Typically, trying to define something can lead to endless philosophical speculation of ever increasing complexity with no guarantee that the speculation is approaching an accurate description of the thing that is supposedly defined. Bertrand Russell said (in one of his books) to the effect that the philosophy espoused in that particular book was not useful on a day to day level. That means, it does not work…and does not really describe reality…since reality also contains the day to day activities to which Russell admitted his work did not explain.

Any perceived object can contain an infinite amount of information..since it can be regarded from infinite perspectives and it could be regarded as containing an infinite number of parts…the nature of which could be endlessly described…and the different descriptions could be endlessly compared and argued over.

Anything can generate an endless stream of information which can appear as meaningless static or be shaped into an idea of an object or thing by an observer. Out of an infinite sea of information apparently finite things appear in the mind of the observer…walking on a path that has the infinite chaos of the unknown on one side and the apparent solidity of the known on the other.

Defining things in terms of other definitions is endlessly recursive and generates noise. The meaning or definition of something is always going to be a personal interpretation, open to dispute by observers seeking to promote their view of the definition. The definition of something is the thing itself, not a description of it.

Things exist within the perception of the observer. The substance of the perception is a combination of the observer and the object of thought. The connection is the knowing of something. The perception can generate infinite complexity if the nature of separation is considered and recursive processes entered into. Infinite simplicity…the identification of what exists…the knowing of all things…the integral connection between them…the maintainer of all systems…contains the possibility for apparent separation and consequent unknowns, but is of the nature of infinite knowing and connection. This is verifiable through analysis of what knowing is by any node or entity that can conceive of the question.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s