A Missing Ontology
"I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical."-Kurt Godel
What is a phenomenon without an ontology? Harry Truman managed to capture the nexus of this when he contributed a zen like observation to the lexicon by observing that the only thing new in our recorded history is that which we do not know. The entification of thought as a programming code of relationships as it relates a erstwhile definition of sentience may be mistaking the messenger for the message.
Anomalous experiential realities bring to mind both the variability and receptivity by our orientation through adaptation to the sensate that are playing by the rules our own cognitive processes which have created an erstwhile moat in defense of the untenable complexities that pragmatism in our orientation must side step.
We may be refuted in our certainty by the possibility we may be the product of nature’s imagination toward self disclosure of what it’s identity may be.
Perhaps these are the two poles of a buried dualism that drives a generator of a certain magnetism of attraction and repulsion yet to be reconciled by the study of exceptions, error, accident, and contradictions that bely a coherence that is unimaginable.
This has created by a reactive psychology a odd pantheism based on elegantly simple solutions which were once embodied in the nascent history of physics wherein the universe was envisioned in the image of a perfectly choreographed ballet seen through the meshed gears of a clockwork.
In contrast to how we envision the incommensurable, recent studies in quantum mechanics are refuting this winding of spacetime as a mainspring of a watch by the action of a singular “big bang” and these findings suggest to us by the entanglement of language and thought to surmise that there was no “beginning.” How do we define beginning? Is this an arbitrary metric similar to that of relativity based on our orientation?
If so, we have taken four steps forward and four backward against any formulation of will in opposition by way of the observable, as our definitions depend upon Harry Truman’s defining of history as a process of increasing complexities in relation to what our knowledge could not encompass by it’s previous omissions.
If knowledge is being in a physics of information as an attenuation of receptivity what does this inform us of in relation to the exceptions to the rules we play by in everyday occurrences versus those that defy causation...a missing ontology?
Reality As A Verb
If experience is a transitive verb in our vocabulary required for the translation of meaning as a moving target, can we derive a larger parallelism to the mirror images of the manifest and unmanifest which must have a nexus? Does the universe remain immobile long enough for us to capture it’s portrait or is it created anew continuously as science recognizes this as an attribute of spacetime itself? This is far from being a new conceptual basis for further exploration as it was first elucidated by Ibn Al Arabi between 1100 and 1200 AD in Andalusia.
William C Chittick, as his chief Western interpreter ,explains the chef features of this cosmology;
“The cosmos is two worlds and the presence is two presences, though a third presence is born between the two from their having come together. The first presence is the presence of the absent, and it possesses a world called the "world of the absent". The second presence is the presence of sense perception and the witnessed; its world is called "the world of the witnessed" and is perceived by eyesight [basar], while the world of the absent is perceived by insight [basîra]. That which is born from the coming together of the two is a presence and a world. The presence is the presence of imagination, and the world is the world of imagination”
- William Chittick
We can distill this conceptual model further by reducing these relationships to that in which they are joined at the hip which may or may not suggest that we must de-program our defining of imagination as the embodiment of that which does not exist. Perhaps this relationship of language to image, image to imagination constitutes both a transience of process and a entification that requires a perpetual redefining through the projections of whatever nexus of manifestation is summoned in a feedback process between these two worlds which are reconciled by their being in a continuously refined complexity versus a fixed set of rules.
Here is where we return to the issue of receptivity to this conceptual model in experiential anomalies wherein the fixed becomes unfixed, the prosaic is taken from it’s context and as a consequence, “cannot be so”
What we may have on our hands is a hybridization of the imagined becoming a transience that uses our base languages to manifest what is absent as a temporal rent in the fabric of entropy, the gravitational well of the finite nature of our individual processes.
Is the Self an imaged commodity of barter? If so does this concept correlate to our nature being enfolded into that which constitutes our ground?
I can hear a chorus of positivists shouting me down.
"Positivists decline to acknowledge any a priori knowledge. They wish to reduce everything to sense perceptions. Generally they contradict themselves in that they deny introspection as experience. … They use too narrow a notion of experience and introduce an arbitrary bound on what experience is …." Kurt Godel
We may be provincial aliens in a foreign clime in which we have imagined a world that does not exist and as a consequence, that which penetrates this sheath of certainty underscores the unpredictable nature of any possible permutation by transference of a universe through our witness in process of defining itself by asking uncomfortable questions we would prefer to leave unanswered.