Apeiron (re-edited)

... individuals... far from contemporary hopes, are not their best when in cooperation with their neighbors, but opposed thereto and with...

I.

In order to penetrate, embody and communicate the most delicate subtleties of spirit, those which evade to the uttermost all reasonable inquiry by swooning deaf and dumb at Reason’s blockish and sterile feet, the Philosopher must learn to companion himself with the Poetic Instinct, drawing from the latter’s wisdom and experience more than any other source at his creative disposal, just as a younger brother might lean upon his elder in times of difficulty and crisis: that elder who in this case was there long before and will remain long after such a thing as “philosophy” is uttered among men.

II.

The Subject’s Will, particular though everlasting, is that which particularizes the everlastingness of the “Apeiron” – or boundlessness of Being in and through the Individual by way of that sensual emotionality which men call “experience”; emotionality which is the sole cosmological force which has the power to draw together, enclose, disassemble and reduce the “goodness of all” for the vain sake of the One; reduction, terrible and irrevocable, which brings forth that awful “something-ness” out of blissful “nothing-ness”, a phenomenon which every valuation of man, sensing as they instinctually do that “something’s” apparent crime against “the nothing”, cannot help but deem evil, in need of correction and salvation.

III.

Individuals, to include the cultural and intellectual products that arise from their amalgamated ranks, far from contemporary hopes, are not their best when in cooperation with their neighbors, but opposed thereto and with; “cooperation” which, in its most primordial form, is an ontological impossibility insofar as an individual subject’s entire essence consists of the continual, unremitting objectification of that which it “is not”; objectification which, at its most necessary level, occurs and can, in fact, only occur in the presence of the subject’s ignorance and lack of explicit consent; ignorance which graciously blinds men to the ceaseless spiritual, sensual and aesthetic violence that Life – here seen as that undying interplay between Subject and Object – inexhaustibly commits against itself.

Indeed, the more fully-formed and conscious a subject is of its own objectifications, those which typically manifest as affirmations of the character, deeds and unalterable nature of the subject itself, the more visceral, or perceptible, the “Truth” that may arise out of the Subject-Object Relationship; “truth” that, though when put to words becomes yet another object and is thus disqualified from the rigorousness of “Truth”, nevertheless continually affirms the larger and more vital practice of Truth “as-such”: the ineffable indwelling and overarching essence of Life which transcends to the uttermost man’s futile (though necessary) attempts to describe, delineate and commingle its constituent parts.

God, therefore, insofar as He can be communicated at all – whether as a single Word or a certain Series of words – is simply one more example of man’s doomed attempts at Truth-as-Such and can thus be nothing more than a replica and shadow of that which is truly Real, Everlasting and Ultimate; Ultimateness which, though it can never be fully grasped, can yet still be affirmed as ultimate if a subject willfully and consciously objectifies and otherwise opposes that Replica who has, in manifold ways, been provoking man for millennia to a fight, not a fight-to-the-death war of attrition that would see in the decisive defeat of the One the ontological collapse of Both, but the kind of struggle which only equals can engage, both of whom who are aware of the risks, stakes, rules and ultimate goal of struggle itself: to enduringly imitate┬áLife and thus feed blood and soul thereto.