I am currently undergoing a metamorphosis. At a meeting the other day, someone said that this was a wonderful group of caterpillars. I was taken aback. He said, yes ... soon these will be butterflies.

A friend once said that metamorphosis is proof of God. How else could it be explained that a butterfly emerges from a caterpillar in purely evolutionary steps? Is such a leap in complexity even comprehensible in evolutionary terms? I am not a biologist and I was only interested in this as a thought experiment. I don't believe in a Christian God anyway.

However, the idea of metamorphosis has been with me ever since. Something very complex is transformed into something else extremely complex. I am interested in how this works with ideas. How can one idea give rise to another? Does this have anything to do with creativity? Does the 'old' idea have to die to make way for a new idea? Does the caterpillar die when it becomes a butterfly?

In the West we have the idea of the subject, thoughts arise from it, ideas are in it, its energy is the driving force... That seems unlikely to me. Is it not perhaps rather the case that it is a greater consciousness, a divine consciousness or absolute spirit, an immanence that acts cosmically? Isn't it perhaps more likely that everything has always existed simultaneously? All possibilities are real and we can only experience a small part of them?

Can we immerse ourselves in this great consciousness and become aware of our participation?

I've been asking myself a lot lately what I should do with 'my' old ideas. Should I write them down, preserve them, transform them, allow them to metamorphose and document them? It seems to leave its mark here on this blog.

The best of all possible worlds?

When I was studying philosophy in Heidelberg, I read about the logic of possible worlds. Everything possible is also real, just not accessible to me at the moment. This was an answer to a basic problem of propositional logic, namely that an 'if ..., then' sentence - with a false premise and a true conclusion - is true overall.

In the Western Enlightenment, Leibniz assumed that we live in the best of all possible worlds. This is extremely abbreviated, a proof of God. Everything is reflected in everything. He called this monads.

However, the possibility of all existence is already contained in the origin of existence, how could it be otherwise? The idea of progress, that in the beginning there was nothing and that somewhere there is always more and better, is not rationally comprehensible, even though it seems to be the basic assumption of a large number of scientific theories.

We do not live in the best of all possible worlds, nor do we live in a world of progress. We are part of a being that always already contains all possible worlds.