Animation and Logic

[RingingSword]

panta rhei,

“Though you specify its literality and physicality, the non-local tiny portion you speak of is held apart from the rest of the body. Why?”

It’s important to maintain a distinction between “held apart from” and “unspecifiable.” Although I haven’t thought about it closely, I think that probably non-locality is closer to your monism than to the subtle dualism you ascribe to it. The tiny unspecifiable portion of our being is just that, unspecifiable, which means that it cannot be known precisely and conclusively where that portion of our being is located in time and space. This means that we can no more say that portion is held apart from the body than we can say that portion is held within the body. That that portion exists in time and space is beyond doubt; it’s the where that’s important here. Is this cosmically distributed portion of our being non-physical? It may be that it has a non-physical component; within this context, I’m referring to its physical dimensions.

“… all things = One Thing. Any apparent seperateness within this Indivisible Unity should be seen as just that – a phenomenal apparition.

“I take this monistic viewpoint to its logical conclusion, and in so doing, tear down all the non-physical barriers which’ve generously contributed to mass confusion.”

The two above statements bring us to the crux of this dialogue: In the first statement you declare that all things are one, i.e. connected. Moreover, you declare that the appearance of separation is an apparition, i.e. insubstantial, not total. In the second statement you tear down all non-physical barriers that, as I interpret your meaning, create false divisions, false separations. Well now, let’s take a look at the import of these two statements taken together: 1) the physical universe, which is the only reality, is one; 2) non-physical barriers are falsehoods that obscure the reality of the oneness. What follows next is the observation that the appearance of any physical individual within a specific and local (undistributed) time and place within the universe is, although apparent to the senses, an apparition, which is to say, insubstantial, which is to say, incomplete. If I, who appear to be here on Earth, am connected to the moons of Saturn, then I am also on the moons of Saturn as connection means contiguous surfaces and, of course, we’re not forgetting that your universe is a physical-only universe, so the contiguous surfaces that link me to the moons of Saturn are physical surfaces. This being the case, it follows that not all of my physical totality is here on Earth although, practically and conventionally speaking, we all of us act as if this is so. How is it that not all of me is here on Earth? This is the case because a portion of me is not specifiable as to location. Remember, this is not the same as saying a portion of me is not on Earth; no, it’s saying a portion of me cannot be tied to any specifiable location.

I say, “Logical impossibility is only absolute within a specified context.”

You say, “… I see a problem in this proposition. Namely, the underlying presupposition that (within certain contextual framing) it’s possible to do the impossible.”

I will now remind you of a distinction I made in an earlier post: “Let me make an important distinction: a) there are discoveries within a specified context that render prior statements of impossibility invalid within said context; b) there are discoveries within a higher context that have no impact upon prior statements of impossibility within the lesser context.”

Up to this point, you have held steadfast to a), which point I have always agreed with; b) is the point of interest to me here. Let me present another concrete example of b): consider the context labeled “ Earth consciousness.” On Earth, before the appearance of humans, presumably the practice of calculus was a cognitive impossibility on the part of the extant animal kingdom. With the advent of humanity, which embodied a quantum leap upward in animal cognitive capacity, the impossibility of the practice of calculus within the context of Earth consciousness dissolved into nothing.

When I write of transcendence to a higher context, I’m referring to quantum leaps upward to expanded realms wherein prior impossibilities dissolve. Therefore, from the viewpoint of a given, specified context, the rational determination of impossibility simultaneously marks the boundary of the context and foreshadows the dissolved impossibility of the higher context.

“… picture a circle of enclosed possibilities. Outside its perimeter lies the realm of the impossible. In order to reach the outer realm the perimeter must be breached and not merely expanded.”

The above statement accurately expresses part of what I’ve meant all along. In addition to this, I’m referring to the fact that the “impossibility” outside the perimeter has such status only from the viewpoint within the perimeter, and I’m also referring to the fact that the view of “impossibility” from within the perimeter tells those within the perimeter where that perimeter lies, and I’m also referring to the fact that when the quantum leap carries the adventurer beyond the perimeter, the adventurer watches the “impossibility” within the perimeter dissolve (imagine watching a chimpanzee, in whose position you had been, trying to read a book of calculus), and I’m also referring to the fact that from beyond the perimeter, we see a hierarchy of concentric, ascending contexts (ascending tiers of knowledge) which expand (presumably) forever.

“… possibilities, once misidentified as impossibilities, should stand as shining examples to those who’d too hastily declare an impossibility.”

Amen.

“... impossibilities are permanent limitations. The challenge lies not in their transcendence, but in their circumvention…”

To this I say, “Take the elevator up to the next floor.”

“… did you just say that we can access the inaccessible? If this “quantum leap” (door opener) you speak of is available to us, why should we characterize its usage as “transcendence”?

Its use is available to us once we transcend the contextual impossibility of the lower-tier knowledge. The difficulty in effecting the transcendence of a given context lies embedded within the fact that said context cannot directly tell us how to transcend itself. One might even define fear as the belief in ultimate impossibilities.

“But if one accesses the second-tier by virtue of opening the door from within the first tier…”

This is not the case. Remember, from the point of view of the first-tier, the door looks like an airtight bank vault that is permanently sealed, i.e. impossibility. Through the exercise of the quantum leap of imagination, which carries the thought-adventurer up to the second-tier, where a categorically expanded point of view is in effect, the bank vault transforms into an open door.