|Ontology, infinity, probability, and
THE DREAM OF BEING
|The following excerpt from THE DREAM OF BEING: aphorisms, ideograms, and aislings, by Jack Haas, metaphorically describe the ontological aspect of limitless existence affording an opening for arbitrariness. This is poetic ontology, not soporific sophistry.|
Does not existence, by its very implausibility, provide evidence for the assumption of infinite possibility? Isn't it logical that if infinite possibility did not exist- if there were limitations confining what could 'be'- then mankind would not, because of our implausible absurdity, exist? If there were, in fact, such parameters on existence if what was possible also had to be probable wouldn't more feasible phenomena occur before, perhaps instead of, the precarious ambiguity we call mankind?
After all, infinity does not embody everything, just a lot of things- an unthinkable number of things. And mankind occurs because of this default of immensity; because perhaps everything else more probable, or necessary, has already occurred, and yet there is still room; infinity allows superfluity; which is to say, certain things 'are' that need not 'be', and our 'being' is this gratuitous throng;
Occurrence does not conclude likelihood, after all. We fail to question what occurs, because it occurs. But why confine infinity to plausibility? Nothing is less plausible than what 'is'. In fact, to not occur nothingness seems far more plausible than what 'is'; in fact, what occurs does so, not despite but, because it is implausible; occurrence is implausibility. For if phenomena were commonplace they would not be, because only nothingness is commonplace; thus being occurs because it is less plausible than nothingness. And it is only because of this- because this life is but a singular occurrence within the infinity of possible worlds which may or may not be, that we can say that this life is 'right', for there is room for everything both possible and impossible within infinity; everything is therefore allowable, and at the same time nothing is necessary.
Therefore, because such a senseless, expendable periphery- man- occurs, this proves infinity possible; absurdity is the inductive measure. That is: infinity is not proven with a great many things, merely one; merely a possibility so improbable that, to accommodate it, limitlessness must necessarily occur, somewhere.
|Jack Haas has been called "The Kerouac of the new millennium."(FW) He is a wilderness explorer, world traveller, and shares his time between British Columbia, Hawaii, Ireland, and India.
To see all books by Jack Haas, click here.
Other options at amazon.com