I like to think of rainbows, orchids and transsexual people as “exemplary beings” (or exemplary “occasions” or “societies” in process-philosophical parlance) in the sense that their very nature and form transparently exemplify principles which are universally shared with other things, in a way that those other things might only instantiate such principles opaquely, or to say differently, those other things more so obscure their principles instead of revealing or disclosing them. All things instantiate their principles, but only some exemplify those principles in more or less surpassable ways.
Of course rainbows, orchids and trans people are not perfect in the way they exemplify their basic principles, but they exemplify them in a way that surpasses other things and perhaps themselves are surpassed by each other and by the divine function itself — which by definition must be the being who most perfectly and unsurpassably exemplifies all basic principles, including that exemplified by the rainbow, the orchid and the trans person. So short of the divine itself, rainbows, orchids and trans people are exemplary beings or occasions whose very nature and form transparently display principles that include and transcend them.
A rainbow is not an ontologically independent entity but an appearance that arises at the coalescence of multiple interdependent aspects such as the observer’s mental and optical consciousness, the scattered raindrops in the sky and the sun with its rays of light. That a rainbow is an appearance that arises at the coalescence of various non-rainbow factors is not unique to the rainbow, this is also the case with any other optical illusion and, according to the Buddhist principle of universal dependent origination, it is also the case with any and all phenomena. But while most phenomena’s mode of appearance obscures their true mode of existence, a rainbow is a lot more transparent than that. It doesn’t try that hard to hide its true nature, that it is an evanescent, almost magical, dream-like appearance only existing where various fragile and impermanent elements coalesce. But this is imperfect, because some technical knowledge about weather and optics, accumulated over history, was required to make the nature of the rainbow fully transparent. Yet still, we can say that:
Rainbows exemplify, in their very appearance, this basic truth about all phenomena.
The morphology of an orchid is very curious because, in varying degrees, their shape resembles the shapes of their pollinators, which has arisen out of a relational process of co-evolutionary entanglement. Not only do orchids resemble their pollinators, they are also carefully crafted over a long historical process of intra-action to match the size, weight and behavior of its pollinators. So orchids are not stand-alone species with a fixed form, but are the dynamic result of a long history and vast networks of interspecies communion. But this is not unique to the orchid, because arguably in varying degrees all life forms are the dynamic results of deep interspecies communion. But this is imperfect, because orchids gain this transparency only by instrumentalizing delusion: their sexual/ized morphology is fraudulent, a form of weaponized or instrumentalized deception; the orchid is transparent to the botanist only because it is opaque to the wasp. Yet still, we can say that:
Orchids exemplify, in their very morphology, this basic truth about all living beings.
When transsexuals transition, we tend to think of them as existing in a limbo; no longer quiet where they started and not where they’re supposed to end. Such a view imposes an assumption, that to be is to be in a certain, basically fixed way from beginning to end. But this is demonstrably untrue, for while this old woman could not be who she is without having been that young woman first, there was no guarantee of that young woman becoming specifically this old woman; hence, we are always in a process of transition. Trans people might be seen as “changing” various biological, mental and social processes they are embedded in and move through, but they are simply consciously changing what is always-already changing in everyone. Trans people exemplify in their very being, their transitionary process of becoming, the universal truth shared by all people, cis and trans alike, that sex-gender is always-already in a constant process of change and development. What cis-centric society deems “normal” for someone to be and therefore holds up normatively as one ought to become is actually just a reification of standard, average regularities in the dynamic and developmental processes of sex-gender everyone is always going through. But this is imperfect, because much of the security and legibility that trans people are allowed is predicated on their ability to conceal or downplay their transsness, so transparency is only allowed within certain conditions (such as spectacle or social capital) and not others (ordinary public life), pushing some to desire “stealth” or to live their expressed identity while actively hiding their transness. Yet still, we can say that:
Trans people exemplify, in their very process of coming into their own, this basic truth about all people.
Given that rainbows, orchids and trans people are exemplary beings in this aesthetic sense, is it any surprise that they are always so beautiful? And since their exemplary natures surpass other things, only to be surpassed by the divine itself, can we not also say that rainbows, orchids and trans people are close to the divine, to “God”, to “Buddha nature”?
Holopoiesis 