Contemplating what is new.
Pondering that what is new concerns a manner of viewing things, and not something that arises as “something else”, “something different”: “something new”.
The idea that I am coming up with a new idea as a way of seeing. Rather than an actual production.
The production is in how one is coming upon things, The creation Itself, merely a particular￼￼￼￼ Association of various predisposition.
I suppose what I’m getting at is the removal of any notion that something is created in the usual, conventional sense. That creation itself is an explanatory notion, rather than a descriptive one￼.￼￼ Where the explanatory sense tells us about what is the case, the descriptive sense tells us how it is the case￼. Creation as an explanatory meaning, already assumes that something is the case inherent in creation, it is a view which stems from an assumption. Creation as a description looks at the thing for what it is without attaching why it might be the case. And I might add, the former is subjective, phenomenal, conventional; The latter is objective, realist, speculative.￼￼￼￼ The significant philosophical issue is how to bridge those two manners without resorting Or assuming￼ to either one￼ to be the route that is more true or contains more truth. ￼
By removing the assumption that goes into the definition of creation, to a notion of creation that becomes a grounding, rather than in upheaval, substance￼ as opposed to an ideal, thing￼s then just arise because that is what the universe does, That is what the universe is.
Very similar to some speculative realist philosophers which suggest that there is no order to the universe, that order is not something inherent to an objective universe, that what lay “behind it all” is utter chaos and nothingness. It is not that we have agency to create meaning out of meaninglessness, but rather that the meaning itself is “being created” by an imperative of the thing that is the mind.
It is possible that to argue in one sense that there is no mind attached to any sort of brain, as well as at the same time uphold that there is a mind that does not have to attach to a brain, as well at the same time that there is a brain that mind arises out of, and all sorts of permutations like that, without enacting a true contradiction, Yet even while en acting a real one ￼.Because the unfolding of being thus is occurring universally, under conditions that are developed as performativity. Less that there is an absolutely free agent which that’s gets to ponder things and create things and make meaning out of things, and more that there is an assumption which is denied in the creation for indeed an agent to create something out of material which arises “out of nothingness”. Interesting that the universe would have to arise as a “big bang”. ￼￼
We can look back to old testament, and even Greek, and other mythos of how the universe came to be.
In one thematic development, God is. And then from God being something occurs such that there is a disruption. Or usurpation, buy some other God which begins time, which lays down the law, which proclaims itself as the creator of the universe￼.￼￼. I’m not really familiar with other mythos besides the general European and Middle Eastern religions, but we see this in the idea of Kronos and Zeus. But as well How the new testament of the Judeo Christian is Islamic mythos arises just at the assertion of the creator-god. The idea in this last is that before the Creator God, the universe already existed, but the creator God is the one that came along and said, “I am the one who created the universe” so to speak. That some sort of agent came along and said “you better listen to me, or else”. And we find this imperative buried beneath subjectivity and evidenced in what subjectivity is. ￼￼