In meiner derzeitigen spekulativen Ontologie der Parallelität formuliere ich:
Die Suche und das Ziel/Gesuchte/etc. sind vermutlich nie das Selbe (eh nicht), aber auch nie das Gleiche oder in einem gemeinsamen Moment/Raum. Sie sind metaphorisch, oder ggf. auch irgendwie technisch-materiell, parallel.
Sie können aneinander anklingen und damit vielleicht indirekt verbunden sein bzw. sich (bzw. durch ein Subjekt, ein Bewusstsein, oder auch allgemeiner durch Objekte und anderes) wahrnehmen. Dadurch (kausal) oder dabei (nonkausal) aneinander orientieren etc.
Die Suche kann an ein Ziel anklingen oder nicht. Solange sie es tut, existiert die am Gesuchten orientierte Suche. Wenn nicht (mehr), dann nicht mehr. In dieser so interpretierten Form sind Suche und Gesuchtes ein paralleles Paar, das auf jeweils irgendeine Art und ggf. parallel mehrere Arten anklingt oder nicht.
With the „Red Pill“ (of for example what can be called ‚Reflection‘) into one’s fractal-subjective „Blue Pill“ and with the Blue Pill into the „next“ Red Pill.
Parallelism: We have no interpenetration, we have interpretation. It’s precious if you’re resounding with it — in one or more of your singular aspects that your consciousness is re-constructing as your subjectness, out of the singular things you perceive in some way before-conscious interpretation.
An individualist on the mountain said: There is plurality and there is binary structuration. Moments are precious because they don’t structurise, they are frighteningly unstructured.
An individual* said: I make my art in, towards, for and against existence, or I try to check and balance powers and energies.
The first is singulary and possibly meeting other singularities.
The second is (the and a) subjective perspective and stance
on combinations of subjective angles, situations and larger narrative constructions based on the meetings of singularities in the social realm.
The social realm as maybe an indirect level where takes ‚place‘: the non-wholly meeting of subjective consciousnesses in moments and situations. And the inter-subjectively (and multiphrenely) communicated non-basic (less basic than the singularity of compositions of individual things) narratives. Narratives are/as more or less ontologically deep and epistemologically: subjectively intensely received/more or less strongly resembling and resounding in the different subjects (summarised for example as ‚characters‘).
* An individual person who in this story is an individually composed subjective consciousness-in-moments and a pluralistic & non-wholly reconstruction of sequences of moments/narrative combination of different ‚past moments‘.
If you ‚really‘ (relative or absolute) want to know where hate and love live, and other phenomena of such kind,
look into yourself.
We maybe can have (emerging) existential moments in which we are different from what our role expectations prescribe us to do. Role expectations caused by the respective structural arrangements and the general social systemical functional logics – and maybe behind that the ‚fabric of the social space‘ [in reference to Brian Greene: Fabric of the Cosmos]. In a picture: Maybe we can add annotations/readers‘ comments to the pre-written pages of our lives.
But on the other hand the structuralist spoilsport can say: If „too many“ people have „too many“ existential moments of individuality (individually composed moments of slight ownness/originality, or only a little non-following of the systemical demands/functionally established patterns), then society/the respective social contexts will break down. So, in this perspective: Keep up following the script, don’t leave the role, do/perform the roles/work/character patterns which the structures have (structurally, structures aren’t a conscious actor) pre-chosen for you in life. Meaning: Your invidual composition and what the respective structural contexts you were socialised into made of your basic character potential pool.
This perspective on life may be a re-narration of the world as determinist without any meaning behind/beyond our (often superficial) communication or actions.
Existentially on the other hand: Whatever there is. We may forecast some pattern predicitions on the scale and level of technical developments. And we may know the human-historical repeating patterns of group behaviour. But the individual world, our individual interpretation of the structural and contentual things that are presented to us by the (natural and social-cultural) world that is ever-moving and yet often just repeating in variants. We can not predict what people we meet, what aspects of which different structures will influence our lives etc. And so we have the freedom of not knowing what the structurally pre-determined life will present to us. And if there are moments of positive surprise or honest communication (non-show and not one-sidedly role playing behaviour in communication) with another individual, we can enjoy that, to honour the moment.