recap: Quantitatively, the unknowable is a singularity that qualitatively assumes to form as a plurality characterized
by both zero and one -- where zero is perceived to be yet another variation of the form of
one. This multiple representation of the unknowable is what constitutes the foundation for
set theory -- by which temporal relevance thereafter assumes to force.
Only one idea is
capable of encompassing all of the possibilities which we have cause to verify during the
confirmation of ourselves and it is the idea of an 'ordered unknowable.'
Since this paradoxical understanding sits at the very root of thought
itself, we are thus destined to view all ideas in two diametrically opposed yet inherently
linked ways. One characterizes the potential of order; while the other simultaneously
describes successive representations of that potential. We refer to this phenomenon as
dichotomy; and without the possibility it affords us, we would be unable to make
differentiation within sameness (the unknowable) and hence incapable of conceptualizing
anything at all.
In traditional literature, the contrasting natures of dichotomy are
characterized as quality and quantity. Qualitatively, all change is seen to
be irrelevant to the characterization of the unknowable that provides for its possibility.
Quantitatively, all change is seen to be an aspect of the sum of the process by which that
unknowable comes to be of separation for us. This causes quality to be fixed in the
singularity of universality; while quantity finds meaning through a consideration of the
plurality of process by which that universality is characterized as a relevant totality.
Hence the ideas of space and time
The 'ordered unknowable' therefore comprises all possibility inclusive
of personification that encompasses opposing finite and/or infinite processes.
necessity, we view this 'ordered unknowable' in four different ways. Either it is past,
present or future to our conscious awareness of it, or simultaneous to the possibility
which incorporates the other three. The inability to determine which, forces us to respect
the validity of all similarly. As a result, the idea of an 'ordered unknowable' defies temporal
Much additional thinking on this subject is possible, but that is not
the immediate concern of this offering. One thing does bear note however. This proof
allows us to know that all ideas about Ultimacy can never exceed our ability to understand
ourselves without tampering with our freewill. This is because we are the base for their
qualification. It also means that there is no Holy prescription that is Divinely
dispensed to anyone (or any group) that can obviate our understanding of truth -- without
severely compromising us. If a more encompassing truth is to replace a currently held
belief, it must do so in a way that is logically understandable -- or it renders the whole
idea of justice meaningless. So whatever the purpose of Divine unfoldings, they
cannot help but be damaging to us if we do not restrict them to the situation they
In spite of the inherent complexity that haunts our conceptualization
of the unknowable, it has been traditionally characterized as a singularity.
The reason is
because of a misconceived belief that the continuity of language depends upon this
rendering -- since the unknowable exceeds the capability of language by definition.
position amounts to a capitulation (by reason) to the limits of language as opposed to the
limits of self. The proof that you have just considered finally sets this misconception
straight. Although the unknowable could conceivably be a singularity outside of the field
of thought, within the field of thought the unknowable is undeniably a plurality.
otherwise, we wouldn't be speculating about its nature.