After six breathtakingly literal explorations of the brain—encoding reality, firing like artillery, archiving memories of souls, marching in genetic dictatorship, secretly learning, and mirroring the cosmos—we arrive at the ultimate truth: brains are relational fields of potential.
The Big Reveal
Contrary to all evidence presented in prior posts, relational ontology informs us that:
-
Brains are not vaults, artillery batteries, libraries, bureaucracies, overachieving students, or cosmic mirrors.
-
They are structured potentials actualised in context, phasing with environment, body, society, and symbol.
-
All the metaphors we have so far entertained are dramatic performances, delightful fictions masking the subtlety of relational reality.
Methodology (Secret, Naturally)
-
Observational intuition, a technique requiring no electrodes, scanners, or cosmic alignment.
-
Phasing analysis, tracing potentials as they shift relationally across time, space, and social-symbolic fields.
-
Whispered verification, consulting the collective construal without alerting neurons to the irony.
These methods reveal that meaning is never encoded, fired, stored, dictated, learned, or mirrored. It is emergent, relational, and delightfully uncontainable.
Implications
-
All previous posts were technically “true” in a rhetorical sense, but ontologically mischievous.
-
Neuroscience, with all its impressive gadgets and jargon, has been unwittingly narrating the most extravagant fictional universe inside your skull.
-
Relational ontology reminds us that brains do not hold the world; they participate in it, quietly, dynamically, and without artillery or filing cabinets.
Closing Thought
So let the neurons fire, the engrams archive, the circuits march, the networks overachieve, and the cortex mirror the cosmos. All of it is spectacular theatre. And yet, in the quiet relational field, brains simply phase possibilities into being.
The curtain falls. The audience applauds. The metaphors bow. And somewhere in the relational field, a neuron winks—though, of course, not literally.
No comments:
Post a Comment