No Form Action Theory

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4318-2670

Two-dimensional theory：form and no form

If a theory can explain consciousness, it must also be able to explain matter, time, space, art, human emotions (such as beauty, pain, color, etc.), logic, science, social morality, and so on. In other words, this consciousness theory should be able to unify the world, because human consciousness can reflect these things. Therefore, it is not enough to merely explain consciousness itself; it must also explain the things that consciousness reflects, in order to explain why consciousness can reflect these things. Such a unified theory, which reveals the underlying laws of things, must be metaphysical in nature. That is to say, consciousness can only be explained at a higher dimension beyond the concept of consciousness itself; without transcending consciousness, it is impossible to explain consciousness. So, how can we establish such a theory that unifies the world?

Let's re-examine Aristotle's relative dualism. His dualism is somewhat different from Descartes', as Descartes' dualism absolutely separates the two elements, it is an actual separation. Aristotle's dualism, on the other hand, logically separates form and matter, while in reality, they are mixed together. If we remove the relative concepts of form and matter, and retain only the concepts of pure form and pure matter, treating them like the x-axis and y-axis in plane geometry, we arrive at a two-dimensional theory. In this way, any object can be explained by pure form and pure matter, and any object is a combination of the two, including attributes. By replacing form and matter with pure form and pure matter, the two become unrelated, thus expressing Aristotle's dualism in a simpler and clearer way. By considering pure form and pure matter as two independent dimensions, rather than two interdependent principles, we avoid the relativity of form and matter being able to transform into each other, while preserving the characteristic that any object is a combination of pure form and pure matter. Consequently, we can use form to characterize the substantiality of an object; as long as an object has form, it has substantiality, including attributes. This avoids the shortcomings of his theory while also avoiding the confusion brought about by absolute dualism, which divides the world into two absolutely different aspects. Since the two-dimensional theory does not divide the world into two absolutely different aspects but instead identifies two different dimensions within the world, it avoids the problems of absolute dualism.

However, Aristotle did not clarify what pure matter is. If the relativity of form and matter being able to transform into each other is removed, his theory cannot be developed and expanded. If we call pure matter "no form" and pure form "form," it becomes the "no form action" theory I created, which is a two-dimensional theory composed of the two dimensions of no form and form. No form has three actions: motive force, isolation, and manifestation. The combination of no form and different forms will produce these three actions. With these three actions, things will change, be able to be presented, and become individuals. Change requires motive force action, presentation is manifestation, and becoming an individual is to be isolated into an individual. Indeed, if an object has no form, studying it is difficult, which is why people have mainly studied form rather than no form since ancient Greece. Since no form cannot be expressed in language, how can it be studied? However, our inability to express no form does not mean that we cannot study it. No form does not mean nonexistence; an object without form cannot be said to be nonexistent. According to Aristotle's view, no form (i.e., pure matter) does not exist, but his expression only says that no form cannot exist independently, and does not deny the existence of no form, which are two different concepts. Therefore, regardless of whether no form can exist independently, we can study no form by finding the actions it produces. This solves the problem of Aristotle's theory, that even without the form and matter transforming into each other, the world can still be studied using the theory of no form action. For more than two thousand years, people have studied form for too long and neglected no form for too long; it is time to open the door to studying no form.

Why do we need to find two different dimensions to describe the world? This is like the x-axis and y-axis in plane geometry. According to the principle of linear space in mathematics, we need to find several elements of a linear space. Any element of the linear space can be linearly represented by these elements, and none of these elements can be linearly represented by the other elements among them, meaning that they are not linearly related. These elements are the basis elements of the linear space, which are the dimensions of the space. For plane geometry, the basis elements are the x-axis and y-axis. Intuitively, the x-axis and y-axis are not related, so any point in the plane space can be represented by x and y coordinates. This is why I want to find two unrelated dimensions in this world. No form has no form at all, so how can it represent form? Similarly, no form objects can be found in form, everything found is form, meaning they have no similarity. Therefore, form and no form can only be combined and cannot represent each other. Unlike consciousness and the physical world, consciousness can reflect the laws and forms of the physical world. For example, when we see a cup, the shape of the cup will appear in our consciousness, which is a strong correlation; people can also create some forms in their consciousness and use these forms to transform the physical world. Since consciousness and the physical world have some of the same forms, dividing the world into matter and consciousness is incorrect. Using the forms in consciousness to reflect the laws of the physical world, their correlation is too strong, making it an unreasonable division. Form and no form, on the other hand, fully meet the conditions as dimensions of this world. They are the most basic, and indeed, they are unrelated, so all things are composed of no form and form.

Why does the no form action theory need to have two dimensions? Why not just one dimension? Or why not a theory with more than two dimensions? One dimension is definitely not enough; it is impossible to develop philosophy from a single concept. How can a single concept develop into a different concept? For example, Hegel's dialectical philosophy starts with the concept of "sein" (meaning "being" in English), but he also analyzes a concept of "nichts" (meaning "nothingness" in English). He says that being contains nothingness, which I think can only be interpreted as them coexisting. It is impossible to analyze a different concept of nothingness from being; we can only say that being is being.

As for theories with more than two dimensions, I do not deny their existence. Perhaps there are such theories, but first, we need to develop the two-dimensional no form action theory. The no form action theory will be a complex theory, let alone theories with more than two dimensions. So, let's start with the simplest things.

So how do we define form and no form? Form and no form cannot be directly defined, because if they could be defined, there would be a problem in itself. If we define them with A, then we need to define A, and then we use B to define A, which would lead to an infinite regression. However, for humans, besides logical reasoning, there is also intuitive manifestation. For form we can intuitively perceive it, such as the structure of objects, the speed of movement, and so on. Intuitive manifestation is actually the manifestation action of the no form action theory. Our defining things forms concepts, a concept is an individual thing that is formed, which is the isolation action of the no form action theory. And when we actually do things, practice is the motive force action. No single method can fully explain this world; only the combination of these three no form actions can explain it. We intuitively manifest form, and then we can reason that "an object without any form is 'no form'." Isn't this reasoning a motive force action? Finally, we isolate things into a thing without any form (that is, no form), this is the isolation action. Therefore, to understand an object, we must use the combination of these three no form actions. One approach of the theory of no form action is to connect the three no form actions of manifestation, motive force, and isolation.

So, does "no form" really exist? After intuition and then reflection, we will know that there is such a thing as "no form" action. When we see an individual object, we need to reflect that there must be an action that makes the generation of individual objects possible, which is the isolation action. When we see objects changing, we need to reflect that there must be an action that causes objects to change, which is the motive force action. When objects appear in our consciousness, we need to reflect that there must be an action that allows objects to be manifested, which is the manifestation action. This reasoning process is also explained by the combination of the three no form actions: intuition is manifestation, reflection is motive force, and finally, an action is isolated.

Perhaps there is no separately existing no form or form; what we know is that they are mixed together. If an object X appears, there must be a force that causes it to appear, and does the force need a force? Because if so, then force a needs force b, force b needs force c, and this would lead to an infinite regression. Therefore, the force itself does not need a force; the force only causes changes in form and does not change the form itself. Similarly, when object X appears, it must be distinguishable from other objects to be considered an object. This distinction is the isolation action. The isolation action also isolates forms, and it does not need other objects to isolate itself. Similarly, when object X appears, it must be able to manifest; otherwise, we cannot detect its existence, so how is that different from not existing? The manifestation action also manifests forms, and it does not need other objects to manifest itself. In summary, no form is its own cause and does not need other objects to be its cause. If no form has a cause, then its cause must be a form of it, which means that if some object causes "no form", then that object becomes the cause form of no form. just like a mother is the cause of her son's existence. In this case, we can say that "the son has a mother" is a form, and the son cannot be "no form". Therefore, if no form has a cause, then no form will have a form, which contradicts the definition of no form. So, no form has no cause; it is its own cause.

No form is not nothingness; it can produce actions. No form cannot be equated with nothingness; no form only means it has no form, but it cannot be said that it does not exist. No form and non-existence should not be the same concept. No form being able to action does not equal it being a form; these are two different concepts. No form is a kind of existence, but not a directly perceptible or recognizable existence. It only serves to propel and bring about the existence of form, but it does not have a form itself and does not need a form to express it. Things that cannot be perceived are the things that perceive other things; they perceive other things without being perceived themselves. Things that cannot be driven are the things that drive other things; they drive other things without being driven themselves. Things that cannot be isolated are the things that isolate other things; they isolate other things without being isolated themselves. Only no form objects can affect all objects with form, and the actions of no form objects are no form actions. They only have no form actions on forms but do not interfere with the relationships between forms.

Under the framework of the two-dimensional theory of form and no form, we can penetrate the spiritual world and the material world (or the conscious world and the physical world) and unify them. Thus resolving their superficial opposition, in essence they can be unified under the same theory. This allows for a clear and reasonable explanation of consciousness, spirit, and matter, revealing an essential unity.

Have you noticed that explaining the no form action theory itself is actually using the no form action theory?

Why are there three no form actions? Are there other no form actions? This is the question to be discussed in the next chapter.