Sep 21, 2023
Sep 21, 2023
by R. D. Ashby
Identity defines what exists. Nothing can be said to exist that is not at least potentially identifiable in an absolute term. Although existence forms appear in passage through time, constantly changing at the level of their substance, to tend to confuse any assertion of their immutability as identity forms, they are yet at any stage of existence identified in absolute terms.
The state of flux of the substance of an identified existence form bespeaks a ceaseless motion of process. Process by definition is towards an end, which is thus affective in nature. For example, if I see the ingredients of a meal to be prepared on a table, any further action, of chopping, trimming, putting into a pan, switching on the stove, cooking, is in subject affection of a meal preparation, and is the affective process to that end. Likewise, a process in the substance of an existence form bespeaks the action of a motion of affection (implicitly subject) that is directed to an end.
The existence form as identified appears to be in a context above the ongoing process of its substance that sustains it as an identity form. However, the identity of an existence form is affectively realised as an object of contextual affection integral to a contextual process in which the identity form affects other identity forms in the contextual affection that formed them.
There appear to be contextually two distinct affective processes, one at the level of its substance and the other at the level of the existence form as an identity form. Of course, at the level of substance, say of an orange, it is still a case of existence forms as identity forms (molecules and cells) affectively interacting in a contextual process, such as on the level of the orange as an identity form is not evident; yet the very process of substance undermines the image of the identified orange, as it starts to discolour, to shrink, and to rot. At the level of the ripe orange as a sustained identity form the affective process that is invisibly ongoing in its substance is in fact of the same contextual affection as where the orange affects someone to identify it, to pick it up and commence to peel and eat it. Thus there is in existence terms one contextual process that is the outcome of contextual affection (implicitly subject) for an end determinative of all existence forms as affective identity forms in related affective processes.
As mentioned above, the ‘substance’ of an existence form, generally termed ‘matter’, is entirely composed of existence forms acting as mutually affecting identity forms of an affective contextual process; for example, an identified life form is composed of a substance of cells affecting each other in process as identity forms; cells, of a substance of molecules affecting each other in process as identity forms; and so on, right down to where the existence form removes into the so-called quantum level, where existence forms are yet identified as massless energy forms, as photons, quarks and mesons etc.; in a virtual bottomless descent to some fundamental as yet elusive identity form, affective by nature in the contextual affection that formed it, whose simplicity is belied further by its constituents. On this diminishing scale, one can deduce that the most fundamental affective existence form is pure identity paradoxically void of substance that would be further analysable .
The primal affective identity form without substance that comes into contextual existence as the first step of the process to an end must be of the nature of that end. Whatever is the next step in the process must be constituted of the primal identity form without substance; and so all existence forms as identity forms that arise in the affective process; which is what our analysis of substance had been deduced down to.
That the primal form of existence is deduced to be pure affective identity without substance, may seem exceptional, even surreal, but given that all existence forms are contextually defined as identity forms mutually affecting each other in the contextual affection that forms and sustains them, they have this feature in common with the primal form from which they are at source derived... to be continued
More by : R. D. Ashby