Scholarly Critique -2

his proof clearly constitutes the only example of a universal principle ever isolated from the field of human thought. As such, it provides our sole verifiable insight into the nature of Ultimacy as It finds cause to manifest Itself within the world of time. It is by nature of its structure, a definition for Deity that is inherently undeniable.

This breakthrough was achieved solely by clarifying the limits of thought -- or, the interface that we necessarily share with whatever exceeds us. This in turn yields a relative form of Deity that is subjective in Its manifestation, yet objective in principle. Hence the proof fully satisfies all that might be expected of it, or is being claimed for it. By advancing a tangible characterization of the extent of thought itself, it cannot help but force a rethinking of Deity's transcendence.

Let us now consider the proof's dynamics in greater detail. Since temporal thought is inherently constrained to a state of flux, any valid definition for Deity must be able to accommodate all change without effect. Only one idea is capable of doing this and it characterizes Deity as an "ordered unknowable." It alone attributes to Ultimacy the form by which all change becomes possible as opposed to any specific manifestation of change.

However, it also simultaneously gives credence to two diametrically opposed conclusions. Order infers 'time,' while the unknowable does not. Under any lesser circumstance this conjoining of opposites would be illogical; but since 'order within the unknowable' constitutes the most fundamental form of self, this exception is not only acceptable but necessary. Once validated, this idea then confirms the necessity for the 'ordered unknowable' -- one aspect of which is constituted by the potential from which knowing springs; the other by the actualization of the potential that knowing inherently manifests.

Since both of these differences lack process, they can't be distinguished from one another quantitatively. Nevertheless, we qualitatively make distinction between them in the form of pre-self and post-self. When combined, these differences make the unknowable successive as well as simultaneous to itself. This duality in the potential of the unknowable is what reason then uses to fix its own limitation -- a necessity to the characterizing of itself as a singularity via the multiplicity of its ongoing process. The fixing of idea to self perceived singularity is called relevance.

o 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. By 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 denial.

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 immediately effect.

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. This 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. Were it otherwise, we wouldn't be speculating about its nature.