On Patterns -- How To Understand An Elementary Part of Reality
Updated: Apr 8
Through the Lens We Craft
Our vision of the world is built upon the patterns that we have either been taught to see in it or have learned to see on our own, whether or not those patterns actually exist beyond our perception. The more we sink ourselves into the depths of these mental frameworks, the harder it becomes to see the world independently of them.
There are no inherent patterns in the world beyond the mind. That is unless these patterns exist through the representative layer of reality. In other words, this world might as well be a representation of powerful forces. I am not talking necessarily about gods, which are needed to be determined, but also of large-scale corporations, capable of impacting the whole world.
Beyond these forces' presence there exists only temporary order that arises from a foundation of chaos and constant flux of energy. Outside accurate, predictable models of reality, AKA patterns, all we're left with is inaccurate, unpredictable and multi-dimensional chaos. Our very world, with its seemingly stable structures, is a product of this principle. This interplay between order and disorder shapes the ever-changing tapestry of present reality and of what it might become.
It is theorized that the patterns I talked about, indeed exist as representation of action, with human history being built up towards the accomplishment of a greater plan. To prove this theory we must research the human course of history, which appears to be spiral, not linear, and observe the similarities between different points of time, where the patterns occur.
Tying the connections between these patterns, and verifying them in the first place, can help us understand the bigger context/s of which we reside in. Such contexts, while absolutely global, can also be cosmological. However, understanding a cosmological context is far harder than studying worldly contexts, which is already hard for many human minds to do.
In the absence of proper research of the past, and its effects on the present and future, we can't accurately deduce whether such cosmic plans exist. After all, it requires much evidence to back up claims of either side. By the same logic, dismissing a theory as a conspiracy theory isn't the path of the rational thinker. It's the path of a person who thinks using the Strawman's fallacy is rational.
Examining Intersubjectivity and the Construction of Meaning
The world, as many people perceive it is a woven network from the threads of societal conventions and paradigms. That is also known as intersubjectivity, and most often than not, it pretends to be objectivity through fallacies such as ad-populum, appeal to authority and appeal to novelty.
What we see in the external world are not inherent patterns, but rather the illusionary frameworks we've been taught to navigate it. That is unless we'll be able to prove it otherwise, and patterns, as existing representatively, cannot occur without them representing an entity. The seemingly objective rules of driving, the meaning we assign to words, and the authority of social norms – these are not inherent features of an entity-less reality, but expressions of systems thought out by minds who got a grip on reality.
And by "grip on reality" I do not refer to their level of sanity, but rather their ability to maintain, alter and design reality. The patterns we recognize exist as evidence. Reality cannot be designed without a plan, and the very term itself, "logic", or "logos", also refers to "plan" in Greek etymology.
All forms of research derive from logic, hence why many fields of research contain the addition of "logy" in their terminology. When a field of research is proven wrong at its most basic, it becomes a psuedo-science, or a field of research researches something that doesn't really exist.
As such, logic, as a field of research, aims to observe and research patterns that exist, and not patterns whose connection has failed to prove itself. After all, the point of logic is to distinguish between truth and falsehood.
This fabricated reality of psuedoscience, where the connections between patterns have been proven as unrelated, explains why truly innovative ideas might initially be perceived as deviant or even delusional. However, as long as they not been proven as incorrect, they deserve to challenge the established conventions and paradigms that we mistake for the world itself.
How come? In the name of the truth, all percieved connections are to be challenged, or we might further fall into delusion of our own untested making.
Reality Beyond Societal Constructs
Unlearning deeply ingrained patterns is a monumental task. It's a task that becomes unnecessarily harder when we attach our hearts and minds to our disproved philosophies. We've been "programmed" for so long, our identities and sense of order intertwined with these societal constructs. This unnecessarily makes it harder for us to set ourselves free from the cage of intersubjective perception.
The very suggestion that our lifelong understanding might be false can be disorienting as well as uncanny. If the foundation of our perception crumbles, what does that say about who we are? But these prolong sense of uncanniness, although presenting the imperfection of science and philosophy, is a worthy sacrifice in the name of the truth.
This resistance is particularly strong in those who hold deeply ingrained beliefs, often religious. The very idea that the core tenets of their faith could be demonstrably untrue becomes an existential threat. Their entire framework for understanding the world would be shattered.
It's far easier, although intellectually dishonest, to cling to established beliefs and patterns, no matter how flawed, than to embrace the unsettling possibility of an entirely different reality.
