Congradulations James, you said HALF of what I said in my post, and dropped the ball on the rest.
Sua Sponte is the motto of the US Army Rangers, meaning ‘Of Their Own Accord’. It subsumes a conscious element breaking down subjective standings, and self determination to carry through against friction and the fog of war to arrive in a possition to overcome and asymetrically advance forward, resulting in a positively accepted scenerio.
Your varients upon the meaning of ‘why’ doesn’t begin to cover the why of a dumb grunt in the woodline, who doesnt much care about the purpose of what he’s observing… As hes calling in a napalm strike on it and such quizzical meanderings isn’t his strong suit, nor does he much care about the cause of this formation hes about to kill off, as the cause is about to go up into flames along with the purpose. These are philosophical issues for someone else to ponder. The why that brought him here, to this woodline, predicated with how and intent, and neither fully met in the middle… unless you consider the napalm strike the junction.
Now, the boy is quite intelligent, he can follow causality like anyone else, but its all in schemas handed down to him via SOPs and commands, with a million and one feedback loops via the chain of command. He folliws causality, being a excellent tracker and scout, and his views are more authoritive on the ground than the chain of commands.
There is a seregation of responsibilities, a splitting of the ego. Your two why’s exist in all probility within that range, likely on the backside of a feedback loop on the otherside of the radio where he can’t hear it, but can react to it.
In the end, he has the best and yet very limited understanding of the events going on around him. Others have better in particulars, but all focus of being is on that grunt out in the fields. There is a wide diaspora of why’s in effect, but only on reality to all the observers.
Its asumed we have that original cause, or not a original cause… Which either way confuses the fuck out of everyone. The solution is obvious, we’re projecting a element of our own mentality as part of our objective search. Its wrong to assume the problem is grammatical… As James blundered and Nietzsche would have us believe, or all visual and probibility. This isn’t a left brain vs right brain issue, but rather how our mucrotubing is set up by default to process information. Our neurological syntax pushes us, the economy of our body maintains us, the acceptance of the mind accepts this. We’ve built AIs that operate differently than us, some processing the last information seen first, and vice versa. We are a knotty bowl of noodles in processing some things one way, other things another, synchronizing hand eye movements with forsight, tactile sensation with the feeling of euphoria or music. Somethings come quicker than others. Physics the slowest. We idealize far too much, we assume because the culture underlining science or the forms of a sound, educated hypothosis will progressively lead us to the truth. It must be remembered the conditions this methodology to the methodology was enacted, and that the scope may not necessarily maintain itself as the psycholigical functions and puzzling paradoxes we apply increasingly tie us down to more productive and yet increasingly malfunctioning and incoherent assumptions. We’ve hit a point where we can’t reason most of what we assume what we know without advanced complicated and time assuming degrees and years of competent research in a field and then rrlated fields… We makes great and bold assumptiions… our scientific method… good at encouraging the development of technics and lingo, produces both… the first sells irself through stumping via the other, the other legitimizes itself through the sales of the first… but in the end we find ourselves having to explain the ego in the lingo, and we all too often fall well short, explaining our own ego and assumptions and our miracle ignorance that defied all odds and survived our PHD Thesis, and years of reasearch, in making monkey like explanations of the universe.
Science, and the philosophers dependent upon it, are not too different from that ranger acting of his own accord. Were quite ignorant, quick to acceptance with token symbolic skepticism. If we can coherently explain our blunders, and teach others to acceot it with Occam ease, then we feel to be wise, great theorists and searchers of the truth.
I am afraid its much, much, much more difficult than that. The fact we must refer to this tooic via a dead language shows its seated antiquity and how weak its original logic was. Why should this still be with us after all this time, after this manychanges to society, civilization, and concepts of physics? Why is it immune to this, but so much else is perishable? What is going on here situationally? Sua Sponte… We are of our own accords on this one. Because we are, it exists. We can measure the steps and sequence of the universe quite logically back to a hilarious, illogical beginnings. Its all a farce, they change their minds on it every other year. The most complex thing our physicists teach us now adays is the negation of things! Why learn about something tangible and testible when we can focus on dark matter, anti matter, and black holes? And as I noted before… The metrics are quite logical, were recording something replicable, and technics result, but this addiction science took into mysticism in trying to break out of its own rut is laughable. It underlines the inherent backwardness of our science, our mathematics conceptually and in generative formulations, and causes us to assert our own projections and psychological cunning as well as limiratiins to fill the cracks. Sua Sponte, we are the cause of the cause unto itself, unto others! It was always a reflection of ourselves.