THE TOXIC TWIN OF RATIONALITY.
Thoughts and ideas today are no longer universal or organic as they used to be. They are neither “local” or “individual” as we desperately love to present them.
Any living thing, be it biological entities or mental ones, can only be “local” and “individual” when and only when they belong to their own universal-local ecosystem. Else, they are only aggregate of atomised and isolated things existing in a totality of higher level of entropy. Totality and universality are different, in the same way as individuality and atomicity.
The tribal here wouldn’t resonate with the local and the individual because tribes today are more creators at best of open mobile gethos and, at worse, of sedentary Echo Cambers. A tribe today is a mobile nomadic community of people who might spend most of their time together interacting either online around a product or a brand. The heavy monetisation of tribes into brands completely alienates their chance of being true local communities.
Not being excessively monetised is not a moral imperative of local communities but rather an expression of a society richness and abundance, which is not reduced to demonetisation exclusively through re-monetisation via the integration of charity as a business strategy of profit making.
If in a society charity were reported as losses to businesses and the moral gain for them wouldn’t be rechanneled back and ultimately re-monetised into a financial gain, we could say with absolute certainty that such society minimised considerable its excessive monetisation.
The monetisation of a society is not per se a bad thing, but when any of the charitable work any business contribute to in a society become directly or indirectly a way to further increase private profit, such society suffers from a toxic monetisation.
The marketplace of today is made of so many nano clusters of decision-making, brands’ mission statements and countless of almost self-aware smart-alec algorithms that to gear humans persistently on that side of efficiency is likely to make us end up with the brain of a robotic rat while happily assuming we have finally reached Transhumanism and the highest level of consciousness.
Who would have thought that life itself, in its very fabric at the level of neural networks created by computers would imitate “mentally” the high entropy that existed in the shapeless nebula before our solar system came to be?
Such entropy is like a metaphor of life’s own “dead” memory awakened as a dream at the heart of the living and in the spirit of humanity.
Thoughts and ideas today have acquired a tendency to be less individual and less universal, and yet, more atomistic and more totalitarian. Thoughts and ideas today are wrapped in “crab-shell-houses” hiding inside them their plankton, larval and almost bacterial like nature. This without digging yet into their “mental” inorganic nature.
Our unconscious is out of its Platonic cave and even more thoughts have come out of other caves, blinded and without the echolocation accuracy known to bats and dolphins.
They have brought with them their darkness to brighten our lights and that of others. Back in the caves there is light, out in the lights there is blindness.
This mirroring of less complex and higher entropy levels of organisation might be part of the very impasses that life tends to go from time to time. It might require our urgent attention if we and life itself still remain resilient and eager to evolve.
But we are playing here with words, aren’t we? Particularly me when referring to individuality, atomicity, universality and totality. Why the need to go so specific and simultaneously so abstract when clarifying something? Can’t most things even be seen with one eye or felt with one touch? Shouldn’t we cut off synonyms and metaphors and be more succinct?
When we use words and we want to express our individual view on a subject we could actually use the shortest path between starting with one word and ending with another. Like, for instance, in a haiku poem or in a math formula. We, however, like to indulge in delays, we like to stop time and we never get tired of hearing or reading many many words when the situation feels right.
Why our body and mind are not designed fully to take always the shortest path? The reduction of distance and of time seem not to be the only variables our body and mind take into account when it comes to efficiency. A body with a good rest, with a good bliss and with great joy is a body and a mind with efficiency and not precisely steroids-like efficiency.
How efficiency has come to be associated more with the succinctness of things, and yet when it comes to ecstasy and heightened states of bliss and love we want to take it slow and like forever?
Why don’t we give ourselves the attributes that we give to the products we sell through our brands. Attributes like, ready for production, ready for distribution and ready for consumption as part of businesses ultra smooth cycles which can’t afford contingencies nor delays?
We actually do, and in the process we identify so much with our “brands” that we rest on our laurels just focusing on our “career”, on our “business”, on our “passion” while our life becomes an entrapment like a dead star being swallowed by the spiral of its twin supernova.
But as you can see, I continue to use to too many metaphors when I can actually use some basic common terms and thoughts. Wouldn’t that make things easier and also better to understand?
Most certainly. Haiku is the essence of minimalistic writing. It writes so much in so little. That is how the motto, less is more is validated.
Yet, the appearance of wholeness via simplicity with minimalism can be deceiving. Minimalism is not like still nature and it is not like a blank canvas. Minimalism work by composition with the minimum amount of composites, but unlike still nature and a blank canvas it doesn’t integrate things, but rather isolate them, make them almost invisible and forces them quietly to move away from each other.
Minimalism is the opposite of clutter, be it the clutter of chaos or the clutter of order. However, today it has infiltrated our character and become a passive-aggressive reaction to too much clutter promoting more simplicity by atomisation and isolation than simplicity by richness and diversity.
Let’s do some demarcations. Our language can be simple, and yet rich, elaborate and diverse without being florid, flashy grandiloquent or worse, convoluted, obfuscated. and overdone.
You must be already full of suspicions and I wouldn’t blame you for it. The demarcations I have just highlighted above operate like the demarcations between twins meanings whose “DNA” is the same but their phenotypes make them radically different.
Hence, we might want to ask, is a language that is rich and elaborate, but that is not florid and convoluted, a simple or a complex language? The most appropriate answer, to be honest, would be: It depends on the simplicity of your learned patience to approach one simple word at a time.
Today things can be felt so simple not because they are simple per se but because they seem imbued with a natural disposition to deliver themselves to us in a minimalistic way on their foreground while coquettishly making their own background completely opaque to us.
Yet, as soon as we discover that the background was opaque to us, things again play a second coquettish trick on us. They deliver to us, in a minimalistic simple way, their background but this time while they make their own foreground completely opaque to us and we don’t even notice.
Thus, we have to stop expecting the simple minimalistic isolating trick that things play on us and start seeing both, the foreground and the background of things while we navigate their simplicity in an ocean of complexities.
Furthermore, what we might find in the background of things might still just be scratching the surface of their still resilient foreground.
Let’s put it this way. There are two parasites in what I say and one of them is not a parasite. One of them is its twin meaning, its benign twin meaning, while the other one is toxic and venomous. That is how today our languages operate. That is how our morals operate. That is how it adds value to us.
Let’s repeat the paragraph above.
Thoughts and ideas today are wrapped in “crab-shell-houses” hiding inside them their plankton, larval and almost bacterial like nature.
From now on you can imply that there are two types of thoughts and ideas using “crab-shell-houses”. One that is transparently telling us of using them as temporal shelter where previously was housed by a sea snail.
Another one that is telling us and have us convinced that there is not. “crab-shell-houses” and that they are actually a sea tortoise with their shell grown from birth.
Now you can see how I failed and just scratched the surface of what I wanted to say. The metaphor of the “crab-shell-houses” was not accurate. It really has to be a twin “crab-shell-house” in which the toxic one only vary in its phenotype.
But let’s put words in a kind of different interaction. For instance, let’s pick up the word “imperfection.” It is arbitrary, it could have been any other word.
If we associated the word imperfection more with being imperfect than with having imperfections, we would have to generate a few types of twins correlations depending on the attributes we adjudicate to the meaning of imperfection. Just keep this in mind, to be is not the same as to have.
If imperfect is what something is we either would be unable to quantify such imperfection since what is will never be what something has become, but what something is or, if we would be able to quantify it, we should be able to find the threshold at which the imperfect became so and the threshold at which it can cease to be so.
If imperfection were, however, what something has then it could decrease it, increase it or get rid of it without affecting in the slightest what it is. Yet, we know that the removal or addition of attributes could change what something is. These would be essential attributes.
Thus, only secondaries and relational attributes do not change what something is. Secondary here means, attributes which don’t determine what something is but that are not necessarily shared with other things. Relational here means, attributes which can be shared across many different things and are not necessarily specific to anything.
We would fail to understand how things work and what things are if we don’t have a clear distinction between the essential, the secondary and the relational attributes things have and share.
Imperfection is, no doubt, a relational attribute of things. For instance, two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen are the essential attributes of water. Being solid or vapor are its secondary attributes, while imperfection can be its relational attribute.
Perfect imperfection, as an oxymoron, can only be meaningful in degrees, degrees of perfection and degrees of imperfection. Imperfect perfection also abides the same rules of degrees.
Never let anyone deceive you. Anytime someone enchants you with words in seemingly illogical but attractive ways, which still feel somehow meaningful, is either because they are playing with oxymorons in a toxic or in a creative way. And in my experience most of the time people play with oxymoron, with the exception of poets, fiction writers and comedians, they do it in a toxic way.
Ultimately, we could shuffle around all these attributes without distinctions in a kind of poetic rapture. Still it would be a poetic of entropy and not a poetic of order unless we introduced some new extra relational attributes in the meaning of “without distinctions”, so that we give birth to order into them.
This is the operation I would like you to put attention to. The operation of appearing to collapse meaning while it is re-introduced back by addition or subtraction of relational attributes.
I would like you to put attention at how this is done in a twin operation of either manipulating others into toxic acceptance of illogical thinking in which your rational capacity is disarmed and surrendered to the admiration of woo-woo rhetoric or such operation truly opens other people’s minds up to the perception of new mental and concrete realities.
We ought to bear in mind one fundamental thing. I have arranged words here under certain rules of which many have been passed to me via culture and social conditioning. To claim they obey the dictum of reason in general would be ludicrous. To claim they obey a type of organisation of reason would be more accurate.
Anytime we explain our viewpoints we rarely do it with ontological commitment, in other words, we are not required to create first our own ecosystem of words and rules around which we house our viewpoints to delve into any particular topic.
Well, bear this in mind, every time we delve into any particular topic we actually do it by way of a half baked ontological commitment we usually label as our own biases. Hence, we see here again the twin nature of everything we do and think. Ontological commitment has a twin nature and we commonly call its toxic twin, biases.
Also, never forget that I am not at all immune to the very toxic sides of everything I have attributed here a twin nature.
We ought to stop our immense farce with words in our attempts to manufacture new value, new content or new vocabulary for ideas and thoughts which are just getting accessorized, dj’ed and recycled while presented as maverick.
When we will come to term with the true magic of language? Such magic is not that we can achieve the impossible, but that we can actually rearrange meaning and reality to say and to make us experience anything and everything we dream or desire rationally or irrationally, for evil or for goodness with not other purpose than the exaltation of life beyond entropy.
That is how such magic has also a twin side to it, a toxic magic. Why at the core of every new “gospel” of ideas instead of announcing through mission statements or manifestos how novel, revolutionary and different such ideas are, there is not a tacit Hippocratic Oath to recognise the twin nature of meanings, its Janus Face right at the start of any of our venture to change our world?
Let’s not stop playing games with meaning, but let’s first recognise the serious playfulness of it and then be transparent enough to play a game with high moral integrity.
If anything in language can be arbitrary expressed anything in language can be rationally validated. This doesn’t mean that it will be so, but if certain conditions are met, such conditions will be rational enough to prove so. And yet, the conditions to prove something rationally while it would be irrational to prove so shape the toxic twin of rationality.