Human Metamorphosis

I concentrated in insects recently and then realised of course that we humans metamorphose a fair bit as well.

The biggest changes occur early on then it seems to slow down. The first 3 pictures cover only a year of time the last three 50 or 60 years.

If they were all of the same person would they really be all of the same person? Look how different that person is at each stage.

Suppose I ought to have a picture of a dead body too… except just looking it is firstly more difficult to put up a picture of a dead person somehow than of a live person even though the live person is the only one who might care about being put on this blog… and also Googling “dead body” the first picture is of a dead Palestinian girl being used politically. This I think is wrong in the first place and secondly it shows that death intersects life at any point so it is not part of the metamorphosing process… so I leave death out.

So many questions are coming as I look at this simple presentation above. Is the first picture of a person? is perhaps the most interesting… no opinion…. fascinating.

Also think it fascinating that these pictures unlike any other pictures I have ever put on the blog require complete respect. There are 7 people in the pictures. I do not know who they are and I thank them for their images and hope they don’t mind.

There is a sense in which the insects I have pictured require great respect also, but there is no sense that they are looking out of the pictures, they are just extraordinary, beautiful and irreplaceable.

Life? It is right to question, it brings me closer, but I feel I will never understand.

p.s. should have put a picture of myself in the timeline now I think but it, will mess up the structure now. Also must get on the with the SRH which I can use to clear up a lot of questions if it works.

===

Its obvious why a picture of a dead person is so potent … it is because, as John Donne realised, isomorphically that is us! A dead body illicits more profundity from us than a living person because we see in their lack of soul the insecurity of our own soul within our body. It shakes us into mortality, and at the same time it shakes us in our belief that our body is the secure rock on which to base our Life. There are other concerns as well in the complex mix such as the issues surrounding their death; pity and empathy for a stranger and loss and grief for someone we knew. An odd one which David Baddiel raised in a column in Playboy is how to treat people we have had sex with who are dead. Do we remember them as sexual or not? Turning it around we would like to be remembered sexually so he decided it was the right thing to do so in return. Odd mix though, which sits awkwardly, the acceptance of attraction for the “physical body” alone (that which can be photographed), but the realisation that the physical body alone is not a person (I am not my picture) – isn’t this mess up the origin of so much of the sexual murder and stuff which makes it way into CSI etc. This is why pornography is frowned upon and why the media age is creating a population of people who can remain unmoved by physical violence. This is a door into the whole question of identity and mind/body which I really ought to have sorted out … I’ll leave it open.

“Isomorphically” was interesting also. Up until now I have spoken of dialectic and how “what is here” can be the same as “what is there”. Yet I have been pushing the boundaries of my own thought. For example I was trying to argue with someone ages ago that because other people feel suffering then our suffering and their suffering can’t be seen as different, ergo we shouldn’t be selfish. He didn’t accept the point arguing that my suffering and someone else’s are different and I don’t need to care about them. He is right in the sense that you can’t feel someone else’s pain. But instinctively we do empathise with that pain and feel their suffering… like seeing someone walk into something and we flinch also. It is instinctive. It is interesting then that what is happening is that, not in physical terms but in isomorphic terms, we are existing in parallel with someone else, and that parallelism actual exists in Reality! Yet there is no physical phenomenon or causation connecting the two. Materialists would say that light was entering the eye and we were interpreting the data and our flinch is just a reflex response to the light… except that it is not the light that makes us flinch but the information in the light and that has no causative power by itself at all. The parallelism has no material basis any more than Peano’s axioms actually are represented by Godel Numbers, but that very lack of connection is what allows them to be connected… it is exactly because they aren’t connected materially (that is by laws and derivation rules) that they are free to be isomorphic. Now that is the foundation of the SRH actually because it implies two different levels that can’t be connected [sad that Russell and Whitehead have been here before with the Theory of Types… what am I about to learn to destroy the SRH?]…. anyway hmmmm interesting…. ok there are problems in this blog need to think … off for a cycle.

===

On subject of whether 1st picture is a human I was thinking (while the laptop was being stolen) that the question might be should it even be in the metamorphosis panel?

If Death can strike at anytime and so enter the panel obliquely it makes Death effectively a meta phenomenon that cannot be understood within the conception of metamorphosis. Doesn't this also mean that Birth or Conception is a meta phenomenon! The Switch that sets the process going, i.e. the fertilisation shown in picture 1, is thus not a picture in the metamorphosis! This is a very good example of the SRH is action. The first picture should therefore be a "zygote" which is the human being in its 1st incarnation. A sperm and an egg require fertilisation which is a condition and outside the stream of human existence. Shall consider this point on holiday.