10-09-2025, 08:43 AM
tbh i wont address 'chaos' as a thing itself because its bunk. but in the sense of 'emergence' which might appear, from simple to complex systems as within a spectrum of 'randomness' we have to look at bees and their beehives or ant colonies. when there are a lot of ants crawling a sandy place, they might appear as 'single' agents and acting randomly, but when we see the gradual process of how they self-assembly and act in coherence towards the construction of geometric and considerably sized colonies, we might think of it as creative 'emergence' where from something simple and 'stupid' something that is 'superior' to its parts as a sum has emerged. this is interpreted usually as spontaneous, random, or utterly dead and reliant on the materia that is present.
however, ants are coded. there is information transcribed that each ant inherently possess, which not only is responsive, but acts as stimulus that each ant produces and reacts to one another. in a sense, the same can be said that we do react and adjust to each other, or to various others, in a sort of chain reaction, and this is coded by information within, and not merely a mess of a cluster that by endless interactions form something greater as a system. that is to say theres intelligibility in things and intelligence in beings, regardless of how small or big.
things should be seen as from microcosm and macrocosm, simplicity and complexity, but not from chaos to order or vice-versa, and equally to what is similar in concept, i guess. used to think a lot about this when first read about heraclitus and parmenides. theres a duality between their philosophy, but its not antagonistic, and i think it can be considered as something that is to melt together and for that to make sense, we have to think of simplicity within complexity, or the microcosm within the macrocosm, for the microcosm changes, but the macrocosm does not, for one is incomplete, the other is complete. the self as it is clearly not borderless either, we are limited in a sense, and so is our experience, that of change, the changes of things that we measure and call time, is eternal or stationary for God.
![[Image: GA7t-WLi-WEAAWwqt.png]](https://i.ibb.co/nMntFTJZ/GA7t-WLi-WEAAWwqt.png)
![[Image: GA7t-T2t-WUAAxl-EN.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/990NqScV/GA7t-T2t-WUAAxl-EN.jpg)
however, ants are coded. there is information transcribed that each ant inherently possess, which not only is responsive, but acts as stimulus that each ant produces and reacts to one another. in a sense, the same can be said that we do react and adjust to each other, or to various others, in a sort of chain reaction, and this is coded by information within, and not merely a mess of a cluster that by endless interactions form something greater as a system. that is to say theres intelligibility in things and intelligence in beings, regardless of how small or big.
things should be seen as from microcosm and macrocosm, simplicity and complexity, but not from chaos to order or vice-versa, and equally to what is similar in concept, i guess. used to think a lot about this when first read about heraclitus and parmenides. theres a duality between their philosophy, but its not antagonistic, and i think it can be considered as something that is to melt together and for that to make sense, we have to think of simplicity within complexity, or the microcosm within the macrocosm, for the microcosm changes, but the macrocosm does not, for one is incomplete, the other is complete. the self as it is clearly not borderless either, we are limited in a sense, and so is our experience, that of change, the changes of things that we measure and call time, is eternal or stationary for God.
