Alright, so let’s just say descriptions are unavoidable struggles of life’s participation in the universe’s energy dispersion. That still doesn’t tell you anything about ultimate reality.

The significance of descriptions is that they establish a corresponding “physical” realm that can be measured once a standard measuring system is established/described.

The classical, is the good good because the gods approve it or do gods approve the good because the good is good?

We first establish an intelligible framework (eg the metric system) to reach a communal agreement of descriptions.

We can deviate from these descriptions by intellectual re-framing, although conceded that the re-framing is only intelligible if it follows a proper protocol of description.

Description is always relevant but only insofar that it’s framed as expected.

The expectation is part intelligible and part not. We don’t know what to expect, only how to describe it. The unknown, unpromised expectation is mystical and beyond logic. Our establishment of a descriptive framework re-asses chaos into consequence. But only to the point that the consequence reaffirms itself within the framework.

The prerequisite for a framework and correlative descriptions cannot be made fully intelligible. This is where the consequence, beyond description, takes precedence to what was described before and reframes the entire apparatus that hosts our descriptions so that, going forward, the descriptions abide by the consequence of the abyss. That were, for some reason, to be of more worth than our previously established expectations.

blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce