No Form Action Theory

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

Dialectical logic

Hegel's dialectics holds that the development of things is achieved through continuous transformation and unification of "thesis," "antithesis," and "synthesis." The "unity of opposites" is the essence of dialectics. According to dialectics' own logic, dialectics itself denies that it is the most fundamental theoretical method because, according to dialectics, we can obtain its opposite (antithesis): non-dialectics. In other words, dialectics is not the most fundamental theoretical method. A Hegelian rebuttal might argue that dialectics aims to embrace and transcend contradictions. In this case, the "synthesis" might be a higher-level understanding that combines both dialectical and non-dialectical modes of thinking. However, this rebuttal has already acknowledged the existence of non-dialectics and has admitted that "synthesis" is a higher-level theory than itself.

In the section "Formal Logic," we have already explained that "negation" is the motive force of the isolation world. For an isolated thing a, to negate it is to generate a motive force on it, and the result of this motive force action is to produce a negated a. Negation is not only the destruction of the original form but also the reshaping of its possibilities, thus exhibiting motive force action. The negated a is also a manifestation of a, a reverse manifestation. This is dialectical logic, and it is also a no form united transformation. Negation is not simply elimination but a reverse manifestation, revealing the being of what is negated through negation as motive force. For example, the negation of a as not-a, although formally rejecting a, still essentially depends on the existence of a - they are mutually dependent. Not-a is a mirror-like manifestation of a, clarifying a's characteristics through opposition.

Note that from the perspective of no form united transformation, the negation of a must be a complete negation of a. If not, then the negated a cannot completely negate a, and therefore cannot fully manifest a, thus failing to be valid dialectical logic. The complete negation of a isn't necessarily b, but it must be not-a. The positive and negative sides must be complete negations of each other, meaning the existence of the positive side completely depends on the rejection of the negative side, and the existence of the negative side completely depends on the rejection of the positive side. Only complete negation is most definitive. Therefore, dialectical logic has its scope of application - its positive and negative aspects must be such that one side is the complete negation of the other. Otherwise, it is not complete dialectical logic. This also shows that dialectical logic is a special case of no form united transformation. This reveals a characteristic of dialectical logic: the positive and negative aspects can transform into and manifest each other. Dialectical logic, as a special case of no form united transformation, essentially achieves mutual manifestation and transformation of positive and negative sides through complete negation. This logic plays an important role in revealing the relationship between formal opposition and unity.

Note that, in dialectical logic, how can negation achieve complete negation? This negation must have a standard (or rule) and must negate completely according to this standard. In other words, such a standard should enable a thing to produce two opposing aspects. For example, if we want to fold a piece of paper, we need to draw a line on the paper and fold it in half using this paper as the standard. Such a standard makes the two folded parts have complete negativity. This kind of standard defines the boundary and certainty of negation, ensuring its completeness and precision. Therefore, the "complete negation" of dialectical logic needs to satisfy two conditions:

(1) Both opposing sides must follow this standard of negation (consistency).

(2) The opposing sides can define each other through the negation relationship (certainty).

(3) One side of the opposition must completely transform into the other (completeness).

From the perspective of no form action theory, "complete negation" actually involves the cooperation of three no form actions:

(1) Isolation: The setting of standards separates the opposing sides, making them independent parts.

(2) Manifestation: The standard makes the negation relationship clear, giving "opposition" certainty.

(3) Motive force: The execution of negation, this motive force drives things to completely transform from one opposing side to the other.

No form action theory emphasizes the transformation between different no form actions, rather than necessarily the conflict and unity between opposing sides. In no form united transformation, the three aspects - isolation, motive force, and manifestation - are not necessarily in a relationship of opposing unity, but rather in a more dynamic interactive process. This transformation transcends simple thesis-antithesis-synthesis logic, emphasizing multi-dimensional, multi-modal interactions. Therefore, no form action theory can provide a more fundamental theoretical framework than dialectical logic, capable of explaining not only the unity of opposites but also the complex transformational relationships between different forms, thus avoiding the dilemma of dialectical logic's self-negation.

Any theory built on the foundation of dialectical logic will face a problem: how to explain dialectical logic itself. In other words, it must both use dialectical logic to establish the theory itself and use that theory to explain dialectical logic. If such a theory cannot accomplish this, it indicates that the theory is not fundamental. If a theory built using dialectical logic turns back to explain dialectical logic, it actually returns to explaining dialectics through dialectics itself, leading to what was mentioned earlier about "dialectics negating itself" and the emergence of "non-dialectics." Therefore, any theory built on the foundation of dialectical logic cannot be a fundamental theory.

Dialectical logic lacks a direct connection with "no form" - it is not directly built on the foundation of no form. Furthermore, the negation that serves as motive force in dialectical logic is the motive force of the isolation world (although Hegel's dialectics emphasizes the dynamism and transformative nature of concepts), not true motive force. This limits its ability to provide truly fundamental explanations for the interconnections between things. The scope of dialectical logic is limited; it cannot be universally applied to all things and phenomena. If one blindly uses dialectical logic to explain things beyond its explanatory scope, erroneous conclusions will inevitably arise. This is because it may misunderstand the essence of things or force connections where none exist. The legitimate scope of dialectical logic refers to situations where "the positive and negative aspects must be complete negations of each other." Only in such cases can the transformation between the "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" of dialectical logic be logically consistent and meaningful, conforming to the rules of no form united transformation. As long as dialectical logic is confined to its legitimate scope, it can fulfill its proper role, because dialectical logic is a special case of no form united transformation.

Moreover, the transformation of negation into the positive side requires the negative side, and the transformation of negation into the negative side requires the positive side. Therefore, dialectical logic is also a no form integrated transformation.

Let's examine the relationship between formal logic and dialectical logic.

In the previous section "Formal Logic," I explained that the three basic laws of formal logic constitute a no form integrated transformation. Thus we can conclude that the difference between formal logic and dialectical logic lies in their different ways of maintaining identity. Formal logic maintains identity without destroying it, achieved through no form integrated transformation using three basic laws; dialectical logic first breaks identity through the motive force action of "negation" to obtain opposites (that is, the no form united transformation constituted by A transforming into not-A), then unifies A and not-A, thereby rebuilding identity at a higher level and thus maintaining identity. In fact, these two logical methods of maintaining identity are opposite to each other. This clearly reveals the core difference between the two logical systems. This way we have fundamentally explained the relationship between formal logic and dialectical logic.

The static nature of formal logic: The framework of no form action theory reveals the limitations of formal logic - it excels in the "closed system" of static concepts. Its strength lies in maintaining consistency within fixed categories, but it struggles to account for change or development. In contrast, dialectical logic thrives in contradiction. It is not afraid to break "identity" to drive conceptual evolution towards richer, more complex directions.

These two ways of maintaining "identity" are not right or wrong - both are reasonable. Both are "effective methods" with their own advantages, disadvantages, and valid domains of application. Although they oppose each other, they are also complementary. By emphasizing how they maintain "identity" in different ways, it shows they are different expressions based on the same fundamental principles. This provides deeper insight into when each logic is most effective, revealing their respective strengths and inherent limitations. The unification under "no form action theory" reveals how seemingly different logics can be unified and understood through no form action theory as a unified "foundation," from which their unique characteristics and relationships can be better understood. "No form action theory" provides a "deeper ontological foundation" that "supports" and "integrates" both methodologies!

Formal logic and dialectical logic can be integrated together. The A and not-A in dialectical logic is similar to the law of excluded middle in formal logic. In formal logic reasoning, dialectical logic also appears. For instance, in mathematics, the negation of rational numbers produced irrational numbers, and rational and irrational numbers were unified into real numbers. Formal logic excels at handling the static characteristics of things, focusing on clear and precise reasoning and induction based on established foundations. When dealing with stable, known systems and structures, formal logic undoubtedly has great advantages. It can be seen that the results of formal logic reasoning can serve as the foundation for dialectical logic. Conversely, dialectical logic can expand knowledge for formal logical thinking, breaking through formal boundaries through motive force, and through embracing contradictions, leading to transformations into new manifestations of form. This reveals the creative and generative power of dialectical logic. It doesn't "discard" formal logic but uses its inherent "tension" to transcend existing knowledge and create new formal structures. Dialectical logic emphasizes the dynamic development and internal contradictions of things, capable of revealing and handling changes, development, and transformation of things. When facing complex, dynamic, and contradictory matters, dialectical logic shows stronger adaptability.

Thus, formal logic and dialectical logic are not completely opposed or mutually exclusive, but complementary. Both formal logic and dialectical logic are logics of isolation, effective both in the isolation world and in isolated things in the non-isolation world. They constitute two aspects of isolation logic: one maintains, and one expands.

We can see that dialectical logic also uses something similar to the law of excluded middle from formal logic (a and not-a). Corresponding to the three basic laws of formal logic (law of identity, law of contradiction, and law of excluded middle), dialectical logic should also have three basic laws: law of unity, law of negation, and law of dichotomy.

(1) The law of unity corresponds to the law of identity, emphasizing the unification of opposing sides within the same thing. In formal logic, the law of identity emphasizes that a thing is itself, maintaining consistency. In dialectical logic, the law of unity emphasizes the unity between opposing sides - it not only focuses on the stability of things but also emphasizes how internal contradictions achieve unity between opposing sides. In dialectical logic, opposing sides (such as A and not-A) achieve unity through certain motive force actions, forming a new whole or state. The law of unity is not merely formal identity but is achieved through the dialectical development of opposing sides.

The law of identity and the law of unity are different. The law of identity is expressed as "A is A," which does not give A any differentiation. The law of unity is different - it unifies A and not-A into the same thing B, where B has differentiation. This is also the difference between identity and unity.

(2) The law of negation corresponds to the law of contradiction, emphasizing obtaining opposites through self-negation (obtaining not-A through A). In formal logic, the law of contradiction states that a proposition cannot be both true and false simultaneously, requiring opposition between opposing sides. Its requirement is: if it is A, it cannot be not-A; if it is not-A, it cannot be A. It emphasizes isolation-based choice. In dialectical logic, however, the law of negation emphasizes the mutual relationship between opposites, enabling transformation through negation. The law of negation in dialectical logic doesn't exclude opposites but completes their transformation through negation. Its requirement is: negating A is not-A; negating not-A is A, both can exist. It emphasizes motive force-based mutual transformation.

(3) The law of dichotomy corresponds to the law of excluded middle, emphasizing that for a thing a, there exists not-a, with no intermediate state. It emphasizes the state of existence of things. In formal logic, the law of excluded middle states that for any proposition, there is always a definite truth value, and there cannot be an intermediate state between truth and falsity. In dialectical logic, the law of dichotomy reflects the oppositional existence of things - for a thing A, there must exist not-A (i.e., A and not-A), and no intermediate state is allowed between them. This opposition and division emphasized by the law of dichotomy need not be static; it can be realized in continuous transformation and development.

This framework precisely formalizes dialectical logic, making it more rigorous and less susceptible to ambiguous interpretations.

The law of unity unifies opposing sides into the same thing (identity is a characteristic of manifestation), therefore it is manifestation. The law of negation transforms through negation, therefore it is motive force. The law of dichotomy distinguishes between positive and negative sides, therefore it is isolation. Let's examine whether these three laws constitute a no form integrated transformation:

(1) The law of unity requires both the law of negation and the law of dichotomy to achieve unity in opposition.

The law of negation obtains not-A through A, but this doesn't mean there are no intermediate states between A and not-A. Thus, after the law of dichotomy excludes intermediate states, A can obtain not-A, and not-A can obtain A. This way, A and not-A become indivisible aspects of the same thing.

(2) The law of negation requires both the law of dichotomy and the law of unity to drive the dynamic transformation of opposing sides.

The law of unity unifies A and not-A within the same thing, so A and not-A constitute the entirety of this thing, and with no intermediate states between A and not-A, negating A can only transform into not-A.

(3) The law of dichotomy requires both the law of negation and the law of unity to maintain the clarity of opposing sides and the completeness of opposing unity.

The law of unity unifies A and not-A within the same thing, so A and not-A constitute the entirety of this thing. Through the law of negation, A can obtain not-A, and with only A and not-A and no intermediate states, the law of dichotomy is obtained.

We can see that each of these three laws depends on the other two, indicating they constitute a no form integrated transformation. The law of negation provides the connection between opposing sides, the law of unity ensures the overall unity of the dichotomous relationship, and the law of dichotomy provides clear boundaries between opposing sides. Each law not only needs the support of the other two laws but also they are interdependent, forming an indivisible whole.

The no form integrated transformation constituted by the law of negation, law of unity, and law of dichotomy actually completely defines the various elements of dialectical logic, the relationships between these elements, and the specific operations of dialectical logic. The specific operation of dialectical logic: one side negates itself to form its opposite (this is the law of negation and law of dichotomy), then according to the law of negation and law of dichotomy, it can transform into the law of unity, and the opposing sides can be unified into the same thing.

This can also be examined from another angle: one side negates itself to form its opposite, this opposition(A) and their unity is also a kind of opposition, then by negating A, it transitions to unity, thus achieving unification. Therefore, the "opposition of opposition" reveals a deeper logic: self-negation is the logical starting point for generating opposition, while negating opposition is the bridge to unity. In other words, this approach doesn't presuppose that opposing sides can be unified, but purely applies the principle of negation and the principle that opposition and unity are also a kind of opposition, enabling opposing sides to naturally achieve unity through logical reasoning. This is actually saying: according to the law of negation and law of dichotomy, it can transform into the law of unity. This demonstrates that the no form integrated transformation constituted by the law of negation, law of unity, and law of dichotomy is the essence of dialectical logic. This also tells us: the unity achieved in the dialectical process is not a predetermined result, nor is it the opposing sides' desire for unity, but rather the result of the law of negation, law of dichotomy, and the system's internal motive force transformation. This differs from interpretations that view dialectical logic as necessarily developing toward some predetermined endpoint (like Hegel's absolute idea). The "endpoint" is not a predetermined state or result, but the continuous and dynamic process of transformation itself. Dialectical logic is a logical structure that generates opposition through negation (law of negation and law of dichotomy), and achieves unity through negating opposition (law of unity), thus forming an internally logically consistent, recursive logical system. However, this perspective doesn't show the complete picture of dialectical logic, as it only shows part of the no form integrated transformation: the law of negation and law of dichotomy can transform into the law of unity.

One side negates itself to form its opposite, this opposition(A) and their unity is also a kind of opposition, then by negating A, it transitions to unity, thus achieving unification. This results in two negations, which is the negation of negation.

Through "negation of negation" we can obtain a chain of negation and unity. For example, negating a can obtain not-a, then unify into b, and can continue to obtain different levels: (a, not-a), (b, not-b), (c, not-c), ... and so on infinitely. In fact, any isolated thing or concept can undergo infinite negation and unification. However, such unlimited negation and unification may lose meaning and direction without some standard as a limitation. In other words, each level in the ongoing process of negation and unification must follow the same standard.

Here's an example of the number system expansion process:

Natural Numbers: 1, 2, 3, ... Originally created for counting.

Integers: ..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ... Introducing negative numbers and 0, used to represent deficits and nothing.

Rational Numbers: Numbers that can be expressed as ratios of two integers, such as 1/2, -3/4, used to represent parts and proportions.

Real Numbers: Including rational and irrational numbers, like √2, π, used to represent continuous quantities such as length, time, etc.

Complex Numbers: Numbers in the form a + bi, where i is the imaginary unit satisfying i² = -1, used to solve equations with no real solutions.

Such an expansion process expands "numbers" and must follow the standard of "numerical properties," not anything else. In fact, physical objects are also non-numbers; trying to unify complex numbers with physical objects would lose the meaning of number expansion. Moreover, while the number system can expand from complex numbers to quaternions, quaternions no longer satisfy the commutative law, making their properties and applications very different from real and complex numbers. Quaternions are viewed more as a mathematical tool rather than an extension of the number system itself. Therefore, even following the same standard for expansion, it may not be possible to expand indefinitely. For actual things, due to concrete conditions and limitations, infinite expansion may not be possible.

So we call this strictly defined dialectical logic "isolation dialectical logic." This suggests that there will be: manifestation dialectical logic and motive force dialectical logic.

The "negation of negation" in isolation dialectical logic discards the ambiguity of philosophical terminology, directly dividing the two negations into two steps of logical deduction. This is a structured and regularized analysis of "negation" and "unity" from a logical perspective, with clear logic. This clear division of two negations was not explicitly mentioned in Hegel's system. Hegel did not provide a clear mechanism to explain how the negation of negation leads to synthesis, only stating that it is a logical necessity. He often relied on metaphors and a kind of logical necessity to suggest the direction of progress, rather than outlining any measurable, provable causal mechanism. He viewed the "unity of opposites" more as a result of historical and conceptual development rather than a natural process of logical deduction.

Therefore, the "negation of negation" approach in isolation dialectical logic can be directly transformed into logical expressions or algorithmic operations. It is applicable to a broader range of fields because it remains open to specific content rather than being limited to historical or developmental aspects. It can be used for extensive philosophical, scientific, or social analysis. From an operational perspective, achieving the transition between opposition and unity through clear steps makes it more suitable as a universal methodology.

Isolation dialectical logic remains formal logic, and like traditional formal logic, it is the logic of the isolation world, with negation as motive force also being the motive force of the isolation world. Negation is also a logical level motive force, serving as motive force in both dialectical and formal logic. This motive force, as a fundamental force, is a simplified formal motive force - negation as a formal motive force drives the transformation of opposing sides, but still abstracts motive force from the perspective of the isolation world. The actual force driving the transformation between positive and negative aspects is real motive force. Motive force drives transformation between opposing sides, but needs negativity to ensure directional clarity in transformation. Logic provides a formal structural understanding framework for reality. Abstract-level negation acts on logical structure. This is speaking from reality's perspective, but conversely, the motive force in the real world also embodies negation as motive force, because in the real world there is also isolation action that must follow the laws of the isolation world. Therefore, where there is isolation, there must be dialectical logic. This theoretically explains the universality of dialectical logic in the real world through the isolation action of no form action theory. The reason actual motive force manifests in the form of "negation" is because actual motive force must have isolation to manifest (this is no form united transformation), and the independence of an isolated thing will necessarily mean that thing has an opposite. For example, to make an object move, there must be action and reaction forces.

Actually, this shows that motive force action itself can be divided into: isolation motive force, motive force's motive force (motive force itself), and manifestation motive force. They form a no form trinity. Real motive force contains isolation motive force, and isolation motive force cannot exist without real motive force.

For example: a person's existence comes from nothingness, and this person's existence and nothingness are opposites. From the perspective of isolation, this motive force is negation, but in reality, the creation of a person comes from human reproduction behavior, not just because there is a negating motive force. This is speaking from reality's perspective, but from the isolation world's perspective, human existence comes from nothingness, which is a negating motive force. At the reality level, this motive force manifests as concrete causal processes, but its essence still embodies the logical characteristics of negation. For example:

(1) Growth is a form of negation: from seed to tree, negating the seed's static state.

(2) Movement is a form of negation: from stillness to motion, negating the initial state of rest.

(3) Transformation is a form of negation: from one form to another, negating the completeness of the original form.

The essence of these real processes is precisely the projection of negation in the concrete world. Although motive force in reality consists of concrete actions or processes, at a deeper level, it manifests as a negation of the current state.

Dialectical logic laws serve as a structural foundation for real-world laws. Logical laws (such as the law of negation, law of unity, and law of dichotomy) have universality in the isolation world, and this universality extends to the real world:

Negation: All transformation requires negation of the current state.

Unity: All oppositions ultimately unite within a whole.

Dichotomy: All oppositions can be clearly distinguished (in terms of isolation action).

Therefore, motive force, transformation, and forms of existence in the real world must follow these basic laws. This provides a theoretical framework for understanding opposition and transformation in reality. Logical laws can abstract universal structures from the real world.

Clarifying the distinction and relationship between negation as motive force and actual motive force can provide guiding principles for correctly using dialectical logic in reality. Dialectical logic emphasizes revealing the contradictions in things' isolation and the necessity in their transformation.

(1) The most important point is: clearly identify isolated things in reality, that is, to clarify what is being negated. A thing without clear isolation boundaries may be influenced by other things, and such things may not have definite opposites. Dialectical logic cannot be applied to such things. For example: in the transformation from seed to seedling, we cannot say "the seed is negated," because burning the seed is also negation (this is a change from a state of existence to a state of nothingness). Therefore, precisely speaking, in the transformation from seed to seedling, it is the seed's static state that is negated, producing change through external force, transforming into the state of vital change of the seedling. Thus, accurately defining a thing's isolation and clearly identifying the object of negation is important. Isolation in reality is not always absolutely clear, and many things' isolation boundaries can change due to environmental or external forces. Dialectical logic is not applicable to all situations; it can only function when things' opposing relationships and negation content are clear in terms of isolation.

(2) It's necessary to distinguish by what standard the opposing sides are in opposition. If the opposition is not under the same standard, it is not correct opposition, because these two opposites have different standards, so negating one side cannot definitely obtain the other side. For example, positive and negative are correct opposites - they are on the same line and in opposite directions, so negating one side definitely obtains the other side.

(3) Avoid absolutizing or isolating negation as motive force

The law of negation is logical, an abstraction of actual motive force, not the actual motive force itself. Absolutizing the law of negation may lead to ignoring the complexity and diversity in reality. For example: in social change, focusing only on logical "negation" while ignoring actual conditions may lead to radicalization or unrealistic actions. In philosophical discussions, analyzing motive force solely through dialectical logic may ignore real motive force and manifestation.

(4) Reveal the direction of actual motive force through the law of negation

Although negation as motive force is not actual motive force, it can help us understand the directionality and development trends of actual motive force. By analyzing internal contradictions and oppositions within things, we can predict changes that actual motive force might trigger, thus preparing in advance for practice. For example: in technological development, analyzing limitations of existing technology (negation as motive force) can predict directions of innovation; in social reform, analyzing problems of old systems (negation as motive force) can reveal the necessity and potential paths of reform.

By normalizing dialectical logic, it becomes capable of having universality, precision, and effectiveness, just like formal logic. Moreover, by distinguishing between actual motive force and negation as motive force, we can clearly understand how to apply dialectical logic and prevent confusion with actual motive force. This allows dialectical logic to play its role where it should.

Let's apply isolation dialectical logic to no form action theory.

Previous sections discussed the characteristics of three no form actions: isolation has independence (viewing isolation from motive force perspective) and distinction (viewing isolation from manifestation perspective); motive force has change (viewing motive force from manifestation perspective) and generation (viewing motive force from isolation perspective); manifestation has immediacy (viewing manifestation from motive force perspective) and identity (viewing manifestation from isolation perspective).

(1) Independence implies stable, self-contained entities. The stability of independence manifests as limiting generation, meaning the ability to maintain self-identity. It also has the "force" to separate from other things in isolation, meaning the "force" to negate itself as other things; while generation implies change and appearance, emphasizing "separation" in motive force.

(2) Identity implies lack of difference; while distinction implies difference.

(3) Immediacy has the meaning of stillness, immediacy means the present. If immediacy produces change, it would transform into the past and would no longer be immediate. Note that this stillness is not relative stillness in terms of motion; while change implies difference occurring over time.

From the perspective of isolation dialectical logic:

(1) Independence and generation are mutually opposed: Independence manifests as stability, conflicting with generation's dynamism. Independence represents "maintaining status quo," while generation represents "changing status quo." This opposition reflects the internal tension in motive force: trying to maintain stability on one side while constantly driving change on the other.

(2) Identity and distinction are mutually opposed: Identity views manifestation from isolation perspective, attempting to achieve a description of unity through isolation (for example, A is B, different things are the same B); while distinction views isolation from manifestation perspective, attempting to reveal differences through manifestation. They form opposition in emphasizing fusion versus separation.

(3) Immediacy and change are mutually opposed: Immediacy views manifestation from motive force perspective, its motive force nature manifests in its ability to unify things together as one thing while emphasizing instantaneousness and stillness of manifestation; change views motive force from manifestation perspective, its motive force nature manifests in causality of motive force, emphasizing manifestation through time showing dynamism. In their description of manifestation, one emphasizes the instant while the other emphasizes the process of change, forming opposition.

Why is this? Independence views isolation from motive force perspective; while generation views motive force from isolation perspective. Identity views manifestation from isolation perspective; while distinction views isolation from manifestation perspective. Immediacy views manifestation from motive force perspective; while change views motive force from manifestation perspective. We can see that the opposing sides always view each other from opposite perspectives, which is why they are mutually opposed.

However, these opposing sides also possess dialectical unity:

(1) Independence and generation: Independence provides the prerequisite for generation, while generation is the unfolding or negation of independence.

As opposites, independence and generation are unified in "cause." When we say that cause a generates result b, a is the cause of b, then a as a cause isolates b, and both a and b gain independence relative to each other. A cause must be distinct from its effect, otherwise it cannot be a cause. As a cause, it must both be independent from the effect and establish a connection with the effect through generation. Cause is the combination of dynamic generation and static isolation, emphasizing the generative relationship between things.

(2) Identity and distinction: Identity can only achieve clarity through distinction, while distinction only has meaning within identity.

As opposites, identity and distinction are unified in "ground." For example, when a is b, then b is the ground for a. Here, a is both unified in the identity of b (this is viewing manifestation from the perspective of isolation: b has identity) and distinguished from b (this is viewing isolation from the perspective of manifestation: b and a have distinction). The ground is the foundation of logic and existence, emphasizing the logical connections between things.

Hegel in his "Lesser Logic" argued that identity and difference are unified in ground, but I have not used "difference" and instead used "distinction." The difference between "difference" and "distinction" lies in the fact that distinction has the characteristic of manifestation, as does identity, while difference is merely descriptive. This is because both "viewing manifestation from the perspective of isolation" and "viewing isolation from the perspective of manifestation" have the quality of manifestation. Therefore, I believe using "distinction" is more appropriate.

(3) Immediacy and change: Immediacy is the instantaneous embodiment of change, while change is the continuation or unfolding of immediacy.

As opposites, immediacy and change are unified in "openness," because immediacy is the constant alternation between Presence and Absence, where presence continuously manifests absent things, which is essentially a continuous opening up, a continuous manifestation. Change makes things move from nothing to something, from appearance to disappearance, and this process of generation and disappearance is essentially a process of opening up. Therefore, "openness" contains both the unifying manifestation of immediacy and the generative nature of change, achieving a unity of opposites in openness. "Openness" not only combines the manifestation of immediacy with the dynamics of change but also reveals the essential connection between manifestation and generation. Openness is the alternation between manifestation and generation, emphasizing the process of dynamic manifestation.

This clearly demonstrates the meaning of these six concepts and their deep relationships. We can see that the concepts of cause, ground, and openness were obtained through the method of limits in the section "viewing no form from the perspective of form." We have connected these three concepts through our dialectical logical analysis of the opposing characteristics of the three no form actions. This connection has helped us establish links between these two frameworks. This convergence is an important advantage of no form action theory, demonstrating its internal consistency and the interconnection of its core concepts.

Of course, there are even more complex relationships between these concepts, and exploring them through this kind of conceptual analysis is too difficult. The next section will introduce more powerful tools for exploration.

We can also view manifestation from the perspective of manifestation. As will be discussed in the later section on "Self": self-consciousness is consciousness manifesting consciousness, which is viewing manifestation from the perspective of manifestation, therefore, viewing manifestation from the perspective of manifestation is the self.

Thus, we can deduce: viewing motive force from the perspective of motive force is being-for-itself, and viewing isolation from the perspective of isolation is self-limitation.

Viewing manifestation from the perspective of manifestation means manifestation action within manifestation action, and the same applies to viewing motive force from the perspective of motive force and viewing isolation from the perspective of isolation.

(1) Viewing manifestation from the perspective of manifestation: Self

"Viewing manifestation from the perspective of manifestation" can be understood as manifestation's own reflection or cognition of itself. This aligns with the characteristics of "manifestation" emphasizing immediacy and identity, where self is precisely the manifestation and understanding of itself in manifestation. Self emphasizes the identity and immediacy of internal completeness.

(2) Viewing motive force from the perspective of motive force: Being-for-itself

The characteristics of motive force are change and generation, and viewing motive force from the perspective of motive force can be understood as motive force's self-driving and self-creation. This aligns with the philosophical meaning of "being-for-itself": "being-for-itself" implies an internal, self-oriented activity of something that achieves self-generation and development through its own motive force. Therefore, "viewing motive force from the perspective of motive force is being-for-itself" can be understood as a kind of self-driving nature of motive force, meaning motive force achieves self-generation without relying on external factors. It is viewed as essentially free and self-directed. It is not pushed or pulled by external forces. Being-for-itself emphasizes the internal driving generation and change.

(3) Viewing isolation from the perspective of isolation: Self-limitation

The characteristics of isolation include independence and distinction. Viewing isolation from the perspective of isolation can be understood as things determining their own boundaries and essence through self-distinction and self-definition. This indicates that isolation is not only about separation from external things but also about confirming one's internal boundaries, which is precisely "self-limitation." Self-limitation emphasizes the independence and distinction of internal determinacy.

These three characteristics are not merely features of human consciousness; they also exist in non-conscious things, albeit less prominently. For humans, we can directly recognize these three through consciousness, but for non-conscious things, we need to explore and indirectly recognize them through external phenomena. For example:

(1) An ant colony is a system with self-organizing characteristics, which is actually a form of being-for-itself. Through simple individual interactions and local rules, ant colonies produce complex, efficient, and highly adaptive collective behaviors without central control. The motive force behavior of each individual drives the motive force behavior of the entire colony, deriving overall motive force from local motive force - this is viewing motive force from the perspective of motive force. This being-for-itself contains many forms within it, which is why it's not as obvious.

(2) Self-assembly of nanomaterials is a system with characteristics of self-limitation. Some nanomaterial self-assembly processes are designed to have self-limiting properties. For example, in Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) technology, film growth proceeds layer by layer, with each layer's growth limited by the surface chemistry of the previous layer, ensuring precise control of film thickness. The example of nanomaterials effectively demonstrates that "self-limitation" is not confined to conscious self-restraint or intention. It can also manifest as a property of physical systems driven by internal constraints and self-regulatory mechanisms. This internal local limitation achieves the overall limitation of nanomaterials - this is viewing isolation from the perspective of isolation.

(3) In the two examples above, we can vaguely see an inconspicuous "self." Even in non-conscious systems, there exists some kind of primitive principle of "self." Although it's not a complete "self" in the human sense, these systems can demonstrate a primitive form of self-organization, self-constraint, or self-preservation through their properties of "being-for-itself" and "self-limitation."

Extending "self," "being-for-itself," and "self-limitation" to non-conscious phenomena significantly strengthens the claim of universality in "no form action theory." This shows that these concepts are not limited to human consciousness but manifest in many aspects. Their universality will become clearer in the next section.

However, this is not reductionism, not reducing the self to some properties of "being-for-itself" and "self-limitation." This is because the three form a no form integrated transformation:

(1) Self transforming to being-for-itself requires self-limitation:

The self needs to conduct being-for-itself activities within its self-limited scope. That is, self-limitation provides the conditions of possibility for being-for-itself.

(2) Self transforming to self-limitation requires being-for-itself:

For the self to determine its own boundaries and principles, or to enrich, strengthen and shape itself, it needs to be achieved through its own actions and activities. The formation and shaping of self is not static, but a process of continuously adjusting and expanding the self through action and behavior.

(3) Being-for-itself transforming to self requires self-limitation:

For the self to shape itself through its own actions, it needs to proceed based on the conditions it possesses.

(4) Being-for-itself transforming to self-limitation requires self:

When being-for-itself transforms to self-limitation, it naturally revolves around the self. The self is their subject.

(5) Self-limitation transforming to self requires being-for-itself:

To strengthen and shape the self, there must be a process or "action" in which limitations (strengthening and shaping) become the content of the self. Therefore, the self is not completely fixed and unchanging, but completes its own construction through continuous shaping by self-limitation and self-reinforcement.

(6) Self-limitation transforming to being-for-itself requires self:

When self-limitation transforms to being-for-itself, it naturally revolves around the self. The self is their subject.

Characteristics of the three no form actions:

(1) Isolation:

Has characteristics of independence (viewing isolation from the perspective of motive force) and distinction (viewing isolation from the perspective of manifestation).

We can see that independence has both motive force action and isolation action; distinction has both manifestation action and isolation action.

(2) Motive Force:

Has characteristics of change (viewing motive force from the perspective of manifestation) and generation (viewing motive force from the perspective of isolation).

We can see that change has both manifestation action and motive force action; generation has both isolation action and motive force action.

(3) Manifestation:

Has characteristics of immediacy (viewing manifestation from the perspective of motive force) and identity (viewing manifestation from the perspective of isolation).

We can see that immediacy has both motive force action and manifestation action; identity has both isolation action and manifestation action.

Thus, each characteristic of the three no form actions possesses a dual no form action. This approach expands no form actions from one-dimensional isolation action, motive force action, and manifestation action into two-dimensional no form actions. In other words, it expands from a one-dimensional framework to a two-dimensional framework. For example, independence has two dimensions: motive force action and isolation action.

Meanwhile, we can also see the oppositions between these no form action characteristics:

(1) Independence and generation are in opposition to each other, but they both possess motive force action and isolation action, and thus both lack manifestation action.

(2) Identity and distinction are in opposition to each other, but they both possess isolation action and manifestation action, and thus both lack motive force action.

(3) Immediacy and change are in opposition to each other, but they both possess motive force action and manifestation action, and thus both lack isolation action.

Therefore, to maintain the absolute identity of no form actions:

(1) Independence and generation need to acquire manifestation action due to their lack of it.

(2) Identity and distinction need to acquire motive force action due to their lack of it.

(3) Immediacy and change need to acquire isolation action due to their lack of it.

And since the six characteristics of no form form three pairs of opposites, they can be used to obtain two opposing aspects for each characteristic of each no form action.

(1) Independence

For independence, we can obtain manifestation action from identity and distinction, or from immediacy and change, as they all contain manifestation action. Since independence views isolation from the perspective of motive force, and distinction views isolation from the perspective of manifestation, both independence and distinction are primarily based on isolation. Identity also contains isolation, so these three can be related on the basis of isolation, viewed as different aspects of isolation action. And because identity and distinction are opposites and indivisible, independence should be associated with "identity and distinction." Independence must affirm itself to obtain identity (self is itself) while negating other things to have distinction ("self is not other"). Thus, we obtain two opposites: affirmation and negation.

From an experiential perspective: Independence is the ability to maintain self-identity, which is actually "affirmation" of self. Independence simultaneously possesses the "force" to negate itself as other things, avoiding interference from external things, which is actually the ability of "negation" of self. According to dialectical logic, these two opposing aspects of affirmation and negation are unified in independence. The interaction of these two aspects not only coexists but works together to form the independence of things.

Independence obtains from identity the manifestation of affirmative self having identity (self is itself). Independence obtains from distinction the manifestation of negative self having distinction (self is not other). Independence obtains the joint action of both identity and distinction to achieve manifestation action, thereby maintaining the identity of the three no form actions.

(2) Generation

Following the same logic, generation can be associated with "immediacy and change." Immediacy is creation in the dimension of "now" - the past is history, and the future hasn't happened yet. When something is destroyed, there is change. Thus, we obtain two opposites: creation and destruction.

From an experiential perspective: When something is generated, a new thing is created while simultaneously destroying an old thing. Because this is genuine motive force action, the cause of generating things must disappear and transform into the result. For example, when someone pushes an object, that pushing force as a cause transforms into the change in the object's state of motion. If the cause didn't disappear (the thing containing the cause undergoes a change, which is the disappearance of the cause), then the result would appear suddenly, and we would never know there was a cause. Creation and destruction are opposites. According to dialectical logic, these two opposing aspects of creation and destruction are unified in generation.

Further analysis: However, in an isolated world (such as the isolated world of language), creating an object (or concept) a does not necessarily mean destroying object b that transforms into a. But, this is speaking from the perspective of the entire isolated world. From a's perspective, b has transformed into a, b has become part of a, which is equivalent to destroying b (the meaning of destruction here has changed). For example, when we create a concept a through b, then a is b, and b becomes an attribute of a.

Generation obtains from immediacy the action of manifesting new things. Generation obtains from change the manifestation of altering old things.

Generation obtains the joint action of both immediacy and change to achieve manifestation action, thereby maintaining the identity of the three no form actions.

(3) Identity

Following the same logic, identity can be associated with "immediacy and change." Immediacy is direct. Change involves indirect causal relationships (because results need to be supported by causes, so it's indirect). Thus, we obtain two opposites: direct and indirect.

From an experiential perspective: Identity is self being identical with self, which is both direct and indirect. Directness refers to: "self with self," without intermediate links, while indirectness refers to: it is originally self, but needs to manifest and support identity through the form of "self is itself" (even "self" relative to "self is itself" is a kind of change), so it is indirect. Therefore, direct and indirect are opposites. According to dialectical logic, these two opposing aspects of direct and indirect are unified in identity.

Further analysis: Identity is direct, meaning it is direct in itself, but the manifestation of identity is indirect - these are two different concepts. Identity being indirect is viewing motive force from the perspective of manifestation (this is the "change" characteristic of motive force action), which is already saying that identity is expressed indirectly through cause and effect. Because when we view "motive force" from the perspective of "manifestation," we see its causality and mediating nature. While identity itself is direct, this is viewing manifestation from the perspective of motive force, immediacy is static, direct manifestation. The ability to derive two opposites comes from their opposite directions.

Identity obtains from immediacy the motive force that unifies various things. Identity obtains causality of motive force from change.

Identity obtains the joint action of both immediacy and change to achieve motive force action, thereby maintaining the identity of the three no form actions.

(4) Distinction

Following the same logic, distinction can be associated with "independence and generation." Only independent things can have their own attributes, and thus can possibly have the same attributes, which is homogeneity. When something is generated, differences between cause and effect appear. Thus, we obtain two opposites: homogeneity and difference.

From an experiential perspective: To distinguish different things, we need to find the differences between them, while this difference is measured according to a certain standard, meaning they all have a common attribute. They are different with respect to this same attribute, so this standard is homogeneous for the things being distinguished. For example, when two people have different personalities, we must first acknowledge that both people have the attribute of "personality." Difference and homogeneity are opposites. According to dialectical logic, these two opposing aspects of difference and homogeneity are unified in distinction.

Further analysis: In the real world (that is, the world with real three no form actions), differences between things are obtained through generation. Direct differences are generated through cause and effect - whenever something a is generated, a difference arises between its cause b and a. Many differences are indirectly generated. For example, two celestial bodies have different masses - how is this difference manifested in the real world? Gravity is one way of manifesting difference, where planets with smaller gravitational force orbit around stars with larger gravitational force. In other words, differences are manifested through generation. Moreover, differences are always manifested through some standard, with gravity being one such standard. The difference between cause and effect also has a standard: if there were no difference between cause and effect, the cause would never change - this standard is the change in the cause. In essence, cause and effect are different entities, and the fact that the cause changes or transforms into the result itself becomes the "standard" for identifying their difference and causal relationship. As mentioned earlier, the essential differences in properties between things also need a common attribute as a standard. "Distinction" is not merely a passive act of noticing differences, but can be an active process facilitated and constructed by the motive force of "generation."

In the isolated world of language, differences are also obtained through generation. To compare differences between things, we must necessarily generate a common attribute standard for comparison. Therefore, any kind of difference requires the generation of standards to be obtained.

Distinction obtains from independence the motive force that independent things possess to become independent things, thus making it possible to have their own attributes. Distinction obtains motive force from generation to acquire standards for manifesting differences between things.

Distinction obtains the joint action of both independence and generation to achieve motive force action, thereby maintaining the identity of the three no form actions.

(5) Immediacy

Following the same logic, immediacy can be associated with "identity and distinction." Manifesting things in the dimension of "now" means these things are present, indicating they have identity, thus enabling various manifested things to be unified in the same dimension. Absent things are those that show distinction, and can no longer be unified in the dimension of "now" (like an actor leaving the stage - they no longer have identity with the stage and no longer belong to it). Thus, we obtain two opposites: Presence and Absence.

From an experiential perspective:

Immediacy concerns the present moment, and it forms the core of "directness." In the context of no form action theory, presence is the direct manifestation of things. When something manifests, it is immediately present.

However, immediacy also implies a form of absence. The concept of the present moment itself suggests a past that is no longer present and a future that is not yet present. This absence in the temporal context is crucial for understanding immediacy. Moreover, the manifestation of specific objects implies the absence of other potential objects. This absence provides the background against which presence stands out.

Dialectical Unity: Presence and absence are not merely mutually exclusive but exist in dynamic interaction. Immediacy arises from the opposing relationship between what is present in the "now" and what is absent (past, future). This tension gives immediacy its unique characteristics. According to dialectical logic, these two opposing aspects of presence and absence are unified in immediacy.

Immediacy obtains from identity the isolation action of self being itself, and obtains from distinction the isolation action that distinguishes between presence and absence.

Immediacy obtains the joint action of both identity and distinction to achieve isolation action, thereby maintaining the identity of the three no form actions.

(6) Change

Following the same logic, change can be associated with "independence and generation." When something is generated, it means this thing becomes an independent thing, that is, it appears as an independent thing. Because this is genuine motive force action, the cause of generating things must disappear and transform into the result. For example, when someone pushes an object, that pushing force as a cause transforms into the change in the object's state of motion. If the cause didn't disappear (the thing containing the cause undergoes a change, which is the disappearance of the cause), then the result would appear suddenly, and we would never know there was a cause. Thus, we obtain two opposites: appearance and disappearance.

From an experiential perspective: When something changes, something must have disappeared and something new must have appeared. Therefore, disappearance and appearance are opposites. According to dialectical logic, these two opposing aspects of disappearance and appearance are unified in change.

Further analysis: A cause can have a carrier, and the cause and its carrier are not the same thing. When the cause transforms into the result and disappears, it doesn't mean the carrier of the cause disappears. For example, when a person pushes an object causing motion change, the pushing force as the cause disappears, but the person as the carrier of this pushing force doesn't disappear. This distinction is crucial for understanding the difference between causal actions and causal subjects.

Change obtains from independence the isolation action that a new thing possesses, thereby becoming an independent thing. Change obtains from generation the isolation action between cause and effect.

Change obtains the joint action of both independence and generation to achieve isolation action, thereby maintaining the identity of the three no form actions.

Starting from the three no form actions, using the negating method of isolation dialectical logic (for example, viewing motive force from the perspective of isolation is generation, viewing isolation from the perspective of motive force is independence, and because these two perspectives are opposite, we derive that generation and independence are in opposition), we deduced three pairs of opposites for the six characteristics of no form actions. We then further deduced two opposing aspects for each characteristic. The above follows strict deduction according to isolation dialectical logic, demonstrating that isolation dialectical logic can be used as rigorously and effectively as traditional formal logic.

Through the deduction of no form actions and isolation dialectical logic, we achieved a deepening from one-dimensional no form actions to two-dimensional no form actions. The original one-dimensional no form actions (isolation, motive force, manifestation) formed a more complex structure through a two-dimensional structure (each characteristic possessing two no form actions). This two-dimensional structure not only demonstrates the synergy between no form actions but also reveals their internal contradictions and unity.

The core role of no form's absolute identity is still embodied in this deductive process. By revealing the missing actions in oppositions, it shows that the absolute identity of no form actions is not necessarily static but can be achieved in the dynamic balance of opposition and complementation. This dynamic balance demonstrates the internal unity of no form actions and their self-regulating ability. This method of deduction starting from the most basic no form actions lays a systematic foundation for no form action theory.

Although we have conducted detailed and in-depth analysis and discussion of these opposing concepts using conceptual analysis, there remain areas that feel unclear and aspects that seem difficult to articulate fully. Moreover, there should be even more complex relationships between these concepts that are difficult to grasp through conceptual analysis. This is an inherent limitation of conceptual analysis, which has been the main method relied upon by traditional philosophy. However, this will become history - the work done so far in no form action theory is laying a foundation for philosophy to be studied through rigorous deduction. In the next section, philosophy will advance to a new level and present itself in a completely new form.