How Am I? and I AM! How

 Beginning where we ended, Change My Mind:

That which is not a person is not finally anything.

It is appropriate to begin at this end, in the sense that final causation means that first in intention is last in execution -- for example, before you build one, you must first have the idea of a cake. 

Yes, but this seems more than a little... woowoo. Are you suggesting that the whole cosmos is a kind of conspiracy in order for persons to exist?

Well, when you put it that way... Then again, con-spiracy means to "breathe together," and this image may well come back to haunt us should we proceed down this path.  

Besides, prove me wrong. You can't, because any attempt to do so will have to assume that which you're trying to disprove. 

And since you are in fact here, it is axiomatic that it must be possible for you to be here. Certainly it is not impossible for you to be here, and yet, it is quite possible that you adhere to a tacit metaphysic that does in fact render you -- which is to say, persons -- strictly impossible. 

Now, possible obviously doesn't mean necessary. We're still necessarily contingent, but once we exist we partake of necessity, so to speak. To be at all is to participate in the act of Being, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it.

This touches on the problem of scientific paradigms and anomalies. Every paradigm generates anomalies for which it cannot account, and which eventually strain the system beyond repair. Then it's time to make the leap to a higher, deeper, or more encompassing paradigm that is able to integrate the anomalies. But there is no manmode system capable of containing the whole existentialada. Gödel may be crazy, but he's not stupid. 

Now, in my opinion, the ultimate anomaly is the existence of human persons. If it weren't for them, our scientistic paradigm could explain everything!

D'oh! Then it couldn't explain anything, because there wouldn't be any explainers. 

So, the most important fact of the cosmos is generally ignored and taken for granted. 

You could say that the Bʘʘ!k is literally the most cosmically narcissistic endeavor conceivable, in that it was ultimately motivated by a single question: How is Bob possible? 

In order to answer it, we have to trace things all the way back to those mathematical constants that govern the big bang -- tweak just one of them the itsiest bitsy, and none of us are possible, let alone Bob. Sad! 

But even that's not enough, because once we reach the goround zero of Planck Time, it's time to switch paradigms to a more encompassing one. We don't have to jump to the conclusion that God did it!, although it's not surprising that many folks will equate this beginning with the one outlined in Genesis. 

But both of these are but mythological symbolisms in Light of what's really going on. In other words, to say "big bang" and leave it at that is far less adequate than the myth of Genesis, because at least myth is true, whereas any form of scientism is a priori false in the larger sense. Rather, it just means one has stopped asking questions at an arbitrary point selected by the questioner, and just who does he think he is, and how?

For which reason the Aphorist says,

Everything in history begins before we think it begins and ends after where we think it ends,

And 

Every beginning is an image of the Beginning; every end is an image of the End.

Both of which -- beginning and end -- are always here and now (i.e, in the vertical space of [↑↓]), certainly not in the "past" (←) or "future" (→). In other words, remember the teleological connotation of the end that is ontologically prior to the beginning.

 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.  

Wait, what? Who glows there! Who said that? 

Before Abraham was, I am.

Okay, but grammatically that's not quite--

In the beginning was the Word.

That's better, but-- 

Who is and who was and who is to come.

 I don't mean to be pedantic, but--

I AM in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

You must be from out of town, because around here we have this thing called "grammar," and besides, Aristotle--

I in them, and You in Me, that they may also be one in Us.

Right, but logic--

I AM the Logos.

One question: can I buy some pot from you?