Existence: What is it Good For?

Absolutely nothing? Or everything absolute?

Some additional ground aphorisms while we ponder our next (dance?) move:

Creation is the nexus between eternity and history.

Creation is a relation of dependence upon the Absolute principle; from the Creator's side it is an act, a verb, while from our side it is a link between terms. 

The free act is only conceivable in a created universe. In the universe that results from a free act.

Nor are we free to reject this necessary condition for the existence of freedom, for to reject it is to prove it once and for all. 

To please the determinist we say that there is no action without a cause. To annoy him we say that there is no cause without an action.

This one's important because it goes to the necessary relation between cause and effect, and the impossibility of beginning the series with the latter. For which reason the Aphorist says

The permanent possibility of initiating a causal series is what we call a person. 

Indeed,

What is not a person is not finally anything. 

 "Creation" (from Godsend) is but the first Person and his first act, only forever? Father and Son? Yes, but not in time, or perhaps thinkable as a divine analogue of what we experience as temporal flow, i.e., the timeless time "between" the first and second Persons. This must be where all the relation and relativity come from, since they're everywhere and in everything. We aren't isolated atoms or unrelated Adams. 

This distinction is at once the principle of time and space, and I suppose this is why our own spacetime is full of particles that appear distinct but share a wavy substance. Again, the woowoo starts at the top.

I suppose it also accounts for the eternal now where we all live and can't not live, because this beginningless and endless now is simultaneously the most timelike and atemporal thing we can imagine; it's not only as close as we can get to eternity, but, come to think if it, as far from it as we as can get. Even though each moment is infinitely close and infinitely distant from eternity.

Oh, and -- now that I'm thinking about it -- what we experience as freedom must also be grounded in this eternal moment, for where else could it be? Can't change the past, nor exercise a choice in the future. 

Unless, of course you're a progressive time traveler. They rewrite history so quickly that no one know's what's going to happen yesterday; likewise, only they know what happened tomorrow. Although we have a pretty good guess, since they're getting so predictable.  

Let's try to dumb this down a little a little further -- I'm not sure I understood it, or worse, did understand it. 

Surely there are aphorisms?

One must live for the moment and for eternity. Not for the disloyalty of time. 

I'm going to be so bold as to tweak this one a little, because time isn't necessarily disloyal. While I have reactionary tendencies, I don't think time as such can be all bad, because after all, it too is a creature, and we are told at the outset that everything God makes is good. If he is the cause of time, he must also be the time of causality, i.e., the time it takes for anything and everything to happen.   

Therefore, it must be the other way around -- that we are somehow disloyal to time? If so, what would loyalty to time look like? 

You're putting me on the spot, but something like Thy will be done? Obviously the expression of said will takes time, likewise our alignment with it. 

Finally, 

The universe is important if it is appearance, and insignificant if it is reality.

But it is appearance, obviously. Therefore it is important.

We'll bite: for what, exactly? 

You've put me on the spot again. 

For

What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe that we are important to Him.

At the other end,

The human has the insignificance of a swarm of insects when it is merely human.

Hmm. Proud insect or humble image? Kafka or Christ?

Faith?

There are arguments of increasing validity, but, in short, no argument in any field spares us the final leap.

From entomology to theology, and I can only hope I don't repeat myself. Then again,

Faith is not an irrational assent to a proposition, it is a perception of a special order of realities.  

Okay, but why?

Well, because for one thing, not only does the Creator create, but if he's the Creator, then he can't not create and still be the Creator he always is. 

And it is my strong suspicion and holy hunch that creation as such ascends to the point from which it descends, this being the very Principle irreducibly situated right there in the Perichoresis, the eternal dance of the Persons. A verb, mind you, and this must be the very verb that becomes flesh?

Best I can do at the moment.