Manifesto of Singularity - Part 1
More excerpts
How far off is language from our nature. It is quite the tool that has always helped us navigate what we understand as nature, by allowing this understanding to be copied onto something or someone - a form of transmission. But it is never natural. Instead it is a binding, blinding system that when observed or questioned, questions us back because of its incapability to handle a singular state of being. Language requires duality for its survival, maintenance and sustenance. It in its evolution accommodates multipolarity now.A living being that was, just being itself among others like itself, finds one odd one out that is not moving, not sounding, not hunting and not eating, but just stationary. That state of being has an ominous, repulsive nature to it, the stillness, for that one being, that is completely not moving can be hurt and it still won’t move. It emits a smell that is not comforting. It creates emotional, bodily triggers that does not feel easy to manage. A complete contradiction to a living being that is being. To understand that state in comparison both had to be understood as separate. Like life and death. This has to be the beginning of duality as a pattern that needed to be eased into our pattern recognizing systems. Day and night or light and dark was far less scary so although in nature nothing is more obvious than those, all beings first become oblivious to those differing observed states.Language did its part. It empowered the non singular mode of perception and understanding. The lesser the sense of distinction from everything around oneself, lesser the need for language systems. But the presence and reliability placed on language now is so much that it builds itself to become the simulation we occasionally complain or fancy or get used to or effectively operate in or rebel against.Language has helped us understand terms such as reproduction, procreation, breeding, mating, off springs or if the point is to speak while intricately tied into the system and context we live in then terms like legacy, genetic information passing, recreating all the good parts of one through a child. But mosquitoes do it, whales do it, bacteria does it, plants do it. How it is observed and recorded seems like the only difference. We assume language has made it a thing that it is not. It is just the same.
Here is where I want to interject. By nature we are not creating another separate being, we are making the best repaired, younger and therefore freshly adaptable copies of ourselves that we can. Genetic information and inclinations are passed on almost the same way energy is always conserved and transmitted - both never entirely fully or super efficiently transmitted.So death - we do not exactly end unless we believe we are somehow so apart from everything and everyone else. That state of autonomous existence is simply a rarely questioned religious bigotry. It is not mysticism unless you fancy it. The loopholes of language itself speaks to it.My non state of being (linguistically) is understandable as death. But in choosing to reproduce; my non state of being never really happens. In not choosing to reproduce, my existence does not cease either. Because I am only a discrete unit in the environment and ecosystem by the authoritarian construct of language or convenient communication methodologies. My exploration using language and limbic logistics is in its exact form, not perfectly replicable. But that is just a limitation by order of nature.
I always wondered about sexual selection. Teachers and teachings speak of it as nature but it did not make sense as to why it is as imposing and primordially natural as the ‘force to be alive’ or ‘the force to not die’. The difference between those two being semantics - which as petty as it may sound - dictates the entire poetic existence of each being.My inquiry today gets me to be able to use this communication device to explain why I had the difficulty to understand sexual selection. I was looking at with in the lens of language again and if further pressed to explain I had not stripped the specific veil of understanding, I should have. Sexual selection cannot be understood in the semiotics, semantics or pragmatics that it is easily and accessibly studied in. You have to look at it with true understanding of singularity.Reproduction or procreation is not the process of creating an entirely new being. It is just an extension. A child or an offspring is an extension. It is from within the body. It is not separate by any means other than the use case of convenient understanding. Language demands that polarity because language is the one authoritarian concept that we are so dependent on survival. It is our responsibility to partake in its need to survive and provide. There is connectedness everywhere. But language enables an understanding of non connectedness because it made use of material comprehension. Materialism is convenience enabled by language or the need to communicate.
Here is another interesting way to look at it.
Time. Nothing is more singular than this concept. Time is not material. it is non existent. It is a device we need to understand our very being. It is an observed pattern. It repeats so it seems like the most clear and precise way to understand, measure and compute what we must.
Time is singular. There is no such thing as no time. There is no state where this specific thing ceases to exist. But we need constructs such as ‘I don’t have time’. We need constructs such as ‘Days and months and years are going fast’. We practice to offer believability to those contextual claims because it serves an immediate purpose. But what even is ‘no time’, what is ‘timeless’? What does those feel, seem, look, present itself as?
Answers are more questionable than questions. Answers ask for continuance….(to be continued)
Comments