The Subtle Systemic Character

Considering a diffuse field, as may be formed in considering the distance between a given actual mode and its apparent manifestation (a view within which the object of truth is not strictly its reality, or if so, not the character of experience and or articulate communication, vis. nomenclature or noumena) there are three constellations of thought which come to mind, bearing on the character of thought considered systemically:

1. Life as a graph, a case in which the reality of matter comes out of certain effocacy, e.g. "material statistics", while existence is a matter of the certain effocacy of concern for such reality, vis. "existential parsing". Although this is a view that is both cold and animalistic (and in a pejorative sense), considered as a system, life becomes metaphorical for a greater life, hence the mind may be freed from the restriction of viewing object-as-life, rather than object-as-symbol. This bears on the possibly correct assumption that mind is concerned primarily with essence or spirit and not matter.

2. Finite finitude, defined intuitively as a limit to uncertainty; e.g. apart from the assumption that a given quality is redundant in comparison to its object, finitude in fact implies a limit even to the finitude it describes. This might be correlated with the idea of "death dying", although not proportionately or cleanly. In the sense that "life lives" is a definition, there is the notion of life and death as seperate things which coexist in a mortal. Mathematically (speaking in a very foggy manner, since I really have no higher math training), finite finitude is a way of describing laws of limitation as a context for (what I want to call "meta") dynamics.

3. Systemic attributes, symbolic codification of trends or systems. The idea that a symbolic object is a perspective on an abstract or ideal theme; e.g. like a thought experiment, it has an archetypal bearing on the role of system to identity.

COUNTERVALENCES, The Ways Order Folds Away From Life

Considering deeply, in a mood I do not often cross, on the subject of paradox and the order of the world, I accomodated in my mind five ideas of the contradiction between seeking life and seeking form; each is an element in an implied hierarchy of the play between individual essence or character, and the changeable and perhaps less flexible necessity of basic manifestation.

Conceit of Standing: (vis. Singularity)
that to take a form is not always to hold a form, to accomplish a given thing is not always to be the greatest in this accomplishment, to be manifest without character or intent may be less than to be nearly manifest in intent and character

Conceit of Formation: (essence and intent)
conundrum that formative clay (as an emblem of a fundamental nature) is without inherent purpose or dynamic--ash-like, dust-like

Conceit of Reflection:
conundrum of seeing what sees oneself with oneself or seeing without being all

Conceit of Locus:
conundrum that the spiritual center is not always one's own center, perhaps

These four may be interpreted as mandate or legitimacy, life form, absoluteness, and pith or deferrence.

Without legitimacy life form, absoluteness, and pith become hollow or deferrant.

Without life, legitimacy absoluteness and pith may hold value, but are not central.

Without absoluteness, legitimacy is a charade, life form nominal, and pith unexceptional. Yet a simple absoluteness (considered in any manner) could not be achieved by a simple character, or a complex one for that matter which has not taken form, without becoming something else altogether. Could a complex person aspire to be a very evokative fixture in space? Dynamic change is obviously not a matter of simply turning on a lightbulb.

Without pith it is as though legitimacy, life form, and absoluteness are shrunken and floating in space, purpose always subsumed ridiculously in things with greater power.