previous | | 1.7.8 (71) | contents


fig.59—Ontepistelebioschatology for Escritoire Escheaters

 The fig.53 Columns modeled horizontal ins & outs by taxonomy; the fig.N Rows model our ’ologies as vertically subjected by time: alas, particular schemas are smashed to particles by participles, of perfect passive “having fallen, we were hurting” and future anterior “upon impact, we will have been falling.” As we scan fig.59, left to right, the equivocation captured by our “(captions)” grows into shrill polemic—why? “evidently” (Quine: by all consensus appearances) we are “always­-already” (Heidegger: as thrown temporal ekstases) trying to think from the middle towards both ends. To wit, Bohr 1933—“The existence of life must be considered as an elementary fact that can not be explained, but must be taken as a starting point in biology, in a similar way as the quantum of action, which appears as an irrational element from the point of view of classical mechanical physics, taken together with the existence of elementary particles, forms the foundation of atomic physics.”—whose cold water, it must be said, only levels to “what is up and what is down.” 

index | 1.7.9 (72) | | next


 —On the X, each discourse is predicated upon a set of elementary axioms, and every compass of knowledge circumscribes its own horizon. On the Y, Bohr opts out his own ontology one fold from the platitude of As Above So Below. We can either take “the existence of” per se, or we can consider “irrational element[s]” pro re. As Bohr’s progenitor, Pascal, put it—“one cannot define a word without beginning with the term is, be it expressly stated or merely understood. To define being, therefore, you have to say is, thus using the term to be defined in the definition.” We may be “suspended in language in such a way”, but we can still see what crystallizes from ‘disinterested’ solutions—or, we can opt to dissolve into a fideist aspic. If the topology of ontology cannot determinate a quo from ad quem, the phenomenology of topography keeps our feet pointed toward the ground, if not upon it. While they might not know the term brachiate, even Pascal’s poor children can tell monkey bars from a “horizontal ladder.” While we may commiserate with the  Committee’s consternation as they commutate per the Community’s constipation, we are not obliged to plumb their asinine line.

© 2008-2012 Ian C Thorne. all rights reserved. about credits privacy contact share