A meta-construct is essentially my own development from Platonism, wherein I believe in certain existent ideas that are created by the process of calling them out. It is easiest to begin to understand these as being similar in many ways to Plato’s forms, in that a construct is an immaterial thing from which material things stem. I am not entirely sure whether I align fully with the Platonic approach that every single concept we have in the material world has it’s own meta-construct, i.e. that there is a meta-construct for chairs, or whether I believe that smaller and less pivotal things like a single item stem from their own meta-construct. It’s relatively immaterial in the comparison anyway, but it’s worth considering that where Plato would ascribe the forms of chair, furniture, and human creation (broadly speaking) to a chair, it is possible that within this idea of meta-constructs, it may only be the construct stemming from human creations that it stems from. In any case, to push the chair example further, it relates to it’s relevant meta-construct because in creating it, humans channel that construct. We are a very developed species and at this point in our evolution as a species and societies we have developed a massive knowledge base, and so all our endeavours by this point stem in some way from something done in our past. In any case, when a person creates a chair, they channel its relevant meta-construct, they are drawing their material interaction with the world from the immaterial world of ideas that is the sum-total of human ideas. However, I also believe very strongly that these constructs are created by human action. As a composite of all human endeavour, there had to be human endeavour to create them. And so, whenever a piece of art is created or a piece of science pursued, there is a slight ripple across the surface of the construct, as that creation is added to the sum total of the meta-construct relevant at the time.
When we refer to and discuss concepts like “art” or “science”, we refer to nouns. They are perhaps merely ways that humans consider a group of collected ideas, but those ideas have power, they affect the world. One individual painting or piece of music doesn’t necessarily change the world, but the concept of art absolutely does have a very real effect upon the world, and it is in this way that I justify seeing a meta-construct as a thing that exists and should be respected. Meta-constructs are the web of human experience, the sum total of human knowledge and love. When approaching a beautiful piece of architecture and a hardcore punk song, they seem like completely different constructs, which indeed take different material skill and occupy different spheres. However, both are art. Both exist within this zone that is designated as art. Furthermore, it is possible for both the sculptor and guitarist to take note of various techniques their opposite in this idea uses and apply them to their own - the grip on the handle of a chisel being comparable to a picking technique and such. This is what i consider to be a meta-construct. There is a linkage in the mind there, both are part in something fundamental to humanity and yet there is no obvious connection, both of these pieces of art contribute to the overlal impact of art on a human. That is what a meta-construct is made of.
It is in part through this that I justify my absolute beliefs in the power of human belief and conviction. At the heart of all of these constructs lies the human spirit, the spirit to love to create or change things, and from that we can delineate real power and impact upon the world from the metaphysical. There exist moments so powerful in human consciousness that they fundamentally alter their given construct - the sheer force of belief of the early church, for example, coloured the construct relating to human faith, temporally speaking it left its mark that would continue to be felt in that construct forever, and it is now impossible to understand human faith without looking at Christianity and others of its most followed religions like Hinduism or Judaism. In these exceedingly rare moments, people mantle these constructs and create something that doesn’t just channel to some degree and mildly change the existing construct, but they bring the metaphysical and the real so close together that they snap together in exactitude very briefly, creating a concept so powerful that it colours the world forever, and vastly changing the construct forever. I believe that great works of art and discoveries in science all do this to a certain degree - the dicovery of gravity, the Jimi Hendrix national anthem, these are moments that are so pivotal in the human consciosuness that they operate within some philosophical superposition where they change the world forever. I borrow from Grant Morrison a lot here, the idea of moments that look beyond the moment, moments so powerful that in that exact point they create a resonance with all other moments of their ilk throughout human history. The purity in human spirit and creation that from which can be drawn a real sense of power and intensity.
In everyday non-pivotal moments, the world of the ideas and the world of reality are in opposition to eachother, but they simultaenously create eachother. The way I like to demonstrate this is with the example of extreme art, like harsh noise, being compared with produced and developed art like a very neutered pop song. These are both music, but they operate opposite ends of the spectrum of metaphysical>material. An overproduced pop song takes the meta-construct relating to music, channels, and it strips from it all echoes of the world of the idea, until it is all bleakly material. In doing so, we recognise an absolute overload of familiar human concepts of melody and production, but they're things we’ve certainly heard before. These are channeled from the meta-construct of art/music and do not have a huge ripple effect within the construct, being created from a facsimile of what occured before it. There exists then a sliding scale, where overproduced pop songs that irregardless demonstrate a fresh and beautiful approach to melody or production, then goes most music in general which channels the construct to a degree but also works to build it up, until we get to the point of extremely experimental, dissonant, or otherwise extreme art, like harsh noise. This type of creation channels the construct but doesn’t remove from it, essentially comes as close as it can to merely giving it a voice and spreading it across a page/audio field. But then, at the same time, this pushes the boundaries of what is considered art, and thus expands and builds up the construct it pulls from. Here, we demonstrate the ways that the creation of material art (as noise etc is often considered “artless”) is a process of pulling from and removing the influence of it’s given meta-construct. We are also drawn to understanding the concept of “art-without-art”. Art without art is a term I use to describe art like harsh noise that is distinctly speaking art (in this case music), but doesn’t contain much of what is commonly considered to be musical - no distinct melody, no idea of rhythm or metre, typically no harmony besides what is accidental. In this way, we deliver the art without the materialistic nature of what humans consider to be art - purely the construct is delivered, channeled from the world of the ideas onto paper. The construct is in opposition to the material - both can’t exist at once, but the delivering of the construct to the material is an ouroborous that continues to engorge the construct once it is put into the material world. In this way they oppose only in their substance, in their relationship they are symbiotic.