IMPORTANT: Reality refuses expression because it is a relationship

How ever you try to totally express reality you end up with a contradiction.
This is most famously used by Godel to prove that a logical system of maths will provide statements which cannot be proven. He does this by encoding the maths with integer symbols which are also the "data" of the system.
This is the same problem I've had with AI. A computer system that is designed to process itself to give it some sort of "self awareness" ends up in meaningless data crunching.
More generally the problem is that any theorum which claims to explain "everything" must end up explaining itself. Thus any "creative" feature of the theorum which defines distinctions between elements must itself be a product of those distinctions.
There can only be one such root theorum which is also meaningless because it self evident and defines nothing. At college I used to joke that it the fundamental thoerum should be called Q. It had no meaning because all other meanings were to be definied in terms of it. It is obviously meaningless and useless.
It also doesn't explain everything because the very creation of an discrete object "Q" distinct from any other objects "O" or "P" is unexplained.
The world begins in objects whether they be mathematical entities or perceptual or thought entities. An explanation of the process of object creation is obviously beyond the realm of objects themselves.
The reduction of "brains" or "sensory systems" to objects is a further theorum awaiting contradictions. A brain is a "thing", yet the process of identifying "things" we are trying to explain in terms of brains.
The materialists escape because they think that "thinghood" is a fundamental property of matter. So it then falls to the physicists to examine "thinghood". Yet every theorum and system of equations is itself a system of things and so like Godel will result in logic which patentally can be shown to be incomplete and contradictary.
In the intuitive realm our lives are problematised by such contradictions. Especially the belief that we ourselves are a "thing". If I am a "thing" how is it that I am related to the other expernal things which are not myself. The body/mind dualism and the soul, the Liberal Capitalist requirement for a fudged concept of "property" as a glue to stick individuals to things, even life/death have the hollow sound of this problem which struck.
In 1994 in the toilet of a supermarket where I was working as I washed my hands it suddenly struck me that the sense of "reality" that I experienced and seemed to real to myself but not to others was due to my own "existence" as a thing distinct from them. Logically I realised last week this is a very flawed piece of thinking. Its not a new observation! What is the justification in such thinking for my founding belief that "I" am a "thing"? This is the ghost of Descartes still haunting. If "things" are a product of what I might call Mind after the Buddhists, then how can I base the mind upon a thing? The sense of reality is not the product of a "thing which thinks" but rather the other way around.
And now after a million years in the wilderness it starts to come together. Every "thing" which exists especially every thought, equation, parameter, entity is the product of something which cannot be thought.
To try to express this higher reality in thoughts, in "things", leads to the endless contradictions and incompleteness of thought.
Thought is fractured and forever broken upon the back of "reality" which resists its expression in thought because thought can never think itself. Thought is not reality!
"Thingism" - the belief that the world is composed primarity of distinct entities each with a potential name - and that the interactions of these "things" is what creates the world is a "thing" itself. Good for many purposes but not good for understanding totality - which is another thing ... or so it would seem at first look... if totality can be recoded as Q see above for the problem!
The process of "thingification" occurs due to distinctions made by the Mind. "thingification" is the same as "creating distinctions". Mind is not a thing, a place holder identical to God in His most abstract formulation.
Distinctions are created and are not fundamental to some material reality. Afterall "material reality" would then be a thing itself so cannot be a founding principle or belief at all!!!!
Distinctions are thus in the realm of Mind (not a thing, not even Q).
Distinctions is logically synonymous with the idea of relationship. Its a dialectic.
In a relationship we only talk about the notion of "distinction" and "thinghood" because the relationship brings entities together in such a way that they gain their thinghood and at the same time gain their distinctness from one another.
No relationship = no "thinghood" and no "distinction".
Things do not have thinghood outside of a relationship because without being related to something else how can they be distinct?
Thus a very fine balance needs to be used to see the creative nature of "relationship". Its too easy to fall into believing that a relationship lies between already existing "in themselves" objective material relaities. See above or the logical problem with codefying things within a theorem which is itself postulating a thing.
Its also too easy to view a relationship as a "thing". Its a relationship between things which gain their thinghood from the relationship. Its a exact co-dependency.
In the ordinary realm thinghood is a great issue. Phobics and Philiacs alike create distinctions between things and labour these distinctions until they seem really important. We can almost identify people by their choices of what to labour. This person really doesn't like spiders, this person likes them so much they keep them as a pet, and most people don't really even see them. Neither the phobic or philiac sees the process of thingification, the distinctions they chose to make, and the relationships none of which are actually materially real. To undo a phobia or philia we need only see that it is not "real" and unchangeable and train ourselves to find other relationships and ways of thingifying the world. Such beliefs as wealth, status, and self are dominating philias under whose influence we spend much of our lives.
Beyond "thinghood" is impossible. That would be to imagine a realm of non- thinghood which would be a thing itself by virtue of the distinction and relationship we are making between the things and the non-things. In this world we've got the essential contradiction which lies within, the fracture which shows us that it has ended. Its is interesting to me that this ties together the endevours of science, maths, logic and philosophy (whose things are concepts!!).
Meditation is the main tool for gaining a liberation from thinghood. Its not a moving beyond - there is no beyond - its not a gaining of new distinct state that is just another thing. Its "liberation"... to be explored. I need to embark upon a disciplined process of meditation now to go on.