What comes to me this morning is our human capacity to imagine {THE WORLD}. Namely, we are capable of wanting to map, to represent, orient ourselves, by means of an interpretation of {the wholeness of the whole}.
This may indeed be experienced in the primal human infantile perception of {wholeness}—our primary gestalt being the capacity to imagine {mother} or some field of awareness and perception that we identify as {origin}: Great Mother, Mother Nature, Natura, physis].
Given our phylogenetic ability to perceive and/or to imagine perceiving wholeness, the very idea of {origin}, it may be that we project the very idea of {world}.
This may indeed be experienced in the primal human infantile perception of {wholeness}—our primary gestalt being the capacity to imagine {mother} or some field of awareness and perception that we identify as {origin}: Great Mother, Mother Nature, Natura, physis].
Given our phylogenetic ability to perceive and/or to imagine perceiving wholeness, the very idea of {origin}, it may be that we project the very idea of {world}.
What we are capable of imagining, we are capable of naming as a reality and identifying with that imagined reality as perceived reality.
Imagining that we can percieve the wholeness-of-the whole leads us to worldviewing, worldmapping, as in mythology, religion, philosophy, science, the arts.
The perceptiveness of cells at various scales of organization (intra-cellular and extra-cellular societies of societies) renders various functions that do not (perhaps) at every scale include worldmapping. Yet, Whitehead emphasizes that prehension—feeling, and even deciding—does happen in actual occasions at all scales of magnitude in the macrouniverse, in all fundamental processes of reality.
Efforts at mapping elementary/fundamental process may include something of this imagining of {origin} projected as {world}—or of many cells and many worlds comprising one world. While these efforts disclose something of our distinctly human function, some of our errors may be assuming that the gestalts that we are born with are necessary and sufficient for comprehending the wholeness of the whole.
The Kleinian turn leads that very quest for the necessary-sufficient through the hole of the Kleinian surface into the Void. Our quest for worldviewing leads to a hole in (W)holeness (as Steve Rosen puts it), or an epistemological blind spot, similar to the optic blind spot. An epistemological blind spot is ever-present in all our cognition. That blind spot may actually be infinite blind spots. As we find ourselves together imagining our imagining—and the boundaries of the boundless that we humans experience as human experience—we can imagine Kleinian blind spots in all our perceivings, and indeed, in all prehendings at all scales of magnitude in all multiversal dimensions.
It is an error to imagine that the worldviewing process has no blind spots and can be made absolute and accurate in three-dimensional, linear projections. Such assumptions would be something of the Fallacies of a Perfect Dictionary, of Misplaced Concreteness, and of Simple Location, just to get started with Whitehead.
Imagining that we can percieve the wholeness-of-the whole leads us to worldviewing, worldmapping, as in mythology, religion, philosophy, science, the arts.
The perceptiveness of cells at various scales of organization (intra-cellular and extra-cellular societies of societies) renders various functions that do not (perhaps) at every scale include worldmapping. Yet, Whitehead emphasizes that prehension—feeling, and even deciding—does happen in actual occasions at all scales of magnitude in the macrouniverse, in all fundamental processes of reality.
Efforts at mapping elementary/fundamental process may include something of this imagining of {origin} projected as {world}—or of many cells and many worlds comprising one world. While these efforts disclose something of our distinctly human function, some of our errors may be assuming that the gestalts that we are born with are necessary and sufficient for comprehending the wholeness of the whole.
The Kleinian turn leads that very quest for the necessary-sufficient through the hole of the Kleinian surface into the Void. Our quest for worldviewing leads to a hole in (W)holeness (as Steve Rosen puts it), or an epistemological blind spot, similar to the optic blind spot. An epistemological blind spot is ever-present in all our cognition. That blind spot may actually be infinite blind spots. As we find ourselves together imagining our imagining—and the boundaries of the boundless that we humans experience as human experience—we can imagine Kleinian blind spots in all our perceivings, and indeed, in all prehendings at all scales of magnitude in all multiversal dimensions.
It is an error to imagine that the worldviewing process has no blind spots and can be made absolute and accurate in three-dimensional, linear projections. Such assumptions would be something of the Fallacies of a Perfect Dictionary, of Misplaced Concreteness, and of Simple Location, just to get started with Whitehead.
No comments:
Post a Comment