How does being come to be?
Does a physical ‘everything’ evolve
from a bedrock of causality
– being, in effect, the cause of itself
and the character of change
– to the shape of its burgeoning personality?
Let’s call a thought a different form of the physical.
Does that explain the difference?
Call it a physical process
– does it mean the process knows what it is doing
in order to think
– so to identify itself?
At first there were the deities
who moved heaven and earth
and filled the firmament
with metaphysical meanings
as affirmed by ‘group think’.
Everything for a purpose
Then came the scientific method
with purpose translated into process
and meaning into verification
all within a material reality
as affirmed by ‘brain think’.
Just because we’re alive, it doesn’t entitle us to know what life’s all about.
Just because we are made entirely of stardust, it doesn’t prove that there’s nothing more to us.
Just because we have explanations for the way thing are, it doesn’t mean that we have explained them.
Just because we can talk about reality, it doesn’t mean we can talk ourselves into it.
Just because we can see that effects depend on causes, it doesn’t mean that either the cause or the effect explains the difference.
Just because we can equate one thing to another, it doesn’t make them the same.
Just because we use logic to understand nature, it doesn’t mean that nature is logical.
Just because the stars in the sky are ‘there’ doesn’t mean they are really there.
Just because we know reality as we know it, it doesn’t mean that we really know it.
Just because life is ‘uploaded’ from what ‘is’ already (qua physical necessity), it doesn’t mean that it is not also ‘downloaded’ from what ‘isn’t’ – ‘impossibilities’ becoming possible (qua unrealised potentials).
Just because we haven’t solved the meaning of life, it doesn’t mean that life is necessarily meaningless: it could be that there is more to life and meaning than our narrow version of it – that even the ‘meaningless expanse’ of the universe is a line-of-sight effect – a figment of a narrowed view of what is there to be seen of what can be.
Just because we know what we mean, it doesn’t mean that we know how to say it.
What can we say
about what we say?
Do the limits of our language
delimit our world,
Must a certain meaning
preclude its opposite
– to avoid contradiction
and place logic in charge
Is it nature’s way
to augment itself
– creation recreated?
vivified with digital spirit
impeccable cold logic
untouchable synthetic heart
– exquisitely non-human?
What is reality
if explanation is but a version
of the seemingly real
– when “Everything we call real
is made of things that cannot be regarded as real”.
When from the bowels of ‘the physical’,
extending into states of perception and knowledge,
obtain realities and seeming realities
that do and do not define the nature of the universe
– because the seeming, the knowing and the awareness
do not feature as the underlying action?
Oblivion to awareness
forms set in parallel
each to the other
And explanation has nothing to say
of the birth of consciousness
presenting as a precondition
for evolution to be perceived
as the fact that made it.
Everywhere and nowhere
A repository of all things
actual and hypothetical.
A force to reckon with
turning upon each moment
– inevitabilities from ineffabilities;
of what is to be
and not to be.
Many worlds, many paths
– probabilities cast into being.
Multiple selves waiting to be observed
– fixed by our inner gaze.
The mystery of entanglement
– an image of what we might be
emerging from the shadow of what we were.