Said one mirror to another…

The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes: the edifice of logic and rationality occupies a necessary place upon (and from) which to build our world but as an essential efflorescence of (or from) an emergent algorithmic complexity of information or energy as intelligence or the hyper-extended cognition of technology and collective human presence, it is at an axiomatic and foundational level unable to loop back upon (or through) itself and magically bootstrap its own explanation into the kind of structured order that such rationality conditionally requires to obtain (or attain) closure. The power of the machine, of Boolean order and an associated sequential, iterating process of logic and structured abstraction depends in fundamental ways on a single-threaded narrative focus in (and through) which intelligence reflexively identifies, maintains and validates itself. From within the richly-structured logical momentum and semantic abstraction of representation, of a second-order mapping and a taxonomy or topology of grammatical and cognitive ontological resonance – we are ineliminably bound to the method and grammar of our aspirations with no hope of obtaining an escape velocity into that metaphysical sky from which to retrospect and disentangle our own elemental limitation.

Some things are best left indistinct. It is of their nature to be incoherent and inaccessible in the logic and grammar our common tongue(s) other than through metaphor and ambiguity. The discontinuity of incoherence and uncertainty also represents an opportunity for creative imagination. It is particularly difficult to discern the point when there fundamentally is none.

Rationality is (a) key, but it can not explain (or unlock) itself. So, let’s go back to the coloured building blocks and well-worn crayons of faltering intelligibility we know of as “our world” and embrace our glorious ignorance because it is all we have and all we are. As one mirror said to another:

One thought on “Said one mirror to another…

  1. At least our ignorance is somewhat reflexive, in that we can loop back and chip away at it, creating a knowledge of what we know and what we don’t know (at the very least, what we don’t know, if we can be honest with ourselves). Maybe the difference between rationality and ignorance, for us, is that we are innately ignorant, but not rational (what with our amygdala, hypothalamus, hippocampus, etc). Rationality would be more like an end-state or goal for some of us. Maybe that’s why we can’t loop back on our rationality, probe it, bootstrap it, and/or improve it. Ever since my mother developed Alzheimer’s and, slowly but ineluctably, lost not only her memory but also her ability to process sensory inputs and her mental phenomena rationally, I’ve wondered, if I had developed Alzheimer’s myself, whether I would be able to know whether I was thinking or acting rationally or not and would I be able to bootstrap rationality if I determined that I was not being rational. In other words, if I were driving down a freeway and everyone else was driving up my lanes in the opposite direction, could I conclude that I was driving the wrong way? If so, how (formally) could I tell?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s