[A]ny attempt to replace the term ‘Movement’ with another would produce at best a mis-leading representation, a synthesis, an opinion, an aspect; a part cannot represent the whole.
‘Movement’ is our subject and our study. It is the gross umbrella under which every element of our investigation concerns itself, whether through physical, intellectual, or spiritual paths. Movement is all encompassing; there can be no ‘outside’, as it cannot be contained.
Movement is the very nature and underlying condition of our experience. Whilst tempting to synonymise it with Life, this would also be reductive. Life, as well as death, are major movement aspects, but aspects nonetheless.
For the sake of rudimentary clarity, examples of other efforts to theorise this condition are Qi, Ki, Prana, Dao, Logos/Flux, Will, and Energy.
Movement can only be experienced. As an experience, it is necessarily objective. Therefore, any attempt to concretely define ‘Movement’ – whether for a convenient point of reference or perhaps an end-word – should be avoided. It negates the nature of the subject itself (objective experience) – it becomes denatured.
Movement cannot be reduced. Just as Science, Religion, and Philosophy are an interpretation – a filter – of ‘Life’, any attempt to replace the term ‘Movement’ with another would produce at best a mis-leading representation, a synthesis, an opinion, an aspect; a part cannot represent the whole.
We should apply this critical perspective whenever dealing with definition.
We can, however, describe our experience. Our every action, reaction, and refraction is a representation of our movement experience. Everything I produce related to this subject is a synthesis and presentation of my own experience.
Always take this into account.