How can we accurately understand that which is the progenitor of the diverse complexity we express in the actual process of seeking understanding? The problem: That which we are metaphying is growing in countless dimensions at impossible speed. How is this included in a frozen metaphor? o:O:o We’ve been taught a set of specific relation-and-assembly toys relating to how to classify objects we experience cognitive resonance with, for example, a book or a rock — a human being, society or animal. Thus, if we wish (as a conscious person or group) ‘to consider’ the value or meaning or relations of some object or assembly...we must first locate or attach various ‘class of thing’ markers to whatever we are examining. This appears to be a natural precursor to representational thought — and this appearance is mostly correct, except that our common acceptance of it, and the peculiarities of the way we accept it — are in service to something we are not empowered to detect the presence or action of. And the outcomes of our approaches are commonly catastrophic in terms of delivering actual understanding. The reason is simple — there’s something more important that comes before class — and if by chance, habit, or obligation we ignore it — our choice in this regard damages a variety of character-potentials that form the basis of how we interact with class. All of this takes place right before we have assembled the inward clarity required to notice that this is happening. The resultant ‘damage’ to our ‘thinking’ and products-of-knowing happens in the domain of accuracy, usefulness and assembly-power — and it is due to the fact that mistaken valuings and meaning-postions in the terrain of ‘what class is this/are these’ leads to radical magnifications of their error in ‘that which we get into right after class-selection/authorization’. In the places in which we assemble and relate with ‘names and ideas’ we are unwittingly led into a sort of cone, where for each ring of the spiral along which we travel, our original choice continues to reduce the accuracy and the prowess of our relations with ‘class’ and ‘thing’. Our travel geometrically magnifies the error that was the beginning of our decsent. The peril of this is sublimely magnified if the ‘thing’ we are attempting to classify such that we can notice, consider or discuss it by its nature belongs (most accurately) to a class we don’t have a common metaphor for: for example: a metaThing an instance of a metaClass-generator a (primarily) non-physical (or distributed) organism a sentient hyperThing In glancing at this somewhat arbitrary list, what emerges as obvious about the ‘stuff we don’t have good terms for’ is that most are ‘at a scale of thingness’ outside, beneath, with(in) or behind (so to speak) the rather flat dimensionality that our common ‘thing-classes’ offer us extremely limited access to. Let’s take, as an example ‘the Sun’. I could catalog the many possible ‘classes of thing’ which are tagged onto the sun, one atop the other, but this is not my purpose. I would prefer to point out that in the modern moment, the scientific tags appear to have largely superceded all others. But the knowledge-toys offered by science are abstract — they contain nor conserve respect for inherent character. They are, at best, a slender shaving of what we actually desire and seek. Most of us know a few stories about the Sun, and almost everyone would have a fairly common response to what class to put it in. In general, we’d put it in the class of celestial objects. In the special class perhaps of the most centrally important object to Life on Earth — next to Earth herself, and possibly the Moon. As a possible position of perspective, this is rational — given what we know and have been taught. As the only position it is a catastrophe of misrelation. We must have cause to wonder at what the difference is between what we commonly accept as fact — the shape of our agreed-upon metaphors — and what the Sun actually is. If one were of speculative bent, for example, we might be led to wonder what a species somewhat like ourselves — who had witnessed the lives of many stars in many places — what they might offer us were we to be able to ask them, for example, ‘what have we as a species missed or misunderstood about our star?’ — or stars in general. We cannot know what such a theoretical species might answer, or even if our species will ever have the opportunity to frame such a question to another like our own. Or so we have been scripted to believe. The reality is that there are in fact such communicants, and they are actually available to our questions. The problem that keeps us from contact is not mechanical, but logical. We are ‘flat’ in the way they are ‘of many dimensions’, and vice versa. Where we have many dimensions of ‘spacetime’ they have many dimensions of unity – which do not appear superficially interesting to us at all. We do not really believe that a 2D universe is interesting, and we believe even less that it could be ‘populated by angels’ and yet there is much we have misunderstood in our rush toward the great sexiness of formalism and complexity that our knowledge-systems hold fast to the production and elaboration of. If we were to have the opportunity to converse with a being of far greater complexity or age than we are, we would probably expereince something a lot like shock. The power of the truth of the metaphors they would present us with would be so amazingly more accurate than the primitive and often too-mechanical stumblings of our young species that these ‘simple ideas’ — probably ideas we might ourselves have realized given a few hundred thousand years — would radically alter not only what we know about the Sun, but how we know anything. In other words, being able to recieve new metaphors from somewhere ‘above’ or outside one’s own common scale of contact — is a shocking experience — and one that functionally changes what it means to be ‘what you think your species is’ — completely. So completely that it would change the function-activity of the brain in the recipient. That’s how powerful a ‘generally more accurate’ metaphor, or ‘class-metaphor’ can be. So if we ask ourselves ‘what is the most accurate class-metaphor’ or ‘relation-meaning-value container’ for the Sun, we must be exceptionally careful about what we emerge with. It must not be ‘less than the truth’, for in this particular case, the truth cannot be overstated. It should also modulate as we examine it toward greater general accuracy, rather than greater specific accuracy. None of our common possessions do this. Firstly we must agree to acknowledge the primacy of a domain we’ve long been taught by formal systems of knowledge to ignore in a way that is somewhat hidden. The domain is organism, and it is ripe with nothing if not the very ‘character’ and poetics that the mechanics and formalisms of science by their goal-nature must (at least at first) abhor (ignore, discard, discredit and hide). The Sun, is some sort of ‘trans-organism’. Its local presents results in organisms. In the reality of organismal relation, experience and expression we may locate the arts, sciences, and various other elements of the cognitive penumbra of our species — but not before the fact of organism and character. The Sun is effectively the source of all of that. Can an insentient ‘thing’ in the sky generate a transentient planet? Everthing on Earth is constantly ‘talking to’ and ‘hearing from’ the Sun. Even if it’s not a life-form — it’s certainly beyond any idea our modern species has crafted...or will admit. So far...