Wherefore "anteatereatsant"?
Wherefore "anteatereatsant"? For one, "anteatereatsant" refers to "form follows function." For two, its identity is a phenomenological process beyond identity. Hence, its expression as a singular unit "anteatereatsant" as opposed to the sentence "(an) anteater eats (an) ant."
Regarding the first point, "form follows function:" We can identify an "anteater" as a semantic unit referring to a "form," that of a particular species of animal. However, we can also view it as composed of two parts, that of "ant" and that of "eater." An "eater" is "one who eats." It is a nominal form, yet with a distinct verbal connotation. Specifically, what is the "function" of this "one who eats ants?" The eating of the ant. The form of the "anteater" follows its function: the eating of ants.
Taken as a unit, then, the actual process of an anteater eating an ant, as a singular manifestation of the exact process that expresses the inherent meaning of the form and function described in the animal's name itself, then arises as the expression "anteatereatsant." The insinuation is that all life exists as process of becoming, not as singular, permanent, nominalized entities.
How could an "anteater" exist in and of itself, devoid of its relational property viz. the "ant" and the eating thereof? Impossibility! Without the eating of the ant, there is no meaning whatsoever to the being of an "anteater!" The ontology necessitates its relational existence, and thus proves in itself that itself does not possess ontological validity! Said in other words, the very being of "being an anteater" points to the fact that an anteater cannot inherently or independently exist! The "anteater" is empty without eating the ants (both figuratively and literally)!
For what could it mean to be an "anteater" without dependency upon the process of the eating of the ants?! To explain it further, each and every phenomena is relational and processional in its actuality. As it is said, nothing exists in a vacuum. Unfortunately, our language rarely admits this. Thus, "anteatereatsant" is an expression of this alternative perspective. Another level of language and existence. ANTEATEREATSANT!!!
Regarding the first point, "form follows function:" We can identify an "anteater" as a semantic unit referring to a "form," that of a particular species of animal. However, we can also view it as composed of two parts, that of "ant" and that of "eater." An "eater" is "one who eats." It is a nominal form, yet with a distinct verbal connotation. Specifically, what is the "function" of this "one who eats ants?" The eating of the ant. The form of the "anteater" follows its function: the eating of ants.
Taken as a unit, then, the actual process of an anteater eating an ant, as a singular manifestation of the exact process that expresses the inherent meaning of the form and function described in the animal's name itself, then arises as the expression "anteatereatsant." The insinuation is that all life exists as process of becoming, not as singular, permanent, nominalized entities.
How could an "anteater" exist in and of itself, devoid of its relational property viz. the "ant" and the eating thereof? Impossibility! Without the eating of the ant, there is no meaning whatsoever to the being of an "anteater!" The ontology necessitates its relational existence, and thus proves in itself that itself does not possess ontological validity! Said in other words, the very being of "being an anteater" points to the fact that an anteater cannot inherently or independently exist! The "anteater" is empty without eating the ants (both figuratively and literally)!
For what could it mean to be an "anteater" without dependency upon the process of the eating of the ants?! To explain it further, each and every phenomena is relational and processional in its actuality. As it is said, nothing exists in a vacuum. Unfortunately, our language rarely admits this. Thus, "anteatereatsant" is an expression of this alternative perspective. Another level of language and existence. ANTEATEREATSANT!!!
Comments