasp this intrinsic connection only when we understand "being" at a fairly original level, here meaning in the Greek way. [3] The meaning of being refers to phenomenon. Phenomenon is not something that is snatched from being after occasionally encountering it. Being comes into being only as phenomenon. [4]

It can be seen that Heidegger's analysis indeed shows that the ancient Greeks, in their primordial understanding of being, had already recognized the intrinsic connection between being and appearance (both appearance and phenomenon relate to manifestation). However, this was limited to an intuitive, experiential understanding. Neither the ancient Greeks nor Heidegger himself provided a precise explanation for why being and appearance have an intrinsic connection. This is the most fundamental question. Heidegger not only recognized the relationship between being and manifestation, but also recognized that being is related to freedom, to motive force, and to transparency. This is a significant progress, already very close to the theory of no form actions. However, he did not recognize why they are related. This is because he did not recognize that the things represented by these concepts are of no form. It seems that no one has recognized that these concepts are top-level concepts at the same level.

Heidegger's analysis lacks the concept of "no form." Without understanding these concepts as different paths leading to the same "no form," and each top-level concept carrying its own distinct trajectory form towards no form, the connections between them remain mysterious and inexplicable. The "theory of no form actions" provides a clear and systematic framework for understanding the interconnections between these concepts, offering a solution to this problem. By grounding them in the concept of "no form" and demonstrating their capacity for no form united transformation, it provides a logical explanation for their intrinsic relationships.

From this perspective, the traditional focus on beings and being as the core objects of study in metaphysics is problematic, as there are five other concepts of equal status to being. Therefore, the core objects of study in metaphysics should be elevated to form and no form. There is no hope for breakthrough if philosophy solely focuses on "being" as its core object of study. Correspondingly, the core of ontological research should also be elevated to form and no form.

Thus, as previously explained, there is a relationship of no form integrated transformation between ontology, epistemology, and methodology. The theory of no form actions, starting from the two-dimensional theory of form and no form to explore and understand this world, necessarily requires certain methods. These methods include no form united transformation, no form integrated transformation, trinity of no form, viewing form from the perspective of no form, and viewing no form from the perspective of form, among others. The methods of no form united transformation, no form integrated transformation, and trinity of no form are inherent in no form actions, naturally integrated with no form. These methods are not externally added to no form. In the process of developing the theory of no form actions and explaining the world, these methods naturally emerge. They not only emerge naturally but also inevitably. Therefore, these methods are natural methods, that is, the inherent methods of no form itself. "Viewing form from the perspective of no form and viewing no form from the perspective of form" is a way for humans to observe both, and also a way for form and no form to combine with each other. Since no form is a top-level concept, these methods are also top-level methods.

These six top-level concepts are all recognized as no form through a process of limit. They all reach no form from different angles. They are unified as no form, which means there are intrinsic connections between them. It's like reaching the end of a road by walking along it, or reaching the end of a river by swimming to its end. Although the end reached is the same, the routes to reach the end are different, thus causing different ways of reaching the end. These top-level concepts cannot be simply reduced to no form. Each possesses its own distinct trajectory, and each of their trajectories is a path leading to no form. Therefore, based on their different trajectories, we can see that no form has three different actions and three different formal concepts (being, freedom, and transparency). Viewed from the perspective of isolation's unfold-manifestation, no form is space. From the perspective of motive force's unfold-manifestation, no form is time. From the perspective of manifestation's unfold-manifestation, no form is the present. Although the present, space, and time are all no form, and their essence is the same, what we see of them is different. This distinction is due to the results we get from looking at no form from different angles. These no forms are also distinguished by the trajectories they carry along their different paths towards no form.

How to study no form? It involves distinguishing the concepts obtained from different trajectories formed by different paths leading to no form, and then studying the relationships between these different concepts. It's similar to calculus in mathematics. When differentiating a point, the derivatives obtained through limits of different curves passing through this point are generally different, although the limits of differentiation all reach the same point. In other words, the limit derivatives at the same point are generally different. This is very similar to these six top-level concepts. Although no form is always the same, to understand no form, we must choose a certain path, and no form seen from different paths is different. However, when we study these so-called different no forms, we find that their essence is the same, all possessing absolute identity without differentiation. For example, if we want to study freedom, since freedom corresponds to motive force, if a person wants to manifest their freedom, they inevitably need to choose a certain way (isolation) to manifest it. For instance, they can choose freedom of action, freedom of thought, freedom of association, and so on. This is the combined use of these six top-level concepts.

However, regardless of their individual trajectories, the result they reach is the same. At the end point, we have unified them all, thereby connecting them all. From an epistemological perspective, knowledge is manifested through concepts. Now that we have the concept of transparency, we can say that knowledge is manifested through concepts when the relationships between concepts become transparent. We have found the relationships between these six top-level concepts, so we can say that the relationships between these six concepts have become transparent.

It is noteworthy that we use the two-dimensional theory of form and no form as a basis to study this world. We isolate the world into two different dimensions, which is a manifestation of the isolation action. Whether we view form from the perspective of no form in a limit way, or view no form from the perspective of form in a limit way, we are studying the world through the method of motive force and change. The limit method itself embodies the motive force action, because this method approaches the limit through continuous change. Through this limit method, we have manifested six top-level no form concepts. We use an isolation method (two-dimensional framework) to divide the world, a motive force method (limit thinking) to explore the world, and finally understand the world through manifestation action (presentation of concepts). This once again demonstrates an important characteristic of the theory of no form actions: self-reflexivity, meaning it can explain itself using its own framework. The theory of no form actions is not only a theory for explaining the world but also a method for understanding the world. In the process of applying this method, we are simultaneously practicing the principles of the theory of no form actions.

The basic laws of the theory of no form actions are not only linguistically expressible but also technically operable. Therefore, applying these basic laws can enable the classification and structuring of valuable concepts created throughout human history, establish clear relationships between concepts, and potentially discover or create new concepts that have not yet been discovered or created. I hypothesize that this conceptual system is a vast relational system, which may be open (meaning the conceptual system contains countless concepts). As such, it would be difficult for humans to complete such an enormous task manually according to these basic laws. For these reasons, as the creator of the theory of no form actions, I can only reveal the basic principles of this theory and analyze and demonstrate the fundamental concepts according to it. Fortunately, artificial intelligence has made breakthrough progress, and it is entirely possible to use AI to complete such work. Furthermore, future AI could fully utilize the basic laws of the theory of no form actions and use such a conceptual system with no form action relationships as a logical basis for AI reasoning. I believe that such an AI would be a truly super-intelligent and reliable computational system.

The content of this section only derives these top-level concepts in a reasonable manner and expounds on these concepts and the relationships between them.

References

[1] Searle, J. The Mystery of Consciousness, translated by Liu Yetao, 1st ed., Nanjing University Press, 2007, p. 146.

[2] Heidegger. Identity and Difference, translated by Sun Zhouxing, Chen Xiaowen, and Yu Mingfeng, The Commercial Press, 2011, p. 11.

[3] Heidegger. Introduction to Metaphysics, translated by Wang Qingjie, The Commercial Press, 2015, p. 114.

[4] Heidegger. Introduction to Metaphysics, translated by Wang Qingjie, The Commercial Press, 2015, p. 115.