No Form Action Theory

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

Three actions of no form：manifestation, isolation and motive force

The previous section has mentioned the three no form actions: isolation, motive force, and manifestation, and briefly showed how to use them. But why are there the three no form actions, and are there more no form actions? This question must first be answered from humans. As humans, people have three abilities: when seeing an object, they isolate it into individual object in consciousness, and also isolate it into an individual concept: what this object is (animals probably do not have the ability to isolate into concepts); when seeing an object, the consciousness of our brains manifests the structure of the object, the color it manifests, etc., this is the manifesting ability of our brain consciousness; we have imagination, thinking ability, willpower, passion, emotion, the power to realize plans, these are all motive force. According to my observations in various aspects, my conclusion is that we humans also have only these three basic abilities, and other abilities can ultimately be attributed to one of these three basic abilities, or can be attributed to a combination of these three basic abilities, or can be attributed to a combination of two of these three basic abilities. We humans have these three abilities, which also correspond to the three actions we humans have: isolation, motive force and manifestation. Because humans have these three actions, they have these three abilities.

If there are other "no form" actions in this world, and we humans do not have such abilities, then we humans will not be able to know what this actions is. For example, for a color blind person, there are only black and white colors in his eyes. No matter how much you tell him that there are various colors in this world, it will be useless to him, he will not be able to perceive it. That is to say, we humans can only use our own abilities to understand the world, and anything beyond this limit is "ignorant" to us humans. Unless we can indirectly know through other intelligent life whether there are actions other than these three in addition, provided that such intelligent life has this ability that humans do not have. But it's just knowing that there are actions other than these three. Because this kind of action that humans cannot understand can only be transformed into the three abilities that humans can understand to understand it.

The three no form actions that humans have also limit the ability of humans to obtain information from this world and the types of information obtained. When we interact with the macro world, we can only obtain three types of information corresponding to it: isolation information (such as the process of change of things, the structure of things, the types of things), motive force information (such as changes, speed, energy), and manifestation information (such as color, taste, feeling). So we also know that the macro world also corresponds to these three actions. As humans, we must first start from ourselves to observe and analyze the macro world, that is, to start from intuitive manifestation to obtain external information, this is the first step. Use this as the starting point to establish the theoretical system of the no form action theory. Why is it that humans have the three no form actions, so we would think that the macro world also has these three actions? This issue is related to epistemology and ontology, as well as their relationship, and the relationship between the human consciousness world and the objective world. This issue cannot be answered with a strict formal logic inference, because we are recognizing the world, this recognition cannot replace the objective world we recognize (Why can't our recognition replace the objective world? Can our recognition of the consciousness world replace the consciousness world? We will explore these questions later). But we can use the logical laws established by the no form action theory to explain (we will explore this issue further when discussing the relationship between the three no forms). Part of the answer to this question is that we hypothesize that whether it is things in the consciousness world or the macro world, they are all a combination of form and no form. That is to say, we believe these two worlds are unified under the framework of form and no form as two dimension theory. Likewise, we also believe that the combination of form and no form in these two worlds will generate the same actions. This also indicates that these three no form actions are the most fundamental actions, the highest level actions, because they are generated by the combination of the two most basic dimensions of form and no form, not generated by no form alone. It is not that no form has these three actions, but rather that the combination of no form and different forms generates these three different actions. However, when we trace back to the ultimate cause, we will eventually trace back to no form, no form itself becomes its own cause, there is no cause anymore, so from a causal perspective, we can say the three no form actions are generated by no form(Looking at issues from a causal perspective is actually looking at issues from the perspective of motive force. Looking at issues from different perspectives will lead to different conclusions. This issue will be further discussed later.). No form has no cause, this is the end, the finishing point. We cannot directly study no form, but can study no form action, no form manifests actions through combining with form. Other actions can all be attributed to these three no form actions or combinations of the three no form actions. So do these three no form actions belong to the form or no form? (This question will be explored later)

(However, from another perspective, having these three no form actions is already simple and perfect, why do we need other actions?!)

From the above we can see that the starting point for human recognition of things is intuitive manifestation. From intuitive manifestation to forming a theory (which is actually forming some related, reasonable concepts), there is discontinuity in between. What is needed? That is faith, meaning we believe something through assumption, this is a kind of willpower. This kind of thinking approach is the same in mathematics and science. Euclidean geometry is like this (Note: it sets some self-evident axioms and postulates, and derives other theorems and conclusions based on them). Einstein's theory of relativity is also like this (relativity theory is established on two basic assumptions: 1. The principle of invariance of the velocity of light, 2. The principle of relativity). So faith is an indispensable way of thinking. In fact, intuitive manifestation is manifestation action, faith is motive force action (meaning the viewpoint leans towards something), and the theory we want to establish is all kinds of concepts of isolation, this is the isolation action . (Note: when establishing the no form action theory, we also use the no form action theory itself.) Why does human start from consciousness experience to find rules to understand the world? It is because humans use consciousness to understand the world. Consciousness belongs to manifestation, so human recognition of the world must start from intuitive manifestation. There is no reason to deny the possibility of starting to explore this world from non-intuitive approaches. Perhaps some intelligent life form in this universe can start exploring the world from non-intuitive approaches, perhaps that intelligent life form is God. For example, such an approach of exploring the world is to directly create this world, then develop and evolve, and finally destroy. It seems that from creation to destruction there is no meaning at all, but that intelligent life form has recognized the world. Perhaps we humans ourselves (including our recognition of this world itself) are a part that God wants to recognize. (These issues all belong to the category of epistemology, and need to be explored in detail later.)

So what is philosophy? The value criterion for a philosophical theory is how much rationality it has. Philosophy is the study of rationality, this kind of rationality tends towards conceptual rationality. Starting from a definite starting point and conducting strict reasoning to establish a strict theoretical framework will be futile, because it only uses the formal logic approach of the isolation action. In history, the philosophical frameworks establish in this way by philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel inevitably have defects, because their research method only uses the isolation action approach, while the other two actions, manifestation action and motive action, are neglected by them. Therefore, to comprehensively understand this world, we must consider these three actions at the same time, use these three actions in combination (this is what will be elaborated in later chapters. This is just a preview for now). Philosophy as a discipline with rationality as its criterion has obvious differences from science. Scientific conclusions must take empirical evidence as the criterion, requiring verification in reality. While philosophy looks at how much rationality it can provide.

In order to know whether the no form action theory is a rational theory and how much rationality it can provide, it needs to continuously reveal itself in the process of using the no form action theory to explain this world. Continuously revealing itself is manifestation action, motive action is our determination to understand this world and curiosity about this world. This is actually jointly applying the three no form actions to explain the no form action theory itself (at the beginning, the no form action theory intuitively came up with some basic concepts, which is the isolation action). For a theory to continuously reveal itself in the process of explaining this world (most philosophical theories essentially do this) is actually the natural thinking pattern of humans. The value and significance of a theory ultimately depends on how much rationality it has after being revealed, and to what extent it can rationally explain this world and discover new worlds. If the creation, development, evolution and destruction of this world is God's way of recognizing this world, then God also uses a constantly manifesting approach. In Hegel's words, it is God wanting to realize the blueprint he designed, and make it reality.

Now let's look at how I discovered these three no form actions. Although Aristotle discovered form and effectively used form, he did not find what "no form" is. It would be impossible to find no form using his approach. In his book "Metaphysics", Aristotle examined the concept of "substance" (ousia). He pointed out that the substance of a particular thing comes from the combination of both form and matter. The "matter" of a substance comes from the materials that constitute it, for example, the matter constituting a house includes bricks, stones, wood, etc., or any materials that could potentially be used to construct the house. While "form" refers to a house itself (or the blueprint of the house). The components that make up the house belong to the "matter" part, while the house itself belongs to the "form" part.

Aristotle's matter and form are relative. Bricks as the matter of a house can also be form, so the soil that makes up the bricks becomes the matter of the bricks. However, he also has the concepts of pure form and pure matter. Pure form refers to form without matter, pure matter is matter without form. Pure matter is "no form", but he believed that no form cannot be found. So does no form exist?

Imagine a sculptor who is going to carve a Venus statue out of marble. He or she could never find a marble without some kind of form. It will always be this block of marble or that block of marble, a square block or irregular block of marble. And he or she will always be working on a block of marble in which form and matter are already combined together.^[1]

Existence is one thing, whether something can exist independently is another matter. Using his approach would surely not find no form, so other methods are needed to discover no form. Although we humans have three abilities - isolation, motive force and manifestation, finding these three no form actions was not through analyzing humans' three abilities, because transcending the self is too difficult for humans (there are all kinds of sensations and functions in human consciousness. Discerning some of the most fundamental things from these complex matters is very difficult). As the saying goes, when we observe things with a flashlight, we cannot observe the light itself. Luckily, the development of modern electronic technology helped me. The method of finding "no form" actions was inspired in computers, in total, I discovered three no form actions. Of course, my discovery of these three no form actions also used my three abilities. Computer programming is a field that is not philosophy, but in this field people have unconsciously used some theories of ancient Greek philosophy (maybe the creators of programming languages understood ancient Greek philosophy, and deliberately used these philosophical theories). For example, in object-oriented programming languages there are the designs of classes and objects. Classes correspond to Plato's ideas, objects correspond to the participation in or instantiation of ideas. So objects are instances of the implementation of classes, classes are abstractions of objects. This is the same as Plato's theory of ideals. Classes or objects have properties, methods, etc., and objects can also inherit properties and methods from classes, etc. All these indicate that philosophical theories do have applications in the field of programming. Why would philosophical theories be used in computer programming? Computer programming is different from natural sciences. It deals with some human related needs. It needs to process or simulate human logical thinking, human needs, etc. In these areas sciences are powerless, so the highest achievements of human thinking like philosophy are needed. This allows us to expand our imagination - have some philosophical thoughts that humans have not yet discovered already been incorporated into programming languages? These philosophical thoughts had to be adopted due to the need for efficiency, intelligence and more rationalized handling of problems encountered in programming or using programming languages to solve real world problems. I think this is entirely possible.

1, No form manifestation

I was inspired by computers to find the first no form. Computers have a mainframe and monitor. The monitor displays structured data stored on the mainframe. This data correspond to the form discussed in philosophy, and the function of the monitor is to manifest this data form. We see that the monitor's manifestation of the data form is just manifestation. It does not change the data itself. That is to say, the data form is one thing, manifestation is another thing. Manifestation and data form are separate, they are different things. Inspired by this, we can imagine that manifestation and form in the real world are also different things, and manifestation is an individual thing (an individual thing does not necessarily exist independently. Independent existence and individual things are different concepts. Individual things refer to things that can be distinguished, that is, things that can be isolated). We can first imagine the real world as a large monitor, and there is also a similar computer mainframe to store forms. For example, a stone, it is some forms being manifested, just that in this stone, the form and manifestation are bound together. That is to say, in the real world, manifestation and form are bound together. There is no computer mainframe in the real world to store forms. The real world is not a large monitor either. Manifestation itself is an individual thing. Its action is to manifest forms. Manifestation is one thing, the manifested form is another thing. Since manifestation and the manifested form are different things (although they may not exist independently), manifestation cannot be form. Because if manifestation is also form (that is, the manifestation of any form is manifested by another form), then a certain form a needs form b to manifest. Does form b need manifestation as a form? If not, how does b manifest a? (This will lead us to not understand the relationship between a and b, not understand why b can manifest a, so we must ask: what makes b able to manifest a?). If needed, how does b as manifestation manifest a? Does b need form c to manifest? Asking this way leads to infinite regression (This type of thinking mode is very valuable, it suggests that there will be a deeper theory. This thinking mode will continue to be applied in later chapters). Unless, in the continuous regressive questioning, we encounter a no form thing which has no form. This thing should be "no form" manifestation. Therefore, manifestation is not form, it can only be "no form". As no form, manifestation needs no regression (because regressing no form is still "no form". It implies that "no form" is one, it has no differences, it is absolute identity, because no form is without any form. ). Its action is to manifest form. No regression is needed. Manifestation action manifests form. It itself needs no manifestation. Only by considering problems this way is it a reasonable approach. Things like mass, length, volume, hardness, changes, etc of objects in the real world are all "no form" manifestation. Anything that can be expressed or manifested is manifestation. Note: what does the real world manifest? Form. Note that the exploration of the no form action theory is carried out under the framework of the two dimensions of no form and form. Things without form must be the no form things. The reasoning here is only to explain that the hypothesis "manifestation is 'no form'" is reasonable and makes sense(has no logical contradictions).

Let's examine our human consciousness again. Currently when people study consciousness they always ask how consciousness manifests itself, what manifests itself. Answering such questions leads nowhere, because when we ask "how does consciousness manifest things," we are actually asking about the mechanism of consciousness generation, what kind of neural correlates, what kind of brain neural states, what kind of neural processes generate consciousness (current theories describe consciousness basically as a process, a state, or consciousness manifests itself in a certain process, under a certain state). This is actually asking about an external causal relationship, which is still a question about form, and cannot answer "what is consciousness?". Why not ask what manifestation itself is? What is the essence of manifestation? Since form is one thing, the manifestation of form is another thing, then in our consciousness, it should also be that no form manifests the form. For example, when we see a stone, it is actually the reflected light from the stone entering our eyes, going through a series of transformations in our brain, and finally manifesting the form of this object such as its shape in our consciousness. Of course this object in the real world is also manifested, which is the self-manifestation of this object. This leads to a conclusion: the real world manifests form, the consciousness world also manifests form, they both manifest form. That is to say, consciousness is also a manifestation, the same as manifestation in the real world, it's just that these two manifestations have some differences. Just like computer monitors, there are LCD screens, projectors and TV screens (some TV screens can serve as computer monitors), etc. In this way, consciousness is no longer mysterious. Manifestation exists universally, whether in the real world or the consciousness world, it's just that these two manifestations have some differences, but they are both "no form" manifestation. Manifestation exists universally. This is not to say consciousness is universal, they are two different concepts. Note: what does the consciousness world manifest? Still form.

Any manifested thing must have its form. The real world manifests form, the consciousness world also manifests form. In these two worlds, form is manifested. Likewise, the colors we see are manifested in human consciousness. What do they manifest? Of course it's form. This form is color form. For example, red is this kind of red form. In human consciousness this red form is manifested. What manifests this red form? We can only say it is "no form" manifestation. This red form is clearly different from the forms we usually think of, like structure, blueprint, relations, spatial size, etc. They are two different types of forms. The essence of a thing is the form it possesses. This red form is the essence of this color, just like the essence of an object includes its spatial size, mass, structure and other forms. Apart from form, can we find anything more essential? From the perspective of manifestation, form is essence. What no form manifests directly is its form essence. This red color form appears in our consciousness, it is the form in our consciousness, not the form in the objective world. This is why it's hard for us to understand this kind of form. Only from a higher dimension of form and no form can these two different types of forms be unified, and better understood.

Because manifestation is generated by no form, there can be no specific subject in front of it. We cannot say our brain manifests form, we can only say no form manifested this red form. we can only say that no form manifests the form of color, such as red. If a specific subject is to be added in front, there would be infinite regression until finally reaching no form manifestation (there would be b manifesting a, c manifesting b, etc.). Since manifestation is "no form" action, no further regression is needed. It is its own cause, so no specific subject is needed anymore. Expressions like "consciousness manifested color" are imprecise. It should be said that color manifested in consciousness, or no form manifested color. People usually use manifestation as a common verb, meaning one thing manifesting another thing. For example, Hegel said "beauty is the sensuous manifestation of the idea," meaning the idea manifested beauty. This is imprecise expression. That is to say, people have not yet recognized the particularity of the verb "manifest." This is a key issue. The concept should now be transformed. From a philosophical perspective, the verb manifest cannot have a specific subject. This transformation allows us to have a deeper understanding of the world.

Consciousness is a world of manifestation, and consciousness is a world dominated by manifestation, while the macro world we talk about is a world of isolation, it is a world dominated by isolation. This is the essential difference between the consciousness world and the macro world. The difference between these two worlds leads us to not be able to use some laws of objective things to explain consciousness. They have laws and behaviors that cannot be replaced by each other. This ensures their respective independence. However, they also have commonalities, otherwise our consciousness would not be able to recognize objective things in the outside world. Similarly, the coordination and interaction between our consciousness and body is also due to the commonalities between the two worlds. Otherwise, we cannot imagine why we are able to recognize the objective world, nor can we imagine why our consciousness and body are able to coordinate and interact. There would necessarily be discontinuity between them, which would necessarily lead to the emergence of dualism, and dualism is a problem that is hard to solve. Therefore, our consciousness world and macro world must have continuity in order to avoid the emergence of dualism. This continuity is that they have the same aspects. In this way, the no form action theory avoids the problem of dualism.

The object of our intuition and the content intuited are two different things. The content of our intuition is definite and real, regardless of whether the object of intuition is accurately displayed to us. For example, the red color we see, no matter how the colored object presents itself to us (perhaps some deceptive means presents green to others as green, and presents green to me as red), red is red, it is definite. As another example, when we see a wooden stick half-submerged in water, it presents to us as bent, but this bent is real, even though the stick is actually straight. So the intuitive presentation is real. Even if something deceives us, the red we see is red. Even if we are deceived, and some other color (or thing) is presented to us as red, red still exists in my perception, it is an unchangeable fact. Like red, some things in our world can be directly determined, they cannot be denied. They are directly presented by manifestation, these are the most definite facts. That is to say, the form manifested by no form is definite. This is the definiteness that the form of manifestation has. Clearly, the emergence of indefiniteness discussed above is unrelated to no form manifestation action. They are two different issues. Indefiniteness is not generated by the manifestation action itself, but is generated in the mutual relationship between manifestation action and the objective world. That is to say, the generation of intuition has uncertainty, but the content of intuition is definite. Just like the macro world, an object itself in the macro world is definite. It's just that its generation has some uncertainty. Its cause may be one of many causes that can produce it. The manifested thing is definite. Even if it is a changing thing, that change is also definite, because that change itself is "no form" manifestation. It can be seen that in the ever-changing world, humans can grasp some definiteness through intuitive manifestation. The content that can be obtained through intuitive intuition can be directly traced back to no form action, they are definite. It seems that uncertainty is related to motive force. Yes, this is the characteristic of motive force(this issue will be discussed later).

Hegel believed that for sensibility to achieve definiteness, it would inevitably become the most abstract universal or concept: "this one." But how is this concept obtained? Through language, words. Without using language to articulate "this one," just looking here and there, pointing here and there, there would still be no definiteness. Only with the linguistic expression "this one" is there a first definiteness.^[2] Hegel's point is to transform sensibility's definiteness into linguistic definiteness. From the perspective of the no form action theory, linguistic concepts are actually isolation. The definiteness of linguistic concepts is the definiteness of isolation. These two definitenesses are different, they cannot replace each other. But they can transform into each other.

In fact, things like pain, suffering, happiness, taste, beauty and ugliness are all manifested forms that manifest in consciousness. Things like volume, shape, mass, impenetrability of objects, etc., are manifestations of the macro world. Whether manifested in the macro world or consciousness, they are all forms. Anything that is manifested is form. This is looking at form from the perspective of manifestation. In this way, we have unified the macro world and the consciousness world from the perspective of manifestation. This unity makes the transition from matter to consciousness, from consciousness to matter continuous. There is no discontinuous gap in between. Neither side could emerge abruptly, otherwise it would become dualism, which would require some mysterious third party to explain how they are associated. Moreover, both the macro world and the consciousness world have manifestation. Manifestation is one of the most fundamental actions in this world. This allows the first real breakthrough in the recognition of consciousness in human history. Of course this is only a preliminary understanding of consciousness. There will be further exploration of consciousness later. For example, why doesn't the macro world have consciousness? What are the more essential differences between manifestation in consciousness and manifestation in the macro world? And so on.

People usually think that things like colors exist as properties dependent on some object. This is only from the perspective of isolated objects in the macro world. For example, a flower is red. However, from the perspective of manifestation in the consciousness world, the existence of red is not the existence of a property of an object, but the existence as an independent and definite thing. This existence is the existence of the manifestation action in the consciousness world. While the existence of things in the macro world is the existence of the isolation action. The existence of the isolation action and the existence of the manifestation action are different, they are two different modes of existence.

We know our consciousness has a characteristic called intuition. In fact it is manifestation intuition. Intuition is one characteristic of manifestation. So is there intuition in the macro world? Yes, since there is manifestation in the macro world, there must be intuition in the macro world. It's just that our consciousness cannot directly recognize the intuition of the macro world, because the intuition in our consciousness manifests directly within our consciousness, while we need to think to recognize that kind of intuition in the macro world (maybe this is the intuition of God or the universe). The intuition of the macro world is not intuition we can directly grasp. But this kind of intuition does exist. For example, when we touch a stone with our hand, the stone has a kind of obstruction that prevents my hand from entering its interior. At this point, this obstruction manifests an impenetrable intuition. For another example, a table, the reason its structural shape becomes its structural shape, is because it has intuitiveness, it is intuitively manifested. This macro intuition is definitely not the intuition of thought in our consciousness, but it is related to the intuition in our consciousness. Intuition is a kind of generation, it portrays manifestation from the perspective of motive force. It is a characteristic of manifestation. That is to say, we can look at manifestation from the perspective of motive force, and of course we can also look at manifestation from the perspective of isolation (which will be discussed later). This explains the manifestation action through the no form motive force action and the no form isolation action.

In some areas of philosophy there is also mention of manifestation, but manifestation has not been consciously studied as an individual thing. It just says that something has manifested some "things". People have not recognized that manifestation is an individual thing, nor have they recognized that manifestation is "no form". and even less recognized that manifestation is different from form. Manifestation has not been raised to the same important level as form. It is thought that manifestation is just manifesting the essence of things. That essence is the most important thing (According to the phenomenological point of view, essence is the aspect of what the thing manifests itself to us as^[3]). This is the fundamental reason why people have not made breakthroughs in exploring consciousness. Because without recognizing these two points, people can only study consciousness in a formal way. But consciousness itself is not a formal thing. Therefore, no matter how detailed the exploration is, it is not possible to obtain essential recognition of consciousness.

For example, Hegel already had the concept of manifestation. He said phenomena are manifestation of essence, but he did not elevate this manifestation to no form. Hegel's dialectical philosophy already had manifestation action, which is God wanting to create the real world according to the blueprint of dialectics, which is actually manifesting this blueprint. This is manifestation action, it's just that Hegel had not consciously realized it.

In the field of phenomenology, philosophers have recognized the action of manifestation and explored philosophy through the action performed by manifestation. However, in phenomenology people study objects, attributes, forms and such, and similarly have not recognized that manifestation is a no form action. Especially Husserl's phenomenology, he studied attributes, objects and such things manifested by consciousness, and did not recognize the action of manifestation itself and its importance. Nor did he recognize that manifestation is a no form action. This is also the reason why the development of phenomenology eventually got lost. The development of phenomenology could not figure out how to move from the definiteness of phenomena of consciousness to the definiteness of objective things (that is, how human consciousness can determine the existence of objective things). Although Heidegger directly approached the existence of objective things, he actually ignored the question of how consciousness determines the existence of objective things, thus did not really resolve this problem. However, the philosophies of Heidegger and Sartre tell us that the objective world has manifestation just like the consciousness world. Hegel's dialectical philosophy also vaguely tells us this conclusion. But so far, no one has been able to explicitly propose the conclusion that manifestation is a kind of action. Of course, most importantly, no one has recognized that manifestation is "no form", which is the crux of the issue.

Heidegger argued that epistemology cannot be separated from ontology. Only by starting from the structure of being-in-the-world can the meaning of existence and the essence of things be elucidated. Heidegger's existential philosophy takes the route of ontology having priority: existence itself manifests as manifestation (Note: The manifestation as referred to by Heidegger is a form of presentation of existence, it is the way existence reveals itself in the world, and not the no form manifestation I am referring to, these are two different concepts. That is to say, Heidegger did not recognize that manifestation is a no form) and the manifested. This also means that the origin of phenomena is existence, existence has priority over the phenomena of subjective consciousness. Sartre agreed with Heidegger's view on the relationship between existence and phenomena, but believed there were still some difficult problems left to be solved. Sartre affirmed that the existence of an object is its series of manifestations, and no mysterious entity exists behind the phenomena it manifests. However, Sartre also realized that on the one hand, the existent manifests itself, and on the other hand, it also manifests itself relative to everyone who recognizes the existent. In terms of the self-manifestation of existence things itself, it is comprehensive and infinite; in terms of the manifestation of existent things in relation to humans, it is always a partial manifestation relative to a certain perspective, and is always limited.^[4]

In phenomenology, phenomenon refers to the self-manifestation of the existent thing. Heidegger defined phenomenon as "self-manifestation in itself". Sartre first affirmed that phenomenon is not the surface of the true essence of the existent things. Behind the phenomenon there is no so-called truly existing entity. To use Sartre's own example, "force" is not an unknown metaphysical entity hidden behind its various effects (acceleration, deviation, etc.), rather it is the totality of these effects; similarly, electric current has no hidden an unknown metaphysical entity behind it: it is nothing more than the totality revealed through its many physical-chemical effects (electrolysis, incandescence of the filament, movement of the ammeter needle, etc.). This shows that behind the series of phenomena there is no hidden entity. "Now it can be said that the first conclusion of ‘phenomenological theory’ is that manifestation does not return to being like Kantian phenomenon returning to noumenon. Because behind manifestation there is nothing, it only manifests itself (and the whole series of manifestations), it can only be supported by its own existence, not by another existence. It cannot become a layer of nothingness separating 'subjective existence' and 'absolute existence'."^[5]

It can be seen that in Sartre's phenomenology, the so-called phenomenon is just the manifestation of the thing itself, there is nothing else besides that. Here the "manifestation" itself is ignored. Without manifestation, how could things be manifested? That is, how could there be phenomena? According to phenomenological theory, phenomenon should be the essence of the manifested thing, the thing is manifested. Although this sees the action of manifestation from the perspective of phenomena, that is, it manifested the essence of things. However, phenomenology still considers the issue from the perspective of form. The essence is the inherent determinacy of the thing itself, which is in fact form. That is to say, phenomenology still takes form as the direction of study. Phenomenology has actually transformed the original study of the form of things into the study of manifested forms. It has not recognized that manifestation is "no form", and the action of manifestation is "no form" action. In this way, phenomenology still falls into the study of forms. Phenomenology attempts to use this identity of phenomena and existence to avoid the dualism of phenomena and existence, but this is inevitably a failure. Because phenomenologist did not notice that manifestation itself is different from the manifested thing. If they had noticed, phenomenologist would believe dualism emerged again, which is what they did not want to see. Because one of the purposes of phenomenologists developing phenomenology is to avoid dualism. (The predicament of dualism and the rationality of two dimension theory: form and no form have been elaborated in the two chapters of "Fallacious Dualism" and "Two Dimension Theory: Form and No Form")

2, No form isolation 

Consider this question: In this world, there are individual things, so why do individual things appear? The answer is: This world must have an action that makes it possible to produce individual things in this world, and only then individual things will be produced. Without this possibility, how could individual things be produced? I call this action "isolation action". Discovering this no form action was inspired by computer programming. In object-oriented programming languages there is a term called "isolation". It means that between different functional modules of a computer program, there should be a certain degree of functional independence. If the code of one functional module needs to be modified, other functional modules should not be affected by the changes in this modified functional module ( Of course, this is an ideal situation. In reality, what can be achieved is to minimize the impact as much as possible). This makes a functional system easy to maintain, modify and expand its capabilities. Otherwise, if changing one functional module affects other functional modules, these affected modules would also need to change accordingly. This would require more work to maintain the program system, and would also easily cause errors. Even for a huge program system, maintaining it would become impossible. That is, changing one place would involve every other place. In fact, objects themselves in object-oriented programming are a kind of isolation action. They encapsulate code and functions within an object, and only exposing callable methods, data and functions to the outside. Such objects are provided inherently by the programming language itself. Otherwise we would not be able to build objects. This isolation action in programming languages allows us to imagine that the reason everything in the world can become individual things is because there is an action called the isolation action that enables them to become individual things. Just like objects in object-oriented programming, objects are provided beforehand by the programming language. This isolation action also enables individuals to have a certain degree of independence, so that within a certain degree and scope, they will not affect other individual things. Otherwise, any change in anything in this world would affect all other things, and cause all other things to change accordingly. This is inconceivable and not factual.

For the isolation action in computer programming, no extra specialized code is needed, it just changed the way of coding, But for different functional modules in a program system, it does achieve a isolation action. Relative to the programming code, the isolation action is a no form action. Thus, we can imagine that isolation action in the real world relative to individual things should also be a no form action. In the real world, if isolation is a form, then what would isolate isolation and individual things? This would lead to infinite regress as discussed in "no form" manifestation. To avoid infinite regress, isolation can only be a no form, and the isolation action can only be a no form action. That is to say, the isolation action is a action generated by no form, it isolates forms, and does not require isolation itself. Note that what does "no form" isolate? Forms. Here we can call form substance. That is to say, from the perspective of isolation, form are substance. This is also Aristotle's way of studying the essence of things through substance, an approach that is clearly studying from the perspective of isolation. While in "no form" manifestation, we call form essence. This is very interesting.

For the macro world, it is essentially a world dominated by isolation. In this world, there are various isolated things. The things we see every day are such isolated things. For example: houses, books, bottles, flowers, trees, birds, bees, clouds, water drops, rivers, fish, the sun, sunlight, stars, the moon, motions, changes, growth, even the process of changes in things, etc. Every isolated thing has a certain independence (it can be seen from previous analysis that independence is spoken of from the perspective of motive force, because independence involves the mutual influence caused by changes). They can be distinguished or distinguished in some way (distinguishability is spoken of from the perspective of manifestation, because to make something manifest, it is necessary to distinguish it). There is not only isolation in the macro world, there is also isolation in the manifested world of consciousness. The things formed in our consciousness are isolated things. For example, different colors like red, green, etc. are different isolated things. Sweet, sour, bitter, spicy are also different isolated things. The objects formed in our consciousness are also isolated things. However, the isolation in the manifested world of consciousness is weaker relative to manifestation, because it is a world dominated by manifestation.

From ancient Greek philosophy until now, people have always been thinking about philosophical issues in "no form" isolation action. For example, every concept is a product of no form isolation action, because every concept is distinguished from other concepts, and has a certain independence. It's just that people have never consciously realized this no form action concept, and basically no one has even recognized that such an action exists. No form isolation action is the most imperceptible kind of action. It seems no one has yet perceived such an action, because it gives a very inconspicuous feeling. And people take the emergence of individual things in the world so much for granted that they don't feel anything unusual about it. We take it for granted that individual things naturally exist in this world, no proof is needed. It is thought that each individual thing comes into being or changes due to other things. In fact, thinking this way is just considering issues from the perspective of causality. People are used to considering issues from the perspective of causality. Considering issues from causality is actually considering issues from the perspective of no form motive force action. But we also need to consider issues from the perspective of no form isolation action. From this perspective, we would ask questions like: Why do individual things emerge in this world? That is to say, the emergence of individual things in this world is one thing; the existence of an action that makes the emergence of such individual things possible is another matter. The meaning here is that the possibility of the existence of individual things in this world must first exist before individual things can be produced (otherwise, even with motive force, no individual thing would be produced). Otherwise, this world would be an undifferentiated "one", there would be no diversity or differences.

Leibniz was already aware of the problem of the diversity of things in his Monadology: 38) It follows that the ultimate reason for things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the diversity of particular changes exists only eminently, as in its source. And this substance is what I call God. 39) This substance is the sufficient reason for all the diversity, which is connected and related in every respect. Therefore, there is only one God, and this God is sufficient.^[6] Leibniz merely attributed the source of the diversity of things to God, that is, God is the cause of the diversity of things. This is unsatisfactory. But at least Leibniz had explicitly raised the issue that the diversity of things should have a source. His understanding of this issue should be the diversity inherent in monads themselves, not the diversity formed by the combination or change of monads. These are two completely different issues.

The metaphysical issues people have always studied, like ideas, substances, etc., are actually issues of isolation. Because metaphysical issues are issues of concepts, this is most evident in Aristotle: A substance is that which is neither predicated of a subject nor exists in a subject. This is clearly an issue of isolation, because "not exists in a subject" means a substance must have the characteristic of being independent and existing without depending on other things. That is to say, a substance is isolated. (There is an obvious logical issue here: If a thing is isolated into a substance that exists independently of other things, then why can it still be recognized by us? If this substance is so independent, it should not be recognizable, which would be equivalent to this substance not existing. However, according to Aristotle's theory, we can still make predications about this substance, that is, we can say what it is. This problem is not contradictory from the perspective of the no form action theory. Note that a thing being isolated into a substance does not mean it cannot be manifested. This issue is just raised here. It will be better understood in the chapter "The Isolated World of Language".) Aristotle believed that the reason things differ from each other is that they possess different forms. Form represents the individuality of a substance. In metaphysics, he elaborated on the process of a thing's transition from “potentiality” to “actuality”. The differences and diversity between things are caused by the different combinations of form and matter in this process. Since Aristotle's concepts of matter and form are relative, he only effectively grasped the concept of form, and did not effectively grasp the concept of pure matter. So he could only study isolated things from the perspective of form. These isolated things were actually called "substance" by him. He did not realize the issue behind the diversity of things in the world (that is, the issue of the possibility for individual things to become individual things). In his theory, only what can serve as the grammatical subject and be predicated by other things is called substance, otherwise it is called attribute. For example, red is called attribute. This is one-sided, because for an object, this redness does indeed exist depending on the object, but in the manifested world of human consciousness this is not the case. Red exists definitely, it does not rely on a particular object. Red is produced as long as light of a certain frequency enters the human eye. Although there is no absolute isolated thing (including the substances Aristotle spoke of are not absolutely isolated things), as long as it can be distinguished from other things, it has a kind of independence. This is the concept of the isolation action. This concept of the isolation action is different from Aristotle's concept of substance. This red color is also a isolated thing. In the manifested world of consciousness, it is a thing that can be distinguished (this distinguished thing is not necessarily independently existing, these are two different concepts). From the perspective of the manifestation characteristic of the isolation action, the isolation action is able to "be distinguished". From the motive force characteristic perspective of the isolation action, the isolated thing has independence. The isolation action isolates things into having certain forms (as said previously in the manifestation action, the manifestation action manifests forms). As said before, redness is a form that is just manifested in our consciousness. This is completely different from saying redness is a property of an object. Saying redness is a property of an object is speaking in the macro world. The macro world is a world dominated by isolation, different from the consciousness world dominated by manifestation as discussed before. In the macro world, color is a property of an object, but not in the consciousness world, where it is a isolated thing. From the perspective of the isolation action, we can call the form possessed by a thing (certainly an isolated thing) a substance. So in this case, substance is identical to form. Then, in this way, from the perspective of the isolation action, red can also be called a substance (note that it has been said previously that from the manifestation action perspective red is called essence).

The intellect's consciousness of "things" can be said to be object consciousness. Kant has pointed out that it is established by self-consciousness.^[7] This object is actually an isolated thing. The object is an isolated thing formed in the manifested world of our consciousness. It is an object in consciousness, an object of thought, distinguished from the objective thing that causes us to produce the object. Moreover, there is also a distinction between different objects in consciousness. Objects are things distinguished by our consciousness. These are two different kinds of isolation.

From the above analysis, not only does our external macro world have the isolation action, there is also the isolation action in the manifested world of consciousness, just like the manifestation action in the manifested world of consciousness, there is also the manifestation action in the macro world. However, the macro world is a world dominated by isolation, while the consciousness world is dominated by manifestation. That is to say, just like the manifestation action, the isolation action is continuous between the macro world and the world of consciousness , it is unified. This is also why we can use consciousness to recognize the laws of the macro world. In this way, we have unified the macro world and the consciousness world from the perspective of isolation. Of course, the isolation of these two worlds has both similarities and differences.

3, No form motive force

Let's analyze the motive force in computers again. The power of a computer is provided by the CPU. This power drives the programming code to run the software in the system. For programming code, this power exists, otherwise how would every line of code be executed? However, This power is clearly not something present as a "form" of code. For the code in the system, this power is "no form", it cannot be described by the code itself (for example, a line of code like this: System.out.println("Hello, world"), it displays "Hello, world" on the screen, but when the computer executes this statement, from the code perspective we cannot see what this executing power is, we only know there is a power executing it.). Therefore, relative to the code itself, this power can only be "no form". Thus we can imagine that the force in the real world relative to individual things in the real world is "no form". It exerts a no form action on individual things.

Forces is a kind of thing universally recognized by people. People have recognized all kinds of forces, for example, electric power, gravitational force, strong force, weak force, influential force, interactive force, impetus, attraction, repulsion, driving force, capability, etc. The characteristics of these forces are that they can drive things to change, move or maintain a certain state. This driving force is the motive force. So what is motive force? How does motive force make things change or move? From ancient Greece, people have been looking for two things: first, what is the most fundamental substratum of the world? Second, what is the motive force that drives the change of the substratum? Or what is the cause? In ancient Greece, there was already the sprout that motive force is "no form". But until today still no one has consciously proposed this idea. Because no one can imagine that a thing without any form could cause other things to change or move. No one could even conceive that a thing without any form exists.

Anaximander believed: "None of the elements - fire, air, water, or earth - could generate all things. Nor could any other things, such as something between air and water or air and fire."^[8] In short, no single or simple natural thing could be the origin of all things. Only that kind of primordial chaos that transcended concrete material forms could be the origin of all things. Although Anaximander did not specify exactly what the "boundless" was, he clearly stated that it was not anything with a fixed form: because anything simple and formed is transient, while the origin of all things must be eternal. All transient things emerge from it as a result.^[9] As Aristotle explained: "As the origin, it is eternal. Anything produced reaches an end point, yet having an endpoint means being finite[having form]. Therefore, the indefinite[the boundless] has no origin. It is itself the origin of other things, encompassing and governing all."^[10]

Anaximander believed that all these particular substances came from the primordial material, which was an indefinite or boundless domain. Thus, on the one hand, we find particular, definite things, like a rock, a pool of water; on the other hand, we find the source of these things, which he called the indefinite boundless. Actual things are particular, their source is indefinite; things are finite, while the primordial material is indefinite or boundless. ...The indefinite boundless is the most primordial indestructible material essence of all things. However, he believed it is in eternal motion. ^[11]

Regarding Anaximander's viewpoint, two things can be seen: first, the primordial material is an indefinite or boundless domain, it is a formless thing; second, the primordial material is in eternal motion. From this sprout of thought, it can be summarized that as the "primordial material" that is eternally in motion, it has motivity. If the "primordial material" had any definiteness, then it would necessarily be finite. So the "primordial material" must be "no form". Even if this "primordial material" has continual variability, it would still have form, Its variation is its form. If its variation form is removed, then it would become no form. So the final conclusion is: the "primordial material" must be "no form". And because it has motivity, it should be "no form" motive force. Since then, people have not recognized that the primordial material is "no form" motive force. People's thinking went in other directions. Until today people have gone too far in other directions, to the point that there is no substantial understanding about the motive force that drives the change or motion of things. Because the primordial material is indefinite. Since this is so, there is no way to study it, it cannot even be expressed. It can only be said to be a kind of indefinite thing. This led subsequent philosophers to become increasingly estranged from this thing. They could only study things with definitive forms, limited things. This opened the path for philosophers to take form as the main object of study in philosophy. Gradually people began to pursue philosophies aimed at finding that unchanging, unmoving, eternal, indestructible thing. Indeed, through the efforts of generations of philosophers, such a thing has been found. In Plato it is the idea, in Aristotle it is the form. Moreover, Plato took the idea he discovered as the motive force for the change and motion of things. Aristotle likewise took the form he discovered as the motive force for the change and motion of things. Having no way to study that "indefinite, boundless" thing, and taking such unchanging ideas or forms as motive force is inappropriate. Because this does not explain that "indefinite, boundless" thing. It just puts it aside and replaces it with the opposite thing. Clearly this is inappropriate.

Since Aristotle's philosophical system is basically a formal philosophical system, he also explained motive force in a formal way. Let's take a look at Aristotle's forms that possesses motive force. In Aristotle's view, any individual thing is a unity of form and matter, while the form and matter of things are also relative. For lower-level things, it is the form, and for higher-level things, it is the matter. For example, bricks are the form of mud (mud is the matter of bricks), while also being the matter of houses; houses are the form of bricks, but are again the matter of streets. And so on, the whole universe forms a unified sequence alternating from matter to form, with higher-level things not only constituting the form of lower-level things, but also being the driving force or attraction that pushes lower-level things to develop and rise towards themselves. The lowest end of this sequence is "pure matter" without any form, which is equivalent to "non-existence"; the highest end is a "pure form" or "form of forms" that no longer constitutes the matter of anything. This "pure form" is the ultimate goal that all things strive for, and also the "prime mover" that drives all things to move towards its development. It itself does not move but drives all things, and is therefore the "unmoved mover". Aristotle also called it "God". Therefore, the "first philosophy" was also called "theology" by him. ^[12]

"Higher-level things not only constitute the form of lower-level things, but are also the driving force or attraction that pushes lower-level things to develop and rise towards themselves." His view has obvious problems. If that is the case, wouldn't the world's matter decrease more and more? Then the force possessed by pure form would become less and less attractive, because there is less and less that can be attracted. In reality, many higher-level formal things can degrade into lower-level material things, for example, houses can completely collapse and become piles of mud, and evaporated water will become water vapor. Therefore, Aristotle was wrong in taking higher-level things as the driving force for lower-level things, or pure form as the prime mover. Form cannot be motive force; motive force should be hidden in the mutual changes between things. One can only see the actions of force, but not the motive force itself, because motive force is "no form".

The philosophers Plato and Aristotle explained force as a kind of attractive force, which actually attributed force to form and was a teleological approach (form attracts matter to change towards form, and form is the purpose of matter). There is another kind of force called impetus, which is a mechanical approach. The mechanical approach uses another object to push an object to explain motion. for example, a is pushed by b, b is pushed by c, and so on, which will regress infinitely. In this way we have not discovered force, only a series of objects. Unless it stops at a certain object, which is unmoved, and is the ultimate cause of pushing other things to move. The result of this ultimate cause is the same as that of the teleological approach, both arriving at an "unmoved mover". The essence of these two forces is the same, only in opposite directions. In fact, this is a standard formalized mode of thinking. Examining the world only with this mode of thinking will necessarily overlook no form thing. Only by acknowledging that motive force is "no form" action can the ultimate prime mover be reasonably understood. Because no form is its own cause, it can push other things while itself not pushed by other things, nor needing other things to push it, since it is self-caused.

The French materialists' idea of attributing motion to the material world itself by eliminating Newton's hypothesis of God as the "prime mover" undoubtedly liberated people's views on natural science. However, if it is believed that the natural world has always been like this, with no development or change, and that the ultimate source of all motion does not come from within matter itself, but is only transmitted between matters, then the natural world ultimately still cannot get rid of the problem of the "prime mover", cannot make the natural world itself manifest as motion. ^[13]

Since the external impetus could not find the cause for the genesis of force, people turned their eyes to the interior of matter (or things) to see if the cause for generating force could be found within it.

Leibniz believed that the nature of monads was a kind of "primitive force". It is this "force" that makes each monad a free causa sui, giving it a kind of ability similar to sensation and desire, which leads to the motion of monads and the myriad things composed of monads. Leibniz called monads "incorporeal automata", with their spontaneity becoming the source of their inherent activity. ^[14] Through the efforts of Kant, Hegel and others, it was believed that this force is the subject's spontaneity, especially Hegel's view that this spontaneity is the self-negation of concepts. In addition, people have recognized the philosophical action of motive force. Fichte wanted to use the spontaneity of the self to explain the issue of matter and consciousness. This shows that people have consciously used motive force to explain philosophical issues and have recognized the action of motive force, which is different from isolation. People have not yet consciously used isolation to explain philosophical issues. It is one thing to be able to consciously use motive force to explain problems, and another thing to figure out "what is motive force".

The most important characteristic of Hegel's dialectics is the idea of spontaneity, which he already explained in his Phenomenology of Spirit, namely: "The key to all questions is not only to understand and articulate the real thing or truth as substance, but also to understand and articulate it as subject." In Logic, the true substance is the category, so the key lies in understanding the category as subject. The subject is spontaneity and initiative. The category is active. Since the category is the essence of all things, then all things in the universe are active. Hegel was the first philosopher to incorporate the spontaneity of all things into a logical law. ^[15]

Hegel's "being" is not what we usually think of as a "thing that exists", but an "act of existing" that contains inherent spontaneity, the activity of "coming into being". All the other categories used in logic have this characteristic, namely the characteristic of self-spontaneity and self-motion. ^[16]

Contradiction is also a kind of opposition, but not an external opposition with other things, rather the opposition of one thing against itself. From the perspective of formal logic it is "self-contradiction", but from the perspective of dialectics it is precisely the "ground" of all things. Therefore, the ultimate ground for the motion of anything lies in its self-contradiction, self-denial, discord within itself, rejection of itself, which is "self-motion" rather than external impetus. Such a ground itself has no other ground, so it is simultaneously "groundless". It is impossible and absurd to find a further ground for the ground of all things. Contradiction is the "sufficient ground" (or "sufficient reason") of all things. ^[17]

Many philosophers explore formal philosophy, but what is hidden behind is the action of motive force. Hegel's dialectical logic philosophy is like this, always taking negativity as a kind of motive force. In fact, motive force is at work behind it. Hegel introduced motive force into his dialectics, but he did not explain what motive force is, nor did he explain the relationship between his dialectics, his theory and motive force, as if the two were unrelated. In his dialectics, it seems like an invisible hand is working as motive force behind the scenes, but this invisible hand has never reached the foreground of dialectics. He attributed motive force to the self-contradictory negativity of the subject. So why would the negativity of contradiction be motive force? There is still no way to answer this. It also does not transcend the limitation of attributing motive force to form. This is also inevitable, because according to the traditional mode of thinking, "things of no form" cannot be expressed or studied.

Although modern physics has developed into a very profound discipline, no physicist can tell us what force is. Physicists like Richard Feynman are very humble, not knowing what force is, other than defining a mathematical formula for it.

Let us ask, "What is the meaning of the physical laws of Newton, which we write as F = ma? What is the meaning of force, mass, and acceleration?" Well,we can intuitively sense the meaning of mass, and we can define acceleration if we know the meaning of position and time. We shall not discuss those meanings, but shall concentrate on the new concept of force. The answer is equally simple: If a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it." That is what Newton's laws say, so the most precise and beautiful definition of force imaginable might simply be to say that force is the mass of an object times the acceleration. Suppose we have a law which says that the conservation of momentum is valid if the sum of all the external forces is zero; then the question arises, "What does it mean,that the sum of all the external forces is zero?" A pleasant way to define that statement would be: "When the total momentum is a constant, then the sum of the external forces is zero." There must be something wrong with that, because it is just not saying anything new. If we have discovered a fundamental law, which asserts that the force is equal to the mass times the acceleration, and then define the force to be the mass times the acceleration, we have found out nothing. We could also define force to mean that a moving object with no force acting on it continues to move with constant velocity in a straight line. If we then observe an object not moving in a straight line with a constant velocity, we might say that there is a force on it. Now such things certainly cannot be the content of physics, because they are definitions going in a circle. The Newtonian statement above,however, seems to be a most precise definition of force, and one that appeals to the mathematician; nevertheless, it is completely useless, because no prediction whatsoever can be made from a definition. One might sit in an armchair all day long and define words at will, but to find out what happens when two balls push against each other, or when a weight is hung on a spring, is another matter altogether, because the way the bodies behave is something completely outside any choice of definitions. ^[18]

Quantum mechanics explains force as the exchange of some particles. For example,  electromagnetic force is the continual exchange of photons between electrons. But is exchanging photons force? Where is the force? Isn't such an explanation very similar to explaining consciousness with particles? Doesn't this indicate that motive force, like consciousness, is also "no form"? From ancient to modern times, the main focuses in philosophy have been individualization and motive force, but with more emphasis on individualization. In physics, the main focuses are individualization and forces, but with more emphasis on forces. Individualization refers to concepts such as objects, ideas and entities, which are concepts produced by the isolation action. In both of these fields, there are no any in-depth precise definitions of the essence of the motive force. There is no clear understanding of what the motive force is in either field. Philosophy and science share a common predicament on this point, both remaining at a rather intuitive cognition and superficial application of "forces".

"What is force?" has been a question people have been trying to answer since ancient Greece. Until now, people are still describing force without a deeper understanding of it. Philosophers merely state that formal things generate forces, while physicists only measure and calculate forces, and can only define force with a mathematical formula. These are all formal methods. The understanding of force is still like the understanding of consciousness, a black box recognition. Only knowing there is such a thing, and also knowing how to measure, calculate and apply it, but not knowing what it is. This phenomenon is still like searching for light with a flashlight. Much and deep research has been done on form, but until now, people have no idea what forces that drives the development of things is. Thus, we can boldly conjecture that for human cognition, there can only be intuitive cognition of some things, not rational cognition; while some things can be rationally cognized in terms of their formal structure. Things that can only be intuitively cognized have no formal structure, so rational cognition of them is impossible. The motive force should be a no from thing without formal structure.

From people's understanding of motive force since ancient Greece, it can be seen that motive force can only be an action generated by no form. That is to say, the ultimate cause for changes in things can only be attributed to no form. Because any attempt to express motive force in a formalized way will find that it is not motive force after all, it is only form. Therefore, only by acknowledging that motive force is "no form" can we have a true understanding of it. If motive force were a form, then what would drive motive force? Thus it would lead to infinite regress as discussed in "no form" manifestation. To avoid infinite regression, motive force can only be "no form", and the action of motive force can only be "no form" action. That is to say, the action of motive force is an action generated by no form. It drives form, and does not itself need driving. Note that what does "no form" drive? Form. Here we can call form the subject. That is to say, from the perspective of motive force, form is the subject. The meaning of subject is to have spontaneity. This is also Hegel's way of studying the essence of things through the subject, an approach that is clearly studying from the perspective of motive force. While in the manifestation action of no form, we call form essence. And in the isolation action of no form, we call form substance. This is also why Hegel said "substance is subject, subject is substance". Clearly, from the perspective of no form, these two concepts are still different: substance looks at form from the perspective of isolation, subject looks at form from the perspective of motive force. Hegel did not see their difference. It can be seen that looking at form from the three different perspectives of no form actions leads to three different concepts. In this way, our understanding of essence, entity and subject becomes clearer and more transparent.

Previously we saw that consciousness is a world of manifestation, the macro world is a world of isolation. Is there a world of motive force? The answer is yes, this world is the quantum world. The quantum world is a world dominated by motive force. The quantum world of motive force is markedly different from the macro world, because quantum mechanics tells us that we cannot directly observe a quantum, if we try to observe a quantum, it will collapse and lose its original state. In this way, according to the three no form actions, we have divided the whole world into three different worlds: the world of manifestation (the world of consciousness), the world of isolation (the macro world), and the world of motive force(the quantum world).

Similarly, in the manifested world of consciousness there is also motive force(such as willpower), and in the isolated macro world there is also motive force(motion of macro objects requires motive force). It's just that in these two worlds, motive force is relatively weak. Likewise, in the quantum world of motive force, there are also actions of manifestation (change of motive force is manifestation of motive force) and isolation (for example, quanta themselves are separate units, which is a standard isolation action).

For the action of motive force, every motive force thing has variability (this is also said from the perspective of manifestation, that is, variability is the manifestation of motive force. At the same time, it should be noted that, corresponding to isolation, from the perspective of isolation, variability has a distinction, otherwise how would we know there is change?). From the perspective of isolation, every motive force thing has generativity, motive force will generates a change or a thing, this is said from the perspective of isolation; for the action of manifestation, every manifested thing, from the perspective of motive force, is intuitive, and from the perspective of isolation, is identical. The intuition of manifestation has been elaborated earlier. The manifestation of things has the characteristic of not being affected by changes in time and space. For example, for manifestation, the color red has identity, no matter when, the red produced in our consciousness is always the same, this color is definite, it is identical. While from the perspective of isolation, isolation always divides (or combines) into different things. From the perspective of motive force, different things are always generated. However, from the perspective of manifestation, what is directly manifested is itself, what manifests is the identity of itself (that is, what manifests is its essence). The final conclusion is: isolation has the characteristics of independence and distinction; motive force has the characteristics of variation and generation; manifestation has the characteristics of intuition and identity. Each no form action has two characteristics, and the two characteristics of each no form action are obtained from the perspective of the other two corresponding no form actions. The corresponding two characteristics can only be obtained from the perspective of the other two corresponding no form actions. Because the characteristics of a thing must have a corresponding distinction from itself in order to be called the characteristics of that thing. This is understanding no form actions themselves using no form actions. This is also a kind of no form logic that will be elaborated in detail in later sections.

Modern science only uses and studies two forms, one is mathematical form, the other is structural form. In fact these are all isolation forms, but there are still forms of manifestation and forms of motive force in existence. And And when studying other forms in science, mathematical forms and structural forms are also used to simulate them, or transform them into mathematical forms and structural forms for study. This is why science seems incompetent when studying things like consciousness. Not only that, there are also many unexplained areas when science studies force, such as quantum entanglement and quantum collapse phenomena. This is the limitation of science.

From the above analysis, these three no form actions each have their own corresponding forms, each with its own definiteness of form, and thus each has its own objectivity. They cannot replace each other, but can transform into each other. Of course, there are also common forms between the three actions, otherwise our consciousness would have no way to recognize the objectivity of macro things, and likewise, the macro world would not have evolved human consciousness.

So what is the use of finding these three no form actions? This is already very powerful. Based on this, we can divide any thing or concept into three categories: isolation, motive force and manifestation (this classification method itself is also a logic, which will be discussed later). For example, in the previous discourse, we have already obtained from the three no form perspectives a classification of form: essence, substance and subject. This will enable us to have a very clear classification of things, which can clarify the confusion in thinking and concepts caused by confusing categories. To give a simple example, we already know that the quantum world of motive force and the macro world of isolation are different worlds. So when we observe quanta, we are observing in an isolated way, because our instruments are all isolated things in the macro world. As soon as we make a measurement, the quanta will be transformed into a thing of the isolation world. That is to say, we can only use instruments to observe the behavior of things of quanta transformed into the world of isolation, rather than observe the behavior of quanta themselves in the quantum world of motive force. Therefore, the results obtained are also results of the isolation world, and it is impossible to observe the objective reality of quantum motive force itself. This is what quantum physics says, that the quantum behavior we observe is always related with the measurement itself, and results unaffected by measurement interference cannot be obtained. It can be seen that by simply dividing different worlds with the theory of no form action, we can clearly explain the "measurement problem" that has long been controversial in quantum mechanics (here is just a brief mention of this problem, and more details will be elaborated later). Likewise, we can also explain why consciousness is subjective rather than objective. We cannot observe consciousness with any instrument, because using the method of studying the objective macro world to study consciousness can also only obtain results of the isolation world, and it is impossible to observe consciousness itself, just like using instruments to observe quantum behavior. This is why consciousness has the first-person privacy (consciousness has a kind of first-person or subjective ontology character, and therefore cannot be reduced to anything that has third-person or objective ontology ^[19]). By the same logic, the quantum world of motive force should also have a certain degree of privacy relative to the macro world of isolation. Our measurements are actually measurements of the world of isolation. Measurement of motive force(such as measurement of quantum particles) is to convert motive force into isolation for measurement.

What we usually refer to as objectivity is actually the objectivity of the isolation world. The reason we cannot measure the objectivity of motive force is that we can only measure motive force after it is transformed into isolation things, because our measurement itself is only isolated measurement, so we can only measure isolation, not measure motive force directly. That is to say, the macro world of isolation, the quantum world of motive force, and the world of manifestation of consciousness, they all have their own objectivity. Their objectivity has its own independence (not being able to observe and measure the objectivity of motive force of the world of motive force does not mean the objectivity of motive force cannot be known, these are two different concepts, to be discussed later). They cannot replace each other, but can transform into each other. We cannot require the objectivity of the quantum world of motive force to be the same as the objectivity of the world of isolation, similarly, we cannot require the objectivity of the world of manifestation of consciousness to be the same as the objectivity of the world of isolation. We have used one principle to explain two different problems, and the answers to these two different problems are the same. This enhances the persuasive power of explaining problems using the no form action theory. In this way, we have three perspectives and three ways to think about problems, rather than being limited to one single way of thinking. Combining these three ways of thinking to examine and study the world will lead to comprehensive and clear conclusions. This is also the method I use to examine and study the no form action theory itself.

On the other hand, knowing the three no form actions allows us to make predictions about things and concepts. For example, the three concepts of substance, essence and subject discussed earlier. When we know that form is essence from the perspective of manifestation, we will naturally think about what form is from the perspective of motive force and what form is from the perspective of isolation. When we know that manifestation has the two characteristics of intuition and identity, we will naturally think that the corresponding motive force will also have two characteristics and isolation will also have two characteristics. We randomly pick a concept, for example morality, and we will wonder, is there morality of manifestation? Is there morality of isolation? Is there morality of motive force? If so, what are they? This predictive thinking will be one of the main ways of thinking in subsequent sections.

Why do we take "form and no form" as a two dimension theory model as the starting point for studying the world? Since, according to the no form action theory, we have three perspectives and three ways to think about problems, it is no longer necessary. Starting research of this world from other perspectives is possible and necessary. The two dimension theory of no form and form only look at the problem from the perspective of isolation as a starting point. This is suitable for philosophical research, because the way of philosophical research revolves around concepts. And concepts are ways of looking at problems from the perspective of isolation. Looking at the world from the perspective of art and aesthetics is the perspective of manifestation. Looking at the world from this perspective is directly experiencing the world. For example, creating and appreciating works of art. According to the Big Bang theory, our visible universe evolved from an infinitesimal point with infinite energy through the Big Bang. This infinitesimal point contained infinite energy. Studying the origin of the universe in science is starting from motive force. There are also systems of philosophy built starting from motive force (although not from pure motive force), for example, Schopenhauer's philosophy of the will to life is constructed starting from the will, and the "will" referred to by Schopenhauer also contains the meaning of motive force. This also shows that any idea of achieving a thorough understanding of this world in a single way is unrealistic.

What is the relationship between the three no form actions? On the surface, they seem to have no relation at all, and their differences are obviously great. It's hard to imagine what relation isolation has with motive force, what relation isolation has with manifestation, and what relation motive force has with manifestation. Does the appearance of an object in my consciousness have any relation with isolation (or motive force)? Yes, there is a relation, and the relation between them is the most core viewpoint of the no form action theory. Their relation is what will be elaborated in the next section.

References

^[1] Samuel Enoch, Stumpf, and Fieser James. History of Western Philosophy, translated by Deng Xiaomang and Kuang Hong, Beijing United Publishing Company, 2019, p. 81-82.

^[2] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 246

^[3] Zhang Qingxiong. Modern Western Philosophy, Commercial Press, 2023, p. 334.

^[4] Zhang Qingxiong. Modern Western Philosophy, Commercial Press, 2023, p. 377.

^[5] Zhang Qingxiong. Modern Western Philosophy, Commercial Press, 2023, p. 382.

^[6] Leibniz. Discourse on Metaphysics, translated by Xu Yingjin, SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2007, p. 488.

^[7] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 247-248.

^[8] Miao Lidian. Ancient Greek Philosophy, Renmin University of China Press, 1989, p. 24.

^[9] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 14.

^[10]., Selections from Original Works of Western Philosophy, vol. 1, Renmin University of China Press, 1981, p. 17.

^[11] Samuel Enoch, Stumpf, and Fieser James. History of Western Philosophy, translated by Deng Xiaomang and Kuang Hong, Beijing United Publishing Company, 2019, p. 9.

^[12] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 60-61.

^[13] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 203.

^[14] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 160.

^[15] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 253.

^[16] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 253-254.

^[17] Deng Xiaomang, and Zhao Lin. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd ed., Higher Education Press, 2014, p. 255-256

^[18] Feynman, Richard P., and Robert B. Leighton. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, translated by Zheng Yongling et al., vol. 1, Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, 2005, p. 124.

^[19] Searle, J. The Mystery of Consciousness, translated by Liu Yetuo, 1st ed., Nanjing University Press, 2007, p. 146.