can we accurately understand that which is the progenitor of the
diverse complexity we express in the actual process of seeking
problem: That which we are metaphying is growing in countless
dimensions at impossible speed. How is this included in a frozen
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
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
‘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:
an instance of a metaClass-generator
a (primarily) non-physical (or distributed)
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.
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
between what we commonly accept as fact — the shape of
our agreed-upon metaphors — and what the Sun actually
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
opportunity to frame such a question to another like our own.
Or so we have been scripted to believe. The reality is that
are in fact such communicants, and they are actually available
to our questions. The problem that keeps us from contact is
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
our knowledge-systems hold fast to the production and elaboration
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
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’
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 the reality of organismal
relation, experience and expression we may locate the arts,
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.