Originally posted by JS357
Image of the always implicate
from which, in which, and of which
all is—and so we are.
The explicate is the already-manifest: the already-engendered figure/form/existent. The Gestalt may be fully manifest; but, epistemically at least, it seems that there is always still an implicate ground—as expressed in the four-fold Buddhist formula:
Form is emptiness,
and emptiness is form;
form is also form,
and emptiness, emptiness—
This might also be valid ontologically (even if the implicate ground is always fully manifest in engendered phenomena)—especially in a process ontology
, in which the ex-pression of phenomena is dynamic and changing. The ground is the engendering principle of the process (figure/ground) Gestalt. This would not be far off from the Stoics conception of logos
, manifest via pneuma
—which they considered as a physical phusis
force (in their “physics”, sometimes associated with fire, sometimes with air-fire). Jewish kabbalah (as part of the traditional Oral Torah) is similar to this conception as well. The explicate phenomena are transient; the implicate ground is (except if one can conceive of an absolute nihil
This what I mean by (at the risk of redundancy) "gestaltic nondualism" (pantheism).
Some writers (such as in the Zohar
) use paradox to indicate the (ineffable) implicate: something like describing your blank as “an imageless image”.