What's the Point? And Who?

 To repeat:

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

But even if one were to examine a realistic paining -- or photograph -- one eventually arrives at the units of which it is composed. Evidently, the smallest dot is a Planck Unit, which

may be characterized by particle energies of around 10¹⁹ GeV or 10⁹  J, time intervals of around 10⁻⁴³ seconds, and lengths of around 10⁻³⁵ m.

In case you were wondering. Does this imply that time and space themselves are discontinuous, and that we simply superimpose the continuity?

Nah, not if you start at the top:

We understand more easily from the top down than from the bottom up -- the reverse of what they claim.

Remember,

We call “origins” the limits of our science.

So those dots & plancks at the bottom of being are just the limit of science's reach, i.e., a function (and intrinsic limitation) of the method. 

But what's really going on down there, up here, and beyond? 

Yesterday we spoke of "the simultaneous placement of the consciousness in the world and of the world in consciousness," but if this were literally true, we could never escape the ontological absurcularity. But there is always something that escapes definition, and we call this something someone.

Yes, someone named Gödel, but he speaks for everyone everywhere anytime, because there can be nothing more stupid than to say that logic "evolved" or has an expiration date. 

For what makes a man? Achievements, overcoming obstacles, competitors bested?

You're joking, but perhaps it is... Put it this way: there is a minimum of "components" that constitute man, and to exclude any one of them is to cut a man off at the knees if not beneath the belt.

Let's try to nail down these principles in such a way that they cannot be reduced any prior ones, and worry later about how they get here. The point is to arrive at metaphysical truths that 1) cannot not be true (i.e., in which error is strictly impossible), 2) which presuppose no prior truth or principle, and 3) denial of which results in absurdity and self-refutation.

Can we build such a cake? Yes we can!

For example, perhaps the most obvious principle is that man may know truth. If not, then truly truly we are done here, are we not? Or all done except for the endless scuffle for power, dominance, and tenure. 

But truth cannot exist unless we are free to accept it, so it seems that man is also condemned to freedom, so now we have two principles that define a man, truth and freedom. Any more?

You're joking again, but what would life be without beauty, that light of our lives? Nor can we leave out virtue -- of being prepared to do the right thing -- and of course we have to include sentiment, even if it means tolerating rank sentimentalists and hysterics. Strong men also cry.

Anyway, put all of these together into one package, and now you've really got problems. 

But these units of humanness are like the Planck Time referenced above. Just as time (let alone eternity) cannot be the sum of these units, nor can a person be just a bag full of truth + freedom + virtue + beauty + sentiment, because these are all posterior to the one principle that is prior to them, this being....

In a word, the Person.

So, Person is the only thing that is irreducible to anything less. Change our mind.

We'll try, but perhaps this is a good place to insert some brief, maybe the briefest, aphorisms. Why brief?

Because

To discover where the reasoning of the philosopher slips, just observe where he becomes more loquacious.

And 

A clear writer is one who does not catechize, but whose sole ambition is that his sentence be the immortal huntress of the instant.

That means now, so let's be clear and concise:

The deluded are prolix. 

So let's start right now with Bob, a name we give -- or rather, a name given by his lovin' parents -- to a mystery:

We presume to explain history, and we fail before the mystery of the one who we know best.

But guess what?

Let us call the individual the existent that is transparent only to God.

Moreover,

For God there are only individuals. 

 So, someone gets me. 

To feel oneself a creature is to feel oneself to be contingent but mysteriously sheltered.

And 

For one who feels himself to be a creature the existence of God is an analytic proposition.

Penultimate line:

The truth is objective but not impersonal.

Bottom line: 

Truth is a person.

So, Change My Mind, but you'll have to do so without a mind, nor can you be a proper person. In other words, a troll.

An irritating man is one who claims that the solution he adopts has been reached in an impersonal way, who does not want to take responsibility for what he adopts.

Sub-bottom line:

Only God and the central point of my consciousness are not adventitious to me. 

O and ʘ.