What is Being? When we are born, we are faced with numerous objects, each individual. We learn, as we learn language, that various dissimilar objects which are nonetheless similar are all called by the same name. Naming things reduces their numbers. As we see more of the same-named object, we develop an idea of that kind of object. We eliminate the differences to create a concept, a form or idea of the objects to make them one. Any given tiger is more individuated than "tiger," which is more individuated than "cat," which is more individuated than "mammal," etc. through animal, organism, chemical system, collection of atoms, etc. We go increasingly abstract, finally admitting that these are all mental constructs.
Except they're not merely mental constructs. We eventually have come to recognize the self-similarity among cats is not merely mental, but a chaotic or biotic strange attractor system which maintains the similar form through the various iterations of real difference. Our minds are recreating in its chaos and biotic processes what is really out there. Our concept of cat is a mental reconstruction and visualization of the absent center of a real strange attractor. Thus, we get a glimpse of Being in the process of conceptualization. We glimpse at a non-present Being created by its own natural process. Without time, without change, there is no Being. Further, this kind of Being is an individuated Being. Unless we try to imagine a pure concept, a concept of all concepts. Wouldn't this, though, be the concept of concept? And wouldn't the concept of concept have to contain itself? A paradox. How appropriate, though, that it results in a self-referential feedback loop, just like the kinds that result in chaotic processes. Besides, paradox is no argument against the idea. The essence of beauty is paradox, as I have talked about here.
No comments:
Post a Comment