THE KNUCKLEHEAD
'
S GUIDE TO COVENANTAL THEOLOGY
47
Fourth, there is the problem of just one of anything, "material
singulars." We have two choices. A) "Material singulars" are Ones in
motion, so that they have inherent meaning, but no relation to each
other -- except arbitrary ones. B) They are little sentences that are
necessary implications of Bigger ones.
Fifth, our search for meaning, for Causes, for necessary
implications, appears to be a search that is incompatible with 'freedom.'
If real Causes exist, then we have meaning, but only because we have a
'place' in a One, or a mini-One -- in which case, we are simply a logical
implication of something more real than us, we are Caused -- so we
have no actual freedom. Or, we have 'freedom,' but then we are Ones
in free motion, and there is no point to us, no 'place' we 'belong,' so the
'freedom' we have is meaningless.
many
many many many
many many many many many many
many many many many many many many
many many many many many
many many many many many many
many many many many many
One
One
One One
Sixth, real meaning has to be time-less. This is a necessary
implication of the Aristotelian scheme. The Bigger Sentence has to
exist already, if a littler sentence is to be a necessary implication of it.
Ultimately, a time-less Really Big Sentence has to Cause everything in
time, so that time itself can be a littler sentence of a Bigger one.
Or, if one adopts Plato's model, Ones in motion are already in the
world of opinion, and real meaning once again has to be time-less,
outside of that world. The only difference is that Plato thought the gap
between the time-less and our world was unbridgeable, but Aristotle
thought (maybe "hoped" is a more accurate word, considering the
logical contortions he had to build in to his framework) that it could be
bridged.
Sometimes moderns think that they do not flee to the time-less.
This is false. Moderns are simply schizophrenic about their flight to
the time-less. They place their 'faith' in some Technique (for example,
the "scientific" method, the "historical-critical" method, etc.), and
claim that if they just keep Applying The Technique, forever and ever,
everything will turn out all right. This is still a flight to the time-less.
After all, as it says in Mutual Fund prospectuses: "prior results are
no guarantee of future returns." Therefore, if a Technique is a logical
necessity for "future returns," that can only be shown by showing that
the Technique works in time that hasn't even happened yet. This
demonstration must therefore always either be a Platonic acceptance
that we live exclusively in the world of opinion (opinions, while
always a shadow of the time-less Forms, which can yet be more or less
'solid' or time-less), or be an appeal to a time-less Big Sentence:
Here we are:
[ Please insert your favorite Proper Technique,
Repetitively Applied. ]
And here we are also?:
< - - - This Technique is an un-
erring path toward the Real.
N.B. This is an html-ized copy of a page from the pdf file, The Knucklehead's Guide to Covenantal Theology.