Lectons in the Abyss

Lectons in the Abyss

We choose from a sea of things- and he question is if we can so choose and that this like any other system of axioms is independent and on what level it is so. But what of the abyss, the deeper babble of thought that does not mimic the connections we associate with the sounds of words? If we establish such atomic units devoid of higher meaning do we not hold in the highest esteem the idea of a bottomless pit? What then determines the grounding in the logic and the math of such arts of mind and matter save perhaps the existence of logic in itself quite beside what we may experience of it in thought and actuality?

Sometimes we need to get back to the roots of a more pure language and not make intellectual assumptions or false analogies or a bastardization rather than a hybrid of combined words and idioms. I recall a more pure English of its day and things that made more sense that did not dumb down the touch with the person as well as the lexicon of the meanings.

Do we only lose when we become objective and disembodies from our senses, our animal perception, our eyes grow weaker, our ears compensate growing larger, and despite what nerves vanish in our legs and arms they get the message- by today's reductionist view, mysteriously? Perhaps we gain a new depth and integration of our being over space and time, our animal soul evolves in general as well in the individual. There are setbacks, but then from some view even if we are not aware of the established soul there was no need for therapy of recovery- then again from this view what grounds such identity speaks of a solid identity- the question as always where is it in the design of this world? In that design we cannot be objective to make changes that do not perserve the person.

As in the Morse code for the numbers we have a cycle of things from one end to the other an exchange of the dits and dahs. Thus of so many we have the sum of two's in succession and in cycle. We have then a circle or mirror. So in a real sense what is the binary complement is also the rotation and these can be embedded in other lengths of two- or it can be a matter of indefinite translation. The deep question then, metaphysically, is what is the explanation where we combine the finite and the infinite (where they meet at initial conditions, origins) that the integral number of things is not the precise measure of that a little less or a little more. To limit ourselves for example to a twelve tone scale is not to say we do not grow beyond the tempered music but that we are making some statement about the world on some level. It is precisely here that we can choose from the lexicon of the congeries of particles to define and measure the extent and influence of the abyss- and then to map them to our bodies, minds, and music.