Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
An icon from an evening in glas and apocalyptic writings
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

An icon from an evening in glas and apocalyptic writings

786
views

Published on

michael bolerjack on his way to meet goliath in a revised version of the critique of the catholic apocalypse

michael bolerjack on his way to meet goliath in a revised version of the critique of the catholic apocalypse

Published in: Spiritual

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
786
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An Icon from anEvening in Glas and apocalyptic writings Michael Bolerjack
  • 2. Copyright © 2012 Michael Bolerjack
  • 3. Table of ContentsFaith creates beingThe Treatise on LogicThe AccountThe FormThe Logic“Say that Jerusalem is”Arts RestAll Saints Day“…a limit on infinity…”That dice thrownGod-Church-WorldSymbolswill have been a book/interruptedPreface to Paradise ThroneParadise ThronePPSearch for the AbsolutetombAn Icon from an Evening in GlasSalted With Fire
  • 4. Faith creates being,that is, acknowledgment turns potency to actuality. We are not real unless webelieve. Believe the Lord is in us. It has been said by all who believe that we arecreated by God. Let it be said also that you are not real unless you believe. If you arein doubt, or turned away from the light of faith, His Face, you only seem to be. Aswe have learned in our era, though Parmenides showed us long ago, most of theworld most of the time is mere semblance. By being in relationship with the real,one becomes real oneself. This relationship is one of faith. Faith is not of this world.The world is now deconstructing. Deconstruction is not nihilism, a philosophy ofnothingness, as existentialism was, with its question propadeutic to philosophizing,to be or not to be, the question of suicide in the face of the emptiness at the heart ofexistence. No, deconstruction is not a philosophy of nothingness, as with Sartre, orof being, as with Heidegger, but of sheer semblance, glamour, the milieu ofNietzsche. The opposition of being and nothingness has been deconstructed andwith it faith, which must be in either the fullness or the emptiness of God. There isnow only a faithless seeming-to-be, the time of opinion, of interpretation, ofperspectives, of a world in which there are no longer not only values of high andlong standing, but not even mere facts. There is no actuality. With too much going
  • 5. on, there is no action, but the pose of glamour, the system of artificiality, in whichthe natural is valued only for its effectiveness as a sales tool. We desire, we attend, weare interested in, that which we love. Which can now only be represented, notpresented. There is no present, no presence, only presentations. There is no longerdirect unmediated contact with life. In fact, the mass of men and women are notreal. They have simply ceased to exist, though they still seem to. The only way backto being is the act of faith, a will to believe in God, the really real. At the momentyou say yes to God you begin to be. Without that you never even were. There areonly two ways, the world of reality and the world of opinion. As one once said: donot seem but be. When you believe you come to stand. Only by standing can youunderstand. Then you arrive. The highest reality transcends both metaphysics andethics. It is a moral and spiritual reality. To be in relationship with the Spirit is to bereal. Everything else is material to be bought or sold. As Christ said, you must beborn again, that is, being in the world does not make you real, but being inrelationship with God. It has been said that each of us has their own reality. That istrue for versions of semblance, of which the number is indefinite. To be definite, tobe free, to be real, is to be of one mind, the mind of Christ. Only by keeping Christin mind can you lose the separate reality of the show and find the one true good andbeautiful. It is as Parmenides and Paul said, perfect. We are required then in allseriousness to be perfect, to have the mind of Christ, to be real, to love reality nomatter how painful, preferring it to the intoxicants, that is, to be nothing for show.In this world that seems to be impossible. But semblance is in error. The one truthsimply is the Lord Jesus Christ. This will never change. The City of God is whatAugustine called the real world that I here declare, opposed to the glittering vices ofthe pagan diabolical city of semblance. Rilke said “you must change.” I second himand add: You have a choice. You must choose. Choose reality. Faith is the meaningof being. At the mass the priest stated the position of faith: God does the impossible.Now, for reason the impossible by definition cannot be done. Yet, the Church hasever taught, on the basis of the authority of Christ, that for God, and for one whohas faith, nothing is impossible. Faith, then, understands more than cool reason
  • 6. comprehends. When Hegel said the real is rational and the rational is real, heattempted to rationalize faith’s basic character of higher realization throughirrationality, into a system in which the sublation of difference and contradiction asabsolute knowledge can be the all in all. Hegel also said the whole is the true, butothers have posited infinities, supplements and traces that exceed the whole, thusexceeding truth. Truth, to be true, would have to include the lie, or seeming-to-be.But this cannot be. They do not change the truth through that displacement. Theycan, as one has said, deny or ignore the truth, but they cannot change it. Truth to betrue cannot be an historical process but is immutable. Human history is a lie, spokenagainst the truth. The Church is able through faith to have both the truth and all itscontradictoriness, by mystery, by the assertion of the dogmas of God as both threeand one, of Christ as both God and man, of the death of God on the cross, of achurch both sinful and holy, of a sacrament both bread and God, of God bothimmanent and transcendent, of a human being who was completely free from sin, ofa papacy which is infallible, of the good of suffering, and much else. The Churchboldly asserts the incomprehensible, things which are not mere paradoxes of thefaith, but real contradictions that the logic of Aristotle cannot admit, though he saidHeraclitus said such things without really thinking them. I have at various points inthe scope of my Transubstantiation said and shown the truth of contradictionwithout contradicting the truth, yet He was contradicted as prophesied by those whoput him to death, even with the cross of human reason. But Truth lives again.Resurrection itself, without which our religion is to be pitied, is perhaps the greatestcontradiction, though some say such things as the virgin birth to be. Anyone whoclings to reason will find a stone of offense to stumble on in scripture and thechurch’s teaching. And yet, while asserting the necessity of both faith and reason, theChurch presents us with impossibilities to believe. God asks nothing but theimpossible. Be perfect. Your faith has saved you, do not sin again. The Church givesus models of perfection in the saints, who by the grace of God did the impossible. Itis said the great thing is to dream the impossible dream, and one has said the onlything worth attempting is the impossible. Faith does this. But without Christ we can
  • 7. do nothing. Knowledge will fail, but love will go on. We love each other despiteour contradictions. By faith and love we suspend the judgments of reason,transforming even the critical faith by which we are reformed for an ever-greatertruth we know by love and not by reason. My life has been one love, no blot it out,my life has been one chain of contradictions. But they are one and the same. We arepresented with something greater than we can understand, but we believe, we love,we obey, and even not despite but because of the contradictions. These of the faiththat the Church presents to us are the greatest spur to and test of our faith, and thusour faith is proved. Logic had its scapegoat, the scandal of the contradiction, yet faithhas won out. “Being” doesn’t empty faith, but is substantial subsistent faith.
  • 8. THETREATISE ON LOGIC
  • 9. As I told a friend in April, 2010, at Easter the Lord gave me a big thing to say.Altogether, the telling of it took over three months. The results are disconcerting foranyone who thinks in the accustomed tradition of the mainstream of philosophycoming from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. The essays I wrote take as theirstarting-point the Hegelian assertion of the truth of the whole, coupled with thegospel assertions concerning how God thinks, which is very different from that ofthe world. In the end, a logic was produced that reconciles all oppositions, to thepoint that in retrospect, having watched an hour of news on television, I commentedthat, if it doesn’t make sense, it must be true. My logic both describes the illogicalityof the world today and shows a possible path to the unification of the competingclaims of the various religions and philosophies under the banner of the allowancethat all are true as a whole, and only make sense as part of the whole. The world,now fragmented into many parts, each part thinking it is the true one, or that all areequally untrue, or that all are true from their own perspectives, each in their ownreality, is actually true when grasped in its innate contradiction, and that thiscontradiction is the truth, and must be, for the truth not to contradict itself. It is notthat we agree to disagree, but that our very being depends on faith in a God whoencompasses all differences. At any rate, so it seems to me.
  • 10. THE ACCOUNTIn the following I will give both a general and special theory of accountability, that is, in thelatter case, a restricted economy of the account of the genesis and order of the ideas ofthe work, with some relevant history on the author, his life and the present age, and in the formercase, an analysis of the account as such, both in the logos and in terms of a total count in themaking, opposing teleological closure, our happiness and promise of joy, to the pleasure ofseriality, the indefinite, semblance, our anxiety of desire, our insatiable pleasure, our fear of theend. In order to do this I will make use of the complexity of the logos-logic-logistic-logisticsconstruction, showing on the square or in the space of the idea as such the relations of these fourterms to each other and to the regimes of religion and finance, as well as to their deconstructions.This will be worked out with the thought of Christ in mind, the problem of the contradictions oflife in Christ and of life in the World, of the comprehensiveness of the totality of the logic ofGod inherent in the notion that God does the impossible, the relation of this belief to faith andreason, to the mercy of God as I think it is to be understood, to the theory of reading the Biblethat gives rise to the comprehension of contradiction, as well as the secular application of thislogic in literature and philosophy, in ethics, politics, finance, and in the interrelation of the faithsof the world, showing a way to peace through an emphasis on wholeness, understanding,forgiveness and the abandonment of the subjective perspective as such, however multiplied, forthe unity of one objective dramatic self-effacing release of power for the love of God and thelove of neighbor, alluded to at times in the works I have written by the words arrival, realdialectic, catholicity or the Catholic Economy. A textuality will obtain in the working-through ofthe general and special theories, in the sense that the account of the restricted textual economy of
  • 11. the individual works is set in the account of the general text, and my text itself in that indefiniteever-greater text that simulates the infinite. We will see the interplay of the sign-world oftextuality, which is constantly deconstructing, with the true frame of things found in number,which needs no translation and cannot be deconstructed. The cities of God, seen in theUltrastructure or Metasignification as I posit it, and of the World, seen in textuality, areintertwined, as the wheat and the tares, but as the deconstructing world falls away, as Joyce saidaccelerating at 32 ft per second per second, into the abyss, the altogether pristine will emerge,which the Bible calls measure, weight, number, a fact Andrew Marvel commented on in hispreface to Milton, though all now seems lost without measure, weightless, a “total count in themaking.” The account of accountability I intend is meant to, in part, show the futility of thatseries, by that which is already made, from which God is seen, as Paul said in Romans. Thelogos and its logic show this as well. Truth is apparent in the words in which it is written, andyou do not have a single word without having the whole of language, metaphysics and the truthsthey contain with it, as Derrida once said in his early controversy on structuralism.Deconstruction targeted the logos and its logic, forcing it before the letter to the logistic ofreducing number to logic, thus eliminating the indeconstructible, and by postmodern parodyreducing logistic to logistics, a keyword in business today that is parallel to the use of the termaesthetics for the artificial attempt to reverse time in the aging of the faces of women, as well asthe remotivated uses of the word metaphysics today, which are not concerned with being orcause or form as such, but with the spiritual world in general, without reference to good or eviland their restricted dialectic, that is the deconstructive economy of generality against a properdialectic. Logistics, aesthetics and metaphysics are all artificial, set against dialectics assimulation is set against reality, and do not make any new thing but manipulate matter and spirit
  • 12. in magical kinds of ways, attempting the impossible, promising the impossible, but ending onlyby destroying actuality, suspending the really Real, a term from Gregory of Nyssa for God, anderasing meaning as such. One of the cornerstones of the present work will be to see theimpossible as something that only God can do, that is the definition of God in a way, whichinvolves not the resort to the paradox, which is based on seeming (characteristic of contemporarylogistics, aesthetics and metaphysics), but on the impossible, which really is the reality of thatwhich is, its contradictoriness, its wholeness, its truth. What has happened is the setting back ofactuality to mere possibility, this step back freeing play, eliminating the truly serious for thesemblance of gravitas, and as the fall away takes place, the seeming elimination of gravity, at thesame time a real and an inexorable and unbearable gravity which is causing the fall but cannot befelt in the time of the abyss. Material is feeding the pull of this gravity, the increasing materialityof culture, seen in the new importance of logistics, of aesthetics to defeat gravity and time, ofmetaphysics to defeat any notion of absolute truth. There is still such truth, but at first glance itmay be mistaken for the world that is falling away. That world views it in the grand affirmationsof Nietzsche, Joyce, Derrida: their YES. But by eliminating the NO they will by deconstructivelogic eliminate the YES as well. It is only by conserving the negative, let your yes mean yes andyour no mean no, as Christ said, that the absolute truth emerges into view as the wholeness of thecontradiction. The very thing that was previously thought to be division is the real unity, seenfrom a height not from the leveled postmodern standpoint. God tells us this in all Bibles, andeven Heraclitus knew of it: the way up and the way down are one and the same. Aristotle couldnot grasp this truth which is not human but is divine. The hidden harmony of things is expressedby Christ as the Father who causes His rain to fall on both the just and on the unjust. Christ saidthen, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. And it is this command to be perfect which
  • 13. tests the cross of human reason, and by faith, not the will or effort of man, though we are toldthat also is required, in order perhaps to be part of the contradiction, not by our wills but only bythe mercy and grace of God. Such faith is the creation of reality, for unless you believe you arenot real. The artificial world falls away while the real remains. We are judged by our works, butfaith saves, and this at once is the whole truth, which is the mercy of God greater than our sins,but also greater than justice as such or reasoning in itself. Parmenides, in the poem that sets forththe One, says that there are WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT and that which only SEEMS TO BE.And this is the truth. The One is what is, which as One contains actually all number as One,while the nothing or what is not is the same as the void without either meaning or number, noteven the Islamic invention of the zero, while what seems to be, which commentators say is theinordinate concern of a work on the One, is the province not of the Ultrastructure but of the text.The sign only seems to be. The oracle does not speak or conceal but gives signs, as Heraclitussaid, which is to say, there are only the revelation of the One, the occulted nothing and the realmof interpretation. Plato, in his dialogue on Parmenides, subjects the One to the first logistic,reducing the Ultrastructure of the unity of number in the monad to the logic inherent in thatunity, which inspired deconstruction, a move that results in the equation: both this and that,neither this nor that, the fourfold of logic I wrote on in 1988, and which became the basis fordeconstruction’s double blow or affirmation, which is a mere paralysis, not the whole truth butthe interdiction of the arrival of truth, as I point out at various places in the work. The logic ofthe One as one thing and its opposite both at once is the positing of contradiction as the truth, butwhich is only part of the strategy of deconstruction, which then eliminates the contradiction by aDionysian YES, by the leveling of hierarchy in Nietzsche’s logical deduction concerning thehistory of Being as the history of an error, a history in which being is overcome by sheer
  • 14. appearance, which cannot be appearance any more if it has no Being to oppose it in a binaryopposition, and many say they are the same, this deconstruction of the space of logic based onthe contradictions that feed the dialectical work of the word and the grand gesture of theaffirmation that is a vicious circle without egress. But they are not, though they seem to be. Theway to discern the truth of contradiction from the contradiction of truth involves looking at thefruits of the logics. The contradiction of truth is done on the one hand to free interpretation,signs, the text, generally, to excess, as a kind of pleasure of the text, as Barthes said, the same assexuality, but displaced upward. The truth of contradiction on the other hand humbles humanreason and its significance and tells us there is something that cannot be thought, the impossible,that man cannot do. Derrida said that only the impossible is worth attempting. Actually heattempted to deconstruct the impossible itself, by the elimination of act, the creation of purepossibility, and by way of simulation, through the imposition of a pure possibility, makingactuality impossible. Every act became an act. Acting, but no action, the pure act is theelimination of all acts. But the truth of contradiction is not this act, but the actuality ofwholeness. This whole is the One. It is reality. The truth of contradiction indeed says both thisand that, neither this nor that, or rather every statement and its opposite are true. If God is goodand yet as we know there is evil, there is in God’s world, the world we inhabit, both. There hasbeen much theodicy from theologians and poets to justify the ways of God to man and explainthe existence of evil, and I do not wish to place the goodness of God in question. One can saythat evil is only an illusion, as in the East, or that creation itself is an evil, the Gnostic way. Letus say neither of these. But at the same time let us say both. The world is evil and it is only anillusion. Rather that is what it has become in the hands of the logic of deconstruction, which wasalways potential in the tradition of metaphysics, but which did not come into play until the last
  • 15. 100 years. The world is now the multiple, the sign, and this is the illusion, and semblance is theevil. What is real? Buddha said suffering was an illusion, but Christ showed us suffering anddeath are both real, though His love is more real. As Sophocles said, we suffer into truth. This isto suffer the contradiction. The contradiction of truth is to posit the absence of meaning as theonly meaning, an effect, that is, as Derrida said in an interview in Positions, “writing literallymeans nothing,” but the truth of contradiction is to accept the cross and what put Christ on it,which was the human reaction to the all-embracing nature of God’s mercy. You will love yourenemy but they will not love you, you will be peaceful while they make war, you will becontradicted as Christ was contradicted. The truth of contradiction however is not thiscontradiction of the truth, the world against the truth, but the mercy by which God is free, notbound by human reason or will, in that He may affirm both the just and the unjust, both saintsand sinners, loving He said especially the sinner, but rejoicing when he repents of sin. In thismetanoia or conversion is the birth of faith and reality against the paranoia of human fear, greed,denial, desire, self-love, and perhaps most of all the pride of the goddess of human Reason. Thewisdom of God transcends mere reason and does this in a way more than we know. There is tosay it again, because it bears repeating, what is, what is not and what only seems to be, and inthis logical matrix we are placed in the moral problem of our good and our evil. Is evil nothing,merely a lack of the good? Or is it an illusion, seeming to be only? Or does it really exist? If itexists, it is then true, in a way, but I think a truth that perpetuates itself only by falsehood, bydenial, simulation and terror to quote Badiou, that is, by being the contradiction of truth. Somewould go beyond good and evil, neither moral nor immoral, rather amoral, as one would speak oftruth and falsehood in an extra-moral sense, as Nietzsche did. I prefer to go on to the conclusionof the logic, to the fourth term of this equation, the other that completes the moral hierarchy,
  • 16. which is mysticism. The mystic knows good and evil, that they exist, does not negate themamorally, but in another way, through a transcendent love, turns from evil to the good. Thisturning is the conversion, the being born again, the new man, the repentance, the turning awayfrom the world to God by the renewal of the mind in order to be perfect, that is, to know what ispleasing to God, to think as He does, in a sense, at least as we can do that in this life, in spirit, ifnot in deed. When this happens, all things become possible, the impossible can be done, by Godand in faith. Thus, I, who was not real, become real. The world which was real is known to beunreal. Everything is true, but as the lie which it was. The contradiction is accepted. One doesnot say YES to everything morally or mystically, and yet at the same time one does, loving as itis said the sinner but not the sin. As God does. To love both neighbor and enemy is to refrainfrom judging sin. It is to separate existence from essence, truth from error, that we are good fromwhat we say and do, recognizing that everything that lives is holy, to echo Blake, because part ofthe whole, which is true, the Hegelian view, but that much of what we think is in error, that weare as Kierkegaard said basically wrong before the Truth, or as Luther said, incorrigible, and thatGod does the impossible literally in saving us who are evil, and so to recognize this generally,but not particularly, and thus we can say all religions are one, as Blake did. We must love Godunconditionally, I say, but the reverse is not the case, as some people say, for God requiressomething from each of us, as is spelled out in every religion, every morality, every wisdom, andthough this differs in cases, the fact is this: the forbearance of truth. We are in error, in debt, tothe truth, which still loves us in order that we may yet turn to love Him. The truth is forbearancethat defers the debt, and even, in jubilation, foregoes what is His due, contradicts His justice withan ever-greater mercy that forgives us anyway. Though mercy and justice are opposites they arebut one act, one action that shows that the left hand of God is somehow not aware of the justice
  • 17. and wrath in the right, and in what is the impossible, the incomprehensible, forgives. Even bearsand forbears the impossible, the truth contradicting itself, the heart of contradiction yet notcontradicting the heart, for our sakes. Thus, God does the impossible and in a way or we mayhope that in His mercy He denies what is His right and His prerogative, lets go, releases,renounces all out of love for a creature undeserving of this Almighty grace which shows us self-denial and asks the same of us: love one another as I have loved you. Simple, they say, hard andyet not hard, bright yet dark, smiling yet impassive, simple, yet with the absolute complexity thatwe cannot understand of a love that contradicts everything except love itself. The truth does notdeny itself, does not lie, but just as love fulfills the law, justice is good, yet it is completed,fulfilled, by an absolute mercy that suffers contradiction on all sides, out of mercy. This is ourhope. It is a hope against hope. As has been said, God is love, and we are saved in hope, and thetruth itself is a charity that gives even itself away. It cannot be denied. The contradiction is alsothis: that in giving we receive, that only by being empty are we full. At the wall of truth, to echoCusanus, the opposites at last meet, the coincidence, and contradiction contradicts itself, andunity is achieved beyond what human reason can know. This is the truth of mercy and the mercyof truth. The contradiction both is and is not at the same time. I do not know, I cannot know, yetI believe, I must believe. One must believe. Be perfect. Believe. Faith makes it real. I am madeby God, but in faith I become real. Faith is a gift, and if I say I give something to God, then Imust be contradicting myself, yet I believe He needs us even as we need Him. Therese said: Howmuch Jesus desires to be loved! We know more than we understand, and we are told to inclinenot to our own understandings. The mercy of God can be seen in relation to the previously givenaccount of the logic of the philosopher Parmenides and the dialogue by Plato about the talk thefirst great logician in the West had with the young Socrates. If there is a secret, it perhaps is this.
  • 18. If you take the logic, any logic, perhaps, which deals with truth, or any logic problem where youhave the answer but have to supply the steps to prove it, on the one hand, and on the other hand,a problem from mathematics, say, simple addition, for example, then when we speak of the factof the world, the truth of being, the meaning of things, or the mercy of God, and assert thecontradictoriness of them, the truth of contradiction, the answer is that the world, truth, meaning,being, what is our ultimate concern, is more like a math problem than a logic problem. One doesnot reduce math to logic as in the famous logistic of Russell and Whitehead who spent much inkin “proving” that two plus two equals four. No. One does the reverse of the logistic, and convertslogic into math, the truth into a number, as I show in the Metasignification about the arrival,completion and fulfillment of man and God. This reversal can be seen in that, instead of sayingtrue and false, both and neither, and conclude that they cannot all be true, one says “four timesthree equals twelve.” Or simply add up everything, being-in-the-world, and arrive at theconclusion of the new summa, the sum total of the all in all. Which must be One. AbsolutelyPlato and Parmenides were right. The One is what is, minus what seems to be, setting aside whatis not. The entire fourfold of the logical square is true all at the same time. I may seem to beagreeing with seriality and Sartre by indicating a summa or summing up, that the answer is atotal count in the making, as a poet said, but I am not. Semblance is that, and it is growingindefinitely. The truth is One. When you add up all faith in the world, the thing that makes usreal, and subtract all doubt, all reason, everything that is not faith, that is, the multiplicity, youarrive at One. If the truth is One, what would the Zero be? Zero is pleasure, a kind of sensualnihilism. Pleasure times anything leads to the void, as multiplying anything by zero leaves zero.To arrive at true spiritual joy, you must then not choose pleasure, but rather its opposite, pain.You must not affirm both, which would negate the One and affirm the Nothing. Pain or
  • 19. suffering, the cross, is something we accept, the fact of it, and also the good of it in the wisdomof God’ providence, trusting Him. Christ says two things that may contradict each other, yet bothI think according to the theory may be true. Come to me all you who are weary and carrying aheavy burden, and find your rest, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Deny yourselves,take up your cross and follow me. But the cross is not easy and light, or it would not be the cross.The cross is full of every kind of pain and contradiction, humiliation, suffering, and to suffer isnot easy. But at least it is real. Pain and suffering are two criteria of reality, which as one poetsaid, is not something the human being can stand much of. Love hurts. God died on the cross, apainful death, because of His love for the Father and for us. If He calls us to the cross, to bear itwith Him, how can it also be light and easy? Because at least it is real, which is not somethingthe pleasures of life give. Pleasure is the zero, and the more it is multiplied, the more there is ofnothing. Numbness is worse than pain, to feel even pain is better than not being able to feelanything at all. The cross is in a sense both hard and easy, because real, because the opposite ofpleasure, because in this, despite human reason, and what appears to be our own self-interest,there is a true joy that the world cannot comprehend, peace that the world knows nothing of, awideness to mercy, as the hymn says, a forgiveness, an understanding, a wisdom, which is theMind of Christ. Subtracting pleasure from this will not diminish it, for pleasure is the zero, but ifyou multiply pleasure times any good thing that seems to be good in itself and may be, thoughtruly God alone is Good, then in the modern calculus of utilitarian hedonism, you not only maybut you must lose everything. To arrive at the One, you add up all faith, faiths of every kind,believe everything, all things as it is said, and subtract all doubt, all reason, all sin, for whateveris not of faith is sin, and most of all subtract all pleasure in the world, though it is really onlynothing, and then you get the One. What is the number of Spiritual Joy? Christ indicates that it is
  • 20. 70. Why 70? Because human understanding forgives seven times, divine wisdom does 70 timesseven times. And it is for this reason that Christ sends before Him 70 disciples to all the towns inIsrael he will visit in his life because they are to bring the gospel to the people, bring them thegood news, the joy of the message of peace and forgiveness and healing from God. The goodnews which is One contrasts with the void, all that simulates peace, but does not provide it, suchas vacations, rather than vocations. We have the One and the zero. What is the postmoderncontext? The computer is the universal adding machine, which connects everything throughalmost, but not quite, infinitely long and complex strings of Ones and zeros. This is the totalcount in the making, ever indefinite, not able to arrive, or be computed. The computer hascomputed something it cannot compute. In a way, it seems to have made the world into a kind ofOne, one world. The ideal has become real through technology. Instead of this great truth of theReality of the Whole, we have instead the Hole of Unreality, the abyss into which the city of theworld is falling. This unreal city is currently in a crisis, and this crisis will not pass, a crisis offinancial meltdown, political deadlock, unending distortions of the truth by denial, simulationand terror on all sides. To contradict the truth, clearly and simply, would be to arrive at theWhole, by dialectic, but to again use Badiou’s terms, truth is being destroyed not bycontradiction, which is dialectical, like all truth, at least in the West, but through deconstructivesimulations and the many forms of denial that humans are known for, and the variety ofterrorisms at war in the world today, even on computers themselves. The zero, the nothingness,which is really a less than zero, a simulated fraud, in order to deny it is what it is, or is not what itseems to be, requires constant stimulation. The financial world requires great stimulus packagesthat only delay, defer, deny the problem of an economy based on credit rather than faith,capitalism rather than the catholic economy of the charity of truth, two different forms of belief
  • 21. and trust, the former an illusion, the second an ideal, and which increases the national debt ofalmost all countries in a kind of unreal multiplication that is as big as the strings of ones andzeros that have made the internet. The stimulants that keep us going, legal or illegal, moral orimmoral, sane or insane, give us an illusion of energy and vitality, like the picture of DorianGray, that is, with a huge price we are in denial about. The corruption of the world is the fact andthe result of our being in denial, a corruption seen in the murder of the woman of Juarez by drugcartels fed by American addictions, in the large amounts of money that fuel politics andgovernment today, and in the horror of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Thenumber of this corruption is something like the Google. It is the opposite of the One. It has beencreated artificially, stimulated by advertising, sex, power, all desires, all pleasures, and is amonster, a beast, anti-Christian, if I may refer to the prophecy of the end of the world withoutseeming to be something I am not. God has promised to heal the world, as he ends it, to shepherdthe people, give them good pasture to lie down in and rest, to bind up all our wounds. But he alsopromises to destroy the sleek and the strong. This is not a popular message, but it is in Ezekiel.People like to watch movies about the end of the world, simulations of it, or deny that theprophecies apply to the future, are far rather about ancient Rome, and we cannot fall back on theold phrase, history will be the judge, because after the end, history will be no more, it will havebeen an illusion, an error of the human judgment, corrected by the divine judgment, which we allhope will be merciful. That all this huge apocalyptic mistake of a world is the all-timecontradiction, where some people have so much, and some so little, is the fact. Accountability iscalled for. What we have is an illusion, what we need is an ideal that we can still make real if webelieve we can love. I believe we can. Criticism and complaint and the long litany of opinion arethe order of the day, and there is little room for thanks and praise, for trust and mercy, for
  • 22. meditation, for stillness instead of stridency, and we all are too unilateral, too partial, toofragmented, unlike the God I have evoked so far, as He is to me, Who is so all-embracing, One,whole, complete, that He includes everything and its opposite, and so much so that we cannotunderstand Him as He is, or really know ourselves, and thus seem to pursue our careers, ourloves, our lives, our faith or our fate, with slackness or sleekness, apathy or determination, due tocontingent rather than essential reasons. Absolutely, God is the reason for our being, but He isnot limited by reasons. Love is the reason for the world and for us, and it is what can still hold ustogether, and I believe will, and really does in God, despite our unbelief, our lack of care, ourfears. He said: You will have trouble in the world, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome theworld. We have been given temptations: to sins of the body, mind, spirit. Yet we are temples,lights in the world, cities on a hill. We all are called. We hear this call not with our ears, but withour hearts, not by sight, but by faith, with love, and we do not say that He is being unreasonable,that He asks the impossible, which He perhaps does, but we rejoice in being called, in beingchosen, in being created, in being renewed, in being granted a few years to be a part of the world,to learn to love, to choose joy and hope, not despite suffering, but because it is His will, theinscrutable, which I have described as a kind of contradiction, not merely a paradox, acontradiction seen chiefly in Jesus Christ Himself, being both true God and true man, the factwhich was a stumbling block for both Jews and Islamists, His death on the cross, what Heendured in solidarity with each of us and all of us. To be called by Him is to be called to account,and he makes us accountable, in that we really do count, are not nothing, yet are not somebody,but are One, once we leave the world of seeming-to-be for what really IS, the contradiction oftruth for the truth of contradiction. When I am called to account, made accountable, I must turn,either toward Him Who calls, or away from Him. If I think I count as somebody, I turn away. If I
  • 23. turn toward the call, I begin to count to Him. If I think I count, I will enumerate the reasons. If Ionly begin to count, I do not count higher than One, though God can unfold out of the Onenumbers such as the trinity, or four-square arrival, the gnomic five, the completed seven of Godand man at one with each other, or in fulfillment arrive at the twelve, three times four, God timesman, what is called the All in All. We ascend through a few steps, hard steps of arrival andcompletion, and in the next life by His mercy we will be fulfilled, not by an addition of God butby a great multiplication, as He multiplied the bread and fish, as He said, be fruitful andmultiply, as He said, not seven times but 70 times seven times. God’s action multiplies, it doesnot divide. Yet it does. He brings not peace but a sword, and a person’s enemies will be his ownfamily members. The Church is persecuted and persecuting, both, holy and sinful, both, anddespite denials, often contradicts Scripture. We might view this as hypocrisy, but I do not think itis, yet I do not think it should be ignored either. The truth is contradictory, is exemplified by thisChurch professing love, but burning heretics, or silencing those who disagree with Rome. Ibelieve God loves each of us, as well as the Church and the World, not despite ourcontradictions, but because of them. It is we who find ourselves unbearable, judging one and all,condemning sinners, other faiths, critics, even our closest friends. But my conscience judges onlyme, it is me I am to give an account of. My faith says this, love would have it so, but I dream ofreasons, most quite good, why the other is wrong and I am right. Then we are a kind of paranoid,living a delusion, thinking I am somebody, fearful of the stranger and neighbor, in love withmyself, if with anyone at all. As Nietzsche once confessed after going mad, he never lovedanyone, not even himself. To know that there are good and evil that really contradict and thatnevertheless we are not to sin or do evil, that to know the good and not to do it is a sin, that weare therefore, again, to be perfect, means that although contradiction is forgiven, that is not a
  • 24. license to sin. And perhaps the greatest sin is to deny the truth. John Paul II once said that themost important word in the Bible is “truth.” In denying the truth we deny God Himself Who isthe Truth in a person. The truth is a person, not abstract, and easy to love, with a real heart, reallytempted like us, suffered and died like us, had a mother, was just a worker in wood, never wrotea book, never married, had a brief career and would have been forgotten, if He had not been God.And because He is not forgotten, neither are we, though we seem to be, after only fifteen minutesof fame. Most of us never get even that much, thank God. But because God loves us and wantsus to love Him, as Therese said, we will not only not be forgotten, but live forever. Eternity wasthe great point of departure for me when I was first called by God in 1989, and my conversionwas the immediate fruit of a paper I wrote on the distinction I drew between eternity and theInfinite, departing from Levinas, on the one hand, and Nietzsche on the other, Eternity for me isa religious notion, the Infinite mere philosophy, all against what I once studied, Nietzsche’seternal return, that infinite circle without exit, and the ethics of Levinas which posits the Infinitebut not its limitation by Eternity. The circle that I had been in for five years was in 1989 for me,as Derrida said, “effracted,” the economy broken, my debt paid, I was redeemed and freed, andyet bound to God, though not bound essentially anymore to sin, as I set out on a journey, whichat times was painful, boring, mad, mystic, full of love, and filled with the attempt to writesomething about what I was thinking and experiencing. The basic premise of my work as anauthor from the inception in 1989, after having rejected Derrida, was that deconstruction was avery bad thing, the philosophy of the Antichrist, and that it was to be refuted. However, beforethe present work is concluded the reader will find something else going on in my relationship tothe thought of Derrida, and it will be seen to fulfill the implications of the thesis concerning thetruth of contradiction. While the work, on the one hand, has to do with my coming to terms with
  • 25. my twenty years in the Catholic Church, and what I found out about the apocalypse, on the otherhand it involves a working-through of Derrida and deconstruction, my position changing over thecourse of the years, under the pressure of the time. I came to see it is not that we contradict eachother, but that we cannot logically accept that fact of existence, and so we live a little crazy, indenial about reality, which just cannot be true, as it is, yet we find it may really be the truth,WHAT IS. And so in the end, I have made my peace with deconstruction, while still opposing it,that is dialectically appropriating it so as not to be deconstructed by it, but have allowed thecontradictions to stand, because the whole is the true. The Bible says so many things in morethan one way, even four gospels that often conflict and contradict, that we must change the waywe think or ignore the great canonical truth that the Bible is true even when it contradicts itself,and that one must not isolate statements, but take it as a whole. One might say: In the beginningwas the Account, which is one meaning of the word Logos used as the name of the Son of God.The word for Word means more than just “word,” and is paradigmatic of the truth itself, beingalso speech, reason, discourse, harmony, proportion and account, as well as much more, as Iwrite in my work on Heraclitus. Words self-contradict, as a teacher of mine pointed out,remarking that people want words to mean only one thing, which they do not, a fact that does notapply to numbers which do not mean but one thing as numbers, though we may find symbols inthe ciphers, a fact that accounts for the plan for the temple in the book of Ezekiel. Newton saidthis plan for the Temple is the map for the mind of God, which inspired me to say that God is aBook, which is neither right, nor wrong, that is, unproven and not able to be proven, andalthough it does not seem to make sense, I say it anyway. To say that all religions are One, andyet not all religions are equally true, is valid. To say all of the Bible is eternally valid, that what itsays about something in the past still applies today, especially regarding the Church, is what I
  • 26. think is true, that Scripture is essential Prophetic, but that any one isolated point of view is onlypartial, whether it is Catholic, Jewish, Islamic or Buddhist, and that only the totality can be thewhole truth and nothing but the truth, even though all conflict. And yet we maintain ouraffiliations with the parts, while realizing they are not the whole, which is a representation ofGod. God is eternal and infinite, and in a logical space contains all possibilities, but as Aquinassaid, what is eternal is actual, so He really is All in All already. We await our arrival, when Hechooses, and learn patience as we wait, as Joyce said, patience is the great thing. As Holderlinsaid, the important thing is not to be somebody, but to learn. And endurance is good for the faith,and faith is what makes you real, if you are real. Faith creates being and in being born again webecome real. We are in a real relation with God, not circling an impassive distant star, and yet weare also in a fixed relation, for God cannot change, which we cannot help but do in ourimmutable world filled with immortal souls. From our hearts we overcome our minds. Out oflove we do not have to have a better reason, a better theology, a better job, a better car, a betterhouse, a better wife, or a bigger and better anything than anyone else. In a sense contradiction isso democratic, so egalitarian, and dialogue so good, to be at peace so welcome, and yet to fightfor the right so necessary, to never quit or give up or in, but to keep going, to call out to eachother as we run on, “just keep going!” which Badiou said is a definition of truth. There is noother race to run and to finish is to win, to go the distance as the fighter did in the old movie, totry, and though as we die we may not know if we won anything or what our lives really meant,yet to know that if we have loved, some real thing was made, a living spiritual being that is likehaving a baby in terms of the natural world, but may be how God is born, in us, and how Hisbook came to be, for us, why he lived and died, with us, and did not give up, out of love, one ofus, and my religion was not wrong about God being love, as John said: God is love. When we
  • 27. love each other, God is more God, I think, and we help create the World with Him, the creationbeing something not inessential or extrinsic to God, but a world He loved so much He died tosave it. He was crucified along with two others. In the four accounts in the gospels, only Lukementions that one was saved. Yet there is that one chance, that one hope, that one account, andwe accept this in a way Samuel Beckett could not, who also could not accept suffering, wholived in perpetual exile. We are not yet home, but we are not still in exile. We are on the way,and God is coming to meet the prodigal, the thief, the sinner, even the good. We do not knowwhat He will say, or even if He is a He, as in some churches which are progressive, but God willcome, we only seem to wait indefinitely, and faith being the substance of things hoped for, whatmakes the real really real, and the evidence of things not seen, the living proof, we hear the word,receive the gift of faith, and become real, sometimes right away, sometimes years later, as in thedifference between the conversion of Paul and the conversion of Augustine, not for our sakesalone but for the sake of the whole, and to be a drop in the infinite sea is a much better thing thanimagined when we spent our days on the shore playing with the shells and rocks and things thatamused, distracted, but did not help us become what we were meant to be. Accepting the truth ofcontradiction is not the way to arrive, but rather some point you reach just before arrival, how farbefore no one knows, but somewhere between departure and approach. As I said once, in a paperon Augustine and Derrida, to contradict the theory that a letter can never arrive, because of astructure of error built into the postal principle, if you set out and just keep going, you cannothelp but arrive, you will not get lost forever, and even if you lose your way, God will find you.Perhaps He can only find us precisely when we are lost. We must lose ourselves in order to befound. We lose our lives in order to really begin to live. Whether that is before or after death, oronly after resurrection, after the particular or the general judgment or a long time in the fires of
  • 28. purgation, or if simply knowing and loving God is already to have arrived, I do not know. Ibelieve all of the above. That is the answer you give God when He asks you that one last, hardquestion that means so much. All of the above, Lord, all of the above. It may be that the questionthough will be simple and easy, as simple as “Who do you love?” If we can honestly say “Youalone Lord, you are my inheritance, all I desired in all I desired,” we will be closer to the truth.“With what is thought to remain?” John Paul II asked in his youth, and the reply he gave was“With the truth, of course.” If we sincerely seek the Truth, while not violating conscience, wewill be saved. These words of Vatican Council II, said in relation to the religions of the world,should be kept in mind when considering truth, in that neither Christians nor anyone else own itentirely, and that precisely when the truths of the world all contradict, this does not add up to thenegation of the truth, but to its very completion, just short of our true fulfillment in the All in All.It has been said we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is a theology ofpolitics, compromise, but I say, follow the truth wherever it leads, for wherever God leads you,He will provide for you, even though it be impossible, a promise which is the logic of mercy,absolute. This absolute is free, free of reason, meaning to say, at least we must not look forreasons to believe, like theologians, but allow ourselves to be created in our essential being byfaith, to have sheer faith and to leave the rest to God, whose mercy and justice are one.THE FORMSeeing the form is part of the basic requirement to know and love the truth. It is the point ofconcentration at which the work meets the world. This meeting of you who are the work of God,and any work you may do, with the world, is a kind of crisis, crux, or turning point. The world
  • 29. tries to inform you, reshape you and conform you to itself and its purposes, which varydepending on time and place, but which universally have principles such as pleasure, desire andpower expressed today through finance and politics. We are told by Paul to be not conformed tothe world. Thus, one must not be too informed by it or of it, either. On what basis then shall webe formed? Let us say on faith, hope and love, theological and spiritual gifts that money cannotbuy. They can be simulated or denied or distorted or destroyed by the terrorisms we experience,but they yet abide by the power of the Spirit and are taught by the Church in prayer in the Word.We are thus formed. What is the Form? It has been described in a variety of ways, beginningwith Plato, as in the Timaeus, in which is posited the khora or womb, the matrix of creation inwhich or through which the god or demi-urge fashions certain actual shapes of things. Thesethings are like atoms, building blocks of the reality. Derrida, once he had carried through on thedestruction of form, turned to the khora in his later years, perhaps wanting to see the unshapedbehind the shape, as Plotinus put it, a text Derrida also referred to in his writing on the secret inthe late 90s, as well as in an exergue in the 60s. I think he went from a divided origin in 1967 togo beyond the moment of the fall to return to an original unity of all things in the greataffirmation, the YES he finds in Nietzsche and Joyce. And he may have done this, andcompleted the double movement he had promised. But, let us stop short of that speculation,basically ideal, on the source of formation, calling that rather, in faith, simply God, and lookinstead at the Form itself in order to find the truth about it from which if possible a word can bespoken about the act of formation and the One from which the forms proceed. Form isdetermined by number, the definite limit, and not by language, which is in principle indefiniteand contradictory. Music and poetry are based on number in a way the novel and the newspaperare not. Western culture has moved from the limit of number toward an undefined and indefinite
  • 30. space, call it the abyss, the precise opposite of the womb of khora, the abyss being akin to thetomb. Specific form can be seen as for instance the unity, the binary, the trinity, the symphonicsquare, the gnomic fifth, the complete seven of the combination of the three of God with the fourof man, and ultimately the all in all of God times man found in the 12. These are the seven basicsteps in the arrival of the dialectical form. Our task is to realize the symphonic form of the four,which is our totality. Without this shape we will not fit with God. How do we thus arrive at thesquare? In a variety of ways in my works I both describe and explain it, but the work alsoexemplifies it. It does this through the logic of the form on which it was based and which itshows forth. The work takes as the basis of its logic the idea of arrival at the four, the square. Butas I say in one place, all work is completed by the reader and by the grace of God whichilluminates the mind and accords the work its reception. There is further than the text of my worka context. This context is that of God, Church and World, versus the fourth of the work in mypoint of view, a position from which the reader will in the reading of the work be enabled toview God-Church-World. The singularity of the “ I,” the subject, the work, is the essentialcompletion and perfection of that system, and it effracts the circularity of the metaphysical God-Church-World system. Thus the work by its existence, that it is, completes what it is about, justas the autobiographical elements of the works fit with the tripartite criticism of theology,philosophy and literature, the creative elements being the arrival of the criticism, and the meta-critical completing in time an arrangement in the space of the concept. Each of us must take onthis work-like aspect, and step outside the system of the world, be not conformed to it, and in away, be re-formed through a continual reformation, so as to stand in our arrival, before God, forour own sakes and for the good of the whole which needs each of us to complete the circleprecisely by breaking the circularity, call it the textuality itself, by our own creativity, creating
  • 31. not just my life, but bringing about the whole life of real form. Unlike the context theory ofDerrida which says that the text is in the context of the world, a world which is in principle andin fact insatiable and unsaturable, the destabilizing of the text and the opening up of it, I say theGod-Church-World system is the text of which the paradigmatic work-like I is the context whichis the point of view of the reader or author or any other singularity, the word for instance, butsupremely the unique number, which at once both opens the circularity of that objective systemonly in order to complete it and close it, that is to move it from being an illusionary thing into thereal and the true which is and which does not merely seem to be. And so I must be formed as theI, and I think that enables then a real We or community, in order for the God-Church-Worldsystem to be not an illusion but be in reality. Unless I am real, it cannot be real, but if I am, itwill be as well. I do not think this is merely an “as if,” but is the actuality of the actual, theexistence of essence. Thus I must act, but only on myself, and becoming a true singularity,actually, not ideally, make real and true the world, which depends on me, on each one of us, oneach work as such, to be meta, not para, in relation both to oneself and to the whole, and wheneach is one, all will be One, every other, wholly other, for the One. We must not doubt that weare real despite the unreality of the world system which confronts us with for instance what itcalls the ultimate fact of our deaths. Death is not real, it is but an illusion, and is not the limit. Donot worry about death, for God is not the God of the dead but of the living, and Christ came todefeat the illusion of death by the truth of life. Death imposes fear on people, but the living truthsets us free. We are either dead or alive, now not later. We are either saved or we are not, thereare not degrees of salvation. You are either real or you are not, there are not degrees of reality.There are only Reality and Illusion. You must become real, because no one can do this for you, itis the journey you must make in life. Christ, some think, did it for us, took our places in an
  • 32. economy of salvation, which he did in principle, and in fact, yet also to show us the form andbreach the circularity of God-Church-World, to arrive first and be the way for us to follow inorder to arrive later. He said deny yourself, that is to say, limit yourself, in order to arrive. Youmust be definite, not indefinite, finite, not infinite, one, not many, restricted in order to be reallyfree, obey by faith, which is specific, not generally without conditions to affirm or loveeverything in an indefinite gesture. You make yourself, you make the work, the marriage, the art,the idea, the love, the act, the end. Without Christ you can do nothing on your own, and yet withHim you can and must make your own reality as well as the reality of the whole. He does not doit without you. You have the responsibility for your own arrival, on which others depend as well,for we are in community, a family, a world, and no other, but just one. Therefore, do not judgeanother. That means do not interpret their place on the map of arrival, how near or how far. Youcannot do that until you have arrived, and after you arrive you will not want to. Mercy is a wayto arrive. Without mercy the world judges, criticizes, condemns. It is gossip and slander. I mustbe different. Some see the great affirmation of postmodernism as this stepping out of judgment,but that is but a simulation, a lack of real discernment. By affirming, some deny the truth. Thearrival of morals is found in mysticism, the arrival of time in eternity, the arrival of truth incontradiction, the arrival of the text in the context. You are the context of the world, not it ofyou. By opposition one creates the greater harmony. The creation of it depends on theproportion, a way of being that is an acknowledgment, a thanksgiving, a turning to the care of thewhole by being whole yourself. Eliot said in the end is the beginning, to know from whence weset out on our journey, and to know it really for the first time. We went unknowing, but bystepping outside the circle or system, the text or the world, by becoming one, by becomingmyself, I return not in judgment but in mercy, to see and yet not be seen, to know and yet not be
  • 33. known, to understand and love, though I be misunderstood and unloved, to be at peace amidstrife, to be order in the chaos, to be light in the darkness, to be effaced in all this, and as is said,to be Christ, therefore not myself, to have the Mind of Christ, that is, to become a child of God. Ithink in order for this conclusion to be accepted the premises of my argument must be properlyunderstood, and that chiefly in defining the term of God-Church-World. By this implication ofGod in the Church and in the World I speak not of the God of Jesus Christ, but rather the god ofthose who denied him, the one whom William Blake said is the god of this world. That god is alie, the father of lies and would perpetuate a certain morality in the Church and an immoral oramoral attitude in the World, in order to cut off the mystical arrival on which we depend as ourgoal. That so-called god is a kind of reason which has become the reasoning of men, but whichdenies faith, and is really sin. All morality based on it is really the great sin, the judgmentalmorality, rather than the mystical forgiveness that loves and does not judge. The grandaffirmation of the postmodern is a short-circuit of the steps leading to mysticism that stops shortof true love and forgiveness and mercy by going beyond the moral and immoral, good and eviland, hesitating in the amoral, thinks it has arrived by accepting and affirming the whole. But thewhole of reality cannot be seen from this vantage, because it is that point of view is still a part ofthe circularity of God-Church-World. The real God of Jesus Christ is what others have termedthe God beyond god, Eckhart and Tillich did so, but which has been misunderstood by some intheir great affirmation as the opposite of what He truly is. Unless one breaks the system and stepsout of the text as such the truth of God cannot be seen. As long as one is trapped by languagegames and time, which we have been told are absolutes that we cannot get around, such will bethe case. Silence and eternity are words for the place outside the circularity and are characteristicof mysticism. Absolute knowledge involves the arrival of dialectic by stepping out of the
  • 34. speculation which is theory in recent years. Derrida interdicted the step but it has been taken. Theuncanniness of the simulations of truth must be overcome by a love that casts out fear, a trust inthe mercy of Jesus that defeats the terror against the truth, what denies you, the attempt todeconstruct you. When you are, it will no longer be. When you take the necessary, impossible,yet promised step, you will arrive. In order to do this one must turn toward, not away from, thetruth of Christ, repent from evil and believe. The opposite of this metanoia is the paranoia that isall around us, in the text of the God-Church-World system, the fear you see in the eyes ofstrangers, the delusions of grandeur we sometimes fall prey to, and an alienation that simulatesthe real solitude of one who has explicated the implications of the logic of what is thedeconstruction in postmodernism, the closure of the system of God-Church-World as a networktextuality. The signs of that only give interpretations that go on indefinitely. Opposed to it is thenumber, as such, the shape of truth, the form, untranslatable as a poem is, as obvious as light is,pure like silence and quiet mediation, a mysticism that effracts the circle in the sheer ascent oflove up, out of the world, the direction of prayer and resurrection, the life of the Most High. God,by being “most high,” stops all regression, progression and aggression, by his great egression.The I AM breaks the text. To de-form the world as Derrida has done, or as de Man did in the dis-figuring of the poem, or as Bloom did in ruining the truths, is to deny the truth of the I AM of theexistence of that which is by a fruitless going-back-of the shape to get to the unshaped, the Oneof Plotinus, and simulate it in the world, to deconstruct that which is into what it is not, becausethe world, as seen in the God-Church-World concatenation or chain of implications, does notexist, only I AM real, which is to say, reality depends on the I AM of God said to Moses, andexistence, reality, is to partake of this I AM, lesser only in degree, and in the atonement to be atone with God, when one can say “I am” and really say something in fact, in deed, not as a way of
  • 35. positing the truth, not as an assertion which is in fact a denial, but as the transcendent fact thatescapes the black hole of God-Church-World, which would trap everything which is notspiritual. The metaphysical truth which so many seek is the truth of what Blake and Coleridgecalled the imagination: the great I AM of absolute existence, the that-ness of the shape or of artor of the poem, not the what-ness which instead of defining and through definition giving limitand shape, logic and aesthetic, that is, seeing the form, actually and essentially denies theexistence in the mystery of consciousness, another term for imagination, which we experience asself-evident but which cannot be found other than in the act of being itself. It is to say I AMagainst an “I am this or that.” To say “I am this or that” is to give your occupation or defineyourself in some way, but the truth is outside the implications of your role in the world. Yourtruth must be to be One. You are defined by your relation to the One truth. Your truth must be tobe able to say I AM, absolutely, without any other meaning. This is not to put yourself in God’splace, but rather to allow God to take place and so break the closure of the text of God-Church-World, which would deny the freedom of the glory of the great I AM of God. God’s hands arenot tied, as one young man once told me at the seminary. Theology might think so, and theChurch and the World act as if it were, but you, when you say I AM in the sense God does, freeyourself from their “god,” not in order to become God, but by being what God intends you to be,free, know the truth. In knowing this truth, the I AM, aside from any essence for the world todeconstruct, then and only then will I be, then I am free and real and One and in-deconstructible.As is God. If I am free, real, One and in-deconstructible, then I am open to the faith of Christ. Tobe faithful is to be in real relation. It is to be in true relation which is a keeping in relation to thetruth. All falsehood is unfaithfulness and breaks relation with the truth. When you step out of theworld, or the God-Church-World system, you dissolve the false bond that held you in slavery to
  • 36. all lies and dissimulation and come into the truth of your relationship to God in Jesus Christ, andthus by being outside the system of the text, become meaningful, have meaning, and you arewithout lie the transcendental signified. If you are faithful to Christ you stand on the rock whereMoses stood, the firm foundation of the truth of the gospel. From this point the world as a lieceases to exist, the truth is told, and when you become real, it becomes real, the church isreformed, and then God takes place in you, the event of the truth occurs, your own faithfulnessand transcendence being the act which converts the phantasm of the world. Truth is not theconversion to the phantasm as was thought in medieval philosophy, but against it, the turning ofphantasm itself, the illusion which is not the imagination but the distortion of truth by fancifulassociations and juxtapositions which do not create but destroy through a relation not meta butpara. The relation of para, the separate reality, which we are informed by the world is the truthabout each and every one of us, is the denial of the One that is God the All in All. The city ofGod is the meta which is beyond the world and is in a critical relation to its lie because of thefaithfulness of the meta to the truth of God. Faithfulness requires the denial of self, not the denialof truth, the taking up of the cross, not the crossing-through of the Word by a kind of erasure thatis the mark of the Derridean text, his strategy of writing, like the X placed over the word Beingby Heidegger in his later work, the crossing-out of meaning by what some called the crucifixionor passion of the Word in theologies closer to atheism than to God, and finally, as disciples ofChrist, the following of the way which is Christian, the steep and narrow pathway, the strait waywhich is the acceptance of the reality of suffering as essential to joy, its contradiction andcompletion and fulfillment, for temporal enemies are spiritual friends, as Blake said. In our day,everyone goes their own way, as in the Book of Judges, seeming to be individuals, but in realityonly fragments suspended in the vicious medium of technology and information, the IT, while
  • 37. the faithful follow Christ, despite the world’s opinion. There are only truth and opinion, andthere are either, for each of us, the two opposing points of view, which are first, that Christ is thetruth, or second, that He is a matter of opinion. Some people think there is no longer any truth atall, but only opinion, and this has become the glory of our time, the fame of the opinion-makers.They make themselves by their own opinion superior to everyone else when in fact they haveceased to be real, are less than nothing, and are actually only as equally invalid as all others whohold to what Parmenides called the way of opinion, thinking they have done a great thing inturning aside from the existential gloominess of the concept of nothingness, which though darkactually had more truth than the semblance in the world of opinion, which is neither being nornothingness, and which was the real goal of nihilism, the abyss, which is not the nothing but thehell of a world without truth or love or any notion of the meaning of the good. As one student putit, rightly or wrongly, you decide, the good means so many things it no longer means anything.Heidegger said as much of being. If you do not know the truth about the truth, you will believethat what I am saying is simply another opinion. Thus we live in two worlds, one in which thereis truth and it is knowable through faithfulness, freedom, becoming one, being real, taking astand against deconstruction, and another parallel world that is based on the rule of interpretationthat any thing can be juxtaposed alongside any thing else, and call that connection, call thatpattern, call that order, call that truth, that there are no absolute truths but only effects like thewriting that is the counterfeit of truth which is so common no one any longer knows truth fromfalsity, that there are only opinions, and that to be truly free is to be able to express one’s opinionwhenever one likes, where there are no longer facts, even, but only points of view, and in whichall religions are like foods in a restaurant, with faith being a matter of choice from the menu. Butsuch is not the truth of faithfulness, for the faithful choose or are chosen, are given the gift of
  • 38. faith, and do not change their minds, but live by principles that do not easily change dependingon the issue, which for the democratic voter invariably means self-interest, while in the world ofopinion one may change one’s diet as one chooses, and if one grows tired of fish one may choosefowl, that is, change as the weather, or simply change the channel on the TV. It has always beenthus. If one does not believe the truth to be possible, one will not bother to seek it. If one thinks itimpossible to be perfect, one will not try to be. If one does not think that faith and morals arebased on anything other than mere opinion, one may do as one likes. We obey no law that we donot agree with. As has been said, if nothing is true then everything is permitted. But look at thecourse of the world in the 100 years since those words were published. Have we benefited fromthe freedom to do everything that we wish? Certainly it has been fun, in a way, but withunintended consequences that are still not clear to many, dots still un-connected into a picture forthem. To live in denial and debt and fear, under terror, without truth, amid great corruption andevil, in a world without love, or almost so, losing hope, adoring idols, consuming, spending,rather than making, having, rather than doing or being, forgetting so many of the things on whichwe once depended to support our free lives in a nation conceived in liberty, has almost broughtus to the final collapse. Yet, God has not given up on us and the truth still exists despite ourdenying and ignoring it. What must be done? Those who are faithful must keep on in theirfaithfulness and not give up or give in. The faithless world which the faithful are among as lightsin the darkness is not beyond redemption, or God would have already come in the day ofapocalypse, the day of the Lord, the Day of Judgment. There is still time and that means becauseof the love of God there is still mercy. Time is the mercy of God, though some think that itproves He does not exist. Derrida even mocked God’s patience in the pages of deconstruction,the deferral and delay, the hesitation, the grand affirmation, the Messiah, hospitality, justice,
  • 39. openness to the other, and by the putting into question of hierarchy and sovereignty, the wordand the book, the self and the same, even being as presence, and what he at last termed thedeconstruction of actuality. The reduction of binary logic by Nietzsche first, and now by almosteveryone, to the one leveled generality that is the sameness of the postmodern diversity culture,mocks the oneness of the Real, as the world of semblance imitates the Truth, the paradeconstructs the meta, amid the many twists and turns in the labyrinth of the text, but there is nolonger simple conversion, only versions: perversions, inversions and subversions. We are so late,so far from our origin, and cannot find the way back. But we must trust that God will meet uswhere we are, that He will have mercy on the world, that He will be the peaceful Shepherd whopastures his sheep. If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts. I believe that God hasplaced in everyone some timeless resource of the Spirit of truth that man cannot destroy, and thatif God will He can yet save some, or many, or all. We do not know, and yet one must believe, anecho of the later Derrida in his book on blindness. To the faithful I say: do not stop believing.You may still be an instrument of the grace of God in a way unforeseen, and you must be open tothe Spirit to be used as God wills. To the faithless I say: look at the world around you, all yourpleasures and treasures, your cares and debts and commitments or lack of same, and ask yourselfwhat is the cause of the misery in you and in all those you call friends and family. To do this youmust look in the mirror of the question and recognize yourself in the answer. Do not be afraid.What you see is not real. When you are changed it will be. It will be because there is nothing thatis hidden that will not be revealed. You will be changed and you will come to know the truth ofyourself, in the mind of God.
  • 40. THE LOGICTaking off from Plato’s Parmenides, Derrida makes the impossible possible, therefore actual,deconstructing actuality, by making it impossible, in short, by contamination. How does this takeplace? I could say by examples, that is, taking out, citing, rather than taking back, which isrooted in redemption, as etymologies show. The deductions regarding the ONE that Plato makesthrough the character of the philosopher Parmenides lead to the assertion of the truth ofcontradiction. That is, that by which something both is and is not in the same respect at the sametime. Contradicting Aristotle and many others, Derrida holds this to be the case, thecontradictory truth. Hegel did the same. The Idealist opposes being and nothing at the beginningof his Logic and synthesizes them into becoming. Canceled out, lifted, and preserved, at one andthe same time, the Aufheben. It is the concept itself, words which mean more than one thing,words that contradict themselves, that is the mechanism in the dialectical logic that works toproduce the tertium quid. Without creation ex nihilo, dialectic is the way to make it new. Latelythere has been the mere juxtaposition of signs and things, the method of the deconstructiverestructuring: any two signs or texts can be connected from any distance under any rule.That is textuality. But it leads both from and to a logic I will outline and resolve. Derrida found away to stop the dialectic, to contradict Hegel’s contradiction, the antithesis that becomessynthesized, otherwise than by the basic EITHER / OR of the existential which Kierkegaardpropsed as the solution to the system of the Hegelians. Derrida does not exactly negate thenegation, as one says of the dialectical maneuver, which requires the work of the negative, acertain resistance, rather by a passivity, as seen in the works of Blanchot or the philosophy ofHeidegger. In a pure “play,” a free play without any rule but lability, a pure semblance, a mere
  • 41. “nothing,” almost, but actually neither being nor nothing, but also both being and nothing, atonce, which seems to be the force of opinion. Derrida contradicts dialectic by taking the BOTH /AND of Hegel, and adding a NEITHER / NOR. This is the move Plato made in regards to theOne. It is both being and nothing, but neither being nor nothing, therefore, no becoming. No life,no movement, only the semblance of it, as Plato, Zeno and the fountainhead Parmenides hadshown. There is but One, but not the ONE of the truth, the Good, rather the one of the AS IF TOBE, which is beyond good and evil, neither being nor nothing, rather only seeming. We can stillsay the seeming “only seems to be,” but that is its only chance, as Derrida said in an essay on thePhaedrus. The question is neither TO BE nor NOT TO BE, as Hamlet said and Camus famouslyechoed in the essay that established his philosophical credentials, but rather am I to be or merelyam I AS IF TO BE? That is the alternative to life and death, and can be rather ghostly, neitherreally dead nor really alive, a third thing, to refer to the dialectic, but strange, not life, but death-in-life. If we will yet be, we will be one day, but sadder and wiser men who have known death-in-life, the opposite of the resurrection, the evil ghost spirit against the revivifying Holy Spirit.Both Heidegger and Derrida demonstrated this, as I wrote of early on in “The Gift.” When thereis no becoming there is nothing but becoming, which is a contradiction. And which is true. But inthis case becoming truly ceases, as does anything which is nothing but…, as Kierkegaard showedin saying that if there are nothing but Christians, in Christendom, there is no more Christianity.He used the same logic as the Nietzschean HISTORY OF AN ERROR in Twilight of the Idols:eliminate one of a pair, the other does not remain. A single shoe is not much good alone, exceptto use as a hammer. But in destroying the ideal, the real ceased. The deconstruction of idealityled to the deconstruction of reality. Now we have neither. We have everything and nothing now,each thing and its opposite, as I know I am myself, in that I am self-contradictory. I am both
  • 42. good and evil, but some things simply are in fact, like the Holocaust. It did both happen and nothappen, which is true in the world of opinion, not in the world of fact. But facts have altogethervanished. Whatever is asserted loudly enough and long enough comes to be believed. This kindof “belief” is not solid faith but public opinion. Unfortunately it seems that kind of weakcredence is all that causes us to cohere as a world today. The market is unstable. People nolonger believe or trust, because they know it is not the real facts they are being asked to believein, rather opinion, however expert or official. Experts are a dime a dozen, and for saleeverywhere. They use rhetoric, not reason, plausibility rather than proofs. Logic no longer works,it plays. For instance: language games, number games, Computations, Connections. But no ideas,no reality. For reality was anchored in a hierarchy of the ideal and the real, which has beendisplaced by the nihilo, nihilism. In world history we had two basic philosophical positions,realism and idealism, but nihilism displaced both. All together this has created what I call theGod-Church-World text, or onto-theology as Heidegger put it. What is needed is grace to Effractthis circularity, and that means an “I” outside the text ready to receive the call of God in grace.When this happens a RING is formed: realism, idealism, nihilism, grace. I have said that tobelieve is to be. In a world without any reason, I have found that if one at least has faith, the onething necessary, one still exists. The others only seem to. My logical project has been two-fold.On the one hand, to secure stability for thought, what I call “arrival,” against both dialectic andits deconstruction, and on the other hand, to rewrite deconstruction itself, that is to synthesize alllogics, even in their contradictions. I think that one way to reverse the Derridean simultaneousaffirmation and denial is through the existential logic of the free choice. Another way is throughasking ourselves the question that Sherlock Holmes asked in his method of deduction. He saidsomething like: Eliminate whatever is impossible, and what remains, however improbable, must
  • 43. be the truth. With God, all things are possible, nothing is impossible for God. But if, as thosesince Nietzsche have done, one eliminates God, one eliminates what Levinas called the“messianic vigilance” of the eternal against potential infinities, for instance, of time. In whichevil could return, after the apocalypse. But what of an infinite logic? An infinite text? Theimpossible becomes possible, unless there is a limit. ACT is that limit. God is pure act, asAquinas wrote, and this pure act eliminates the impossible by reducing potency to actuality.Believe all things. Even contradictions. In fact, to be true to the truth we must contradict the lieof the world. The way to contradict Derrida’s logic of the both-and-neither-nor is to cut the knotby an act of faith, to say no to the not by saying yes to God. This does the following: 1) It is areal act, neither possible nor impossible, but simply IS. 2) It is a way of Effracting the circularityby an authentic RING. God-Church-World will remain a hypothetical and hypocritical, hyper-critical sham and fantasy until you say I AM because I believe in God. People will think it merepretense done for base motives, fear, greed, etc. Ignore them. Make your act of faith in Godanyway. 3) Your act of faith reestablishes a hierarchy by recognizing One above ourselves downhere in the leveled general text. Transcendence is necessary to escape the machine of God-Church-World, by I in relation to the Most High. 4) This act makes you real. Brings you into realrelation with the “really Real” and you are saved, and in you being saved, others are as well. Notpotentially, but actually. Not cognitively, but substantially. In the act of faith you actually thoughinvisibly arrive. In the stability of the arrival of the act of faith, one may take action againstfalsehood and injustice. It is the grace and mercy of God to arrive, faith itself is a gift, a mystery,but not impossible, just hard to think, though not to feel, or believe. Faith, not will to power, isthat which truly empowers. God will not make you believe, but if you will but believe, God willwork miracles for you and others. Most of all He will make you real again. The act of faith
  • 44. involves volition, choice, action, but also reception, the receiving of the gift, and openness, trust,hope. What little we have God will multiply and restore. Both our will and God’s are free.Deconstruction eliminated freedom by affirming all, erasing distinctions in the polar oppositionsin which they are found. An opposition in scripture is: Your faith has saved you. You will bejudged according to your works. You must believe both. The act of faith is the step that humblesthe law of reason by a greater one. Derrida said that all was always already complicated at theorigin, and followed the implications of that. But the step of the act is original simplicity. Stepout of the complicity of the world. Step into supplication by the explication of the logic ofdeconstruction that forces one to conclude that action must be taken. When we realize that Godbelieves in us even more than we believe in Him, we will therefore love. You need not choosebetween logic and love: logic leads to love. When you have reason, then you have faith, or whenyou have faith, then you have reason, but without one or the other, both are lost. In faith, freeyourself to think, or think your way through the trouble with the text, and take the step of faith.God calls, time is short, the world needs you. Say “I am it” and complete the ring of friendshipwith God by the graceful act of faith.
  • 45. “Say that Jerusalem is”Perhaps my words disturb your prayer. Perhaps you, the mystic, need no points for meditation.But I speak of him to Him for you, while you simply pray. Eternity bounds, does not hem, limitus, rule us, give direction, up, then, into His storm, His eye, His calm interference in themundane. With and without words: we must choose, be chosen. Both. To say little with so much,or speaking, innumerable, yet still say one thing necessary. Out of the many complexes,neuroses, psychoses, metastases, sees, out of all disease and disaster, stands one to come. Andstanding points above. I think I feel, feel something inside me, bower or brain, coming, about theturn, ever turning to, in myriads, ways without whys, lines drawn over our ignorances, hidden in,neither obscure nor occult, light rather, in light. Him. He is.You know it. A story has begun.You know, now, things fade, colors on cloth, even evenings fail into night, which is coming, stillstars branch, and in the skull-cap of a thousand year we enroot our seed, between never-endingslay the middle, plications, sin, sun, son sing, song signed, not to fail or fade, would be story,would be tolled, full, filled, meant. Not to fail, not to fade, truth we know, for we are known, arestretched, fixed by means. If we mean to. But you, you did not, did both mean to fall but not tofail, and in falling your way, we but succeed you, without second.
  • 46. He did not really speak, did you, you saw and shone, bright, dark, hiding, back-minded, ear-lodged, thought-lost, hest just but standing, no jest, no pose, no to impose, but you were theexposed. You stood out from. Time. Is.The wound you were did not heal. Signatories. Numbers. Out of time. You appropriated, all, forbut one thing. Making. Truth. Is. And you said, ever. Knowledge, knotted-hopes, full striven, inyour arms storming, learn.They say you had no foundation in essence, but traces, echoes, parts only, assemblers, withoutwholes, spirited words, yet spirit is, is that not a word? Problem of near-belief, teachers had not akey. Versions, only. Foundation riven, you, reft, logical, truthed, passed words, un-pasted, un-posted, past juxtaposed. Cut. Words cut through you. Destroyed description and explanation,neither declared, but disclosed your wound, the wound of the word himself. Discard, forfeit.Utter. You behind the words. The logic bit. You bit back. Grapplers. You took our place.For in all logic, if you can say that Jerusalem is, if we can say, still that Jerusalem is, the placerequired by logic is yet, and can be found, the assertion of faith, eternity of concern.You, truth and logic became, stripped, meaning. Not to say I have grasped, but in the strugglewith truth, your victory was to be grasped. That this too is, is beyond doubt. Proven, in bordersof scripture, commentaries, that do not explain the words, but enact them exactly, by beingexposed. This is. If this is, subsist, without which truth-less, for accidentals, for appearances, noplace to hide. A snow of illegibility, ran the wound, rain wind, ward, cover your words, sposed,desire as if to say the text itself, we only fall from a height, and now we are falling, and have
  • 47. become so profound, because without foundation, catch us pall as we fall. Poems are snow,whiter words, virgins, martyrs, gentle, contoured by holiness, by logos, by logic without demandbut to be true, faithful, snow-part of time, winter answer, dead, wait. The logic that strips awayall but what is, strips seeming and opinion, even the nothing, to be the one, immovable, it is. Is it.Is it eternity. Is it snow set bounds in winter. Innumerable snow, unrepeatable words. Universal,singular, unparticular snows, how do you interpret snow or simplify the place. Snow did notextend, but bound, the form, by sheer material, prime, stuff of dreams. You. Glory of the snows,high reflectivity, light without heat, sheer blinding, purity, as if God to Abraham in winter, yourswill be as the snows on highest ridged mountains, always. Will be, Jerusalem is. If you wake,wake to this. Snow regal, snow regard, but be regaled. In pieces of paper whiter witness notblank a testimony text, you found you, and said it. Is. Sheer holiness, is. Present, a heart-word, is.We, snow-parts, perhaps, holding places, scattered yet gathered, drifted, yet still for a time,temporary words, tempting snows, we fell, like you, measurable by adversity, verses, that this is,still is for you, neither symbol nor transport, neither hidden nor shown, but snown, north of thefuture, where snow ever is. You offered often, eternity, a turn, a word with six sides, snowed,like stars of David, like Jerusalem is. Is, was, will be, has been, will have been, to be. Snowed,starred, scarred, worded, sonned, deepened. Depend. Deeper in snow is he to be. Yea. Not to be,never to be, but always still, is. Pall of snow.
  • 48. ARTS RESTWherefore art thou?Art at rest? To pause, to remain, to support, art. Rhythmic silences. Steps at starets. Sartre’sstare. The rest is silence. But art at rest re-starts, again and again. The books I have written restand re-start, not hesitating like Derrida, or like he says Freud does in Beyond the PleasurePrinciple, not taking the step. I take the step, of faith, of hope, of love, of arrival, of action,positif, still possible, against the deconstruction of the ideal and the real, when nothing becamepossible, and the possible became impossible.The books are St. Sartre’s re-start, reclaiming both the existentialist’s freedom and the dialecticalcritique for today. It may be that Jean-Paul will make it in before John Paul II. It is up to God,but Christ says the prostitutes and sinners make it in before his opponents in the official churchof His day. The gospel does not pass away, because it always applies. Our situations (Sartre’sword) never change. The church needs change. The church needs Christ. But like the young manat the seminary told me, God’s hands are tied. How can the One with the whole world in Hishands not be free? He hands us freedom without losing His. As long as He has hands, there willstill be a world to hold.He is free and we are free, radically free, free of Popes and popularity, of politicians, and ofhistory, since that ended sometime during the last fifty years. With the end of history in the post-modern period, an abrupt thing faces us: we do not have to be tied to the time we are in, we areno longer historically conditioned. Therefore:Re-start the arts. St. Sartre would. Stress the Tessera, the era of fragmentation, in order for themosaic to be made. I do not give a rat’s ass how you do it, but put the pieces together again.Establish the stars. As the poet said, nothing will have taken but the place, except perhaps for aconstellation. He conceded the power of imagination to still make patterns, despite thedeconstruction latent in his poetry, which Derrida found and expounded. Poetry in arrears, as weall are, and myself especially, let us give the word.Arrest, art rest, then re-start, begin again, like Finnegan, waking, say yes, say thee and thou andthine, not I and me and mine. Buddha said he was always at the beginning. To connect the end tothe beginning, a very hard thing to do. To sign, without resignation, to name, not for fame, to putwords in books, like they did in the nineteenth century, before, ere, erstwhile, previous to motionpictures, records, radio, television, computers.Rasters, scatter patterns. Rather, Easters, homeward, by the book, for why not then be of anothertime? Time itself has ended as such. It is time to begin again, beginning with time. The worldstill turns at the same speed, though there is no world to turn.Rare stars, rear yourselves, rise up sires, roses risen:The rest is not silence, but fire.
  • 49. All Saints DayIt is very late in the game, as most of us know. Postmodernism has been a time of the seemingattempt to restore traditions, a conservative time politically and theologically, but also a corrupttime, morally and financially. I think we need to look back a few decades to solve the puzzle.Heidegger said that Nazism was great because it was about the confrontation of man andtechnology. And I believe this was somewhat correct. Postmodernism is founded on the fascist.It is both politically conservative, morally nihilistic, and technologically adept. The Third Reichdid not cease, but was transformed post 1945, and lives on in the anti-liberal, anti-enlightenmentforces that are stressing freedom and covertly preparing totalitarianism, at the same time. TheBerlin-Rome axis did not die, and I mean this in the sense of the unfortunate Catholic Church,which is a means of the magical projection of fascism to our world today. It was a kind ofalchemy. The more Catholic the country, it seems, the more corrupt. Mafia in Italy, drug cartelsand death squads in Latin America. As I said, conservative, immoral, technological. It is afascinating matrix. To this we add magic, from Harry Potter, to Borges and Garcia Marquez, tothe atrocities done in Juarez, sacrifices to an evil god. A magical, technological, conservative anddrastically corrupt world. Deconstructionists try in their texts to say, well, it was always thisway. Perhaps. But I think the modern world that once was was in principle opposed to this fascisten-framing. The net seems inescapable. Even friends criticize me harshly for not setting-up myvoice mail on my cell phone, for wanting to be incommunicado. There is tremendous pressure onall sides to conform to the paradigm of fascist fashion which is now technological. I do not thinkmost people realize that technology is the implementation of the fascist. And I do not definefascist narrowly, to the tea party, for instance, but broadly to include the whole of culture and
  • 50. politics, finance and technology. I believe all of this bears down on the church and the world asan overwhelming attempt to destroy not men and cities and nations with armies, but the souls ofindividuals, by the annihilation of faith, hope and love. The “they” by this I know not whom orwhere or what. True tragedy cannot be pinned on anyone in particular. That is what makes it atragedy. Tragedies are different though from case to case, play to play. Hamlet succeeds whereMacbeth fails. Lear perhaps succeeds despite appearances, being reunited with his daughter, inlove, despite the pain. We, too, must love, despite the pains, the cares, the pleasures, all thetemptations that would lead us not to believe, not to hope, not to love. Be ready. As Hamlet. Beripe. Like Lear. The tragedy cannot be averted, but it can be overcome, transformed, and lovestill triumph. The modernist was nothing if not critical. That makes me modern. Thepostmodernist is theoretical, but not very critical. If these are indeed the last days, my work maybe too little, too late. But what will be we do not know, but I hope that we all may be, when Godis all in all. That God will not lead us any where he will not provide for us, that God does theimpossible, but that God requires something from us, perhaps something different from each, orperhaps the same, has been my guiding thoughts in this year of completion. Whatever ourvocation is, it is God-given, and we must do it. Each of us has a vocation, whether we know it ornot. In a sense, it may simply to be alive today. Though we come at the end, we may still reapwhat others sowed, and receive the same just, generous reward. Do not doubt God’s mercy orHis heaven. And do not doubt that if you hold out to the end you will win.I want to speak at the last, really after time ended, about modernism and postmodernism in termsof the man who is perhaps the greatest modernist, Immanuel Kant, and the man who is perhapsthe poster boy for the postmodern age, John Paul II. In that collection of homilies known as the
  • 51. theology of the body, in the long introduction to that work, it is said that the Pope, sitting atsumptuous table with guests in the ornate and extravagant Vatican, would exclaim upon hearingthe name of the philosopher Kant. I think with good reason, which I hope to elucidate. For thesake of argument, we could say that modernism was a most pure philosophy, and thatpostmodernism is a most impure philosophy. For reasons I refer to all that I have writtenhitherto. The opposition of Kant and John Paul II is essential. I have heard a religious who wasteaching at a catholic university, without question and I think with deliberation, misrepresentKant’s philosophy, twisting it all out of shape. When I attempted a correction, I was stopped bythe fascist force the nuns use sometimes against anyone who questions them or opposes them.The same is true of the Catholic hierarchy. They will not allow dialogue, criticism, or anydifference of opinion. But, time brings correction, as Benedict once said, and thank God, we maystill have a little. How are we to understand the Kantian project in terms of today? Thephilosopher made a critique of pure and practical reason, eliminating the transcendent asunknowable, but founding morals on the categorical imperative. The religious I spoke of deniedthe basic principle of Kant stated in his theory of the transcendental, that we all have certainforms we all think in, and therefore we are similar and able to communicate with each other. Weare not similar to God, as the Catholics claim in the analogy of being, but similar to each other,in our existence in the categories and in space and time. To continue Kant today, by myrenovation of Hegelian dialectic and Derrida’s deconstruction, I have presented a new kind ofcritique of reason, not one of the pure and the practical, but of the general and the particular, andthis as early as my writings on Wordsworth in the 1990s, when the poet denied the destructiveanalysis in favor of what he called the grand and simple reason, what may be called theimagination. In my logic I have shown the particular reason as having become completely
  • 52. fragmented and destructive, completely contradictory. I think John Paul II would say this is adirect result of Kantian modernism, and perhaps he would be right. But Wordsworth was moreright, in arguing forward into the high ground of imagination, not back into dogmatic retreat,which was a cover for a subterfuge. The reconciliation of the great fragmentation in particularreason, seen prominently in the American politics of the last thirty years, and incorrectly blamedon the media, which is but a mirror, not the cause of the contradiction, comes through a theorythat is grand and simple and imaginative in a general reason that forgives contradiction, thataffirms all, not by perpetuating conflict, but like Kant, through a prayer for a reasonable religionand an eternal peace. The way up is the way down. All is one. God alone is. Be perfect, whichmeans not to set no limits to love, but rather release judgment and the power to judge, giving toGod what is God’s, and letting the world be as it is, and the church as it is, forgiving allparticular sins and errors, the mistakes of an impure logic, by a general attitude of love andforgiveness. We see this in the imperative of Kant, which says, basically, perform your actions asif everyone would repeat the actions you make. Which is very different from Nietzsche’srepetition. It is an imaginative forward moral thought. In all, it is the rule of the symbolic life,which you and I both lead, though you may or may not recognize it as I do. Since these thingshave been: Would that all God’s people were prophets, as Moses said. And as Joel said, God willpour out his Spirit on all people, the old men shall dream, and the young men shall see visions.And as Peter quoted the latter on Pentecost, the Biblical footnotes say it is accomplished, thething Moses and Joel and Peter said. The Spiritual life is a prophetic and symbolic life, and whatwe do is, I think, truly repeated by others in a way we know not. Charles Baudelaire spoke of amystical correspondence as does the Kabbalah. At any rate, what we do, what we say, and whatwe think, matters in ways we do not know, but which is commented on in theories in physics, the
  • 53. so-called “chaos” theory, and in psychology’s so-called “synchronicity.” Everything belongs, asRichard Rohr said. Everything belongs in the theory of general reason, and everything thenrespires with meaning, as Wordsworth’s mystical and moral poetry stated in a sentiment somemistakenly thought was natural. The postmodern deconstruction of meaning, that took placethrough the proliferation of the text, is overcome by an acceptance of personal responsibility forour actions that will reverse the corrupt financialization of all aspects of life which is the value oftechnology. Meaning is not purchased, it is made, and we make meaning through our actions,which some wish to be meaningless, but which in the eyes of God, are all infinitely important, asthe Kantian categorical imperative said in its own terms. He saw us in relation to everyone else,as our explication, while postmodernism implicates us in its tainted love, sin without sense. “Sinwithout sense” is the violence of the age, the fruit of fascism, in a time when the words “crazy”and “evil” are used with free substitution to describe what has happened from Hitler to Juarez,1945 to 2010. Madness, which Plato said was sometimes a very good thing, is implicated withevil, which can never be good, through the taint of the postmodern logic, eliminating thepossibility of great love and what may be called the great divine love that is the madness thesaints showed, in order to destroy love itself, which, to be the real thing, must look to all theworld just plain crazy. This confusion of “madness,” which my logic may be pejorativelytermed, with an “evil” not crazy, violates the principle of principles of the general reason: Thepure must be preserved, without a trace of the other. The Immaculate Conception, the IC, asDerrida uses it in Glas, is purely opposed to the taint of it, IT. With so many of us paying somuch attention, how could the end of things happen and go unnoticed? It is an old saying, wecould not see the forest for the trees. With the flood of information, somehow this, combinedwith the lack of prophetic insight, as opposed to historical or scholarly, or political and financial,
  • 54. wisdoms, has led to the situation. The triumph of wealth, the triumph of technology, the return oftriumphalism in theology, the triumph of life, as the poet would say, in all its glare and would-beglory, a great vehicle crushing all opposed to it, or even just caught in the path of the career of it,all this really Roman and essentially Empiric triumph, spectacle, done for show, for semblance,and not really fooling anyone, but gladly welcomed as the escape from reason and reality, hasbeen the recipe for the disaster of the evacuation of faith, hope and love, for the eclipse of thelight of the world, the opposite of the preparation for the gospel some thought it might be. Mywork is written in antithesis to this, attempting a synthesis from the debris. That I may be wrongin my elucidation of the time, I must admit. That the logic I have found may not work, I mustadmit. But that the world is in deep trouble, I think we all must admit. I hope you will concedethat we all have the responsibility, given the opportunity, to suggest a solution to what hasbecome a global problem, involving the fate of all. That my solution involves greatcontradictions, and yet is simple, is the strength of it. Against the complexity of the Gordian knotof postmodernism I use a gospel sword, the word of truth, and built my work, after its false, butfortunate, start in the abyss, by adhering to scripture and synthesizing it with what I found in thebest and most useful aspects of the wisdoms I have read and known and lived. This dialectic mayyet provide a way out by not the use of force against the knot, nor yet by yielding to theseductions of complexity, but by patient description and explanation, and even, I hope, a tellingdisclosure of truth. Having over the course of time, with patience, in my search for truth,reorienting both dialectic and deconstruction, and finally turned to Kant and the first twocritiques, of pure and practical reason, I now wish to turn to the third critique, that of judgment.Kant writes of the beautiful and the sublime, and of teleology, so it is appropriate to say thematter concerning judgment in the context of the end of things and our finality, that is, the Day
  • 55. of Judgment, the great day, the awesome and terrible day of the Lord. Having transposed reasonfrom the pure and practical to the general and particular, let us likewise transpose the critique ofjudgment into a clear and precise, up-to-date definition of what in Christian theology are knownas the particular and the general judgments. It may be the former is what we all expect, that wewill be judged according to our works, our words, what we did and did not do, what we did forthe least among us and what we did not, what we did for Christ, and what we did not. Scripturesays it is so. According to our torturous particular reasons it could not be otherwise, as humanthinking shows. But the Lord has said plainly again and again that He does not think like we do.The general reason that I have suggested is the closest we can come, at least that I can come, tounderstanding the absolute Mind of Christ, reconciling oppositions, forgiving enemies, justifyingsinners. And so I believe the general judgment will be according to the general reason. It will bepardon, amnesty, forgiveness. Though we as individuals may have been sunk deep in the abyssof sin, the whole man, the human race, will stand united as one on the Day of Judgment, and wewill all be forgiven, as one. It is the unification of the beauty of holy forgiveness with the terrorand sublimity of the infinite power of God, together with a true understanding of the telos. Withthis prophetic hope the logic ends. Thus, the logic ends, pointing to something over the horizon,while within the world and within the church the task of love remains. What is this task? Paulsaid that faith, and hope, and love, these three remain, but that the greatest of these is love. Iappeal to hope in the resolution of the logic and the working through of Kant’s critiques ofreason and judgment, but what of the thing-in-itself, that is, criticism, as such? For what weknow is the way we know. If we know dogmatically, and if we know critically, these are verydifferent things. In the work now ending, I argued for a faithful criticism and a critical faith. Ithink both dogmatic catholic theology of the postmodern era and the dogmatic theory of
  • 56. deconstruction are more like each other than has been supposed, because both are equally farfrom criticism, and deny it in practice, not tolerating it, nor dialogue, nor the inviolability of theconscience, but rather insisting on the necessity of the positions held by popes and professors.The conscience in its integrity preached by the Second Vatican Council must be critical, so as tobe faithful to the message of the gospel, just as the philosopher must be critical in order to befaithful to the commitment to truth above all else. In an age when people deny that any truth stillexists, or that the dogmatic position of one pope or professor or party, people or nation, economyor religion, is the one answer, the whole truth, it means that our time has dissipated thought inparticular reasons, better known as rationalizations, rather than reach and take hold of truth itself,that is to allow oneself to live in it, abide in it, love it, instead of manipulating it, for politics,advertising, money, power, prestige and the appearance of the glamorous which is not glory, butis the death knell of beauty, good and truth. That we had a glamorous pope is a shame. That thedestructiveness of the death written of by deconstruction became the definition of glamour is ashame. Faithful criticism stands outside the circularity of dogmatic positions, all particular, andstands in relation to the general reason, which is not to be seen in terms of the so-called generaleconomy of postmodernism, opposed to restricted dialectic, but which is simply the standpointthat faith-criticism reaches by patience, love and hope. It is not a hopeless contamination andjuxtaposition of any and all, but a discernment, beginning with the basic moral opposition ofgood and evil, which leads truly to the mystical love dogmatism promises but cannot deliver,because the dogmatic man is a tyrant, and loves no one in truth, but his own. They stand inparticular against all the others, whom we know we are to love. Catholicism and Christianity tofulfill their mission must give up the special for the general, and love everyone. That politicalparties do not do this is perhaps understandable, but that the heirs of the gospel do not do this is a
  • 57. sin, not to mention the many particular sins of which many now stand accused, even at thehighest levels. That capital will not give itself away is perhaps understandable, but that the richesof the church, which are not found in the Vatican but in the Bible and on the altar of the heart,have not begun to be disclosed after two thousand years, what are we to make of this? You say,but the gospel is preached to all nations. Dogmatism is theory, but faith-criticism is practice. Thechurch and the world criticize each other, but only from their particular points-of-view, that isgenerally not in good faith. They act like political parties, who agree to disagree, and profit offeach other in a mutual economy of implication. In order to hold on to faith in the church and theworld today one will need to learn to think, discern, be critical, and be faithful to the one thingnecessary. Call that one thing what you will, it matters not, but when He calls, you must respondfaithfully, even if it breaks you, breaks your church, breaks your world. As bread is broken, bebroken, too. To not be too sentimental about this breaking, let us lay it all on the head of that oneman Nietzsche, who was broken, as perhaps we all must be. There was Nietzsche, simply, on thesquare, and then dogmatically, we would have an anti-Nietzsche, which most good people since1900, if they think about it, must suppose themselves to be, and then there is Nietzsche-otherwise, the Heideggerean, Derridean, postmodern appropriation of Nietzsche. But you knowmy logic. What is Nietzsche in the fourth place? How does Nietzsche arrive? His basic doctrines,Heidegger cogently said, were the will to power and the eternal recurrence, which Heideggermade into “the will wills itself.” But this is not Nietzsche as fourth, rather Nietzsche returned.What is the arrival of the will to power, of the will that wills itself? Not that willing of power,and nothing besides, but rather, and I might say merely, a willingness. Willingness. It is more“other” than the Other, than will to power itself, than an anti- or an otherwise-than-Nietzsche,and is his proper breaking, the breaking of the postmodern, through a simple, humble thing
  • 58. summed by that word “willingness.” Not by assertion or negation. Not by reason, eitherdogmatic or skeptic, or even critical. Nor by indifference, the position of the amoral mostcongenial to Nietzsche, but by the willingness itself. Willingness to let go, to suffer, to behumiliated, to be broken. Christ did not will his crucifixion, but accepted it willingly. And thereis all the difference between Christ’s practice and Nietzsche’s theory. Therefore, you mayconfidently hope that if you are willing, yes, you may yet be saved. Willingness is not the sameas obedience, though it is often confused with it. It puts the glory of another ahead of itself, notas commanded, but out of love, out of confidence, in a courage that destroys even death,overcoming it not by willing nothingness, nor by not willing at all, but by willing as one iswilling to love and be loved. It is our marriage. Blake spoke of the marriage of heaven and hell,while Derrida spoke of perfecting the resemblance of Dionysus and Christ. I choose neitheroption. I do not choose the one offered by the poet. I do not choose the one offered by thephilosopher. To choose these seems not to reconcile oppositions, but to entangle all things inwebs without end. It would be a violent yoking together of things that must be kept discrete.Discretion recommends a better course. Let us say there is a marriage, to which we are allinvited. It behooves us to attend the wedding of the Bride and the Lamb. We cannot feignimportant engagements elsewhere. On the day the world ends, if it has not already ended, there isonly one place to be, and that is at the wedding. But recall, many were invited, but one did nothave the proper attire, and so was cast out. I think we better bring an offering of some kind atleast. I think it a spiritual truth that God has given gifts and talents to all, and that he expects usto not neglect these, but to increase them, as one might these days strive to enhance wealth.However, I believe, the gifts of God are not always known to us, and we spend our whole livessearching for the thing we are to do. I was lucky. From an early age I was born to write, and that
  • 59. was about the only thing I did. I loved and was loved, prayed, and made friends, held a fewunsteady jobs, piled up great unpaid debts, all the while I wrote. It frightens me to think God inhis absolute freedom may tell me that I got it all wrong, that I was really meant to do some otherthing, ordinary or extraordinary, and that I missed the boat, missed my chance, do not get off themerry-go-round, but must go around at least one more time, if I am to be given an additionalchance. God has mercy on whom He will. We work out our destinies in salvation history withfear and trembling, but also with joy and hope, as the council fathers said, and it is the union ofthese contraries that are the attitudes we bring to the wedding day, tomorrow, for which we maybe shown mercy.
  • 60. “…a limit on infinity…”The recuperation, the recoup, the dice thrown, the paradisiacal, the tree and the life’s He:Yes, that the logic of the impossible required that the thought of the impossible became theimpossibility of thought, and he said the impossible was the only thing worth attempting, andnevertheless, in this therefore, this OR, this symbol or siglum, this turning point, this gold, wasconversion, his and mine, in extremity, and that though I had seen did not yet believe, andinclined still toward the abyss, yet He saved me, and having said He would I did believe andcame to be, conscience created, not by a smithy, not to be the conscience of my race, but to setout for a far country, that my race, a more meta- than marathon, to parry para- and carry on,toward Cecilia’s day and further, past deaths and rebirths and arrivals yet to come, looking back Ifound a fascist regime where none knew, and that the rapture has already happened, it isimpossible, that the smoke of six million Jews in the Holocaust was the rapture, with their gravesin the air, todesfugue, and Celan was not wrong, but crushed between mighty opposites, thoughhe no baser nature, but he was it, the man, as each of us is, and it is the whole man who is thebaser nature, as Hamlet knew, and we but caught between, and some knowing and someunknowing, and some knowing but uncaring, or inclining deliberately toward the abyss, on thehorns of the dilemma, choose not the lesser of two evils, as the Church has always already donein practice, despite her theory, but break out of the vices, for God shows a way, and that is up,the dial pointing up, the indicator the direction the north of the future as Celan said, the Joyceangnomon, and the remainder, let that be, but you go on up, and only half make it, maybe, on
  • 61. Kilimanjaro, but let us incline to the half that will, and despising the shame, look at the man atthe altar, whomever he may be and realize that in Luke, after the words of the institution of themeal, Christ plainly says that the hand of the one who will betray Him is on the table, andtherefore, every time a priest says the words of institution, his hand on the table betrays thewords he speaks, but fulfills the prophetic word of Christ, whose word is eternal, since He is theeternal word, and His words will never pass away, and the standing now, the eternal truth alwaysapplies everywhere to everybody, as the Church says of her faith, and so the church then is theChurch now, as Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, for ever, his opponents areever the same, the type ever the same, only so much the worse for all we know of them, howmany murders in His name which he let take place, yet nothing will have taken place but theplace, when a pair of dice thrown, with a chance of turning, with a chance of forgiveness, but theLord says at the end very succinctly, It Has Already Happened, and meant it then, and even morenow, and six sides, the cubic anti-Christ, the indeterminacy of things and meaning belies thetruth which is certain faith, and in the details is the devil, but in the premium mobile, at the outerlimit, the first moved thing this PM, postmodern, the pontifex maximus is the title of a paganpriest who became the Pope, God help him, and in their titles, in their reach, in the tiara, kingsruled, kings slew, and in the time between noon and midnight, or the hour of great mercy atwhich Christ died and the hour or minute just before Igitur, in those closing dusks of days, popesruled and popes slew, and were slain, but one was not, but said in his first lie, be not afraid!When we should have been on guard, when we should have paid more attention, and cared thatmen were being silenced and persecuted for heresy by the anti-Christ, who could not allowdissent, disagreement, and this not a personal quirk of his, some trait, but strategic, to trap all theCatholics, who would love him so much and nearly worship a mere man, and who claimed it was
  • 62. Mary who saved him, to cloak and hide the plot, and all of them going back to 1854 to cloak andhide the snare and wickedness, to pervert our love for Mary and use her against, what greater evilthan this I know not, but that the sacraments made void, because the thing does not work itself,ex opere operato, but must be done with the intention of the Church, and where Peter is there isthe Church, so if the man be not in communion with God, but in more unholy communion, whatis to be done? So that therefore like deconstruction inwardly the Church was vacated Vaticandead at the top, de-capitalized already by the abyss of lie two sides Blanchot said, and that I hadto leap, like Heidegger said, step back, and that I did, by the grace and mercy of God, and takinga long step back, did prepare the great leap forward, not of faith but by faith, to leap over theapocalypse, but how? To arrive and leap over the end of things, but how? And not like Macbethstanding on his bank and shoal of time, to see in to the life of things, and have a mind not mineown, oh Christ, re-mind me! Tell me of the things to come, when we will be there, ah, alreadythere, the eschaton realized, as John and John and John my late friend said, fading on the dyinghorn, how we walked amid the ruins of shepherds and richmonds on a hot afternoon, though thebattle was just as real as the battle of Britain, and death was near, I saw it in your face, but notyet in your eyes, you fading, John, John, John, oh the baptist! That I was too baptized by a priestin a Catholic Church just a mile away, and perhaps was written in the book of life, though workswill tell, and so Hamlet had to perform, was that not it, after all, that the play was the thing, andthe actor unable to act, has yet to perform, but though the rest be silence, and silence the work offire, apotheosis, the funeral pyre, phoenix, rare bird, we did not fail like Falstaff, but fell withHamlet, who said get ready, who said seas change, who said it is not near my conscience, and yetit were too curious to consider it so, I have traced the dust of Ash Wednesday back to Adam andforward to, fare forward, well, do not your alms or prayers in public but in secret, where your
  • 63. father who sees in secret can give you the reward, for insincerity is the greatest sin, and thathypocrisy, that did un-man the papacy, where would be saints did prophesy the death of popes,may your days be as the years of Christ, she said to John Paul I, and I did not know, though someday we will all know just how and why he died, but that it might have been the cover-up, followthe money, and scandals appear and are hushed up just as quickly, and if we are to do it for theChurch, and I think we are, if we have concern for the Church, and I think we should, it is for thesouls of Catholics that we should fight, and the destruction of the hierarchy was like a neutronbomb of the faith, which destroyed not things but the thing-in-itself, despite the feigning andfawning and the abyss of power, the power of the abyss, which they had chosen, to hold sway,while claiming to be but mere servants, and the thousand years came and went, the First Reich ofthe Roman Empire, and a thousand years came and went like a watch in the night, the SecondReich, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Third Reich was defeated by liberal democracyenlightened enough to fight for freedom, but that the pretension of the Fourth Reich coming isalmost here, en-framed by Heidegger’s fourfold, and Derider’s semi-Pythagorean hypothesis ofnumbers, always squaring things, framing things, and we not knowing why, other than the both-and-neo-nor, which is the logic of the impossible, but writing, the text, became the net, andeverything had to be done in the virtual space, so that time too would be but virtual, and oh, therehands were on the table, the whole wine, to sacrifice our daily bread, but the cup of herabominations, drink it not, that wine of astonishment, when a pair of dice, the shipwreck, thedepths, may yet a constellation appear, all thought utters, all thought emits and admits risk, notchance, but a chance taken, to take the chance, to roll the dice, is not to either affirm or annulpossibility, but to take action, so that the impossible became impossible, and the possible becamepossible once again, a limit on infinity, the eternal line, however zigzag which the dies falling
  • 64. took, did not go to the tomb did not fall to death in the abyss where nothing is, but since he couldnot say it plumb straight out, the double session of our lives is almost over and if he wouldhasten you to death, yet I would haste to love, and all was not between, we were not in themiddle as they claimed, to lull us to sleep with siren songs of literature, but in dialectical truth,which is the book, the name, the word and the sign, of glory, cannot not be, we were indeed verynear the end, belated, related, in the struggle between death and love, and every time we took ourplaces and rolled the dice one more time at the throne of our marriage, in the bed we read, we layin love, and fought death to make love, though the house was burning, though the house wasfalling down, and even though we be buried in the debris, we would not cease from loving, oh,You and I! It was a Marinelability to learn my harmony, and justice that brought us love tosymbolically defeat and therefore e-really, the time when all was veiled and unveiledsimultaneously, all knowledge admits dice thrown, but the seat he sat on, knowledge better not tohave had, and their bones under the altar, rather than their souls and relics bought and sold, andsaints carved into pieces as if grace was wealth, as if the truth could still be rightly divided, as if,the poet said, as if, and the philosophy of as if we became and became what we beheld, so lookaway for union, gaze not on the spectacle, but listen, happy love, listen to the music of natureeven pent-up in the city, as one would standing on a sea of mist mountainside see in the midst ofthe soul of the scene hear in the song of a gathering of birds more truth more beauty, still, bestill, hear something real, as I have, morning and evening, in the days of my waking, butbeautiful, the good God smiled on me, and praying did say me, as I said Him, so that the artistbecome an actor, you too could be said, despite, yes, and yet, for thee, for you, for you, I camefor you, not in the night, not yet, not quite, but just at twilight, of idols, of ideals, and therefore ofreality, in the nihilistic throng without a throne, and thrown into being, did implore and receive
  • 65. Grace, that the ring might be complete, for what would be His wedding without such a ring? Agift to Him who gave me to me, I stood beside the groom holding the ring, and oh, saw the bride,not bare, but bedecked and new Jerusalem’s she did shine, Virgin bride, had left all for Him whostood beside me, she meta-, she mystic, she moral and more, and I having known para-, hadbecome a friend of the groom, and a wedding guest, at the marriage of the Bride and the Lambslain since the foundation of the world, which scholars do not know having voided all scriptureof prophecy, but still His words ring true, and must be applied now, not then, and the Spirit willtell you things to come, and you cannot serve both God and money, and two did tell them, yetthey would not believe, and just who is this Son of Man? Aye, that is the question he puts to oneand all, that all may judge, discern, believe, hope and love, to really know the time, the day, thehour, He says he is like a thief, but a good thief, and he will take us away from the world, stillseparating out, wheat from tares, good from evil, as the world plummets into the abyss like in thewake of it, and we rise and shine with the resurrection, and today we shall be with Him inparadise, if you throw in with him, and not throw yourself away on the world, which is but asymbol, which, divided in two, the session double, mirrored, did like a lovely pool of brokenwater re-unite around Him, did gather at the throne, did placidly and with benedictions did moreso unify and that than the universal church which was a broad and dangerous highway on whichmany walked, while he said the path was strict and hard to find, and that the children of thekingdom were thus always already to be thrown, to not sit with the elders at the throne, buthaving gambled for his vesture did proudly wear it, though he had never bestowed it, the palliumthey claimed, the place vacated by the building of the palace, a tomb of faith, not the mountain ofmoral beauty, but the Book ever said it was Rome, and Rome it was ever to be, the eternal city, ithad to be you, and it could not have been under auspices of Caesar, but under bridges of fathers,
  • 66. the ire of sires, it is today you are that city, and yet a little while, you will be destroyed, onemight say, not literally but literarily, if that be possible, in that you are void of meaning, exceptwhat the Word of God says of you, which you may have known, but did avoid, and pious,condemned reform, and forced our consciences rather than relinquish what you had stolen, andthough you had the keys, the “keys” mark His word, did not un-lock, did not let in, oh my God,they have made your house a den of thieves and your Zeal does consume me, as all must saytogether, What Would Jesus Do? Indeed, do what he did, drive them out, re-form the old, tear itdown to the ground, and prepare for the homeward journey, somewhere way over Jordan, overyonder, I’ve been told, not tolled, but storied in, not a fiction less, but in truth did write no novel,nothing new, He said It Has Already Happened, because the mark of the beast was confirmed sothat the economy of simony could go on, buying and selling grace, as they said, His hands aretied, are they not? Yet He did cut that knot with the Word of Truth, that complex catholiccontradiction He did hit with a rock, and then use its own sword against it, like how many times,Lord did they love the better places at the feast, and how many times Lord did they pay lipservice to the humility of Christ yet claimed to be without even the possibility of error?Napoleon did come thinking he without error, and Hitler did as well, along with popes thatactually infallibly asserted the death of love and the love of wealth and power and now on thecusp of things we peer toward the next anti-Christ in this very late PM postmodern post-mortem,all the time they said one thing and did another, but which is abomination to God, and did notthink like the Lord, and did not have the Mind of Christ, because they knew the truth and spokeoft of fine and living things, yet all the time behind the screen working to destroy our faith, butwhich if it be not in Christ will be destroyed, and holding not onto their Tradition-traitors, weWord in, we with meaning would be worded in, we scriptured, not historical but prophetic, not
  • 67. without pun, they did forsake prophets for profits, and outlawed prophecy even, and said nonecan arise, for God has spoken, but the Word will always be spoken and the Spirit leads youwhere He will, away, at least, at last alone with Christ be loved, let Him be loved without anyintermediary who usurps the place and vacates it, but that always His star does shine, pastdeconstruction of truth, and the dialectic of the day, past catholic love and catholic death, a faithabides amidst a crossing, paradise throne, for He chose it, as they unwittingly did, and hope andlove as strong as death, which cannot hold Him or you or me, for we’re not bound, we’re free,the true city of the Bride, in Jerusalem we shall be, when we will be freed: Yes, His Word stillcuts the complexities of the current complicity, for the crisis of the contemporaneity of themeaning of the mercy of Christ.
  • 68. Thatdicethrownwill never annul chance and that all thought utters dice thrown, and that Derrida dependedon these poeticisms, and that I once held that the symbol divides itself in two, and thepossibility of thought is the thought of possibility, as the culmination of my time indeconstruction, of what do I say of these things now? It may be that the poet meant tosay that possibility is irreducible, that action is an illusion against the backdrop of perpetualand unchanging about-to-be, that the step though taken, is really annulled by the fact thatchance itself cannot not be. This principle of supreme indeterminacy, which entered mostpeople’s minds through the science of physics, but was first stated by a poet, seems tosay the last word is that there is no last word, that the possibility is that it, possibility itself,makes reality in act the very figure of the impossible. That somehow the reserve of thepossible not only annuls the dice throw that would annul it, but in fact annuls itself, thatpossibility is made The Impossible. That was Derrida’s one chance. From this hunch hewove a fantastic work of seeming, a phantasm of ligatures, cuts, sutures, ligaments,agglutinations, analisms, and magical cruelties that post-post, retro-active, in principle,annuls itself at the same time, du meme coup, in the same blow, as a throw of the dice,that it annuls everything else, as if to say, marriage is always already annulled even
  • 69. before it is ever consummated, before it can be. Marriage cannot be, love cannot be, therecan be no end, nor any beginning, we are vastly lost in the indeterminate middle of awasteland. On the other hand, that the symbol divides itself in two, that was true, but thatthe two parts fit together, marriage in other words, is in fact predetermined, notindeterminate, and that we will have identity is the principle, not the cause of difference orthe force of deferral and delay. That if we be but broken, we can be put back togetherwas the promise I made myself from the outset, and that possibility and all its problemswas the key was a token to remind me of the way, for with possibility we may have theanswer, but without it we have nothing. That from the beginning I saw the project of mycareer in writing as a path leading from nothing to everything, the great reversal, wasexactly set against deconstruction, though I knew it not at the time. That in fact the endwas reached by the logic of the impossible, that I have recuperated my true identity, thatthe logic of deconstruction has been decided in favor of a Christian love, which unites anddistinguishes, as in marriage, that meaning will yet be, that the yes I say to Thee hasmore meaning than ever, is not to say this real affirmation is ever indeterminate or overdetermined, but that God is implicit in every truth, and that all we say and do refers toHim. To arrive at the apocalyptic by the reverential love of revelation is to say “yes” to theLord. His ways are not our ways. We accept His judgment.
  • 70. God-Church-Worldis the system of the Anti-Christ, which is a thing that may surprise some, especially thosewho have read the cover of the books and turned to this last page to steal my endingwithout having made the journey I made to get here. The Church in the Modern World, akey document of the Second Vatican Council, stated the position by just boldly placingCatholicism in and not juxtaposed to or against modernity. If this was an error, I do notknow, but that we see in recent events the worldly aspects of the church are beyonddoubt. Yet, she may be holy, and without a doubt God is, and the world too is not withoutits goodness, bestowed by God, both natural and human. So why do I make thisextraordinary claim concerning evil and the things most of us know and love? I think likethe poets said, particularly Blake: The deception is great. And many there are who aredeceived, and wittingly or not go along with the corruption of not only morals but faith andthe intellect, all of our culture. We must be radical in our love of Christ, and fight for Him,as He fights for each of us. If you have read all my pages you know the story, but thesolution is not really in my hands or yours however, but in God’s. God so loved the world,and loved the church, and loves us, I believe, that we should not give up on them and
  • 71. our-selves, despite the enemy within the perimeter. In a way I have called in an air strikeon our own position, hoping that God will by His own means cut out the evilwherever it may be, and especially in my heart, and in yours and yours. That theapocalypse was written long ago, and in a sense has already occurred, is reassuring. ThatGod is in control, that is part of our faith. Trust in His mercy, and hope for the best. Donot lightly leave off good things, spiritual things, or be disturbed by every wind of financeand politics, or of turmoil in the church. Pray for the will of God to be done now where weare, not later, for sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. The Bible may say contradictorythings, and a fortiori churches and mere men, and most of all the work I have written, butdo not let the oppositions overcome the one truth you live by, whatever that may be, thatstar, that dream, that love and hope, even desire and most of all your truth. Perhaps toeach his own, perhaps we are all one. God knows, and that is enough for me. May Godforgive my errors.
  • 72. SymbolsThe speculative begins and ends in the realmof the symbol, which as has been said, givesrise to the thought. That every symbol impliesan explication means that in the folds of thingsthat have meaning are possibilities that bothopen and close our understandings. Openbecause they allow reading and therefore thepossibility of learning, and close because thelimit case of comprehension is a grasping thatcannot grasp itself, on the one hand, andwhich must let go, turn loose, of itself, in orderto be grasped, not by any and every other, butby the one truth, the incomprehensible thatcomprehends us as we are, making uscomprehensible to ourselves in principle,
  • 73. though sometimes knowledge is deferred ordenied. That the symbol divides itself in two, inthe etymological sense of the word “symbol,”indicates a brokenness, an incompleteness, infact, which in principle is already complete andwhole. Symbol systems are always derived fromother systems, which seems to deny origins, asdoes our understanding of language, whichcannot be incomplete, but which as has beenshown, and in contradiction to this, has someradical incompleteness lodged in the heart ofevery state of affairs. We did not invent theremedy that God provides. We sought Him,hidden in things, and have perpetually foundand lost Him over and over again, theAbsolute, the cause and goal of the search, theguard and guide of life, that than without whichnothing can be conceived, in which we liveand move and have our meaning, makingsymbolic actions, which we sometimes dimly
  • 74. perceive in truth, but which we believe have adefinite value for God, where we hope ourworks will always be written in the book ofeternal narrative, a place in which our roles,written, are read, by all of us, actors andaudience, at the discretion of sole Authority.
  • 75. will have been a book, filled with many signatures, at least three or four,or seven or twelve, but never simply two or one, for then there will be nosignature and no end to the signatures, for the cuts and the wounds toheal, not in schizophrenic fashion, as the symptom that produces its ownfore-healing, out of the play of forces that exert us within and without,making us both hyper sexual and hyper textual in the same instant ofmadness, overloaded with desire, overly attentive in our reading, trying todiscern the indecipherable, circles of selves to fit the square hole of theabyss on the page and the stage, that framework of tech city, that unnatural un shaped form less form beyond the simplicity of the curve of lifethat distorts our being into the one multi-task of living and dying in thesameinterrupted, as I met my age and did shoulder I knew not what, but Godknew, when I knew Him not, and in the seeming interregnum of thevacant dethroned disfigured decapitated deconstructed I sought theabsolute, and held that we should go from nothing to everything, andagainst the grain, and despite the triumph of the will and the eclipse ofreason and the ebbing of faith and trust, I was a seeker, but I was found,and though it seemed I was struck by genius and by magic and by themuse, yet I did strike a blow, not against all that, but at the giant Goliathin the way, and what my rock was you should know, and what the sword,that too you shall know, for there was a behemoth, call it what you will,a thing I sum post-modern, that can in principle, of its own terms, neverbe summed, no summa yet possible, yet summation required, and thattheological, and a synthesis, to appropriate and not to be appropriated,and to give and not to count
  • 76. moment, like the supposed, like the word itself, which gives itself away inspeech yet retains itself in the graphic shadow of a drawn and quarteredneo-nor, the syn- despised, the thesis suspended, the trace of somethingthat escapes both wisdom and foolishness, a kind of hilarity that is thedeath of serious work and building, dwelling and thinking, for awandering polysemy, polylogia, a bare hymen of meaning betweenourselves, our frail consciousness and the abyss of nonentity, that ISBNsaid is sacred yet tainted with vice, and in the taintedness, dreams of ouryet un written pages flowing with no restriction to the falls of hymenealaggravations and abusive abysses, the assault of the letter A on all we are,an aggregation of insubstantial structures,the cost, and to shoulder like Atlas, and not to merely shrug, and to standunder God when all around me the world was falling, not searching, butdespising, and rushing, in economy, to spend all the capital of ourinheritance, to waste the rich deposit of faith and reason so carefullybuilt up by work and sweat of men and women over 4000 years, thegreat remainder of all dwindling to almost nothing, and then on barecredit to live, the future consumed as well, with nothing left for children,not even a generation to come, all it seems we have destroyed, even thepossibility of action itself, the void invaded, the abyss and the gravity ofit, the black star our hearts wed, the river she ran into no sea, and bellsdid ring always from morning till night, at dawn, at dusk, matins andvespers, weddings and funerals and a few more baptisms, but always inthe church in the world, and in a tower that did not babble, though it didseem about to fall, and some supporting it, as
  • 77. unlike 1, 2, 3, 4: but more like Nietzsche on the square, overcome over-man, over a flogged and dying beast that was no thing but the wretchedpoint at which his mind collapsed under the weight he could not supportof a lifetime of the power of the open, but in order to arrive, in anotherway, without madness, yet still to find love, and this not in profits ofextremity, but in the prophecy of catholic economy, when all will be notthe glory globalizing but de-capitalizing, when the church of the newafter the apocalypse, the time from 1945-2010, will emerge, a pure whitenothing, a reconstructed theory and a reestablished practice, a Virgin,married to both God and Man, union of fecundity and yet with no actualrelations with the world, a gift, a prayer that is apart, a part of the worldthatI and what we knew symbolically as 1000 points of light, as Francis didhold the church from falling, in his time, to make firm what wastottering and to do as has been said, we were all re-sponsible, though Iwas more responsible than the rest, as the priest told me that I was thatman, as God called me, I lie not, and told me that I was doing it for thechurch because they were confused and did not understand His mercy,and that my vocation was true, and He does love me, and said so, andanother priest said work on and risk and do not be discouraged, and asthe King said, though 10,000 fall yet I will trust in you Lord, and therewas no inter-regnum at the throne though the see may have been vacant,I do not know, but that the corruption of the time did reach even into theChurch and did fell the world, and all, but at the same time in symbols,in signs, the real dialectic did prove that every action is every otheraction, as every other is holy other, despite the will to
  • 78. transcends the world at the same time it absolutely transforms it, fromboth the inside and the outside, without force, yet traversing by a “work”the fantasy and the necessity of the lack of production for a realitypromised but undelivered by the fasces, by the face of the veiled and theunveiled, by Jews and Moslems and the still Christian, by atheists andathletes of wealth, by a realm of morals that is being but transubstantiatedto mysticisms without reserve, and finding in this the word of St. Sartrefor the building up and tearing down by the anti sculptor Giacometti,who would with unceasing labor create and destroy the synthesis of artand religion and philosophy in the dialectic of the search for what anothercalled the SA: as savoir absolute, in you, yes, thereforedissipation, and the will to deceive, and many there are who have been,we did still love and believe, and hope for the coming of the great day ofour liberation from wealth and poverty, and all that goes with thateconomy, for an economy of grace and mercy that has always been andwill always be, let it be done on earth as it is in heaven, dear Lord, Ipray, that those who laugh will cease and those who mourn who willhave a ceasing of their cause for mourning, and that in the age ofanalysis, we made something of our world, against it and for it at thesame time, as was the Church, which despite the lack of holy attentionstill was mindful in missions and in charity and said so much right anddid so much right and did so feed the millions with words andsacraments and breaking even in their daily bread, so done for thatChurch, a work stood, not torn down, though not one stone will be leftatop another, as the Savior said, we may at last find the paradise throne,a temple interpreted as thee
  • 79. PREFACE TOPARADISE THRONE
  • 80. The world of the end is a strange place to live, but here we are, out of time.The Book of Revelation was never understood because:1) it did not apply to the Roman Empire,2) it is written in signs and symbols, and is not literal,3) it spoke of the future.Now the problem is re-solved. Not Rome then, for Rome was not apocalyptically destroyed, butconverted. It is the trouble with Rome now that should concern us. I believe the writing of Johnthe Divine is the way that it is because the end of the world of which it speaks is not a literal endof the world but a symbolic one. That the Church took over from the Jews the symbol of Israel,calling itself the same, is a clue. What is said of Israel therefore applies to the Roman Church.When Christ says that not one stone will be left atop another, He speaks then not only of theTemple in Jerusalem, literally overthrown, but of the Church today, that may be destroyed. Thisdestruction, well under way, involves an attack on the virtues of faith and hope and love. Satanand the Anti-Christ do not mean to lay waste cities and all nations, but the faith of Christians, allbelievers. This can be done really though symbolically. Why would Satan wish to destroy aworld he in a way already controls? It is faith in Christ, and love itself, that he hates. Asdeconstruction has shown, the best and perhaps only way to destroy a system is from within. Andwe see much done in the Church recently that troubles us, from the condemnations of so-calledheretics to the problem of sex abuse. Besides this is the money, which the Vatican will not speakof, but which some believe came from Hitler to be stored in Rome, after the fall of Berlin. Whatwe know is bad enough to cause much disquiet, but what we do not know will, I think, shake thefaith of many, who, as Christ warned, put faith in men and their traditions, rather than in God.The attack by the recent Popes on the article of conscience decided by the Second VaticanCouncil is clear, so no one can disagree with Rome and its teaching. Infallibility is thefoundation of error, to hide, not reveal, truths that Rome wants kept secret, like the death of JohnPaul I, or why as John Paul II took over he insisted “be not afraid.” Should we be? The time we
  • 81. live in now has become a very meta-physically different type of time, the kind of time in whichthe symbols of the Book of Revelation make sense. How you read it is up to you. But read it.Read it in the Spirit, not the letter, as Paul says. Read it as addressed to the Church of today.Keep in mind that God does not think as we do, since He came to save sinners, not the righteous.As Moses said: Would that all God’s people were prophets. The word of God is thoroughlyprophetic, and the scholars who empty it of that dimension empty it of its primary meaning,which is neither moral nor mystical, but rather eschatological, and is concerned with thesalvation of all, which depends on real and correct relationships with God, who must be known,in some way, to be loved, believed and relied on in every end.Nietzsche, who is a type of Anti-Christ, said he wished for a “Caesar with the soul of Christ.”Derrida ends his Glas, the death knell of The Book, with words in reference to the perfecting ofthe resemblance between Dionysus and Christ, and Dionysus was the end-point of the Anti-Christian Nietzsche’s attempt to found a new religion. In other words, the two best known de-constructionists were at work on a synthesis of Christians and non-Christians. That would seemto be the path my book followed in the later stages, combining a dialectical method withdeconstructive insights held together in a catholic framework, for the reformation of both theChurch and the World, along the lines of a logic that accepts the contradictions it finds asinevitable and not to be rejected, but having been placed here by God, to be incorporated into afuller, completed logic that accounts for the real and not just “paradoxical” things that conflict inThe Bible and in our experience. The idea has been that God does not think like we do, thereforewhatever the basic principle of our logic is, it must be ungodly. That would be the logic ofAristotle, long the backbone of the catholic way of thinking. The problem I face at this late dateis how to distinguish the synthesis I have made in the name of the truth of Christ and the doctrineof his Word from the anti-Christian deconstructionist attack on Christ that would violently yokeHim with Caesar and Dionysus. If there is epicriticism, it is needed by me now the most. As forthe Caesar angle, the Roman popes have that covered, and have already, before there wasNietzsche or any of his Lutheran fathers, combined a false Christ with a false Caesar, doublywrong. It may be that from the angle of Dionysus, the new age religions that reject Rome make asimilar error, and this includes a broad range of Christian churches who emphasize theresurrection without the passion and the cross. On the other hand, I try to stand firm in the
  • 82. middle, as would, say, Aquinas, and hew to a course between the twin abysses I have named.This is because I had the benefit in my catholic seminary of reading some Luther, as well asBarth, and others, and many other writers on religion, east and west, and have kept as my guidethe word of God as it is revealed in The Bible, interpreted over the course of twenty years, withinthe limits of what my conscience, which was formed relatively late in life, but which has comefully to fruition, recommends. Now the conscience of the critic is the judgment that regulates thegenius, and I have in this regard been informed by many philosophers and thinkers, to the extentthat the system I hold in my work is, while not free from error, as the Roman, able to handle theproblems of the postmodern age, of which misreading and contamination in theory and practiceare fore-most. Nevertheless, it was only in the last year, as I turned my attention at last to theapocalypse and its interpretation, that these things came into their true meaning as concerning theend of the world, as it is called by most, that is, the final battle of good and evil.
  • 83. Paradise Throne
  • 84. The Coup Coda of the Cube kryptos kybos That throne will never be thrown by a pair of dice to say chanced hazarded gambled riskedEXCEPTby a cube foreknown, predestined, planned, so w/o a chance, dicey LAUNCHED in eternal circumstances as written in the BOOK: It has already taken place: It is done: Finis: Consummatum estThough we thought it abyssal it was merely Ulysses in an eighteenthThat number sums all anti-All anti-summation, is already summarized there in the
  • 85. ultrastructureOf even a number,Of the number that is the enigma,The number of a person,And that to come, or as if to come,Artless Ark,Breaking Bark,What would Peter and Paul do in the midst of such shipwreck?Jesus slept and said O ye of little faith! Should we do likewise? The MASTERHas not lost his grip on the helm and the ship is not in danger…yet…what if the ship is lostNot foundered but unfounded, wrecked on the rock of the maker? Because thought to beUnshakeable, unjudgeable, w/o a One who would touch these my anointed prophets and WOULD THAT ALL GOD’S PEOPLE WERE PROPHETS Than profiteers,
  • 86. All is not vanity,That yes, yet, there be an All: We must still pull down, pull down our vanity, and on the humble rock resideOR COME TO GRIEF in the folds of 666 Which is the cubic mass of the volume or the cubic volume of the mass, [the see and the sea coincide in the shipwreck]
  • 87. AS IF TO BEA total count in the making of the anti-Christ, a totality w/o totalizer, the possibilities may bespelled in the alphanumeric that only became possible in the postmodernist era: THE SIX is a hex and a cubeHexagram: Solomon’s SealHexagram: Book of Changes CUBE: KAABA Which Islam turns around and faces, center of MeccaOf course Not to pass over the obvious, THE BLACK BOX MAGIC TECHNOAnd around this square of Jews and Muslims and Chinese and all our TECHNOLOGY The common denominator is the bias of the anti-
  • 88. CHRISTWho will not allow the ultimate immemorial demon to de-throne PARADISEOn a probability that it is a sin, so that it must be licit, for with GodOnly Certainty Will DoAnd in the eighteenth hour after dawn, after trial and crucifixion in thegarden it is midnight and God walks and talks with His own:The PM was the wrath, postmodern, post-mortem,The AM is the mercy of the dawn and just before, FORGETTING RE- CONSTRUCTIONSFor a leap of faith into a new world that was ordained prophetically
  • 89. Is not madness become youIs not evil that madness you ABOLITIONS ABSOLUTIONSThe search for the absoluteIs the search for the knowledge of,And the now forgotten SA SAVIOR ABSOLUTEun-knowing neither SA nor DE
  • 90. As IfAs If Nothing will have taken Deconstruction’s place was DERRIDAS ABSOLUTE But the deconstructed place As If To BeWas silence while being is all meaningful speech and musicW/O MERE NOISE/O WHITE NOISE/O THE PAGES W/OExcept perhaps a constellation, a great cloud of witnesses: Virgins are not blanks, virgins indeed are signs not empty but full,
  • 91. But if the Cube is the Coup in the Coda,the final throw of evil at Armageddon, What of Benedict’s Conscience?On the One Hand:He completes the six sides with the six times six times six equals 216,Meaning 2+16, Meaning B+16 equals the POPE Or,He completes the six sides with six plus six plus six equals 18,Meaning 2+16, Meaning B+16 equals the POPE.On the Other Hand:What does John Paul 2 + Benedict 16 equal? ALTAR AND SCRIPTUREThe final sides of the cube, its top and bottom,They kiss it don’t they? and bury bones within …And placed a LIMIT ON INFINITY…it seemed as if……It was the number in John’s Gospel when many walked away…
  • 92. yet It will have been therefore a Throw of DiceNot done in secret but by symbols obscured,Perhaps even John Paul II did not know that he was the one who was wounded,And to overcome the Left, leaned to the Right, the Roman Fascist Bias CAESAR AND CHRISTThus stood opposed, but the emperor, the pope, the magister, the oracle, infallible, the Supreme Pontiff,pagan priest, pontifex maximus, pronounced: yesEvery Caesar is opposed to ChristAs Chance is to the one CertaintyTHATAll Scripture Emits Paradise Throne.
  • 93. PP
  • 94. PP: per procurationem, that is, by the agency of, or for the agency of, butof what and for whom do the popes sign their names? The procurator isone who manages another’s affairs, and was an officer of the RomanEmpire entrusted with the management of the financial affairs of aprovince and often having administrative powers as agent of theemperor. So, the pope is the agent of what emperor and of what empire?As well, akin to the procurator is the procuring, often to make availablefor sex. Which is to say, not beyond the PP or pleasure principle ofFreud. In that late work of psychoanalysis, the death instinct came tolight, and the need for repetition compulsion, and I think these thingscan be discerned in the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. AsPlato writes in The Republic, those with training for philosophy can dogreat good, but if corruption enters in, there is an even greater ability todo harm. The PP is also the postal principle, the logic of the postmodern,as well as the post-mortem. In whose name were these things done, bywhat authority? At the seminary, as regards theology, they make Popesequal to The Bible itself, and say the magisterium is the one to interpretscripture, but should it not be the other way around? Should not TheBible be used to measure Rome? We return to the antichrist. You willrecall that 6x6x6 equals 216, and I said 216 equals B + 16, that is 2 + 16.And that this is Benedict. But looked at again it appears that the 2 isreally John Paul II, and the 16 is Benedict XVI.They are the antichrist. One was struck down, but miraculouslysurvived, and the other promotes his agenda. As well, you remember theother work in 666, that it is summed 6+6+6=18, and that is once againJP 2 and Benedict 16 = 18. There is much that could be said of thevariant reading of the passage, the 616, which can be deduced fromvarious multiplications and additions. These deductions point back toPius XII, and the Nazi era. As well, they point back to 1962 and the ill-fated Vatican Council II. If John Paul II is the beast in some symbolicway, and Benedict the false prophet, what will happen next? It wouldhave to be the en-shrining of the statue or image for worship, and that isthe new order of mass to take effect for the liturgical year 2012. In the
  • 95. catholic economy the entrance is through confirmation, a mark on thehand and the forehead. As well, despite the scripture always read thatday, on Ash Wednesday, the Catholics throughout the world will receivea mark on their foreheads. For these reasons I have stopped attendingmass. I have not read the new missal, but I have heard of changes in bothwhat the priests say and in how the congregation responds. Concretely, Iwonder what the new response to the priest’s “Peace be with you” reallymeans. When the churchgoers say “And with your spirit” in what or towhat spirit will they be praying? Men and women have bodies and souls,but spiritual entities like angels have spirits. It seems that there is oneSpirit of God, and so Benedict should say that plainly, if that is what hemeans.I have not in this work made a full-scale exegesis of the Book ofRevelation. I think too often those attempts got lost in the trees, andcould not grasp the main point in the forest of difficulties that is thesymbolic end of the world. I have made a diagnosis about the Churchherein, as well as lay out a catholicity in the logic by which the reformof the Church may be thought. What remains? We must not lose ourfaith, though we have been betrayed. I have written this for the Church,not against it, for the faith of the many, not the approval of the few. Ithink that in the future the present pope will die and the college ofcardinals convene to choose his successor. I believe the cardinals shouldnot select one, but appoint themselves temporary guardians of theChurch until a council can be called comprised of all the bishops in theworld to decide the future of the Church. The things I have said in thisbook are a small addition to the massive amount of news regarding theChurch in crisis that is available. All I was shown was that the popes ofmy lifetime were the antichrist, and I was charged with communicatingthis to you for the good of all. Many outside the Church will not besurprised at the news, especially those fond of Martin Luther, while thereaders I want to reach especially, the faithful of the Catholic Churchwill probably ignore the warning, if they ever hear it. However, if theybe like the men of Nineveh, I will be happy, not sad, if the Church issaved and not destroyed. The point in the logic of the work, that God
  • 96. does not think like we do, is seen in the career of the prophets, who ifthey were true, were not listened to, except perhaps for Jonah andNathan and Samuel. The things we are told are too often too hard tobear, and the message of God too much of a challenge to the frail humannature which relies on the traditions of men rather than faith in God. Youmay think me but a self-styled prophet, so I will let the work speak foritself, and say that numbers do not lie, and that they translate easily tothe present day.Therese of Liseux, whom I often invoke, said everything is grace. So,the seeming death-throes of the Church need not be cause for sorrow, ifit was the will of God for Rome to be what it has become, a thing hard tounderstand, but that it was foretold long ago is clear to me, and so weneed neither rejoice nor fear but rather realize the signs of the times, asthey are sometimes called, and become the light of the world whichChrist says we are. The kingdom is within us. Where but two aregathered in His name, there He is in the midst. When the son of manreturns will He find faith on earth? He says there will be a remnant whohave not knelt to the Baal. It is up to each one of us in the integrity ofour consciences, which are not deliberately set against Rome, but whichRome has deliberately set itself against, to decide in the crisis of theChurch in the World where God really is and go there. If you can findHim nowhere else, at least He said He will be in you if you believe, andI believe God in His promises, every last one.The antichrist was given a number in The Bible rather than a name notso much to hide him, but to reveal him, because the ultrastructure ofnumbers endures across all languages, and needs no translation, thusescaping deconstruction. When John Paul II said that the apocalypse ofJohn was about the future history of the world, he told a lie, for it wasabout that man and his time that it speaks, while he seemed to beencouraging traditional readings of scripture. As Hans Kung said, JohnPaul II was the most contradictory Pope of modern times. And I haveshown that the root of this contradiction is in the mystical evil that hastried since 1945 to gain control of not only the Church but of the ones
  • 97. who are faithful to it. Without their assent the Roman hypocrisy mustcease. Long has Rome been implicated in sin and crime, which can nolonger be hidden. The hour of the final battle of good and evil drawsnear, and with the judgment beginning at the Church, as Peter says in hisletter, where does the poor sinner stand? Indeed, with the ground cut outfrom under the feet of Catholics, and with the world already under thecontrol of an antichristian matrix of forces including Islam, Israel, Chinaand the technological capital of the magical projection of fascism whereliberalism once stood, with a kind of Nietzscheanization, as has beensaid, of all politics, with a criminal intent to corruption on all sides, weare not, as seems, at the door of another dark age in which we must keepour love and knowledge alive in small isolated communities, but ratherwe stand at the brink of the end of the world. Now, scripture portrays theend in two ways, one a flaming inferno of fiery justice, and another inwhich the lion lays down with the lamb. This is just one of the manycontradictions in The Bible. That the church has always been both sinfuland holy, that we are sinners yet saved, that God died for us, that morethan half of the popes were never made saints, and almost none since theReformation, that the Second Vatican Council almost to a manunanimously passed the reform of the liturgy that fifty years later JohnPaul II and Benedict XVI will undo in the name of a “literal” translationand true “authenticity,” opening the door, I think, to some evil thatmeans the invalidation of the mass, that these things were foreseen bythe author of Scripture, and are part of God’s plan, who cancomprehend? Yet, as Paul had the mind of Christ, so may we, to be notconformed to the world, but transformed by the renewal of our minds.Paul also said that God’s grace was sufficient for him, and so it may befor us. He said woe to me if I do not preach the gospel, so may we, andas John said, blessed are they who read this book and keep it, so maywe, for I have added nothing to revelation, nor taken anything away, forI have seen Rome where it says Rome is, and have lived in Babylon, themarket of the whore. That the new city of Jerusalem will be our all in all,that God will wipe away every tear, but that the way there is hard andnarrow, and few there be that find it, is the awful and awesome truth ofour apocalyptic age.
  • 98. As Christ has said to one in our own time, “They are confused, they donot understand about My mercy.” Think of the mercy of God as His topossess and dispense, not in the hands of popes or priests and one will bemore comforted by grace than by magical terms such as ex opereoperato in which the Church teaches that the sacramental catholiceconomy works itself, without regard to God or man. As if by chantingthey can bind the will of God. The power to loose and bind is important,but so are the words in which that power is described. What you bind onearth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth will beloosed in Heaven. What the Church has done does not then apply to herpower to forgive, but rather, that instead of binding evil, they havebound God’s hands, and have set loose an unholy thing that will bring aneventual response. There is a correspondence of Heaven and earth, akind of symbolic action takes place between them, and I think this iswhat Christ meant in the binding and loosing. His mercy was always toforgive the penitent, so if the priest does as He does, where else wouldthe power lie but in the symbolic way I state, in which the Church bindsGod and looses what it should not, which any observer of the Churchshould now see. That God says I will have mercy on whom I will is thetruth which we need not fear, for God is merciful, and we should seekHim rather than go to a man and an economy of sacraments that only hasthe appearance of the grace of God, but is in reality rather liketechnology, an aspect of ex opere operato, a thing under no one’scontrol, operating as if by magic. It was perhaps the divorce of grace andnature, whether by Platonism or Thomism, the positing of the ideal andthe real, that led to an inevitable nihilism. But outside stands the grace ofChrist knocking at the door. God will close the “ring” by His action, notours. By His will, not ours. By a grace the Church calls prevenient, butwhich is truly grace as such in its totality, a free gift of God’s. We thenare to be blessed.As there is an inculpable atheism and a culpable atheism, as Karl Rahnershowed in the 1960s, so there may be a culpable and an inculpableCatholicism, which is not to say catholicity. Any one who becomes
  • 99. aware of the crimes of the Church, let alone the thing I have had to sayin this book about the antichrist, must decide for themselves how towork out their salvation. The decapitation of the Church at Rome isneeded, which is done in principle when each member of the Churchacts on their own, thinks on their own, and becomes truly the kingdomof priests God says we should be. Would that all God’s people wereprophets, but the application of the oil of anointing is not enough, if onereceives their vocation but does not keep it, is not true to it, which is tobe true to Christ in all situations and to speak out even if it be againstthose with the power, it seems, to judge you. For in truth there is but Onejudge, and judgment is reserved to Him alone, so that He may bind whathas been loosed and loose what has hitherto been bound.The PP could also be the pages following, or just the “papa,” of thePope, and I believe. It has been said unless you believe you will notunderstand, but I think you must, I must, love and forgive, show noresistance to evil, be perfect, be merciful, be holy, take every thoughtcaptive for Christ, say scriptura sola, and so not leave out the text on theApocatastasis, which was condemned by Justinian and the councils, butsay yes to the insight that was proclaimed by Peter at Pentecost of thegreat promise of the universal restoration, or the all in all, which is aword and a vision of the complete fulfillment, the arrival, no more ofwar and division and no more condemnation and no more evil, but, PPas a perfect peace, or as Kant said, “to eternal peace,” for we have beenat war, so long now, in the one battle of good and evil, we always thegood ones and you always the evil, us and them and I and the Other. Butreaching the point of what the east calls non-duality, I neither surrenderto evil or resist it any longer, do not condemn it nor the one doing it, butlove it, forgive it, claim my error which I reified as an IT or Other, andsurrender it to Christ. In truth the Popes were the anti-Christ, I believe,but did not know they were. The CC was profoundly hypocritical, butdid not see itself as such. By a method of triangulation the truth is notonly reached but preserved. Thus the Trinity. Thus, the God-Church-World, thus all hierarchies must be greater than the dual oppositionwhich is the structure of disease and deconstruction, posited in morals as
  • 100. good and evil. To reach this triangulation in politics, there must be acenter, not simple left and right wings. In history and in religion andphilosophy not simply faith and reason or Athens and Jerusalem, but theeast, so long excluded, which from our standpoint of dualism seems tobe the Other, but which is the thing that perfects and completes and willkeep the structure not only from not collapsing into nihilism under theweight of the real and the ideal, but by grace bring the arrival longsought, and allow theory room for practice, the thing the Church didn’t.In myself I forgive and love now the Other in me, do not condemn it,and do not illusorily declare a false peace but find true peace within. Imust become Christ and Buddha and Socrates, by doing the works theydid. You will say I am absurd and this is the impossible itself. Yet, theysaid it would be so, and told each and every one to do it, to be it, to makepeace. Heaven has already begun, it is within us all, as Christ said, asBuddha said. The war was necessary. Peace is not impossible.Shakespeare had his epilogue, spoken by Prospero, and Joyce too madea large epilogue for waking, as the other did to ask forgiveness. TheBook does not end with the war, but with the peace in Jerusalem thatfollows. Good and evil are overcome as the structure of war by the truththat they be not opposed any longer, and that to condemn any-thing iserror, and to forgive is divine. We all have been given the power toforgive and to make peace. I love my enemies, all of them, no matterwho or what or why. Some knew it, so that now we may love.To perpetual peace, the PP of Kant, and the proxy of the papacy, thepleasure principle, the postal principle, papa, or papaw, patriarchs andprophets, prostitutes and physicians, professors and preachers, the polesof north and south or of the opposition once we thought was irrefragable,to the struggle of good and evil, or of myself and the world, that war,was the illusion of me. In reality I am someone else known only to God.Post-Pontiff catholicism will be like the waking of the dead, the union ofthings irreconcilable, the arrival of the Messiah in fact not just inprinciple. For we all let usurpation and usury take sway in Rome and
  • 101. everywhere else, worshipped a lie, and yet but judged our-selves. I mustlet go of the desire to be led, of the desire for leaders, of the desire thatfollows, in order to be free of the desire itself. Sophocles said that wesuffer into truth. That is tragedy, but we learn. To know one must suffer,and we all suffer, but not all come to know the truth of suffering, havethe experience but miss the meaning, or know it only in theory or by thebook but not by direct knowledge, as it is, but lost in words and things,lose the way, which indeed is hard to find. The prize is not for invention,but for discovery. Reinvention, or rediscovery, one must choose theirrelation to the past, their own and the world’s. Buddha, Jesus, Socrates:did not write, did not work, did not take money for the teachings, didimpart truth by word and deed, and did not lie, and did speak ofsuffering as to how it may be over-come, in different ways, but basicallynot by obedience but by independence, not by memory but by vision, notby mind but by heart, not in theory but in practice. I have made my workin the age of the triumph of theory which was the nadir of reality, andthat formed the work in many ways, a problem to solve. As the alchemistCelan said, solve and coagula, which Robert Yankow too might havesaid of the forces of truth and tragedy, of magic and suffering, of thegreat transformation that must take place, whether we will or no, this lifeor the next, as God chooses.Transcendence means that God is absolutely different, and that he chosefor Jesus to be the one to suffer not just as part of an economic exchangein sin and guilt and atonement, but as a sign and symbol of the absolutedifference of God and man, which is, and yet which we can not lethinder us from getting to God, by trust. The mercy of God is evident,because I am. Who am I? The one God chose to learn and to be written.What have I learned? That I have written, and will have been written,but that the truth is not in writing, nor in the spaces nor in thedifferences. That I kept going. That I finished before I died, but in a wayhad to die and be willing to die in order to finish. That I prayed and wasprayed. That I loved and was loved. That I hated and was hated, that Idesired whether or not I was desired, that I made and stole, consumed,used, borrowed without repaying, that I was always angry, and thought I
  • 102. knew what was going on, though I was always ignorant. That I gave thisup, because I didn’t give up.In the end, in a last desperate move, I told my wife that I was calling inan air strike on my own position. Indeed. It happened. As I explicatedthe end of the world, my world did end and begin again. She and I, inour vessel of mystery, our apartment on the Richmond Strip, made agreat transformation of ourselves, of the work in us and on the pages ofthe books, and in a way yet known, in the world. It was alchemy in thetrue sense of the word. I became in a way I cannot show or say the veryChrist and Buddha and Socrates, and had to be, not just seem to be, tosave myself, my wife, my marriage, my work, and to save the world.Tremendous forces had been unleashed and we were buffeted by astorm, yet made the higher ground, by grace. I became more than moral,more than mystical, more than I can conveniently say, but that I suffered,that she suffered, that I became awake and aware, that she too knewthere was something more that she could see in me yet not understand,and that we both had to make peace between us, for us and for all, forGod’s sake, and said it was the most important day of our life, but didnot shrink back from the work, but gave our all, risked all, became morethan we had been, made the passage together, crossed the river, lovedand understood, each other, forgot what it meant to the book and to theworld and to God even, but said, what do we mean to you and me, andthe lives we saved were our own, and lived after we had died, and wereborn again, and did not violate but fulfill, and did arrive in fact, as wehad promised and had hoped, and did not just want to be real but werereal, the thing-in-itself, in learned unknowing, and wise simplicity,forgiving my folly, my waste, her concern for money, my obsession withGod, our desire to escape each other and the work of destiny, thesymbols of handshakes, kisses, a prayer, water, goodbye. And onawaking in our ordinary minds to go on thanking, grateful, now seeingsigns that we would make it and had and get to God together. I haverelated the thing that happened as best I can, and hope whoever you are,wherever, and whenever, that you already know and know it even betterthan we.
  • 103. Desperate diseases require drastic cures, and at last I had to love all orlose all, and so I loved. We all know the theory of love, I think, but ohhow little we practice love itself and thereby understand and forgive andbe the ones that we are meant to be, Jesus, Buddha, all the saints, all thegenius of the spirit, the moral, the mystic, the poetic, the music of theseers, the vision of what exceeds words, and through that thing so littlepreached these days, self-control, the chief fruit of the Spirit thatguarantees all love joy peace patience, surrender control to gain control,gain control but to surrender any right to any claim to any desire to, butactually being it, without right claim or desire, being the gift, indiscernment, be the narrow path God will have forever been here.On the following Sunday morning, early in the dark, after a night ofstudy of Christian and Buddhist scriptures, and writers such asNietzsche, Shakespeare, Eliot, Marx and Engels, I determined in prayerto Jesus that I wanted to keep my faith in Christ and yet still attainenlightenment like the Buddha. I lay on the bed in the cold Decembernight the week before Christmas and meditated. I thought of the void,and I thought of the form. I recalled that in the Preface to this work I hadsaid that in the beginning was an infinite nothingness which contractedcreating limit, the eternal, God. I saw in this the relation of the void andform. It is also seen in the gestalt of figure and ground. But the truth isneither of these alone, nor these two together. Neither is it the perceptionof the distinction between the space and the form. Neither is it ignoranceof the void and form. I thought for a moment what this ultimate truthcould be and said, it is love. In Buddhism, the point is one of notclinging, non-attachment, and that is the character of human love, tocling, to grasp, to be attached. It is desire, it is greed, it is human love.Christ on the cross showed what divine love is. It is letting go. It is self-emptying. It is not putting sovereignty in question, as Derrida did, norrenunciation of it, but surrender and abandonment, as I said in papers onthe arrival in 2006. God’s love is so great that He lets go of everything,at the same in the cruelest of all situations, nailed, in pain, despised, but
  • 104. praying for his enemies, granting salvation to the good thief, looking outfor his mother, before the cry of dereliction at His abandonment by God.And then: It is finished. The veil is torn in two and God’s love is nolonger to be doubted. The difference between God and man is shown. AsThomas Aquinas said, Christ suffered out of exceeding charity. Thesuffering was not for the sake of itself, a penance or austerity, but tookplace to convince us of the love of God, how completely a love divinelets go of even itself and its own being.The unity of Christ and Buddha was thus seen in the meditation. WhatBuddha taught is true, and agrees completely with Christ. As well, theSocratic theory of forms is reconciled with the two, and the idea of therelation of the soul and body, which is perhaps one reason for theextremity of the passion. As Socrates said pain and pleasure nail the soulto the body, so the passion showed it is possible to overcome thisthrough love. In the morning, seeing light on my wall, I saw in the lightsomething like the love I had seen the night before, that it is neitherspace nor form nor cognition nor ignorance. And so too with life itself.Love and light and life transcend the dual nature of thought that makesperception of form and void. In a way, the transubstantiation and thehypostatic union, as taught by the Church, accurately describe the Christ,but also tell the truth of all beings in which God subsists and whom Heloves. I kept my faith in Christ, enlightened like Buddha, and Socrates,and so learned the truth, that it is one and all.
  • 105. Search for the AbsoluteThe relation of Christ and Buddha has for me become the paramount question, that is, how tothink of them together. The two come from differing traditions, east and west, and I think verydifferent logics, the Buddhist non-duality, the Christian binary opposition. In Christianity, asdescended from the fall in Genesis, everything is based on knowledge of good and evil, and allthinking is based on this duality. Therefore, when one says I and other, or any pair, one must line-up with good and the other with evil, even if the two are neither good nor evil, but because theyare paired thus, they become morally culpable or not. All thought, almost, seems to be based onthis structure. In recent times Derrida and others have perhaps tried to question or unsettle orrewrite this arrangement. Whether the culture is more at peace now than before 1965 is somethingyou must judge for yourselves. I do not think they have been successful because they did notabandon the structure but doubled it, binding us even more tightly to it, because by opposing itthey have strengthened it in force and by complicating it have not made it easier to step out of.The logic in the human mind based on such opposition is a knot one hardly knows where to beginto untie. Of course, there is always the so-called sword to cut the knot, but such force may or maynot be effective. It depends on the sword one chooses. That Nietzsche and others applied force iswithout question, but that freedom is not nearer but further away seems the remains of thedeconstructive project, because, I think, it was a death of… rather than a love of… that forced theissue, and created a circularity rather than a sheer cleavage. The effraction, in fact, Derrida seemedto eliminate, either from inside or outside the circularity, because everything must take place, if ittakes place, inside the text. Whereas at one time it was in God that we lived and moved and hadour being, now it is in a text. The unleashing of textuality has revived a number of forces or spiritsonce overcome by Christ and Buddha, and many things are influencing our lives in many ways that
  • 106. most people are scarcely aware of, or second in a nihilistic way, waiting enthusiastically for the end.These genealogies in the heavens would keep us from the goal, and so, with the death of Godhaving been accomplished, it is necessary for Christians and Buddhists to join together thefoundations and not “reconstruct” what was, but start over, not reinventing but beginning again orbeing born again. Anything that can be reconstructed can be deconstructed forever, so we must layaside the notion of structure itself, that is, hierarchy must be jettisoned at whatever level and theemptiness of Buddha beneath the tree and the emptiness of Christ nailed to the tree must be ourone goal and our one means of salvation and liberation, our resurrection and enlightenment.Deconstruction did not empty the structure. We must not use the structure against itself, but let goof structure itself. We must not turn ideas against ideality, but let all go, even ourselves, for inletting go of self and other both at once that state known as the “not-other” may be attained. Thedilemma of good and evil has been transposed by deconstruction into that of the same and theother, polarities reversed, doubling the effect of structure, and perverting morality, invertingthought, not letting go of thought. For surely deconstruction cannot be accused of simplicity or ofrenunciation of intellect, but is rather the hyper-logical, hyper-intellectual basis for our culturetoday. Of this, let go. Only the fullness and the emptiness are important, not the filling, not thehunger, not the semblance, not desire. The absolute cannot be achieved directly, by force, bystriving, but only through a sincere emptiness that is done in faith, in hope, but without an attemptto control the outcome, and with a trust that by letting go of all, me, you, God, we will yetarrive, neither forcing arrival, nor avoiding it, but in losing our way, find it, for when we are lostwe may be found, and cannot be found unless we are lost. To find the absolute, we must give upthe absolute absolutely, and be absolved of both the problem and of the solution, not questioning,not seeking an answer, the mind neither attached nor non-attached, stopped, emptied of itself, ofall opposition, not even opposing itself but simply letting go, release, cease, peace. The mind itself
  • 107. is not the answer to the problem of delusion, but continues to be trapped in it as long as it is. Whenthe mind ceases to think, it is transformed, neither conformed to the world nor informed by it.This is the substitution, the sudden falling away, attained by emptiness, when absolute emptinessand absolute fullness coincide. Everything else is mere opinion, relative semblance, neitherordinary nor extraordinary. To make the ordinary and extraordinary coincide, the mind to betransformed, the self and the other let go of, all desire to pass away, one may meditate on the cross.This meditation on the cross brings together the themes of Buddha and Christ, the emphasis onsuffering and the way to overcome it, which is through emptiness and negation, done eithermentally, physically or both. Only by this kind of death can the new life be attained. Buddha arosefrom under the tree transformed, as Jesus did from the tomb. In each becoming completely empty,each became completely full, and so their pattern is one, and one for us even today. Our real stateof emptiness is the truth we hide from and in delusion cover over. We must admit it, accept it. It isthe evasion of the truth that is painful, not the truth itself. As long as we try to be full, we willnever be. Once we become empty, then we will be full. It is not either/or, not neither/nor, butboth together in each other. That is why it is true that in Zen samsara and nirvana are really one,and why Heraclitus said the way up and down is one and the same. The logos, which is also reason,is the mind of Christ, and is the mind of Buddha, and people are of one mind are at peace, in thatonly by being mindful can we realize this state of being of one mind for everyone. As long as one isgood and the other evil, it will not be, but only through love of everyone. Non-judgment,forgiveness, love of enemies are the terms Christ used to leverage our minds toward non-duality.The whole is then asymmetrical, there being no absolute opposite of God, so thus our thinkingmust become, without absolute oppositions, and by this non-opposition creating a possibility fortriangulation through non-mirroring. The mirror stage of the mind implies that human love isalways accompanied by hate, and that human mercy is always accompanied by justice, that we
  • 108. always think in terms of rewards and punishments, and that our freedom always implies slavery.Perhaps the opposable thumb is our techno-logical basis. But the divine mind of Buddha andChrist does not oppose and is not opposed. The divine love does not hate because it does notdesire. The divine mercy is absolute because it does not involve any kind of justice or judgment.Only people think that way, and as long as we do, we can not be absolutely loving, free, mercifulor happy. Our happiness will always consider, compare, contrast, criticize, covet, rather than becontent, complete, catholic, in the sense I mean the word these days, which is to say, a universe ofpaths, not a universal path, each of us independent, but all mindful of everyone. To realize that noone we meet will be the same as, equal to or less than we, that through this we stand not inrelation, or unrelated, but in arrangement, in coordination, in harmony, cooperating, notcompeting, running for the joy of running, because we fulfill ourselves by so running, is the race tobe won. Drops in an infinite sea, none are opposed to another. The things I have spoken of mayalso be seen in this way: The de/re problem regarding structure in theology is a chimera, becausethese structures are themselves false as to form and notion. The transubstantiation is almost correct,involving the emptying of substance, with its following replacement by another. In reality, thesubstance actually is not, and the accidents are only there as a kind of illusion without foundation.Enlightenment is to see through the accidents of being to the level of the place which takes placewithout anything else taking place or taking its place. In other words, the poet saw through thefoam and froth of language to the underlying reality of sheer space, which in the end is not evenspatial. The sword of no-mind cuts off even possible placement in this place. Nothing will havetaken place. The so-called revaluation of all values, is really their Transvaluation, in a triangulationwith their devaluation and revaluation. The de/re is probably the new way of expressing the dualityas such, and must be triangulated by the trans which crosses all values, all structures, all substances,all times and places, all selves and all others, with a movement which is not an endless displacement
  • 109. or a continuous spinning in place, but a conveyance of clairvoyance. It is to see the emptiness itself,which is the truth of “faith creates being.” The emptiness of faith realizes our divine coincidence,the absolute emptiness and fullness which faith creates, the two angles set aside from the acute angleof semi-seeming which is accidentality. The substance taking place in us and in all is our veryemptiness and our very fullness, and is our own identity. They are never apart, and being one isbeing the other, at once. The extremes coincide. All else between them is the semblance we mustovercome by seeing through our illusions, not using them, or letting them use us. The delusion ofmagic is just this life that seems to control so much, and give us so much control, but whichprevents or hinders the realization of truth which is peace in the heart, the compassion for thosewho suffer delusion. The greater part of the delusion is that those who suffer it do not realize theirown suffering, and rather fear the emptiness that is their true peace, true love, true selves. Almostall philosophies and religions mean to teach reality and the way to it, but hide reality and the waythere. Christ and Buddha denied themselves, saying no, took up the problem of suffering as task,saying yes, and breached trails for us to follow, both of mankind’s greatest teachers showing us away to really be peace, love and understanding, through acts of emptying, fulfillment and arrival.
  • 110. tomb
  • 111. The curtain of the unveiling of the apocalypse will be in but the blink ofan eye, the simul ringing down of the curtain, as the desolation of theabomination is raised on high to disturb the canonical saints and then inthe last act the monstrous logic of the sacrifice, once for all, yet alwaysrepeated, again and again, both singular and machine-like, once livingonce dying forever living forever dying, is suspended by the worst, thesuicide, or more suicide of catholicism by the voiding of the rite by therewriting of the order of the mass, let it be read by each, that we will notbe we, but from union to mere series, from the son and father one inbeing to the Latinate consubstantial, which will confuse the essence ofthe transubstantiation, from and also with you, to and with your spirit,which even the bishops cannot explain where and when the priestacquired that spirit, to the changing of the words of institution, the allbecoming many, which is misinterpreted by some as the narrowing ofsalvation, no I speak not of quantity but of the quality, going from thedefinite to the indefinite, the destabilizing of the core of the mass, andthere are other words misplaced and misshapen in syntax, but especiallywhen it changes from a sacrifice of praise to a sacrifice of ourselves forGod’s praise, what is this? And so the Roman Church will sacrifice itselfcome this November, because the beast was wounded and almost diedbut did live, and the prophet promotes his agenda, his image, the decreedMissal, which indeed will speak or be spoken, and which one mustadhere to without dissent to partake of the sacramental economy, a thingspoken for worship, to worship, and Catholics, signed on hands andforeheads with oil in confirmation and again every lent with ashes, as inRevelation, are in the circum-stances I describe, the only way in theworld this year that the apocalypse can happen, because nowhere else isthere such a conjunction of prophecy with practice. O, Catholicity! O,City of God! So in my interim, before the story that leads to where I nowam, I give you the abbreviated word of the end of the world, a warning Icould not postpone, but send ahead as fore-runner of the demise ofroman insistence. Yet, this may be good news still, both for the churchand for the world, especially for the world, because He came for thesinners, not for the salvation of those who are righteous. God does notthink like we do, which we cannot understand, with in-comprehensible
  • 112. love that reaches out not just to those of good will, but especially theunjust and unmerciful, so that the judgment that begins at the House ofGod, may be a warning to the rest of the world. What will happen to thechurch and the world I do not know, except that in reading bothtestaments of apocalyptic literature there are passages that are clear andothers that are opaque. Scripture scholars and many priests tell you onething, historical or textual, but I think we should look into matters forourselves. The hope I hold now is that the end is not really the end, but anarrow strait to a better world, beginning even here on earth, with athousand year reign, after the key of the abyss seals the error and evil ofour apocalyptic time, to free us for the joy of Christ. The books I havewritten start in a far different place from the one I dwell in now, morally,intellectually and spiritually. What began as a young attempt at de-construction before I fell for God in my conversion and began writingfrom a catholic point of view, goes through many stages, to arrive at theevacuation of the church, but not of faith, which I need even more now,and that in God, not in either the tradition or the revelation, but in thesole authority, which I see at work everywhere around me in what I termthe ultrastructure, the articulation of the one life or force that is withinand without us all the time, which contains the struggle of good and eviland all that depends upon that difference. One love we say. Yes, yet, wedefer and differ, from each other and from ourselves, but you, and I,what are we to Him? Vaster than the star reaches, faster than a ray oflight, this flux of which we sometimes become more or less aware, in thecoincidence of things, or their adherence, rather than always falling, or iffalling, falling faster, but into arms to catch. We need not plummet intothe abyss, but He has mercy on whom He chooses, His hands are nottied by the words of men, as the seminarian told me years ago, thoughmagic sometimes seems to work for some.It may be that the present age that began in the period of the secondworld war, after the publication of Joyce’s last work, is the ricorso, thechaotic transition to the renewed state of humanity, and that this fourthage of understanding in which we live is but a brief interruption and thatthe circle will recommence, like the journey through both black hole and
  • 113. worm hole to a better place in another world, or so it seems to me, thatis, that scriptures and the writings of the postmodern, Joyce and Derrida,for example, need not cancel out each other, even if contradictory theyseem or really are, for this is the era of the contradiction, and perhaps Ispeak against one thing and then against another and so interdict myself,but here in my world, there is still a we, a new we, not fragmented, butcoming together, through technology, through spirituality, throughcommunity, through sharing our spaces and our thoughts, though stillclinging to too much and not letting enough go, in order to arrive. Theysay either joy or pleasure or some such distinction, or Buddha andsentient beings, or Christ and whatever opposes Him, but He said loveanyway, even those on the Other side. That is what we are going to betaught and shown, I think, as we suffer together the next few years, butonly a short time in order to make our best effort, to learn how to makeour best effort, to not fear but to love. Often in a disaster the good inpeople comes out, and I think some will understand but some will neverdo so. We, future oriented, feeling belated, hardly present, unable topreserve or persevere, deconstructed, disconnected, over aware andunder aware, too informed and under informed, let us say these are thedays, really despite appearances, to get it right one more time or one lasttime, to do the right thing, not just the next thing, and to not let up, noteven blink until time expires, and when it is over, then to look up andsee if we have won, for none can be sure, in a way, though in a sense weare all standing generally before God right now, and at the turning mayall still stand together as the light arrives and be found not guilty for oursins and omissions both because some helped turn the wheel, andbecause the Lord had mercy we could not buy. The drama in these pagescame from an un-dramatic life, mostly lived on the margins of povertyand sanity, though marriage and a late education in a catholic graduateschool enabled me to push the work toward the points of reform andrenewal it reached last year. I learned to love would sum up the thingthat happened to me, and so I look back on the struggle between me andthe world, and in my own mind between deconstruction and catholicismas being part of that, but how as one nephew asked do you really know ifyou are in love? Or, how do you know you really love as one ought?
  • 114. Perhaps we only love as we can, and not as we cannot, and as one mansaid, in our own peculiar ways, whether that match romantic fantasy ornot, who is to say? For Derrida, the precursor, and the curse, love wasnot a question, not a problem, not something he ever once to myknowledge wrote of, which means by the logic of the un-said that it wasthe one thing he privileged, the one thing that is greater than evenjustice, or hospitality, or the other in-deconstructibles. Silence can beambiguous, or it can be so accurate, as the painter Rothko said. Derrida’ssilence about love, remarked in the film about him, and in the magazinethe “American Scholar” at the time of his death, is un-like the silence ofHeidegger about the Nazis and the Jews, and gives him a moral standingcompletely without hypocrisy compared to those who preach but do notpractice charity in truth. He is said to be against purity, Anything butpurity, he said late in life, though he liked pure French, and so much ofwhat he did, all, was for contamination, written corruption in a way,tainted tains, one might say, and truly reflected the situation in the world,but all the time, like the religion he hid and finally revealed, as Caputo, acatholic said, there is, or perhaps we don’t know for sure, a real ideality,a true love so pure it had to be absolutely concealed, absolutely hiddenand never put into play, without sign or signature, un-deconstructed, andneither the impossible nor anything else, but the act of love preserved bysilence and the great lacuna is thus explained, and the greatness ofdeconstruction is not the struggle with technology but the absolute faithin love. My friend told me the lost cause is the only thing worth fightingfor, and so it seems to me lately, with the church collapsing under thecrush of corruption that is being only now by me seen for what it is,though others for centuries knew the truth. The betrayal is personal, anddeeper, for it is by those most counted on, like the men abusing youngchildren, or bishops abusing power. And so with the church lost or soonto be, what do I fight for? I think some form of catholicity is stillpossible, but without a hierarchy. That the council said the one holycatholic apostolic church only subsists in the Roman and is not identicalto it, is important. That true church, like Luther’s invisible one will goon after Catholicism has passed away. Sans insistence, what then?
  • 115. A decapitalization of the Roman, the head cut off, the bank turned insideout, the thing made transparent through and through, completelyreformed by the laity and its taking responsibility. For each of us standsalone before God, and cannot be good Germans who only did what wewere told. We know in any sense of justice that that defense isinadequate. Some current theologians speak of reconstructive theology,but pay them no mind, they forget that any re can be de again. Let usfind the new basis, and jump clear of structure and construction itself, ofthe machine like mass and magisterium, duplication and duplicity, allfolding in principle and in fact for the forgotten body of Christ as anorganic singular event not to pass away or be passed over by themachinations of those in power. The body without a head? No. ButChrist is the head generally and our own consciences in each of usparticularly, and the men who would take them away from us areusurpers, treasonous against the true constitution of the body of Christ,of which all are members. Even severed or unrealized, to expound onRahner and his implicit Christianity. The priest does not hold the keys,and there is no market for grace, what you have been given freely, passon to others freely, and money is the enemy of faith and hope and love.Love is free, so if you obtain it by trade or purchase, it is not real loveyou hold but a facsimile, and all you need to have that love of God is torealize you are already there, yes/yet/you, will have been, a futureperfect.Derrida wrote in his late essay on faith and knowledge about a confusedseries of things, including the projection of Roman power,globalatinazation, and the spread of auto-immune disorders. I could notmake sense of this text a decade ago, but now I sense a prophetic voiceat work in the deconstructionist. It seems to me that the Vatican has toomuch immunity, diplomatic immunity, doctrinal immunity, for theproblem of the things to come to be resolved by the deconstruction ofthe hierarchy, the way the Soviet problem in Europe was overcome. ThePope’s immunity is killing the church of which he is the head.The infallibility of the vicar of Christ is the most fallible part of this,
  • 116. along with a history of the money in Rome. The bank of the Pope wascreated in 1942 just in time to receive any loot from the Nazis. Theimpetus initially to create it came from the sordid deal struck with theItalian fascists in 1929, the Lateran treaty, in which the Pope concededthe papal lands lost in 1870 for a large amount of cash and governmentbonds, over one billion lira. The lawsuits of the last few years broughtby Holocaust survivors, trying to force open the books of the Pope’sbank, have foundered on the rock of sovereign diplomatic immunity. Itseems that the Vatican is the supreme rogue state, a thing angeringItalian officials and their banking system, while the Church operatesoutside it as an off-shore entity. The Pope answers to no one. But hisvery immunity is what will destroy the catholic church on its Romanbasis. What is taking place is the transubstantiation of the Churchherself, with the substance of Christ being displaced, so that only theaccidents of a Church remain, that is, it looks like it and talks like it, butit ain’t it. What is replacing the substance of Christ in catholicism is notknown, but must be evil. Its far-reaching effects will become apparentwhen the new order of mass takes place. And yet, be not desperate nordespairing, for the Bible has fore-witnessed these things, even before thebirth of Christ. God has decreed it, and we cannot stop it. But scripturesays that when Christ comes atop a white horse the sword which hewields will defeat the beast and the false prophet, and that this sword isone of truth. After the work of truth the abyss will be sealed with a keyand peace shall reign. I believe this. I hope the work I have writtendepicts the things of which it speaks accurately and for the good of all,both in the church and in the world. The interpretation of the Bible onthese things was always confused by applying them to events in the oldRome rather than today, and by attempting to interpret the number 666as a name rather than what it is, the number of two men. It may be thatwhat I have written will be neither published nor if so will go unnoticedby anyone, especially in the church. Some in the world may rejoicethough at what becomes of Rome, but I hesitate to do so, except that aslong as God’s will be done, there will be cause for rejoicing.
  • 117. An Iconfrom anEveningin GlasIn the days of Camus and Derrida, there was explicationde texte. That will have been approached here, whileescaping the suffocating necessity of a discursiverhetoric. For any two things can be connected from anydistance under any rule. The text I propose forexamination is the title implicated in the top lefthand corner of the page. I need not go into the historyof the production of the title of the work, for thereare texts upon texts and their contexts, which I musteffract. How the title was arrived at, from whence itwas derived, in-volves the catastrophe of the end ofthe world which I am witnessing and recording fromhere, in this text. We all are, basically, from our ownangles of view, sort of like the man at the end ofGabriel Garcia Marquez’s solitude, who is decipheringthe text of the secret as the apocalypse unfolds. Yet,let us keep our hands clean and not be negligent, for
  • 118. the secret of the text is neither magical nor given toappropriation, neither pornographic nor pyrotechnical.It waits on patience, and purity, perseverance and thepeace that surpasses all under-standing. It is not donein a fever, or in a sweat, but in measured strains, bynumber and weight, neither a march nor a waltz, farrather like David’s prophetic dance before the Ark ofthe Lord, not frenzied, nor fraught, but rapturous,candid, faithful and confident. That the world doesdance away its final hours on the edge of a volcanoalmost without quite knowing what it is doing, for nonecan be sure, our certainty forgotten, is the spectacleand the distraction that would, if it could, keep theknowledge locked away, but the truth will out, whetherthe world will or know. That the world is standing onits head and must be set right, and that Derrida didthis in his own way, a way parallel to that of Camus,and not opposed, is simply the way I see it. ThatDerrida’s last texts concern, I think, sovereignty andthe beast, will not go unnoticed, nor the myth ofSisyphus, the problem of the suicide of the church, andthe crux of the matter contained in the juxtapositionof two words in almost any dictionary of the Englishlanguage, that is to say,DeconsecrationDeconstruction
  • 119. Which hold the key to the recent history of the worldand the fate of the church. Seeing patterns is making connections. In the gameof connect the dots, one finds the hidden design amidthe random chaos, in order to reveal the hiddenmeaning. If the world has an author, if the text has anauthor, then we have always presumed that there is aninherent pattern or meaning amidst the apparent chaosof our lives and in the works of literature in which wesee ourselves reflected. However, if there is noauthor, then one may connect the dots in whatevermanner one chooses, not finding but inventing a design.I think we have reached that point. Not that there isno author, but that things such as characters or peopleor plots or history are not the paradigm of ourresearch, but language itself. And perhaps still thebook as such and authority remain a subject of questionand concern, for we know that as we write we may wellbe written. This is true in genetics, mathematics,physics, which involve writing or codes, that is to saysymbolization, something at once both real andsymbolic, literal and more than literal, the idealityof design. We do not know where the design came frombut we see it. These words are letters that arearranged in patterns that convey meaning, under idealconditions, the framing context of the mode of thereader and other factors. All of this I say is not the
  • 120. explication de texte, but rather the interpretation,the other part of studies in the French schools in thetime of Camus and Derrida. Coupled as they were in thecurriculum, explication and interpretation wereanalogical to the roles of faith and reason intheological thought, in that they seemed to presupposeone another. That they are still viable, and aredistinct disciplines, may be in doubt. Perhaps there isnothing but a generalized economy of writing at thistime. Still, we seem to accept in fact somerestrictions as necessary, bending the rules where wedesire, but still within a kind of framework. I cannotspeak for all. There may be types of discourse unknownto me that operate in far different ways. I do notknow. One limit case or promontory in that regard isFinnegans Wake by James Joyce, which in turn inspiredthe Glas of Jacques Derrida. These texts rewrote thecodes or rules regarding literature and philosophy,working out of the command and control authorialparadigm, which is itself based on competition, into acollaborative creativity which does not dictate meaningbut suggest it, dream-like and hypnotically, with analmost fascist connotation to the collaborators. On theother hand, I have found that the work I have beenengaged in is not limited to these modes, but requiresa combination of the contemplative and the critical, onthe part of both the author and the reader, for theadvent of an economy of meaning that is catholic to
  • 121. take place, that is to say, a universality, as opposedto the authority of any Roman Empire. The kind of writing that Joyce and Derrida excelledin is characterized by the cognizance and exploitationof what I call the Ultra-structure, a term I haveborrowed from science and use to describe what I willsometimes refer to as the Glossolalia of the text, areading and writing in tongues, as in the Wake, anactivity that is summed in the word Icon in the sevenword title that I placed at the head of this text. Asin the Bible, there is speaking in tongues, anexpression of meaning given by the Holy Spirit atPentecost to the nascent Church, and which subsiststoday even in catholicism in some out of the wayplaces. But just as one may say that the whole economyas such, all economies in principle, have transformedfrom restricted to general ones, and I here refer toDerrida’s early writings on the subject, the gift oftongues has, in my opinion, also shifted from astrictly oral or verbal expression to the modes ofreading and writing, and that in fact textuality itselfis this in some way. If language is the house of being,as has been said, which is another way to speak of thelanguages descended from the catastrophe that tookplace at Babel, at which time God “deconstructedhimself,” according to Derrida, then God is inlanguage, as the Word, logos, as truth and meaning, but
  • 122. in other ways as well. From Holderlin we derive thescene of reading as a quiet, holy act. I project ageneral-ization then of scripture as such, perhaps asDerrida did the Messiah. Blake said everything thatlives is holy, and the word, language, is a livingthing, and though often put to profane and secular use,which is an understatement of the greed and pornographythat engulf us, yet our texts are basically sacred in away, even though impure and contaminated, or perhapseven not despite this but because of it. I haveadvanced a logic over the course of my work that hingeson the understanding of the necessity of contradictionand it applies in this case. The Ultrastructure inlanguage cannot be without being inclusive, bothblessing and cursing, creating and defiling, and so on.It is the principle of connection, the condition ofpossibility for it. It is potency in relation to act,to speak in quasi-Thomistic terms. When I firstdiscovered the word Ultra-structure, I used itexclusively to describe the numerical, not thealphabetical, and saw that numbers need no translation,and so are privileged carriers of meaning. This insightwas crucial in the advancing of the theory concerningthe Apocalypse which turns on the meaning of a numberin the Book of Revelation. I need not rehearse that foryou now, having already covered that ground in previoustexts, but promise you the subject will have impactedthe work you are now reading. However, I will come at
  • 123. it by way of the Exegesis and Eisegesis of the iconicseven words of my text, An Icon from an Evening inGlas. But before turning to the explication itself, Iwould like to preface it with a statement concerningthe terms Exegesis and Eisegesis. They mean in theiretymological back-grounds in Greek to lead out of andto lead into and are used especially in the context ofdescribing Biblical inter-pretation. When one readsones own ideas into scripture, one is said to bereading eisegetically, while when one reads what is“really there” one is reading with proper exegesis. Onthe other hand, Joyce and Derrida and the writersfollowing them eschew such an opposition, de-constructing this polarity, rendering it meaningless.In the explication of the seven word text that is to beaccomplished, the traditional idea of Exegesis andEisegesis, while not being ignored, will be redefinedby my practice. I will say in advance that all of thisbears on the conversion of “leading” into a kind of“following,” and that interpretation and explication isalways more of the following of the seams in the semes,rather than a seeming to lead the text toward itsinherent meaning, which is always univocal orequivocal. The text itself is, if not infinite at leastindefinite, and cannot be pinned down to a set ofcontrolled meanings or readings. There is no exhaustiveExegesis. One can say this is for a mystical reason,when reading the Bible or other scriptures, and in my
  • 124. theory of the book in general, all texts become thescripture that they are, and as such may be read ashaving always more than one meaning, the old modelincluding moral and mystical levels in the hierarchy ofinterpretation, which my own work several years agodrew on. The network of language exists at both thehierarchical level, while at the same time, andcontradictorily, subsisting in the text as a leveling,an evening out, I might say. This is the direction ofUltrastructure or Metasignification, which is neitherless than nor more than nor equal to another, while atthe same time, and contradictorily, being the parallelor prime of that other traditional, re-stricted,hierarchical method of inter-pretation thatcharacterizes theology and its regimes. By beingparallel to the tradition, which has become lost in thelabyrinth of its own desire, not only is place given,and magnitude recognized, but direction is nowdiscerned, without which we will not arrive. Ourarrival is not derived from the tradition, but survivesit. One need not be disconsolate over the loss ofmeaning, for something is received in its stead, theway to a let us say kingdom let us say of ends that thetradition indicated while at the same time preventing.To put it in theological terms, the Romans do notpractice what they preach, and so cannot reach the goalset by the savior, which is neither a leading in norout of the text, but a following. Deny yourselves, take
  • 125. up your crosses and follow me. Jesus asks not leadersbut followers of the good gospel. Now, at this point in the text, if it were a retrometa-fiction, a second narrator would interrupt andcomment on what has come before, and the text wouldexplicate and interpret itself. It seems to me thatsomething of this sort is called for, because of anapparent faux pas on my part in the preceding, that is,my assertion of the relationship between Glossolaliaand the word Icon. As I was re-reading what I hadwritten, I noticed right away the dissonance in theassertion, and thought without doubt that the word Glasmakes much more sense as the symbol for Glossolaliathan the word Icon does. There is, in my apparent slip,a crux, and so I inadvertently really went straight tothe heart of the matter, and upon reflection, decidedthat the relationship between the word Glas and theword Icon would be the appropriate site for launchingthe engagement with the text to be explicated. Glas, the title of Derrida’s monumental 1974 work,is the word in French for the “death knell,” the tollingof the church bells at a funeral. One may ask, who’sdeath? Indeed, it seemed in a way to me at the time Iread the English translation in 1986 to be simply thetradition, or even Western culture, everything beforepostmodernism. Now, it sounds to me different, the
  • 126. tolling of the bell, and involves a completereevaluation on my part of the meaning of Derrida’swork, and the history, meaning and fate of the Church,by which I mean the Roman Catholic. To say the tollingof the death knell is the Church itself mourning thedeath of the Church itself is what I now discern, andin this I reinterpret Derrida’s overall strategy to havebeen always directed at the Supreme Pontiff in Rome.Derrida took part in the deconstruction of the time, ifnot leading it then at least presciently seeing the waythings could go and the way he wanted them to go, notfor the mere sake of enjoying the de-struction of theworld, but to indicate the crisis he, I think, sawcoming for and from the Catholic Church. The target ofDerrida’s attack was at first expressly logocentrism,presence and propriety, valorizing writing over speech,absence over presence, the other over the subject orthe self, scattering over gathering, the text over thebook; then, later, he took up the problem of religionin his writings on the Messiah, justice, hospitality,and the openness of the “to come.” Toward the end, hewrote of what he termed globalatina-zation, and warnedagainst a projection of power on the Roman basis, andposthumously mentions together in a title “sovereignty”and “the beast.” It seems to me that Derrida wasapproaching obliquely but steadily to an interpretationof the death of the Church and to the apocalypse now.
  • 127. The icon is a sometimes “wordless word” that alsosometimes contains within itself a text, a book opened,revealing an ancient script in a foreign languages. Theicon itself is an image in need of study, and whetheror not it has letters or words in it, is open to inter-pretation and explication. I believe that, again toeschew the relation of Exegesis and Eisegesis, the iconreads us more than we read it. This can be re-appliedto texts generally, rather than being restricted toonly iconic images, and then it can be said that thetext reads us, explains us, and not the other wayaround. In my discovery or positing of theUltrastructure I have found that this phenomenon hasoccurred especially in what has become known as thepostmodern period, from roughly the second world war,or the publication of the Wake in 1939, because of abreakdown in the traditional orders. In the chaos thatmay be but random chance, the thing, which I call alsoMetasignification, takes place, whether in the mind orout of the mind, I don’t know, as the connecting of bitsand pieces to form patterns. We half-perceive and half-create this new reality, as Wordsworth said. We are co-creators of it. It sometimes seems magical orschizophrenic, evil or crazy, or sublimely imaginative,and weird or supernatural. There is something there inthe details of general textuality that can be seen if
  • 128. we look hard enough. Joyce had a genius for thisperceiving and creating, and by producing the chaos ofthe Wake, gave a space for the Ultrastructure to beprojected into or discovered, as in an alchemicalexperiment. The icon of Glas by Derrida fuses theultrastructure with the traditional, forcing the orderitself to bear the weight of the creation of new thingswithin it, which is one aspect of what is calleddeconstruction. The text is in a place somewherebetween rigid order and complete nonsense, a place oflability, change and openness, of possibility thatdeconstructs the closure of a set arrangement, allowingconstant re-invention, and bringing to light anindefinite number of potential connections that cannotbe limited or closed off in principle, though in factfor a written work to be, there must be some limitsfound or applied, as the human subject itself needs anidentity, in order to not become lost or submerged inthe ever greater of the sea surrounding. But as mysticstell us, our destiny is just that losing of oneself inthe infinite sea of God. Textuality is not thedivinity, nor is the internet, which are rathersimulacrum of eternity, which at least in a parallelmanner are breaking into the closed paradigm of humansociety and are translating us into another space thatis preparatory to the advent of the thing that is onthe other side of the apocalypse, a kingdom of peace,the new age to come.
  • 129. At the outset of my text, in addition to thepromise of an explication of the seven word title, Ipromised some interpretation of Derrida’s sovereign andbeast, of Camus and the myth of Sisyphus, and of what Icall the suicide of the Church, as well as something onthe importance of the relation between the wordsDeconsecrationDeconstructionwhich I think sum-up the problem of the church in themodern world. Taking these in order, it is not, Ithink, a coincidence that Derrida employs terms thatapply to the Antichrist, though the word coincidencehas become altogether meaningless in my world. Thingsjust simply are, in their weird ways, and I cannotunderstand or explain how or why they happen. As I havesaid elsewhere, I believe John Paul II is the “beast” ofthe Book of Revelation, based on the interpretation ofthe text, including an elucidation of the famousnumber. That, if this is the case, as he was raised tothe status of the order of the blessed, then theabomination of deso-lation has already occurred, andthe order of mass that takes place in November 2011 ishis “image” that speaks in order to be worshipped. It isnot clear to me, however, if John Paul II and BenedictXVI were conscious they were doing what Revelation
  • 130. prophesied. It seems to me that the world and thechurch were destined to be destroyed, or changed, byGod himself, but that this takes place in two ways,which may compete with each other as a disjunctiveeither or, or may collaborate as a synthetic both and.The world and the church began the final deconstructionof themselves about the same time, in the 1960s, thetime of Derrida’s early work, of the Second VaticanCouncil in Rome, and which is the date some, forinstance the critic Northrop Frye, point at as thestart of the postmodern period. The world stayed on itscourse of de-construction, including even that of theSoviet Union, but Rome did not, and under John Paul II,beginning in 1978, began instead a worse thing thandeconstruction, that is to say, it began todeconsecrate itself, which Derrida, I think, obliquelypoints to in one of his last ideas, that of “the worst.”This is taking place, in principle and in fact, by therepudiation covertly of the highpoints of the theologywon at Vatican II, such as the inviolability of theconscience, in the unending sex abuse scandals, and inother more obscure, but perhaps more unholy things,reaching back throughout Catholic history, concerninglies and forgeries, money and murder. Again, I do notknow the intentions, only the results. In the Book ofNumbers, God tells Moses and Aaron that he himselfbreaks his promise, after the people of God refuse toenter the promised land, as Caleb and Joshua urged them
  • 131. to do. Instead, they would stone the men who hadscouted Canaan and found it indeed a land of milk andhoney, ripe for the taking. God wills that the peoplefall in the wilderness over the next forty years, fornot listening to the men who told them that thepromised land had arrived, they needed only go in andclaim the victory that God would surely give. Somethinglike that has happened in our own day, with thevisionary men of Vatican II and their attempt at afree, transformed catholicity, being rejected for thething the Roman Church has become, a disgrace. Thatthose of us who know this stand like Joshua and Calebin relation to the people of God is to meincontrovertible, so we must urge now, go in, trustGod, the kingdom is yours, while realizing our pleawill probably be rejected, every people of God, new andold, Jew and Catholic, always refusing. In this may beseen the myth of Sisyphus, as well, that we roll therock up, only to see it roll back down, yet must do ourduty, as perhaps even the bishops and theologians ofVatican II knew their leadership could be eventuallydespised and ignored. I do not think the Church isgoing to immediately cease to exist as a visible bricksand mortar institution, and it will still have itsmoney and some power, but as a spiritual entity it isceasing to be. God, I believe, as in the case of therebellion in the wilderness, is not bound to fulfillthe covenant with this Church, and in fact, new Israel
  • 132. and old Israel are in the same position, typologicallyin every way, just as the religious authorities, in thedays of Jesus, are the same type as now. In the time ofJesus, whose name is really the same as Joshua, thepromised land or the kingdom of God was againproclaimed, the thing was at hand, but through somerefusal or lack on the part of the people of God, itwas deferred, not because God chose to, but ratherbecause the Church herself did not claim the victory.The situation became clear under Constantine, and moreso later, as the institution became involved in moneyand politics. That God knew this beforehand, that thepeople would betray him, not only among the Jews but ata later time, is foretold in Daniel 12:7, when it issaid God will “scatter the power of the holy people.”Indeed, the thing is at hand, a little earlier eventhan Isaac Newton foresaw based on a calculation hemade of 1260 years after the coronation in 800 ofCharlemagne. No, it is 1260 years since the forgery ofthe donation of Constantine, the fiction on which Romebases her authority, which was accomplished by 754. Inother words, the Deconsecration that began then will befulfilled now, and the death knell will toll, albeitperhaps in silence, for the iconic Church that oncewas. To go on from this point to an explication of thelittle seven word text of the title seems a bit anti-
  • 133. climactic, but I will summarily mention a few things.In the center of the square appears the words “veniroman,” and in a cross-like formation there is theindication f-ing roman, pointing to the bind of acontradiction that concerns the final Pope to come,called Peter the Roman in the prophecy of St. Malachy.Whether he will fulfill the evil plan or expose it, Ido not know, but after him, the Church will be no more.There are many other connections among the letters inthe design, including some chatter about “anal” icons,or the essential anal aspect that is the condition ofpossibility inherent to a thing for it to be analyzed.The anal is a thing Derrida writes of in his Glas, andin connection to religion. In his work, the IC and theGL are opposed, the immaculate conception and thesiglum GL, and it is indicated in my design that IC andGL had a son, something of an Onan, as is the typewritten of in de-construction, such as Rousseau. Aswell, several women appear covertly in the text,including Eve, Mary and the Greek earth mother Gaia orGaea. That in the center of the square an “omen” iswritten concerning at least an “I,” and also otherthings that can be construed into some sort ofnarrative, if one desires, is given, considering thereare at least several characters involved in a kind ofconflict. But, that time has stopped and thateverything is connected, would have to be the principleof any possible inter-pretation of the text-design. You
  • 134. may look and may find more in the seven word text, butI have shown you at least this much. I cannot say things are even at this point, whatthe leveling means, or if there has been some kind ofrevenge, or getting even. I do think we are in the“evening,” as one said, not dark yet, but getting there.The world will deconstruct and the church deconsecrate,and what will happen after that? We do not know, butthe Bible promises great things, the thousand yearkingdom of peace on earth in Revelation, and as alsoIsaiah promises, a finale in which the lion lies downwith the lamb, not a violent catastrophe, but arestoration of lost innocence. I think, in fact, thepart of the apocalypse that is catastrophic is almostover, and the violence, for instance the absurd amountin Mexico as I write, is an indication of the way thematrix of technology, money, and fascism, all tied to agrand corruption that may be seen in the usefulparadigm of collaboration, where all give their assent,none dissent, and the thing itself, Rome or theauthority of an invisible hand, is seeminglyinfallible. But if it can’t be wrong, it must be wrong,and if I must be mistaken, then I must be telling thetruth. Truth, if it is true, must always beinconvenient, as we say, unsettling, disturbing,opposed to the illusion, the madness, the evil. Thattruth and lies stand side by side, good and evil, being
  • 135. and mere semblance, cannot be helped, but if justiceever happens, as we hope, then the re-conciliation ofthem will have taken place. Impossible, as Derridasaid, yet God alone does the impossible. To conclude, I should speak of the seven word text-design, “An Icon from an Evening in Glas,” in relationto my work as a whole, which could bear thatinscription. The Icon Glas pair describe the struggleby me with catholicism and de-construction, while theword Evening invokes Hegel’s word in his Philosophy ofRight that Minerva’s owl of wisdom flies at dusk, anindication of his awareness of the closure taking placethrough the accomplishment in the dialectic of allpossible positions in the spectrum of thought. My workfinds itself shuttling back and forth between theRoman, the Derridean and the Hegelian, all pliedtogether as the three strand cord of which the Bible inEcclesiastes speaks. If this knot or circle was at anypoint effracted, to use once more Derrida’s term Ilearned from his late work Given Time, then it is notin taking sides in the positions of the catholic,deconstructionist or dialectician, but rather by theautobiographical element of the writing. For those whohave read, or read about, Derrida’s Glas, autobiographyis a part of his de-construction. Perhaps my work is anoblique commentary on my own deconstructed self. But asDerrida said, GL protects against the schiz that GL
  • 136. produces, and so, having becoming other to myself, attimes uncanny, quite beside myself, I eventuallyhealed, and this perhaps by the very thing that GLsymbolized in its invention or intervention in my life.I do not know, and the authorial fallacy is asserted. Iam not the best judge of what I have written, or of thelife I have lived. That the work is the history of ajourney out of deconstruction and completely throughthe catholic church, only to emerge on the other side,understanding both in themselves and in relation toeach other, may be true. If I were to add anything to these final words, itwould be concerning what Derrida already called in 1991“the state of the debt.” It seems every nation and mostindividuals are in a financial bind that is insolvableexcept by means of a key piece of what I would haveonce called the “Catholic Economy,” ideas that I andothers have been working on the last few years in lightof the Church’s teachings on social and economicjustice. It seems to me that we are in need offorgiveness, of a “jubilee year” as in old Israel,forgiveness of debts and debtors. As well as giving andasking for forgiveness, as individuals, nations mustadopt a total for-bearance of the debt, at least untilthings get better, if not an outright charging off ofthe entire debt of the U.S. and all other countries.Then we can start over with a clean slate. Our debt now
  • 137. threatens to enslave and impoverish the whole world. Ido not say it was an intended thing, as I do not knowthe intention of any, but I know all need a chance tobegin again. The promised land “to come,” will havebeen, therefore, so that the Messiah may arrive. You might say, as I said that I might, as GodHimself in His might may say, that as has been said, wehad then but a circling occupation, and did walk intoeternity without ever knowing, but for this: a youngprofessor stood at the chalk board and drew a newdiagram of our salvation according to the Council, inan elaborate encircled sphere, almost justly Ptolemaicin design, ever in a paradigm of Catholics, with Romancentrality the primacy, and those of the othernominations spreading out in a sea of the to beblessed, amid the murmur of a discussion I so ashazarded to interpose: there are not degrees of thissalvation, one is either saved or one is not; so thatfor a logic disjunctive I put them to it, and did somake them love, in that now as I see it, our circlesinterchanged, what was at the center is in the end butonly peripheral at best, and God calls sinners, not therighteous, and the twins of Israel, new and old, Jewand Catholic, miss the Messiah, or as if to, so Godturns human salvation inside out, stands our thinkingagainst itself, for mercy if and only if, is His aloneand is most free, and judgment has begun at the House
  • 138. of God, so that we will have been shown His ways werenever ours, nor to be comprehended. But let this be, as it dismayed, for those who saythere can be no Christian thing proper tragic, so allis a divine comedy, but yet we do not know the time,whether it be free, and whether we are ready, nor if webe ripe or rotten, or if things stand out of joint, forit seems to me that even when we do our best, ouractions recoil against us, as Oedipus or an hero from atragedy by William Shakespeare, and we wonder atourselves as men betrayed, so let it be with Caesar, ifwe had but time, what great things could have been saidand done, as men of a Roman rule did think they hadsaved the Church even as they destroyed the same,deconsecrating the blessing with the curse ofinfallibility, with the assumption of the right toheir, while propagating a faith, which, neither mysticnor moral, did hinder the eternal from ever breakinginto time, as if, and imposed upon the becoming of thekingdom of God a rigid, hard, static, death, the Beingof the thing appropriated, and stamped the necessity ofhierarchy and all that comes with it on life itself, asif, only to find the miracle in the end of truesubstantiation,in that the body and blood of Christ wasgiven but once for all, His action saving only thosewhom He chose, only those so chosen. We are all butparallel lines that meet in infinity. Because of the
  • 139. space that took place in the modern theory, the squareas such became impossible for the geometry of Einstein,as he reconciled the discordances in thought, and hesaid there were only lines and their primes. It seemsif we be beside ourselves, we have a chance. The worlditself has created its own parallel world, and it ismore in that virtual world that we live and move andhave our being than in the space we once lived in. Now,that other space, the primordial one of the Bible, hasbecome distant, in a way un-thinkable, and perhapsimpossible to reach, even more impossible to traverse,even if it could be. But it is still possible for Godto square things, because though we are billions ofparallel lines lost in a waste land, God’s meridiancrosses all our parallels, and he closes us, squaresthe accounts, gives shape and form to what, though itwas still direction, had no meaning, for the end wasunknown and un-knowable. God has drawn a line, not tocross us through or out, and not in an erasure of ourcharacters, but to complete the story, so that we maybe saved. His line is not an underlining, to re-emphasize us, nor a line across the bottom of our lastpage, a line that says so far and no further, but akind of margin, a place for His gloss and for Him towrite, a line running from the top to the bottom, cleanthrough everyone and everything, like the primemeridian spoken of by the poet, which connects us all,our distant sites not so much gathered in the
  • 140. appropriation, that is in the circle of the text andthe world it created, but a line to cross all our liveswith the knowledge and love of that one who is aloneable to demarcate us, to take a globe, and circle itagainst the time, as he also said, there, north of thefuture, for we have been given all our latitude, andgiven enough, see what we have done, but as the lineapproaches from the other side of this evening, howlong was his patience, how long was his forbearance,how long he suffered us in the wilderness. But now thatwaiting, that wandering, is over, and he draws over theface of our depths, to shake us, to arouse us, toawaken us to his arrival. Our life will not have seemedso long, once He comes, nor will the dreams we oncebeheld still hold, for the cord of life will not havebeen cut, in fate it will not be so, but our life’slines then will have to have been, as even the Glasforetold. In the Book of Joshua it is told that a schismalmost occurred in Israel, in the beginning, as thetribes were settling the promised land. The tribes ofReuben, Gad and Manasseh had taken their places east ofthe Jordan, as in the agreement they had reached withMoses, just before all the warriors crossed intoCanaan. However, after the two tribes and the half-tribe were to the east, they thought to construct analtar for themselves, and when the people of Israel
  • 141. heard of this they sent an armed troop to make war onwhat they considered a blasphemy, the setting up of arival altar. Gad and Reuben, their descendents andthose of Manasseh, explained that the reason they builttheir own altar was that they feared someday thechildren of Israel in the west, in the I think properof the Promised land, would tell the children of Reubenand Gad and Manasseh that they were not trueIsraelites, and disown them, and cause them to bedisheartened and to lose their faith in the one trueGod of the patriarchs. They built their own altar theysaid to show all that they too worship the same God,and to point up the difference between themselves andthe one altar before the tabernacle, that they were nota rival in worship, but the same, which might becomelost from view to the people of God and theirdescendents because of their physical separation fromthose in Israel. Phineas, representing the people ofGod, was pleased with this response, as was Joshua andthe elders when he made his report upon his return.What moral may we draw? It is this: That the altar Ihave erected in the work now concluding, though itoften preaches the arrival, is not a rival to theCatholic way, but one with it, with provision madehowever that the altar of the Lord, we feel, has becomede-consecrated by the actions of the hierarchy and theclergy of the people of God. We do not claim to be theonly true people of God, anymore than we feel those who
  • 142. follow Rome should claim that exclusive title. AtVatican II, in the declaration on religious liberty, itis said that there is a true religion still, and thatthis only subsists in the Catholic and Christianchurches and is not identical with them. The truereligion may be found in many places, but I feelstrongly that true religion is evidenced herein by thisaltar so set up to show that we too worship God, sothat no one can claim us to be outside the one fold ofChrist, shepherd of our souls. That Christ, king ofendless glory, is the one true sovereign, and does notneed a visible representative on earth that merelyusurps the throne that is in fact set up in heaven, notin Rome, or in any city of this world. It also existsin the heart of each believer as the one aboriginalvicar, the conscience, which is irreplaceable and ourlast refuge. One must follow ones own conscience, asthe sole sovereignty that is within oneself. The starting point for my critique of the papacylast year was the coat of arms of Benedict XVI, a factI have concealed and withheld until now. There arevarious interpretations, all benign, of what that crestand shield contain, but I would like to add my ownreading of that heraldic device, the at once iconic andGlas-like emblem of the man I consider the falseprophet of Revelation, who promotes worship of theBeast, by means of an image set up for worship, at
  • 143. every altar of the Roman Church. In the coat of arms ofBenedict, there are several features. With-in it arethree items, a seashell, the head of an Ethiopian,wearing a crown, and a four-footed beast, a bear.Despite the benign, obscure and I think far-fetchedinter-pretations of these things by commentators, Ioffer the opinion that they mean some-thing sinister.It is in fact in what is called the “bend sinister” thatthe Beast appears. In Revelation, the Beast is said tohave four feet like a bear. Thus it fits. The seashellI think represents the verse of Revelation that saysthe Beast will rise from the sea, not as in some obtusereading about heroic Augustine, and a boy emptying thesea. The Ethiopian crowned is I think a reference morecomplex, bearing on the Acts of the Apostles, the onlyplace in the New Testament that such a person ismentioned. He is the one converted by Phillip. Whatcomes just before this is the warning about Simon Magusand the perennial Roman ur-problem of simony, as forinstance the practice, still, in Mexico of the sellingof indulgences. It is important what the Ethiopian isreading when he is found by Phillip, something fromIsaiah about the suffering servant. The passage as Actsquotes it is a little different from the Old Testament.It speaks of him who in his humiliation had judgmenttaken from him. To me this indicates the view of theyoung seminarian I once heard that God’s hands are tied,there is nothing he can do to end the abuses by Rome.
  • 144. Surrounding the inside of the coat of arms are somecurious innovations by Benedict, the replacing of thetriple crown by the bishop’s miter, contra a ruling byPaul VI in 1969, and the addition of the pallium, alongwith the traditional “keys” of Peter. It seems thisaddition of the bishop’s hat fits the reading byexegetes of Revelation that the false prophet will havetwo horns like a lamb, which has been taken to indicatethe form of the miter. The pallium itself is a pallthat now hangs over all. Altogether, it seems thatBenedict’s coat of arms is a symbol that fits his role,as I see it, as the one who follows the Beast, wieldsthe same power as the former, and will promote theworship of him, especially by the image I take to bethe new order of mass. In this iconic representation of who and whatBenedict is, we have the telling Glas of the RomanChurch, if it is read prophetically, which is thedimension of Biblical studies neglected by many, butwhich is the highest level of scripture interpretation,being the end in view for which the Word of God wasgiven. The emblem of Benedict, an anti-icon, inscribesthe Glas of the Church, as a Mise en abime, as a cryptto be unsealed. It is perhaps this that Aquinas wasshown, and which caused him to lay down his pen.
  • 145. Near the start of his career, in the “opuscula” onthe eternity of the world, Thomas had said that it hadnot yet been demonstrated that God cannot do aninfinite number of things simultaneously. Indeed.Thomas in the beginning knew more than he knew. In theend he knew what is called the vision of God, at leastthat’s what they say. They say that he saw God in abeatitude, the glory of God, was astonished by thebeauty of love and simply ceased to write in order morequickly to pass on to the heavenly abode that awaits.But perhaps the vision of God was for him somethingelse, far stranger than the pious fraud the church usedto gloss over the silence of Thomas and his statementthat all he had written was of no account. I think, itseems to me, God did not show him Himself but thecatholic fate. All the work of Thomas would be fornaught, and even used for evil ends. God has mercy onwhom He will, and I believe that Thomas Aquinas foundthat before he died God had already decreed thecondemnation of the Church before it was ever created.Thomas was not wicked and understood, though he wasastonished. The wicked will never understand. God’s wayis not the way of the church, nor does it know Him. Inthis, blindness and blessing.
  • 146. SALTED WITH FIREI would say that one can perhaps best view my apocalypse orapocalyptic writings through an understanding of the Hegelian dialectic,where at the end of history, at the top of the logical spiral of theAbsolute Spirit or SA [Savoir Absolu of Glas by Derrida] is the trinity ofart, religion and philosophy. You can read this book and perhapssomeday my other, unpublished writings, going back to 1985, and findlittle if any critical writing on any other subject. However, there is afourth mode in which I write, a literary style, somewhat poetic andautobiographical, which effracts the circularity of that Hegelian triadand opens the system to its other. The effraction, a term I borrowedfrom Derrida, is a thing I posit as the “I” that breaks the matrix of God-Church-World, and destroys that ring, consigning it to the flames, inwhat I call an arrival ending both the dialectical confiscation and thedeconstructive impasse, also a theme of the later writings of Derridaafter his real religious turn in 1989, the year I also converted. He bothdeferred arrival, famously, yet called on it to come, in a Messianic andincreasingly Apocalyptic sense. His steady but as always obliqueapproach to a prophecy concerning a time that is now occurring hasonly through the writing of my work in the last two years come to beunderstood by me as a revelation concerning the Roman rule. The workI have written effracts systems on different levels, not only that of SAand the other totalities of closure that now are attempting the absoluteanti-spirit, and of critical, philosophical and theological writing by thepersonal and poetic “I”, but in these pages you have finished reading bythe synthesis of the literary with the critical due to the form and
  • 147. pressure of the time. In economic terms, and differently from thedeconstructionist tenet that it can only be done from within the thingto be deconstructed, I am performing a further break from a radicalplace in the exteriority where I found God in 1989.It may be that the young man studying at the seminary with me a fewyears ago in order to become a Roman priest was right, that “God’shands are tied.” Often, in the almost eight years since, I have defendedthe thesis of idealism that God is the absolutely free, but at lastwondered to myself a few days ago “what if?” What if the young manwas right? What if somehow God is not free? What if Rome somehowhas practiced the closure on God first of all, by placing certain words ofChrist against others, and through the constant call for mercy, cry formercy, invocation and preaching of mercy, and the doling out of it enmasse in the confessional, has in effect made it impossible for God tocome again in justice. If He does so He will deny Himself as the merciful,and no longer be God, who cannot deny Himself. It is in the Romaninterest, of course, to see the second coming deferred, forever ifpossible. Perhaps as was thought after the resurrection, Christ wassupposed to return at once, but something happened to prevent Him.This may be the meaning of the scenes in Acts where the people in aweof the apostles lay all their money before them, to get near the powerof the Spirit of Pentecost, and then those who do not are incrediblystruck dead at Peter’s feet for not giving every bit of money to him.Peter took the money, when he should have said “give it to the poor.”This is the true simony, not the Magus attempting to buy power, butSimon Peter selling it. The Church went wrong in the very beginning andhas been wrong ever since. Power and money. Mammon. So they havetied God’s hands to keep on with their corruption extending now evento the ritual abuse of children on the one hand and of the mass on theother. If this is the case, I asked myself what is to be done? If the powerof the keys given to Peter in Matthew to bind and loosen has boundGod in Heaven, bound his justice on earth and in heaven, while loosing
  • 148. only a seeming mercy, words of mercy, at least, it seemed to me therecould be a way to overcome the power of the keys and, if it is thinkable,to untie God’s hands so that He could act. It is absurd, therefore, sothink like Tertullian and believe. If the set of all of the Words of Christare a closed set, a canon circumscribed, both without by decree, andwithin by the incessant gloss of fathers and theologians, so thateverything is determined, it could be possible to make this closed setoverall indeterminate, if a statement could be found that fulfilled themathematician Gödel’s theorem that for such a set there will always bea proposition that is either both true and false or the validity of whichcannot be determined from the other propositions in the set. There arethings said by Christ that seem to be false, that some hearing Himwould not die until they saw Him return in His kingdom, for instance, forthe Church is obviously not the Kingdom Come. So, I searched for aninexplicable statement and found it in Mark, where Christ says“everyone” will be “salted with fire.” The fathers say this is both hell, onthe one hand, and the Holy Spirit, on the other, which is a flatcontradiction, and Gregory the Great says of the passage that no oneshould disturb the peace and unity of the Church, by which I think hesensed some trouble to come based on these words. In fact, thecontext of “salted with fire” indicates the fire of hell, but which I thinkcannot be, for it applies to “everyone.” One could say that the term“fire” is equivocal, some to hell and some to the Spirit. If this is thecase, it may be the Lord said it in this manner, as he said other thingshard to understand in the parables, not to be understood, but this in anabsolute sense, in order that the phrase “salted with fire” is both/and,not either/or, and therefore, according to the logic of contradiction Ilaid out earlier in the work, the words are true in a sense which thelogic of the Church based on Aristotle and Aquinas cannot accept. All ofthe truth is that truth is both true and false at once, this is the whole,which thus cannot be closed, so the words “salted with fire” fit the logicof set theory, in that they are both self-contradictory, thank God, andcannot be glossed from other propositions in the Words of Christ.
  • 149. Therefore, all the set’s propositions are indeterminate, due to the rulesof the closure of the ring set, which provide for the multiplication of theindeterminate term over all the others, making them all indeterminate,the very multiplication the Church has depended on for the internalclosure of the set, all being absolutely true backward and forward. If allof the Words of Christ are indeterminate, then those authorizing thepower of the keys are, too. They cannot be proved true or false, theirtruth or falsity is in principle absolutely unknowable, and the Popecannot use the passage to enforce his power. Therefore, God is free. Hishands are no longer tied. We are free to believe His Words or not, asfaith permits, may God increase our faith, and He is no longer bound bythe power of the keys once held in error by the Roman Pontiff, but nowreturned to their rightful owner. O, Christ, come quickly!Theology and the Church, though not Scripture in which all truth ishidden [that “dangerous” book as a one-time friend called it in mostunfriendly terms as he stressed the necessity of “earthly existence”],are the “The God Enclosure” that men and women use, if possible, totrap God, because they fear God’s freedom [and their own], a God whomade a world where lions rend the flesh of living antelopes, forinstance, not to mention human society’s evils. It may be that God iscompletely incomprehensible, despite human reason, so He is not even“true.” God is not nice, but neither are we, really, though in hypocrisywe would pretend to be. Yet, although this is, willingness to love is thesecret by which we live. The willingness to love by which we live impliesa willingness to love not only each other but God, foremost, and tobelieve Him in His promises. The Jews in the wilderness did not believethat the Promised Land was ripe for the taking. They balked andrefused. So many times have the people of God refused to enter in. Itmay be that here at the end of things God gives us once more and onelast time the chance to do the right thing. Let us not be those childrenof the kingdom that the Lord says will not sit with Abraham, Isaac andJacob, instead cast out into the darkness wailing, while many from the
  • 150. east and the west gather in with the patriarchs and the prophets. Itmay be that the Church need not be destroyed even if prophesied by asdiverse sources as Malachy, who envisions only one Pope after BenedictXVI, and the Book of Revelation and Daniel, which I think I have shown,however briefly, must apply to the state of affairs in the Church today. Itmay be that those currently performing their roles in this passion of theChurch do not understand what they are doing or why and do whatthey do in their own minds and those of others with the best motives. Itmay be that God, as shown in Numbers, and at other places inscripture, can change his mind. If the Church repents, it can still besaved. I will not lay out a program for how the Church may still saveitself from a judgment that I fear it will incur if it holds to its presentcourse. There are men in the Church who need to think on these thingsand at the time that is most acceptable, take action. That the fate ofperhaps one billion souls rests in the hands of so few is cause notnecessarily for terror but for hope. If good men be willing to stop evil,evil cannot win. There are better angels of our natures, and they appealto us, even now. There is no such thing as fate. All are free, God, man,the Church and history. That Revelation promises the thousand yearreign of Christ on earth is a prophecy we should look to. How manyalive today in the Catholic Church will walk with the Lord in His KingdomCome is not known. I believe the time is short until it commences. Letnone of us, I pray, be the man to whom God says depart from me, Inever knew you. To know the good, to see that it needs to be done, andnot to do it, is a sin. To know the truth and not to acknowledge it is tobe an accomplice to falsehood. To never walk in the splendid beautiesof the New Jerusalem would be the worst tragedy any man could suffer,especially one who was responsible in a special way to be aware. We allwork out our salvation with fear and trembling, and even the apostlePaul did not count himself as one who had attained.