Why a man is given impossible things to speak of to an almost tedious end may not be a bad question. Things impossible both for a man to do and things impossible for a man to avoid. But for the believer this matter is alone resolved both in Jesus the Christ and by Jesus the Christ, for He alone is that man who does all the impossible.
And therefore…even because of His doing(s) He alone has authority to speak of, give instruction in, command to, recommend of all He does (for He is no hypocrite)…and even bring all substantial question to this thing, man, that cannot escape his loathe of being cross examined in the witness chair. Cross examined.
Let’s face it if we can. If we are made able. We are all of substance of expression. All things of creation are, all things cannot escape their being; and, in that being, hold expression of their being. Too circular in reason? Too plainly obvious as to be not worthy of note or saying? “Things are that they are”? And if we were to put too fine a point to it one might even think or say this is descent into the absurd. And, no less, in speaking of what is impossible (at least for man) might we frankly face that to any man it is impossible to accept himself as absurd…even to extreme as the absurdity?
Any attempt to beat up Descarte will have its own impossible to avoid consequences. And another might say “He is not here to defend himself, why then bring up anything as attributed to him as though it might be used as against him?” What? Did he alone of all men imagine he’d escape cross examination? And who says it is to be used as against him? But if in his expression (just as you in yours, me in mine) he hoped to have final word, or believe he might, then what he leaves or has left us of his expression is no less nor more than his being here, himself. His expression (just as you in yours, me in mine) is no less than that expression of his being of being. All is up for examining…even the light that “hits us” and is hitting us a thousand years after a star has died.
But there is also something else. Any call to the witness chair…even as loathed as it might be during cross examination, already speaks of some noting of a thing’s being. Something is according a worthiness to such placing. It is “worthy” enough to be examined. What we ignore we ignore (again…too circular?) but let’s also face it…what we high lite speaks as much for and of our being as to our being (in what we consider worthy of note) as anything else we might express. And for now, if it be possible for any to accept it, it is in that sense this man, Descarte be accorded his “props”. A great thinker. A noted philosopher…who (one would hope) knew enough of philosophy to understand a man’s words are an expression of himself…even if, or when, when under cross examination he is found hypocrite. For cross examination is the thorough examination. It exposes truth.
He (Descarte) is accorded his worthiness therefore, in “I think, therefore I am”. He makes claim of thinking, and thinking as to him of such verity that he can then establish his being upon it. To him it is first truth “I think” from which even all of (his) being can find full support for its proof of likewise truth. And (God forbid) I overstep and seek to get inside a place to which I am not invited (the being of Descarte) and there presume I can speak for him. But since we already do, that is, speak of others, I surely give, and cannot avoid giving him (in such worthiness of being called as witness to his own words) an honest hearing.
Do you, in any way (or even do I…who is no less “up for” cross examination) also hold his words as verity? Then they are as much yours…as his. If “taken in” (and how very much of what men say and have said…constitutes the you of you and the me of me? From “daddies” to philosophers, scientists, teachers, professors, preachers, mommies, friends, wives, husbands, novelists, pundits, et al…even enemies)…yes…if taken in…they now no less constitute in inseparable way what is expression of our self. We may long for “clean slate”…but again, let’s face it…by the time any of us (is it also inescapable?) come to any question of “who we really are” and find any provoking to know…is only that time after we have learned that already boat loads have been dumped in. In that sense it is already and always too late for any of us to do (impossible) anything about ourselves. And even if “unpacking” or throwing unwanted ballast overboard…we can never know if we are acting or only reacting. As in “why do I want to keep that…but get rid of that other?” Whence come my predilections to, and my resistance(s) against?
And I have a predilection toward appearing smart. Intelligent. (At very least to myself) Not ignorant nor naive. Against appearing unwise dupe. And, I suppose I could suppose in that way I am completely unlike any other man.
Did someone not say it is all but impossible for a man to accept to himself that he is the absurdity?
So, I must ask the smart man, the wise man, the man educated to and of parents, professors, preachers, philosophers, kind men, “good” men, men of great note and saying(s), men of impression and acheivement(s), is there any holding to “I think therefore I am”?
Would a man be a liar to hold some made excursion beyond, would he be shown hypocrite under cross examination that such excursion was truly made to some place where a man cannot (where all is impossible to him) and cannot…not…not only be shown, but also, and no less, accept the absurdity of any attempt to establish his own being?
Where he is corrected to, and particularly in this particular…in regards to his own thinking.
“I think, therefore I only think I am”
Who shows…true man?
Clean slate…man?
The “I am” man?
israelx7wordpresscom 