An enigmatic phenomenon lies in the intricate realm of adopting an overarching "postmodernist" perspective or subscribing to the idea that all competing notions possess equal legitimacy or arbitration potential. It often appears that this default stance is embraced most fervently by individuals who are resolutely disinclined to entertain concepts that might eclipse their viewpoints—whether viewed historically, empirically, culturally, ethically, or morally—favouring those that align with mathematical, scientific, or probabilistic certainties. This dissonance finds solace in Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance within political science. However, within the realm of theories that operate within the ethereal, why do particular theories take precedence over others? To attribute their success solely to efficacy would be a deliberate oversight.
In a hypothetical competition of ideas, those that endure across generations would likely emerge triumphant, unveiling a subtle semblance of pseudo-hierarchical structuring. This contrasts with the inclination to accommodate sensitivities, championing the notion that redefining reality is akin to inventive artistic endeavours. This perspective imagines reality's fabric morphing like a surrealist painting at a soiree, proposing that reconfiguring past and present is as simple as daubing a canvas with the eternal essence of creative innovation.
Astrophysics echoes a continual expansion of the universe, paralleled by the evolving tapestry of culture from inception to contemporary. Despite attempts to feign that bygone occurrences can be erased through manipulative rhetoric or doses of cognitive dissonance, the causal chain leading to the present remains undiminished by retrospective, elevated tinkering. The events' sequence endures, steadfast, unmoved by the grand manipulations of the process.
An inherent logical contradiction emerges: those endeavouring to efface history often summon it forth to serve their ends. Can such duality coexist? Plausibility is dubious. Two distinct events with equivalent temporal footing occupy dissimilar echelons of significance—what determines this? Subjectivity? Preference? Individual perception's subjective gravitas? The victors write the adage "history" resonates—what if the oppressed, the persecuted, the improbable victors etched the narrative?
Inevitably, a chorus of opposing thoughts surges when a solitary thread of reasoning is voiced—an internal dialectic. Is this the infernal work of literary form?
Echoing the words of HG Wells, "I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very centre of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history."
Given this acknowledgment, it is a compelling proposition that a moral imperative beckons one to delve into the why. Should they embrace the challenge, what revelations might await?
Should they find themselves entangled in the inquiry for a lifetime, what fruits could it bear?
In English literature, a concept known as the "present continuous" parallels the ethereal essence of the eternal.
Words. Information. Code.
They transcribe. They dictate. They inform. They precipitate change.
What realm could be more genuine than this?
