Counters and the counted

When words, -- the coins, counters, playing pieces,  of rational, binary thought, -- cannot even countenance the constant change which is a salient feature of the world we participate in, words are assuming a kind of divinity to themselves. An idolatry, actually, since this change defies linguistic categorization, and yet, includes and carries along, all.

It is not hard to flick over this presumptuous king chess piece. The click it makes falling over is hardly even audible. What is the difference between king and pawn game pieces. How could there be any. Without the game piece in your eye, other vistas are possible.

Most people just do not know how to do it, nor how it might involve a consistent flicking. The game piece, barely even resembling anything it is the name of, does have this advantage -- it can bobble back up. 

Knocking it over again is no more difficult than it was the first time. You have to remember to do it. Thus the religious literature of this planet. 

What all wobbles

Words are wobbly. By that I mean, that they do not fit perfectly upon that to which they refer. Take any flower, just as a point in case  a point is needed. You cannot describe one flower in a meadowful, so as to lead another person TO THAT EXACT FLOWER, by means of your description. 

Words do not know this, because of course words don't know anything. They are part of people's thinking. People though rarely know this,-- that words wobble -- and I have to wonder if this is not a sign of their insecurity, their reluctance to face the limits of their own knowledge. And by people, I mean published, academic, philosopher, and everybody else. 

And why the defensive fencing off of part of reality as irrelevant? At least you might say, well the underlying reality, whatever that means, in the words of Prince Charles, you might say the underlying reality, the flower itself in all its glorious individuality, that does not wobble. 

At least the bloom does not wobble more than you could calculate from a mathematical analysis of the air currents surrounding it. 

You can say that, you can say anything. But you would be wrong if you think the underlying reality does not wobble. You would, let me rephrase this -- you would be wrong not to consider that the underlying reality, words and all they specify and all they cannot specify, all that can be apprehended, and all that maybe cannot even be apprehended, with any talents, -- ALL of that, may be wobbly. At least sometimes wobbly. Some philosophers knew this. Baruch Spinoza, Jan Cox.