The More Weird Cannot Come from the Less Weird

Yesterday we spoke of the material world and the senses that conform to and reveal it. For a strict Thomist all knowledge begins in the senses, but for a lax one like me it begins at either end, with the miracle of subjectivity or with the miracle of objectivity. 

After all, every object or fact presumes a subject, and every subject an object (or objectivity, which is to say, distance and detachment between two terms).

Of course, if I begin in the subject, by no means is this referring to the closed Kantian ego, rather, to the vertically open subject (or self) that is ultimately a kind of prolongation of the metacosmic Subject. 

All subjects -- or rather subjectivity as such -- are intersubjective, just as all objects are "interobjective." By the latter, I am referring to the nonlocality by which, in the words of Whitehead,   

in a certain sense, everything is everywhere at all times. For every location involves an aspect of itself in every other location. Thus, every spatio-temporal standpoint mirrors the world. 

Yes, weird, but weird enough? 

At any rate, if the objective world of physics is this weird, then surely the subjective world must be at least as weird, no?

What I mean is, subjectivity is without question the weirdest thing in all of creation, but to leave it at that is to posit a weird effect without a weirder cause; but how could the more weird ever emerge from the less weird? Call it a violation of Petey's Law.

I am permanently struck by Schuon's observation that 

The first ascertainment which should impose itself upon man when he reflects on the nature of the Universe is the primacy of that miracle that is intelligence -- or consciousness or subjectivity -- and consequently the incommensurability between these and material objects, be it a question of a grain of sand or of the sun, or of any creature whatever as an object of the senses

If the miracle of subjectivity or consciousness or intelligence is the first, what's the second ascertainment? Again, that would have to be the miracle of objectivity, intelligibility, or form (for we never encounter matter without form).

Now, all of the above surely is, but its isness isn't self-explanatory. Rather, it must be anchored in a principle that is its ultimate cause. 

In other words, every science, to the extent that it is one, is an investigation into causes; knowledge of anything is knowledge of causes, which is why theology used to be regarded as the queen of sciences, because it was an investigation into the First Cause, or even Cause of Causality.

It still is, except theology has been narrowed down and displaced into science, such that science itself is the crossdressing queen of its own theology, and that's just perverse -- literally an intellectual perversion, since any perversion involves a disruption of teleology, i.e., of the proper end of something.

Thus, just as human sexuality is ordered to its complementary other, human intelligence is ordered to Being. Detach it from Being, and what perversions result! Everything from Kantianism to Marxism to the Tyranny of Relativism and Sum of All Heresies more generally.

Really? The perverted and tyrannical Sum of All Heresies? 

Yes, because, just as there is such a thing as cosmic objectivity, there is (and must be) such a thing as cosmic perversion, which is (returning to our cosmic flowchart), a consequence of the very first decision in the tree, which is: Absolute. Or Relative. Pick one, but live with the consequences, entailments, and prolongations herebelow.

Or just say Genesis 3 All Over Again.