Sequences

[Pistolero]

Should metaphysis precede or proceed from our experiences of physis?
Must words refer to phenomena, independent from all subjective interrelation, or must we begin with a cocnept, represented by words, that refer to nothing outside our minds, but only refer to other words, or texts, or minds.

Should metaphysics support our conceptions of nature, or should nature be made to support our metaphysics?

Should our perceived experiences limit what our creative minds can fabricate?

Does the 'word' come before the act, or does the act precede the word that is created to represent it?

Does a one exist, outside human brains, or is it an abstraction, alluding to a unity, that refers to nothing but other abstractions.
Kant used 'thing'.

The cocnept of no-thing, is literally a reference to what lacks patterns or is full of complex patterns the human brain cannot process.
It interprets both as darkness or void.
"Things' are how the human brain a priorily reduces fluctuating patterns to a form it can process and store.
Both complexity and chaos become synonymous because the human brain cannot differentiate between what lacks patterns and what is full of patterns too intricate for it to process.
Humans being organisms dependent on order, prefers the idea that chaos is complexity, not disorder. that it conceals complex order...and in the process it converts god into an abstraction ti names 'one' or order.
Chaos becomes a representation of evil - Satan....the trickster that wants to fool men into believing he exists.
A disturbing challenge to god's absoluteness.

[Pistolero]

How do we use words? Semiotics.
To connect or disconnect. To engage reality, or to disengage from it, retreating into our safe places?

How do we define words: empirically or ideologically?
Do we limit the range of our definitions empirically, or do we allow the words to be "free' of all limitations, to fabricate our desirable concepts?

For example...if we wish to name an organism, horse, do we limit our definition of it to what we observe, or do we allow our imagination to define the concept, so as to then claim that it does not exist; that horses are illusory?

Can man create his own reality using words that refer to nothing outside inter-subjective collectives?
Can such intersubjective collectives agree to 'disappear' a cocnept they find disturbing or threatening?
Are such agreements immune to a reality they've linguistically defined out of existence?

[Impenitent]

mathematics is an immaterial language...

my favorite number would have to be the square root of negative three...

imagine that

-Imp

[Pistolero]

The fact that existence is a fluctuating state of patterned and non-patterned energies, requires imaginative semiotics.