Dots in the Matrix and I-Popping Metaphors

So, we must begin our philosophy not only with a tangible means of communication, but with a defense and justification of the very possibility of communicating. Again, answers are one thing, but how are there questions -- especially fruitful ones?

Communication is certainly possible; if not, then philosophy itself is impossible, because reality couldn't communicate itself to us, nor we to others. The question is, is this communication necessary? In other words, is it just a contingent accident, or bound up with the very nature of being? 

Here again, if communication is only contingent, it is difficult to conceive of how it could know the Absolute, or any principle, really. For the Absolute is necessary being; indeed, to know of it even implies our own immortality, since only transcendence can know the transcendent.  

Let's rummage through our secret stockpile of illegal aphorisms for epistemic backup. Good morning, Nicolás. Whaddya got for us?  

This one from yesterday is worth repeating:

Metaphor supposes a universe in which each object mysteriously contains the others.

And which are in turn contained by the "Absolute container" (or better, Container <--> Contained, but that's getting ahead of ourselves). In any event, 

The real “double truth” is the simultaneous placement of the consciousness in the world and of the world in the consciousness. 

I want to say "triple truth," but that's again getting over our skis as we glide up the magic mountain. But that is a Verigolinian way of expressing it, i.e., that we are always conscious of a world out of which consciousness arises, so the miracle is that we are not thereby enclosed in a contingent absurcularity.  

Which is touched upon here: 

The world is explicable from man; but man is not explicable from the world. Man is a given reality; the world is a hypothesis we invent.

No, this does not imply any kind of mere subjectivism or Kantian deformation of being. Rather, it highlights the fact that man qua man is the existent who transcends his own existence, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. 

Conversely, "the world" is always a symbolic expression in the luminous space between immanence and transcendence.   

This one touches on the same principle from a different angle:

Subjectivity is a straight line between the knowing subject and the interiority of the known object.

Or, knowledge takes place in the subjective space between intelligence and intelligibility, which mirror each other herebelow, but are united in the Principle above. 

And even up there it is a dynamic unity, but once again we are getting ahead of ourselves. But since we're up there anyway, let's bring down a nugget:

Jesus Christ is the sole point in history where axiology and ontology are fused.

Or, we might say the very intersection of vertical and horizontal as such; not just in the vertical but of verticality, and the Incarnation thereof, i.e., as if to say "the vertical becomes horizontal that the horizontal might become vertical." 

'Nother aphorism, 'nother angle:

[Man the citizen] lives in the thickness of time, in the landscapes of ravines and barricades of contingencies and determinisms of history. Homo spiritualis [Man of the spirit] lives in this atemporal time of the values emerging in the course of millennia.

There aren't "two men" in us, except maybe literally, in that the one can be split off from the other, which is one way of looking at the Fall. Fallenness doesn't just depend upon verticality, it proves it. We might even say that 

To believe in God is not to believe in God; it is not possible not to believe in Him.

If that's a difficult pearl to swallow, just substitute "Absolute" for the G-word, for it is not possible to not partake of it and still be a knower, except in the cosmically onanistic sense. 

Orderly thinking is that which has a secret center, even when it does not have a secret articulation.

The "secret center" is none other than Celestial Central, and without it there would be no centers anywhere. Your own I AM -- obviously a kind of center -- is a reflection or re-verberation of the Center (or center at the periphery). 

Unless you have a better idea, which I can assure you you do not. Rather, if it's better it's worse, because 

He who is not resigned to the fundamental asymmetry of the world ends up falsifying his measurements.

And 

I merely desire to draw an ellipse that has for its foci the absolute contingency of being and the absolute gratuity of value. The consciousness of being a creature and the experience of grace.

From your ellipse to God's ear!

The Creator-creature dualism is at the same time a perfect dualism and a transcendent dualism.

Making it a trialism, but that's a future post. Put it this way:

Briefly, religious history ascends to a point from which it descends.

But 

We leave the synthesis to God.

About this synthesis. None of the above should be taken literally, but nor should it not be so taken; rather, a kind of 20/∞ vision should begin to emerge, in the sense that

My brief sentences are touches of color in a pointillist composition.

Like those magic eye paintings, which look random, but if you stare into them while relaxing your gaze, the 3D image pops out. 

Boo!