4/18/02
When we distinguish left from right, right from left, up from down, good from bd, we are really only identifying a single aspect of the reality in one moment. A moment is artificial, observed by us but not existing anywhere else but our mind. What we don’t realize is that up will become down, left right, and good will inevitably become bad.
In this way, nothing really is what it seems for what it seems is only an approximation of a continuous event encapsulated in a single moment.
The (rational) attempt to derive from reality it’s unchanging fundamentals: those unchanging fundamentals, however, are no less subject to change than all else. The fundamentals which ring so true reveal only our best approximations of a reality that is continuously changing. We mistake theories and beliefs prior to our own as incorrect due to the lack of a knowledge or procedure which we now know… this in itself is a fallacy of the rational, for inaccuracy arises not from the incorrectness of the theory, but because of the ever-changing nature of the reality we are describing. In the past, they were not wrong, but merely describing a reality different from our own… our current theories would not have, to them, accurately described their reality. Our approximation of reality is not applicable to theirs, just as a modern-day electrical calculator would have little bearing in a society without batteries. Would that calculator even work? Perhaps if the reality which we now approximate through electrodynamics was similar then our calculator would work. However, should that reality differ our calculator would not function. All aspects of reality are in a continual flow.
…
May 5, 2024: In this journal I wrote over 20 years ago, I was attempting to articulate the fluid nature of reality and the limitations of “our” perceptions. I was exploring how concepts like space and morality are intrinsically fluid and subjective, rather than fixed and objective. In my writing, I argued that our rational attempts to understand reality are flawed because they rely on static fundamentals that are themselves subject to change. I also suggested that what may have seemed incorrect in past theories or beliefs might have reflected a different reality, and not just a different understanding. Ultimately, I was emphasizing the continual flux of all aspects of reality and how our understanding of it may not be applicable to other contexts or time periods.
…