Skip to content

under the stand hypo stasis sub stance behind the visible

It feels like the terms we use for imagining how stuff IS, are based on concepts of ancient minds that asked questions of in-consequential nature? Perhaps epistemological nature when we try to get ontological?

How come these ideas come to mind.. Hummm.. Well:

* it began by checking substance. Sub and stance which has a reference to the Being of elements and imagining that being as stuff Under (sub) the Stance (that which stands/seen/appear). Yes, an interpretation, but I wonder how incorrect..
Specially when considering:
* It might be that Substance, with latin roots, is a later version of Hypostasis, a greek term that seemingly refers to the same sequence, of considering the Being of stuff, how X Is being. Again, we have an imagination of Hypo – under – and Stasis, a fixed and seen element.
Interesting? Perhaps not yet..
* Understand is literally Under + Stand. We confabulate that into “I know X” when X might be a meaning, a subject, a knowledge, an information, etc. However, it can also be taken, as a short hand for “I get the substance”. I “dig” it – what ever that It might be.

In all these examples, that seem to rely on ancient minds’ imaginations and subsequent conceptions, we have a duality between the stand/stance/stasis and its under causes. The cause that makes X be visible..
Ontology and pre-ontology?
Clusters and networks?
Signals and objects?

I do not know that am able to get past that at the moment.. Past that binary duality of misconception and subsequent conception. I want to type – of Life – but ofcourse it is Part of life, misconceptions and misconceptions LINKS to/with rest of signal switches?

Perhaps currently am content with the imagination of Switch – In, Operations, Out. Switch is a basic Rhythmic unit!!??

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply