‘Analog‘

To all amateur epistemologists and metaphysicians: what is up with my posting of that word?

In this so-called digital age, this golden age of content, has anything changed?  Do we now need to walk into our gardens once a month and kick a big black rock with our bare feet just to prove that we are still here, or that the rock is still there, or that the argument is still worth risking a broken toe, or at the very least, to cause our busy neighbors to consider: that monkeys have hands should give us pause?  (Not that anyone’s answer but my own may matter.  (Not that anyone’s answer but your own may matter.  (Not that anyone’s answer may matter.  (Matter?))))

Matter!  What precedes that?  And from that’s antecedent, what leads us to proceed on the only imaginable course from past to present, to analogs and metaphors, concretions and abstractions, physics and metaphysics, poetry and art, good and evil, living and dying?  What Tower of Babel have we built, or thought to have built, that has fallen for want of more scaffolding than twenty-three pairs of chromosomes could erect?

Ontogeny recapitulates ontology.  That is the monocle we wear as we collect and connect pretty shells into necklaces which we then declare were designed by antecedents to metaphors of analogs, which we are several chromosomes shy of what is needed to unstring, which were perhaps indeed already strung, which may never be unstrung, which defy us, and which none the less elevate us and define our existence.

The antecedent of ‘it‘ is…

Oct. 19, 2011