All our ontological aspirations to reflexively self-validating linguistic closure are forever shrouded in the mist of uncertainty that language itself invokes. Having found a resting place as existential security blanket and nominal narrative of purpose and reality, you will likely move on again, after a time, to another semantic center of gravity – it is the essence of adaptive, creative intelligence to do so.
I’d say that we have all been seduced, not by the structure of any particular argument or taxonomy of being, but by the often unquestioned assumption that there is or could ever be just such a nodal anchor in all this stochastic complexity. Is the absence of anchor and referential or conceptual closure always a bad thing?
If we’re ever able to imagine that Universals and certainties (beyond the conspicuous absence of such things) might exist, we should surely have to turn our minds to the dynamical vortices as unbound symmetries of which these themselves are mere if ultimately unintelligible instances.
This is our enigma – to be bound by symbolic language and narrative cognition to the wheel of models, systems and an abstraction of the world which offers us closure but to never quite understand the effervescing absence of structure and form which, silent at the center, compels this whole in motion. There is a logical depth…