The source, the one life is no one being. It isn’t the property of some cranky old man off in space.
We only can see a certain segment of reality. I do not think even our most sophisticated equipment allows us to see all of reality. We are still kids playing with rocks and sticks. Reality itself allows us to see all of reality. It’s self-encoding, and not in the least encrypted, but while we insist on our current filters, we will continue to encrypt it for our self in even more complex forms.
I think some people have a gift for connecting a wide range of things in a non-obvious way, like thinking widely, instead of deeply. Ok, let’s go with that. Genetics and even the human neural net have proven to be very plastic, recombinatory, freely if not consciously shifting according to new information received, new material being available for assimilation. Wide re-combinatory thought is just that process on a psychological level.
Let’s look at atoms… Recent research has discovered that the entangled state persists over very great distances, so far tested at distances of over a kilometer, so even while that free ion is hitting your retina, it’s also still a part of the synaptic flow of someone else’s brain.
Would it be unfair to say that wide and plastic thinking (changeable, mutable) is nature’s own thinking?
Hence they can’t understand weather. It would be possible to understand weather, geophysical fluctuations, cosmic radiation cycles, all of it, if we got beyond the current human conceptual wall. Is this crazy to say?
I think it may require more processing power than we possess. Well, perhaps quantum computing will change that if those who are trying to engineer it don’t scrap it because it fails to meet their closed parameters of function.
The savants have breached this wall? Perhaps, Tesla may have, people like that. Tesla was not known for his rationality, but he had ability to model things he learned as well as things he imagined and observed, and didn’t let the popular paradigm stop him at all.
Doesn’t metaphysics try to see the big picture? It actually tries to understand the process of seeing the picture at all from the individuals point of view, weighing each concept and checking it for consistence in the context of other elements of experience.
Doesn’t some “clear” metaphysical view underlie all our experience, all our values, all our explorations? Giving meaning and direction? In theory it should, but today the metaphysics that seems to predominate is this paradigm they call the economy.
So unfortunately, I have gotten a little preachy. It’s my irrationality kicking in, maybe. Would you say that working toward a better and clearer metaphysics is without merit in today’s world?
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.