| panta rhei,
“… what distinguishes the map… from the “journey”?
This question, which addresses the relationship between the medium and the terms it transmits, calls for an intricate and challenging answer. I can begin to respond by saying this: each discernible entity is an intersection of here and everywhere; each discernible entity is a roadmap to all other entities. [These responses point toward non-local, topological boundary negotiations.]
“Positing the undiscovered as “logical impossibilities” would be to employ a category error.”
I prefer to characterize the aforementioned as a “category paradox.” When our traversal across the terrain of a defined field of action brings us to a rational awareness of the impossible, we have come smack against the outer boundary of said field. Our options include redefining the field on a more inclusive basis, discovering the specifications of an encompassing field within which the bounded field is enclosed, or accepting our imaginative confinement to the bounded field, and thus accepting the permanence of the impossibility it defines.
“… what is transcended in the discovery of the previously unknown? Knowledge itself!?”
Well said. The general statement of this issue takes this form: The specifiable locality of each discernible entity is unstable and incomplete.
“I’d argue that an “impossibility” is absolutely impossible by definition. When what was once felt to be impossible is shown to be possible, the previous feeling is exposed as a falsehood. In such case the fact falsifies the feeling, and in so doing, sheds light on the faulty categorization.”
This is a cogent (and correct) argument. With some trepidation, I will respond in the spirit of post-modern deconstructionism by saying this: even in the instance of a complete (this is not actually achievable as per above) and rational determination of impossibility, said determination deconstructs itself in simultaneity with its declaration. Each determination of impossibility marks a new extension of an infinitely extendable boundary. From this it can be surmised that ours is a universe of perpetual motion.
“I’d say that your proposition posits an “open universe” by means of faulty categorization…”
If my characterization of the universe as “open” is false, then a refutation of the following axiom should be demonstrable: The specifiable locality of every discernible entity is unstable and incomplete. I hasten to present the following scenario to every conscious being: your vitality lies within the embrace of the divinity of freedom. Would you risk the loss of your divinity of freedom through its denial?
Technosoul,
“Would you assume in fact that all motion that has a logical purpose would be circular…”
This question seeks an assessment of a common perception of the fundamental ordering of history, namely, that it is ordered in cycles. With the words “logical purpose” you invoke the natural ordering of history, which is understood to contain beginnings, middles and endings, and then the repetition . If traversal across a beginning, middle and ending is the general form of purpose, then the motion that makes history go stands as one of its perpetual forces. Does perpetual motion drive history in cycles? Within a closed universe of finite possibilities, the circularity of history seems inevitable. I choose to believe in an open universe of infinite possibilities; an open universe can accommodate a closed and circular sub-universe without being confined to purposeful motion that is necessarily circular.
“And what about the theory that all circular motion has a center of relative stillness, or perhaps even absolute stillness in respect to the total wholeness of all motion?”
Does absolute motion imply absolute rest? Yes. |