AS IF
Must each perspective of consciousness rationalize as if chronologies among the presentations of forms are protected, regardless of whether such protection is true? If not, how could we either know or ratonalize? If forms are not in themselves real, how can we prove that by assuming what would be the case if they were in themselves real?
If any substance could be perceived to travel faster than the speed of light, would it not necessarily alter the chronological experiences and perceptions of information that we receive, process, interpret, and rationalize, from each perspective? Out of such dissonance, could we still rationalize common or shared experience or interpretations? Do we rationalize just enough to hang onto a sense of identity, while otherwise remaining necessarily dissonant with regard to individually creative unfoldings? Does each newly rationalized explanation suck with it its own train of dissonance?
Perhaps what is real and determinative in itself is not merely the interactions among substantive forms, but must include such reconciling rationalizations among perspectives of consciousness that happen to share a common range of possibilities. Perhaps we cannot make harmonic sense out of feedback with our senses without a trinitarian flux among consciousness, substance, and information. Even though we can never measure that trinitarian flux in itself as a whole.
Must each perspective of consciousness rationalize as if chronologies among the presentations of forms are protected, regardless of whether such protection is true? If not, how could we either know or ratonalize? If forms are not in themselves real, how can we prove that by assuming what would be the case if they were in themselves real?
If any substance could be perceived to travel faster than the speed of light, would it not necessarily alter the chronological experiences and perceptions of information that we receive, process, interpret, and rationalize, from each perspective? Out of such dissonance, could we still rationalize common or shared experience or interpretations? Do we rationalize just enough to hang onto a sense of identity, while otherwise remaining necessarily dissonant with regard to individually creative unfoldings? Does each newly rationalized explanation suck with it its own train of dissonance?
Perhaps what is real and determinative in itself is not merely the interactions among substantive forms, but must include such reconciling rationalizations among perspectives of consciousness that happen to share a common range of possibilities. Perhaps we cannot make harmonic sense out of feedback with our senses without a trinitarian flux among consciousness, substance, and information. Even though we can never measure that trinitarian flux in itself as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment