What's happening

It’s just days before the election, when perhaps the world will end. The opposing candidates and the opposing political parties spearhead opposing factions within the society itself, and if you are not allied with one of the factions then you must be allied with the other. Many people stay off the streets. When the election happens either the candidate who has fixed the thing already will be announced the clear winner, or else the election will become contested, with each of the rival factions establishing its own claims and its own militias. Violence increases. Wealth is stolen where the opportunity exists to steal it.

Later, after the violence has increased to the point of the destruction of society, or else to the point where one side has seriously eradicated the other, a new order can be established. There could also be a cyclic rise and fall of violence as various things within the society sort themselves out, and while at times old orders might fall or fade away, to any given generation things will seem to change somewhat slowly. Or at least it used to be that way before mass communications and the digital age came along and speeded life up by another order of magnitude. We can’t help but burn out or burn up as much material as possible; this is pure vivacity itself.

An exception to every rule

One well-known rule is that there is an exception to every rule. Is this true? Now it could be that a rule, strictly speaking, is something which can never allow any exception (else it would not be a rule in the strict sense). Certain mathematical or logical rules could be of this type, or certain laws of nature. There can be rules that, by definition, allow no exceptions, in which case the statement that there is an exception to every rule must be false, with respect to rules defined strictly. Furthermore, if we find a rule that seems to have an exception, this rule is not a rule in the strict sense.

But perhaps our rule that every rule has an exception is true, in which case there can be no rules of the strict sort. Certain rules which can have no exceptions by definition must not be rules, but something else, call them laws, laws which the very structure of reality enforce, making them impossible, even conceptually, to break. Everything else is a rule, which while it might hold fast generally, can always admit of an exception. Thus, if our statement is true, there is no contradiction in the idea of it itself allowing no exceptions because it itself is a law, not a rule. If you say that every unbreakable law can always be broken, you are simply misusing language. If you say that despite the fact that rules generally hold true and laws (in the social sense) are generally enforced, there can always be exceptions to the rules or breaking of the law, you are only saying what is generally known. Rules don’t mean anything if they are always broken. They might be interesting ideas or conceptual curiosities, these always-excepted rules, if they are not completely nonsensical, but we know what rules and laws amount to in their various contexts. If we say that “there is always an exception” holds universally, and so there must be an exception to this rule, then that exception would be a rule in the strict sense, one that cannot be broken. If we say “there is always a way to find an exception to a rule with no possible exceptions,” then I am at a loss to know what this means. Perhaps if it were the case that the universe had never existed, all unbreakable laws would be void, simply because they had never existed in the first place. Perhaps we can imagine that not only has the universe never existed, but it is impossible for it ever to have existed, existence itself being fundamentally impossible. I am also at a loss to know what this statement means. [However, these concepts might still be susceptible to fruitful analysis.]

Science

Some people might argue that science can, in principle, explain anything. We will not worry about the limitations of any one individual’s lifetime or understanding, because science is cumulative and shared. Of course, human beings are probably always going to be limited in some way, and it could be the case that in order to explain anything science needs to be able to explain everything completely, and even if we were on some path towards this accomplishment, we wouldn’t ever actually achieve it. But anyway, if things in general seem to be connected, and if science seems to be enlightening in any way, even if that keeps changing over time, and if complicated things or sets of things can be explained (or at least somewhat explained) using simpler ideas or language, then why not imagine that science can keep explaining new things and more things better and better, as it has done? Even if we can also imagine that perhaps science as such, or at least how we practice and understand science today, can gradually change into something else, or what we would at this point consider something else, even if we don’t later, or if science comes to include more things that we don’t even know about now, or to speak in a language we don’t understand at this particular juncture…