comments 4
becoming / language / metaphysics / ontology




Transiency hurls itself everywhere into a deep state of being. And therefore all forms of this our world are not only to be used in a time-specific sense, but should be included into those phenomena of superior significance in which we partake, and of which we are a part.





Ideas arrest and extrude contents from a flux and thus illuminate forms from chaos. An inversion or involution, not the simple highlighting of a pattern or introducing a context — but rather through a constant, asymmetrical, positive communication with the flux, and so in a sense a commingling with the essence of form itself. Yet a bifurcation defers any discernment of the origin of ideas, they are not a memory


They do not come from you. (A code has an inventor, to be sure; but like a strand of DNA, these codes are always secondary, indirect, relative — a map with moving parts, not the tracing of a blueprint.) Codes ensure the maintenance of a form only to an approximate degree; in this sense they mimic the behavior of soap bubbles which appear spherical — the question is whether an ideal form exists, or whether we are interpreting patterns from the turbulent interaction of forces. 


Does matter dramatize ideas into reality, or do ideas awaken things into being? A code documents a becoming, hence it is not a relationship as such, though it may be connected or disjoined from other codes. What is coded does not necessarily resemble the code which is applied: in fact these cases constitute rather singular exceptions, which have formed the morphological substructure of the concept itself. 

A strange kind of concentration is required to distinguish abstract lines from concrete, a balance which thus glimpses the purity of the unformed. Ever more rigorously is the implicit demand of communicating multiplicity, which thus is identical to real thought in an essential sense. Both being and becoming, the void and the multiplicity, are required: their origin is an orbit: a sun of pure light and a decentered relative emptiness, always two foci about which the endlessly varying expressions of successive ideas sketch a slow ellipse. 


Two axes of pure thought are distinguished in the revolution of the concept: an involution by which the idea interrupts itself and places itself in question, and an evolution which now appears to follow, and now appears the lead these involutions. A turbulent geometry, at the very least: and so it would seem a sense for singularity, a kind of implicit differential topology is required to catch sight of this tightly controlled turbulence, this uncanny becoming — the essence of form.

The Author

mostly noise and glare


  1. Janet M. Pendergraft says

    “No idea signifies or manifests itself, but always points to something else”. Meister Eckhart

  2. Janet M. Pendergraft says

    Elaboration in last comment re: Meister Eckhart

    “No idea represents or signifies itself. It always points to something else, of which it is a symbol. And since man has no ideas, except those abstracted from external things through the sense, he cannot be blessed by an idea”. “The mind never rests but must go on expecting and preparing for what is yet known and what is still concealed.” Meiser Eckhart.

  3. Janet M. Pendergraft says

    A little knowledge in philosophy will lead one to atheism, but a further proceeding therein will lead one back to God. Francis Bacon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.