Laser Beams and Floodlights

Laser beams and floodlights; or science and philosophy, respectively. 

But what is the source of the light? That's a question for theology -- or better, the mystic (i.e., experiential theologian), since it's not an abstraction, rather, an experience or vision. Pieper:

on the one hand, we are confronted with an unfathomable reality, yet the unfathomable reality of a world perfectly "lucid" in and by itself; on the other hand, there is universal knowability, yet the knowability of a world illuminated by an "inaccessible light."

This goes to one of the most consequential orthoparadoxes -- or intrinsic complementarities -- of being, which is to say, a cosmos that is in equal parts knowable and yet unfathomable; and these two "infinities" are a consequence of the same infinite, eternal, and nonlocal Light. 

Correct: mother nature is a two-faced... blanket. Or better, a rug -- a valued rug indeed, since it is the source of all values: quantity on one side, qualities on the other. 

Again, both sides are necessarily infinite, but infinitude by definition is one, so the single rug must truly tie the cosmos together. Therefore, do not think for a moment that some nihilist could come along and pee on one side without it soaking through to the other side.  

Pieper makes reference to the "daytime view" but also a "nighttime view," the former revealing "all things as accessible to an ever deeper cognition," the latter disclosing -- nondisclosing? --  the impossibility of ever attaining complete comprehension:

And yet, the notion that both spring from the same root, that both are -- in a certain sense -- even identical; that, more specifically, all things in themselves are entirely knowable because they originate in the infinite lucidity of the divine Logos, and that they are, nevertheless, inexhaustible for us because they originate, once again, in the infinite lucidity of the divine Logos -- this, of course, lies beyond all empirical demonstration.

This is not to say beyond metaphysical demonstration -- for example, Lao-tzu claims that Seeing into darkness is clarity, and counsels us to return to the source of light. / This is called practicing eternity. 

But it cannot be overemphasized that the Chinaman is not the issue. Rather, the preferred nomenclature is Logos, about which we can be abundantly clear and yet not necessarily precise. For there are rules, but only because there is a Ruler, and we are not Him.

For example, scientific statements can be made with ever-increasing precision, to such an extent that they reveal more and more about less and less. 

Conversely, philosophical statements clearly refer to everything, but in an imprecise way -- for example, if something is true, then it can't be false. Thanks for the tip, Cap'n Tautologous. You're out of your depth!

Disagree. Do you really think I'd roll out naked, metaphysically speaking? Again, an orthoparadox is not a tautology; or rather, it may appear so if viewed horizontally. It only reveals itself as meaningful from the vertical perspective. 

For example, the Thomistic tradition declares that "All that exists (or is real) is true." You may respond that this is trivial. 

Fair enough. Let's affirm the opposite: that there is no truth in things. Where does this leave us? Correct: in a nul-de-slack of nihilism and tenure -- or sitting on a one-sided rug, as if such a thing were possible or even conceivable. For no one can abide in the bright side of utter darkness.

Now, according to Thomas, 

The very reality of a thing is also its inner light.

A light we will continue to disclose in the next post.