Digression Into Detail

I learned in youth about a "virtual" reality of nuclear units from reading various philosopher/ scientists. (Carl Popper comes to mind.) I gathered that the units are not things-in-themselves before observation/ measurement by humans. These youthful notions now blend into developing impressions about how the unified Aesthetic Continuum is constituted—whether labeled as "plasmatic," "ethereal" and/or "electromagnetic," etcetera—as a malleable medium within and around us.

It now seems probable that physicists could dissect this continuum forever into sub-atomic units reified by the very observational procedures employed. (Seek and ye shall find.) They might get tricked thereby into always naming newly subdivided units—ad infinitum—trying to keep track of a changeling magic that constantly congeals (from the fluid continuum) new "knots" comprising phenomena in flux. (Like some animation straight out of "Ghostbusters.")

Unifying principles are needed to cut off the (microscopic) proliferation at some point. These principles might be drawn less from further verbal/ mathematic abstractions—traditionally out of contextual focus—than suggestively from natural phenomena commonly perceivable in (macroscopic) chunks.

Macroscopic Maturity

Lee's Dome above Galena

(Riddle: just what is he up to now?)

Common clustering might well illuminate, illustratively, how mass and gravity seem to follow one another into phenomenal constructs: bigger and thicker things hard to move. Physicists typically overlook such lessons from common experience though; notably about neutralizing gravity:

Some rural populations have learned to raise-tables psychokinetically. (Neolithic civilizations may have massively mastered this trick of the mind in order to move around their monumental monoliths.) I practiced it some during youth myself. Personal sensations indicated that hair-raising magnetism is involved. This makes common sense considering how magnets do indeed disrupt normal patterns of mass and gravity (whatever they are).

* * *

December Critique: Carl Jung's symbolic archetypes now hook together from the subconscious into a bigger picture of the Cosmos than I ever dreamed up before (using boyish words as the main vehicle). Commonly spiritual rationality shines—vitally and naturally—throughout this expanding view: illuminating an archetypal Forest which overarches the "trees" amongst which we get lost. How? By trying to figure it all out in words and numbers (with self-proliferating detail). We the mythologically lost children of yore—beguiled by the muse of some pied piper. An enlightening "trickster" serpent?

(Befuddlement)