On Infinity and Perpetuation

Infinity

Infinity is not necessarily the perfect word to describe that which it refers to; after all, it is but a word and as such it is in itself finite. It can only be thought of via proxy, in purely hyperbolic terms. But still, we finite minds with our finite languages, both of which are vastly incapable of comprehending infinity, must make due with such inconsistencies and impart some referential conceptualizations to the vast unknown in order to acknowledge its existence.

Infinity, thus, can best be described within the confines of language as that which contrasts to everything that is finite. It is the abysmal expanse of time and space that is unquantifiable. It marches in dimensions and, possibly, universes apart from those which we have grown accustomed to. To truly understand infinity with such departures from the finite frameworks we have so feebly constructed, we must evaluate finiteness itself.

Finiteness is, bluntly put, a delusion. It is a product of conscious entities (of whom are in themselves perceptively finite) that have been evolutionarily manufactured to quantify surrounding infinity. To properly conceive of this, one might think of an apple. If one were to cut the apple in half, it would cease being a whole finite apple and transform into two finite half-apples. One could thereafter cut these halves into subsequent fourths and those fourths into subsequent eighths, ad infinitum. Such a continuum of transformations are purely renditions of the mind. Every finite conception of a fraction dissolves into infinite regress; into fractals.

So in this manner, everything can either be broken down into infinity, or compiled together into infinity, making any and all finite concepts, values, and demarcations solely contingent upon the contexts (i.e., the subjective, mental templates we frame the world within) from which they derive. As a result, since we are finite image-concepts in the same way that staplers are, we too are provisional and defined by the socially constructed contexts we exist in.

Being fully animate objects, we harbor one thing inanimate objects lack: consciousness. Even so, we are profoundly limited in our degree of consciousness, much in the same way angles are limited in their degrees. Some angles are more obtuse or more acute than others; some consciousnesses are more aware and project a wider scope of cognizance than others. Like the vertex of an angle, a consciousness acts as point in time and space. Such perspectives are characterized by, not only the limitations of its encompassing perceptive abilities, but also the limitations of the very locality in space-time from which its awareness emanates.

Thus, we can imagine ourselves as tiny angular entities moving about within our contextual social and physical dimensions. Such dimensions are just stratas of perception, acting as another limitation of our awareness. Since other cognitive creatures such as alligators and ants work in much more acute levels of interaction, they are less conscious than us. This lower level of consciousness can be differentiated as a separate magnitude of sentience.

So our finiteness is defined by our very juxtaposition to infinity itself. But since infinity is a value that is unknowable (∞), and since the finite (x) is a reciprocal of infinity, the finite's ontology, and its very condition of finiteness can never be properly established as so long as infinity remains infinite (x/∞ is an unsolvable equation.). Since cavemen who would collapse into infinite regressive tangents were not particularly conducive to evolution, we evolved an extraordinary talent for adhering to self-induced delusions, to suspend ourselves in a finite and, more importantly, a pliable world. God is a perfect example of this. Given that it is much easier to delineate a value for a finite object if it reciprocates a known value, i.e., a context, then God is a convenient way of condensing infinity into finiteness, simply making it into the context to end all contexts.

As a comparative allegory, one might imagine a man sitting atop a hill, in front of and facing a tree. Being a finite object and utterly insulated by his own perspective, the man is limited in how much of the tree he is able to observe. Located on one side of it, he would never be able to witness the opposite angle of the tree unless he were to abandon his current post and, resultantly, his current point-of-view. Not only that, but as he gazes about he notices that every single finite object that surrounds him, including the tree, in some obscures his vision. Were it that he were blessed with even the slightest magnitude of omniscience, he would be able to perceive through the sediments and layers of obscuring finite objects, into the void of infinity. But since he withholds no such powers, he simply resorts to living in a world that is staged by obfuscating finite objects, regressing into the idiomatic contexts that accompany such an inundated world.

Perpetuation

Because evolution was, for all intensive purposes, the first proprietor of teleology, it is imperative to understand its overall goals. As cellular bodies coagulated into larger and more complex organisms, autonomy so too grew in magnitude (after all, a single-celled amoeba is autonomous in as much as a kangaroo is, even though some of the cells that comprise a kangaroo may be larger than the amoeba). This autonomy is characterized by a simple clustering of self-proliferating DNA; a primordial, finite unit of 'self', if you will. It is evolution's intent to breed successful species of reproducing, finite, autonomous organisms. This is perpetuation.

Perpetuation is probably the most basic and foundational instincts in evolution's instinctual repertoire. It pervades all living creatures and is paramount to the existence of all subsequent generations reproduced in any given species. Perpetuation underpins every animal's psyche, every plant's cellular structure, and every bacteria's DNA. In truth, it is the reflection of Nietzsche's will to power when applied to living organisms (while the will to power itself encompasses all of finite existence itself, inanimate objects and animate objects included).

Being such a fundamental functionality of evolution, pretty much all creatures can owe whatever psychological predispositions they possess to the perpetual affirmation. As a result, it is not only the drive to procreate and self-perpetuate one's genes, but also the drive to perpetuate that which is conducive to such self-perpetuation. This includes whatever social structures, however complex, certain species formulate (this, of course, includes us) and the development of various behaviors and tendencies (some of which solidify into instincts unto themselves). In the same way that fishes can, and have in the past, spawn legs to adapt to a terrestrial environment, so too can an animal's mind spawn new cognitive processes to adapt to unfamiliar environments.

The way in which this applies to the human species is particularly complex. While simpler, more finite, less conscious creatures are fairly direct in their manifestation of perpetuation (i.e., simple procreation), we perpetuate extremely abstract and subjective concepts as well as objects as well as ourselves/genes.

One might imagine a caveman who is maniacally searching for firewood to fuel a campfire. For him, his very survival (and, thus, his potential to self-perpetuation) is contingent upon the perpetuation of the fire; as soon as the fire goes out, a pack of hungry wolves will converge upon him from the darkness. In this way, the caveman becomes obsessed with fueling/perpetuating the flames.

----------------
Now playing: The Melvins - The Talking Horse
via FoxyTunes