Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Form is Inevitable, Part 4

What can be said to exist? Can anything not? If it is asserted that a thing does not exist is the assertion itself enough to prove it's existence?

Recall that we are not discussing the 'complexity' of the form in question. Recall also (Part 3) that ideas exist in a 'special' way that is different from other forms existent, and this is because they lack mass and do not occupy space. Yet ideas move forms that do occupy space and in fact have mass. Thus, while it is certainly a danger that such a discussion could easily avail itself to defenders of religious or of solipsistic world views, ones which are not within the scope of my present interest, I must still address some questions concerning the special form of the 'idea' and its role in defining 'reality' and its constituents.

It is often the case that they consequences of an observer's ignorance of an otherwise existent phenomena are negligible. The Form simple does not exist for this individual. If their internal structure or interactive processes are not impacted by this omission (say, as in the example which concluded Part 1) then it makes no difference either way whether said phenomena exists or not. This individuals world is complete without it. They can function in their environment (which they share with this ghost they have no knowledge of) and they strength of the both form's interactions are negligible to the other.

This completeness of a perceives world is called into question by doubt. Doubt arises out of interactions between a body and an unknown body, or between known bodies in which the interactions themselves are foreign, unpredictable or inexplicable under the structures and processes (the world view) believed by one form or another to exist. Of course by belief I am referring to human forms but the idea of belief could be extended to plant life. An organism is could be said to be expectant of, say, sunlight. If it does not arrive death does. Nor is any sort of consciousness necessary: Having removed what I believed to be all the rocks on the path outside my house I am stymied by my sandaled toes interaction with a sharp stone, out of which arises doubt in my belief that no stone existed there.

As such, doubt may come from any activity between forms. An unexpected form emerging within or joining an environment, or an unexpected interaction intruding on an unwitting form. Doubt, or enlightenment depending on how optimistic one feels about it, thus may bring all attributes of known forms and structures (again, the world view) within an environment into question. Especially for people, which is something I am interested in speaking about here for a moment.

Similar situations arise when two or more observers or groups share some environment but act under diverse perceptual sets. Thus their mental models of the environment, on which their interactions within this environment are based, include different pictures of 'reality'. While as in the case of the individual some of these attributes are negligible many must be agreed upon before the observers can interact within the environment without damage to one another. Conflict occurs as these differences are made apparent.

Another interesting case, similar to the solipsism mentioned earlier (or that of some schizophrenics) , is to imagine a phenomena that only a single individual responds to. In fact, many of these instances must exits, and perhaps they exist in every human consciousness. Again, most of these doubtless have negligible or even beneficial results giving us say, a creative or unique view of a situation or a solution to a particular problem. Other times, however, a phenomena known to exist by only a single individual can wield such a power over the individual and create such a strong divide between this individual and others that the doubt mentioned earlier can become expressed violently or destructively.

This is a problem for analysis by psychologists (they are working on it already of course). The question as to whether a phenomena existent for only one individual is likely a malfunction within that individual or not is a difficult one, as human beings must, of course, preserve their visionary and creative potential.

This discussion must wait, however, as first we must treat the relationship between form and structure in phenomena acknowledged by a majority to exist.

Isn't that, after all, how cities work? Is this very different from any human group? It seems that the collective unconscious manifests itself as a democratic reality.

No comments: