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!!??