Who do I think I am talking to anyways? Do you ever get the feeling that there is much more to the universe than our physical realities? But, why? What makes you think that? Are you insane, crazy, ill, possessed, religious, philosophical, frightened, desperate, nuts, bonkers, wild, driven, gifted, depressed, dada, strange, born again, revitalized, touched, scared to death, amazed, confused! It doesn't change a thing if you are, or does it? Why so much change and where is it leading?
Why do we react the way we do? Or, maybe you don't react because you are already aware at a deep level that continuous change is inevitable. Call it creative destruction, industrial change, product cycles, globalization, the economy, creative design, Darwinism, survival of the fittest, new paradigms, or just evolution. We see change all around us. We are insubstantial and in a permanent state of flux. We are insignificant in the grand order of things and just plain puny. The only thing is, just about everything that matters suffers from the same condition of being continually changed.
We don't seem to be in control. Yet, we relate closely to much of what is around us and we form attachments and meaning. Some of us derive much more meaning than others. Some see meaning in things others just stare at in amazement and wonder. Some see meaning in things that are just as fleeting as the objects around us, but have no substance. Some see meaning from symbols, words, images, hieroglyphics, mathematics, abstractions, conceptual models, theories, axioms and derivations that completely leave others wondering what is going on.
It is a rare event in one's life to stare into the eyes of a wild animal who instinctively kills for a living. I stared into the eyes of a fox cub that was just a week or more old. It looked into my eyes and saw nothing threatening. I stood still and just watched it looking into my eyes. For a moment something may have happened between us. In a way, we were friends, if only for a short while. Our relationship was conditional. As long as I did not move, the cub would not move.
I do not know whether it sensed danger, or was just puzzled and instinctively knew how to react. In any event, the cub just relaxed and became what it already was, a newcomer to the world, a world in which it would be quickly transformed into an instinctive killing machine with human-like qualities. I wondered at that moment what would define its future. Its parents would ensure that it knew how to kill either in defense or in a proactive feeding effort.
Would this little creature become a killing machine that killed for the joy of killing itself? My feeling is that when desperate, the fox will change into a frenzied unreasoning animal that does what its oldest nature guides it to do, and that is to exercise force on its environment proactively.
Obviously, when you look into the eyes of a baby cub fox, you are changing its perception of the universe. It will remember the event though possibly not in a conscious way. As a temporary friend, you give the future of the fox an element of hope that it will evolve into something less than its basest form.
Hidden behind change is language. The extent to which language is developed predisposes the range of possibilities for change using the words that form the language of change. The extension of language is within the nature of change. In computer science, we use computer language to create objects, and the objects have much the same components as real living things. A programmer can create an object that will behave in certain ways and may even evolve. What can happen within a computer language is that a 'create' routine evolves from the nature of language itself. Language, and by that almost all language evolves to contain creation and destruction processes or words.
There is hidden within the nature of language a dimension that predisposes the language to evolve. This is not a process that one can define as Darwinian, but a possibility that emerges out of the very essense of language. Within language there is a hidden nature waiting to emerge and that hidden nature contains life and death for all any any forms that are part of the language. This is Wooh's second law, which states that 'within language is a predisposition to change and evolution whereby elements of the language are created and destroyed and eventually have the potential to create and destroy. Without these hidden dimensions, the language does not have the potential to be.'
What have I just said? I have said that being arises out of a language and as a language there is the potential for the creation and destruction of all elements of that language. This is very rough and ready I know!