
The βworld,β as it were, as it βisβ (also, reduced, in addition) βfor us.β
How it comes to be as we are β briefly.Β Almost incalculably miniscule.Β Almost βhappenstance.β
βOurβ world, as it were: all we cannot know, that we are part in, of, with.
One wonders what βworldβ can possibly mean.
Every meaning apparently nothing outside of this microscopic sliver of kindβ¦ EVERYthing and more, βfor us.βΒ Some βinfinityβ or βvoid;β βabyssβ or βchaotic complexityβ β a reference to every-thing (or not) that so far surpasses us, outstrips us, beyonds us.Β Some so-calledβ¦βworld.β
One. Can.
One could turn toward all that, could βbe-itself,β bi-pedally, shrimpishly, speck-o-dust uprightedly, with/in βitββ¦and have a dwarfed, almost indiscernible βexperience.βΒ Or βoneβ (were such a thing possible) could de-cide, di-vide, con-sider (?) β place oneself βover againstβ or βin contrastβ (contra-di-stinction) to all that: otherness, βworld,β βuknown/unknowable,β βbeyond,β βout-side,β infiniteβ¦ and de-term-in.
Squash it down to βoneβs own scale, name it / call it / sign it, and βfitβ it in.Β i.e. cut it small enough to be comprehensible, digestible, sensible (according-to-oneβs-own) and pre-tend, fore-tell, image-in, sign-i-fy it ACCORDING TOβ¦ βone,β βus,β βmeβ (such as math, logic, language, communicable signs, etc β in-(ter)ventions on/of our own terms).
Human knowledge, inquiry, disciplines, creations, theories, etc. are EXACTLY (and perhaps ONLY, one surmises) THAT: at the scale of the human. βOneβ is prone to automatically grant every βotherβ (plant, material, organism, structure, system, etc) the βsameβ βworldβ β as Wittgenstein indicated: indecipherable, untranslatable or communicable between kinds, but most probable, no? β Umwelts β worlds upon worlds within worlds outside worldsβ¦ we (βonesβ) can have no share, understanding, con(with)cept, com(with)munication ofβ¦
To each its scale of experiencing, and all scales togetherβ¦
Given the human (so-self-called) scale, this seems pertinently and poignantly most evidentβ¦
β¦why would we chafe against our limitsβ¦ or (perhaps) every scale always is β no βoneβ could know thisβ¦ ones (and many ones) are only ones β more and less than their own possible perspectivesβ¦ in- and out-looks OF.Β Scale.Β (Perhaps).
Obviously, com(with)posing in your/our languageβ¦ whatever I dream is representative of my scaleβ¦ i.e. is only a capacity of βoneβ(kind) β¦ of many.
Pleasurably so⦠or why not?
Dreaming beyond scale (or, inventing scale and its beyond β in the de-term-in-ing) demonstrates itself as a capacityβ¦ (e.g. mythology, science, religion, fiction/fantasy, psycho-anything, spirituality, philosophy, history, and so forth) β¦ all imagined efforts beyond-scale, that, in occurring demonstrate the possibilities/limitations of human scaleβ¦
What βbeyondβ could βoneβ see, think, feel, etc., that is not a demonstration of limited and actual capacity of βone-scaleβ-to-experience?
So βoneβ has a-, con-, etc. scalesβ¦ all part of oneβs scale (abilities, capacities, possibilities, options, kind).Β Against, with, creative, reductive, but ALL and ANY activities of one kind (so-self-called βhumanβ) show its locked and limited capacity.Β One never goes beyond.
Fini.
To βwork limits,β and boundaries are clearly elements of our βlimitsβ and βboundariesβ of the scope and scale of the βhuman.β
βGods,β cosmologies, dreams, histories, theorizing, etc., all contained within the βboundsβ or capacities of the βkind-of-thing-βOneβ-is.Β Perhaps.
It is the βperhapsβ that haunts us.Β [but what could βhauntβ indicate but another human capacity β perhaps a βfelt capacityβ of bursting or extending our capacities?]
Witchcraft.Β Art.Β Technology.Β Religion.Β Theoretical and experimental anything.Β Logos.Β Arche.Β Tohu.Β Bohu.Β Beginning.Β Universe (must needs always shrink to oneβs own scaleβ¦ in order to uni-anythingβ¦ βmultiverseβ simple exponents of capacities for in our microscopic self-experienced sphereβ¦ we named βinfinityβ β is there no exponent we canβt add β within our tiny range of potential?).
Oneβs own anthropology.
Logically [though I excessively distrust that program of human-ing] β what con-cept, i-dea, imagine-ing, or object-ivity is not necessarily always paramatered by the human ex-periential capacities?
The bounds may be elastic or no β there would be no way for a kind to know β being all-ways the βoneβ experiencing.
IN-HERE-NT BOUNDS.