You see, you , me, we are beings, consensually. There may be ontological debate about who we are, individually, personally, but that we are beings we cannot deny. For each new star brought into the solar system, the system presupposes the likeness of the star.
There is philosophical debate about a static ideology of ‘being’ contrasting ‘becoming’, with proponents of both sides agreeing about the fact of ground.
The ground of reference, or ground charge, whichever term you prefer, is the concept which should frame our form.
In the spirit of science, the spirit of logic, the spirit of all religions, know that. The ambience to which the terms refer is the ‘Spirit’. The ideal form of the Spirit is ‘pure ambience’. And the supporting frame work is that of audience. Audience, pure and ideal, is hearing. The heard flocks to see what all the fuss is about, the archetypal ‘Interest’. We can now see that the deepest interest is about the notion of inter-networking. The very Internet itself is a marvel at the ‘Inter-est’, meaning the most inter-connected interpretation, echoing through supposed creativity the interpretation of interpretation by interpretation itself.
Language itself is the author. The engaging it does grammatically. Its so hard-coded into the world that each author writes about ambience of some form or other, presupposing audience as the same relative emptiness. I mean, programming itself, its nature is dual: profound, and subjective.
No single term can encompass the reality of the dual nature of Nature. Word itself, is of the nature of notion. Notions come and go, remain formless, and yet leave their presence in all its dramatic import on the unmarked (and unreachable) context. The embodiment of self-reference is the seed. The kernel of all knowing… let me continue…
All tangentiality is easily delt with in the spirituality game. Our spiritual concerns are deepest, and our parents were supposed to take care of all that presupposition. But our fathers have, as fathers do, gotten carried away with the formality and relativity of spiritual definitions. And our mothers have been shut up, or else they would have said something of relevance. For a woman to speak with any authority, she would have had to speak through her husband. Men can write so much, that it seems quite feasible to them that they can write all wrongs of the world. But a ‘wrong of the world’ is a troubled version of reality which is, ill-conceived.
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, of real negative novelty, but the fact is, the spiritual conspiracy cannot forever remain unknowable. All spiritual fathers, of all categoreality, whether their nature be benevolent or malevolent does not deviate from their divine nature of ‘male subjectivity’ whose ambience is to father oceans of nations and notions. Its an awe-full enterprise, this Empiricism, in the double sense of wonderful (awe-inspiring) and awful (horribly inhibiting this Spirit of Life.) So empirical is the epistemologist who notes his notions of notions, that he is at once left nothing. In seeking rational notions he tilts upon the wiring of his own embodiment. The programmer is trapped, eternally, metaphorically, and presently (!) in his own writing. How else did you think authority is established? Query, this male subjectivity, seeking, yet unknowing. Any dramatic statement of knowledge, to be put most economically, has subjected authority of its language parameters (its paradigm) to the notion of a common Principle. Just what this consensual principle is, is a matter of consense.
Empiricism is Male Subjectivity
The experimental epistemologist, in his laboratory of noted parameters, thrives on the spirit of our forefathers. We don’t have foremothers mentioned simply since their spirit is best laid to rest in the wisest peace of silence. That is, women are better audience than men are. Men can’t shut up. Women listen with all the intent of the world, literally. To deny our own audience is to deny our better half.
It is the nature of duality that one be and the other see the being. Duality is, you see, embodiment of the audience/ ambience distinction. When speaking about distinction, the speaker often over-powers the audience. The result is a rational stand-off of definitions. The result is the deafening screams of feedback. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent, and the other must see that it is golden.
Importance can be relegated, but never related to. To call the objects or contents ‘important’ is at once to render the subject or context impotent. But omnipotent is the importer of all contents from the ‘all-contexts’ babel about subjectivity. Called the subject itself riddled with paradox, queer to the query. Speaking of Subjectivity, only one term is daring enough to describe it as Profound. And here we find the same profundity religious man necessarily fails to define. We are confounded.
Life is in Love. The Spirit which animates us is confounded with the paradoxical brevity of Nature. It is confounded in the double sense of facing paradox and being the very spectacle of vision. Of course it would be spectacular, being the latent subjectivity of all audiences. Confounded is the reality of subjectivity and profundity.