|Ontology covers the principles of being. Take away all being, and there is still λόγος, the master principle, if you will, to which all being must adhere. Ontogenesis, the origin or creation of being, covers tales and theories on how being came into existence, and, touching the leap from non-existence to existence, they approximate λόγος. Myths anthropomorphize these basic principles of being, whether through interaction of gods or character portrayals, making it easier for a human audience to grasp them. Most contemporary science abhors anthropomorphism, arguably getting closer to the basic principles of being by formulating genesis in the language of physics and mathematics as in the Big Bang theory, where dynamic balance of energy is a key principle also illustrated by the yin-yang complementarity.|
|Patterns are all but non-evident in early genesis, if only because we are unaware of other than the basic principles guiding it, thus preventing us from interpreting it in any depth, and we call it chaos. The level of chaos gradually subside as we become able to interpret being, which means we become able to distinguish and compare patterns, which may or may not mean that being gets increasingly organized and subordinate principles evident. If our interpretational skills are dependent of actual structure of being, then being gravitate towards patterns we derive, like gas clouds whirling around their gravitational center and contracting into planets and stars. If interpretation is entirely imposed without support of structures in being, then we alone are responsible for banishing chaos. Which it is, or at what ratios they are applied, has been a core issue in all cognitive theories throughout time. At one extreme all input is real, thus far sharing the way of phenomenology, but inclined to eliminate the perspective-part to claim absolute truth, rather than restricted to the truth of the realization being one perspective and the claim yet another. At the other extreme there is no reality nor vats, only chains of ideas constituting experiences; the world perceived is created upon perception, the realization of which often leads to attitudes of careless abandon until acknowledged as an integral part of the identity that is the perceiver of ideas, continually taking shape through the very attitudes towards being, giving birth to the morality of what one would do to oneself, and emerging from that a reality is shaped.|
Relations connect phenomena. Indeed meditating on a phenomenon dissolves it into its interrelatedness with other phenomena, making it a pattern of parts, types and associations with co-occurring phenomena, all similarly dissolvable into their underlying patterns, solidifying yet again into a singularity when backing out or approaching from another angle. Viewing a phenomenon as a singularity is viewing an aspect of that phenomenon—never its entirety; to fully appreciate a phenomenon it is necessary to identify with it, and in so doing the phenomenon ceases to be a singularity, becoming instead a hub of entrypoints to the web of interrelatedness. Witness that a phenomenon cannot be included in its own definition because that would require it to be applied within itself in infinite recursive regression, thus failing to meet definiteness in the mind of the observer, and that the bounding phenomena of a context are those not included in it—those for which the context could be a partial definition. Teachings, on the other hand, give us exactly that; recusively defined relational scopes of species, enabling the observer to transcend the generic dimension of involved phenomena, to better identify with them.
If the web of phenomena in their dissolved state of relation patterns and the relations connecting them is seen as a labyrinth of hubs and corridors, it is necessary to see the corridors also as hubs in their own right to allow for access to bounding phenomena of a given relation and to phenomena associated either specifically with it or inherited from its generic bounding phenomena. Still in the labyrinth analog, a corridor from a hub leads either to a superordinate dimension of bounding phenomena, the subordinate dimension of contained or covered phenomena, or to the associative dimension of co-occurring phenomena; as each corridor is also a hub, these dimensions applies fractalically throughout the labyrinth, making the pattern of corridors forming a hub comparable with others with respect to dimensional configurations and connected hubs, though always becoming unique as the level of configurational exactness increases.
|Theories are patterns of patterns, constituting the dimension of abstraction as well as being individual principle-phenomena possibly involved in yet more abstract theories. The more abstract, the more complex for all that is spanned, while the theory-principles become increasingly simple to apply throughout the spanned complexity, thus approaching λόγος. Indeed, a principle-phenomenon can be perceived directly or intuitively, without ever dissolving it into its pattern-complexity, or as a precursor to doing so. Claims of confidence in purely intuited principles, however, are usually scorned by complexity-theoreticians, but whether accounted for or not, the virtue of a principle is its applicability, and the virtue of a theory its explanatory power; by these virtues the theory-aspects attain a measure of truth, but never more than that they have not yet been disproved through inherent incompatibility of subpatterns, and always with the reservation that the theory boundaries may need adjustments to survive despite incompatibilities in special contexts.|