(the obvious)
"An unapparent connexion is stronger than an apparent one." So Heraclitus bids us to seek the hidden explanation. What is obvious is not the case claims the Ephesian (482 B.C.). And whom are we to believe? This hermit from the hills of Ephesus who one day arrived in the city square and after making false claims that he could end the drought buried himself in a manure pile where he died at 60. Or the texture of reality, estimated by the senses? Merely because our awareness is an estimation, we should not deny the importance of our perceptions for interpreting events. Heraclitus is correct, we must continue to search the underbelly of circumstance, only by ceaseless examination and experimentation will we keep pace with the true meaning.
It is tempting here to dig into the nature of the claim that history was invented, that the events of the past dating back to myth did not transpire as recorded. Using for example a black box logic that invents the world rather than explaining it. This is beneficial for artificial intelligence, a brain operating on a manufactured syntax of programmed and translated commands. Our intelligence is beheld in light. Yet despite histories flexibility, it does exist as a significant force upon the associations of the present. Beneath Plato's shadow there are paintings on the walls of the cave.
And so we explore disassociation. By dissecting the subject we break it into it's component parts. Individually we explore their functions as regards the whole. This reductionist approach unfortunately leaves fragments which will not continue to function as they did before the schism. In order to explore a subject without affecting its meaning we must not interfere with it. It is difficult to examine the working of the @, we must reflect it upon itself. This has a similar effect to looking at yourself in the bathroom mirror.
Limited infinity is a paradox. There is a burgeoning scientific discipline that attempts to use mathematical expressions to describe the most unpredictable paradox, nature. Chaos theory prescribes an inherent order to even the most non-sequitur events. Order within chaos, another paradox. Consider, for example, the length of a coastline. Measured in miles it's length will be an approximation that falls far short of the length you would find if you tediously measured it with a yardstick. Furthermore if each rock was measured centimeter by centimeter, the length of the coast would increase exponentially. As the units with which you measure decrease, detail increases, eventually the coast will be of infinite length. Chaoticians have developed the term fractal, to describe the fractions between dimensions. A sponge for instance has volume. However, it is not entirely three dimensional. The surface of the sponge is covered with pores. In turn each of these pores consists of more smaller pores, and so on. Thus a mathematical representation of a sponge is a model that takes up space, and has no volume. It is of a dimension between two and three.
The resolution of paradox has long been a topic of interests to theorists of all kinds. When Pandecli gave the order for his mercenary troops to attack the royal house of Elea in 470 B.C., Zeno was captured. Pandecli had been plotting to bar him from public debate. Even under the duress of torture Zeno refused to give any details regarding coup to overthrow the newly established Tyrant. The coup was a success and after several months in prison Zeno was released. It has been dubiously claimed that to pass time in the dungeons of Elea, Zeno occupied his mind with puzzles, and developed some of his own. Zeno presents us with the runners paradox.
A runner approaching a goal must continuously decrease his distance by one half. If this is the
case, he will never be able to reach his goal because any distance, no matter how short is
divisible. The argument is that it is impossible to reach an infinite amount of points in a finite
amount of time, thus the runner never reaches the other side of the stadium.
Clearly, the runner does reach the finish line. This is because the rate at which he runs is equal to a
specific distance over a specific time. This is speed, and is witnessed with our senses. Our
senses perceive SR like a movie, quite literally, moment by moment they come so fast we seldom
notice that they are actually a series of individual perceptions.
It is quite easy to create a paradox, given the impracticality of expressing the unlimited logos within
the confines of language. We are forced to consider frames of reference, and the point of view of
the Other. Failure to do so results in a contradiction like the moving rows.
When rate is
considered as a function dependent upon distance over time, this illustration is not a paradox.
Why ABC? because...(argumentation), so also XYZ. This is the structure of hermetic science used to defend and entrench the ideas with which you begin. Familiarity with the terms of a discipline facilitate a grasp of it's jargon. Confidently speaking the jargon of a specialized field is the primary requirement for expertise. In fact biologists and lockpickers believe they have insight because of the confidence they have in material (material gradually fabricated throughout the evolution of the field) studied and rehearsed, however contrived. Once when describing the mechanism of a latch to a layman, the lockpicker forgot which words applied to which specific parts of the lock. This ignorance on the part of the expert did not manifest in the SR of the layman because the lockpicker knew the other had no familiarity with the locks details, thus he was able to use incorrect, while technical sounding terms to explain his "science".
Fiction, philosophy, science, history, etc. all began together. First there was a word, the second word served as an addendum to the first, it was almost criticism. As the language evolved so did the culture. It seems plain that the first criticism of philosophy went thus "You are stating the obvious". The first speaker created the first word to refer to something outside of the self (not me, yoU). Perhaps this initial speaking took place in the ancient city of Ur. Consider U-R, the first letter is first-
1. U
(perhaps -you, the first word)
2. R
(are, )
And Ur was a state,
3. State
(stating the obvious.)
So it is with jargon and even the most complex technicality, contrived methods of expressing what is by nature apparent. We must not be distracted by unfamiliar terms, meaning is. It is that simple.
Yet the obvious is not entirely clear. For this reason all philosophy is inherently futile, because what is absolutely obvious is not expressible in the confines of language, it is the living sensation, the truth of understanding, that of creating, or to develop further, of creating an association. We are the categorizers. "Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its' name." (Genesis 2:19).