The house of totality

Every conceivable system is already included in an anthropological meta-system. Beginning with, our intelligibilities are already located in a more including possibility of intelligibility. Every understood comprehension is carried and included by an understanding comprehension.

All our thinking and acting possibilities can never but start from a 'déjà-là' an 'already here'. Our possibilities, whatever progress will come, remain irremediably open on an including precondition. The ultimate including one is man himself. But which man? Shall it be the man locked up on itself or the man open to the 'Other'?

Before even 'I' become a human being, already there is a space where 'that' of the human sense is spread out. Before 'I' do despair, for example, already there is a space where 'that' despairs. Hope is present or absent from a human 'Umwelt'. It affects a space qualitatively. Its like the climate of a sunny region. There are spaces where its absence is striking. Hope is dwelling differently in various spaces through time. And everywhere it takes a different form.

Tell me your including. I mean your ultimate space out of which there is nothing any more but emptiness and indifference. Thus the total space of the 'house' you live in and provides you with all you need (materially, socially, psychologically, intellectually, spiritually) to live and survive. Your absolute 'oïkos'. Tell me the house you are living in and I will tell you who you are. Human reality isn't really at home if not in this original space which is the 'house of spiritual dynamics'. Here man is born. Here he lives. Here he grows up. Not only physically!

Behind the multiple included spaces, which is your ultimate including space? Which is finally the space of the Sense giving sense to all your senses? You have finally to décide between a finite or an infinite totality; between a closed or an open space; between the fundamental existence of a neuter 'there is' or a personal 'I am'; between cyclic or vectorial space-time; between immanent or transcendent being; between one same order or different orders; betwen man or God as ultimate reference frame.

You can feel something like an anthropocentric rupture in our Occident starting from around the year 1100. When the ultimate 'including' space is not any more God but the human reality itself.

The extreme including of the sense can ultimately only merge with God. If God were a 'what' that one could define and understand, it would be of the same order as any 'object' of knowledge or action. As an object of 'science', you could find him along or at the end of a 'long chain of reasons'. Such a comprehension would be under the sign of the logical necessity. It would be unavoidable for any spirit using the good method. But God is not a 'that' you could objectivize. Unless denying him as God, he can be only absolute not-object. Pure 'That' without emphasizing his 'what'. Thus imperceptible, incomprehensible, properly unthinkable. The ultimate including Sense, the Sense of all senses, remains extreme gaping. Simply THAT. That there is sense, that there is not absolute nonsense, the simple act of the being of sense, without contents, just the absolute possibility of all 'what'.

 What our modernity, trapped by its schizoid enclosure and its sedentary vision of happiness is so passionately unable to understand, a glance through Passover, a new-born glance, perceives it in great simplicity. God loves the being in its crossing out of nothing. God likes creation being re-created. God loves man's resuscitating. Modernity, however, insists. Greatness of man? But what a strange greatness which must pass through its 'other' dimension! Rather alienation! And to protest for man. All man. Only man.

Total man, maybe. However aren't we today culturally promoting a man who wants to be total - more total than ever - and whom, very curiously, are prohibited at the same time the vital openings and the essential dimensions? Our project of humanity is so much obnubilated by its total realization that we forget the faults against the totality of the project itself. Rather than to achieve even only partially our totality, we prefer to carry out completely our partiality.

Unless being only a house of deaths, a tomb or a prison, a house of living can only be open. With entries and exits. A house open to the breath of the Spirit. Beyond what we take too quickly for our 'impassable horizon'.

Why is it so difficult to reconcile humanity with humanity? Why do all our optimistic ideologies finish so lamentably in the dustbins of history? One answer rises unceasingly. And it is alone to resist its negation. It shouts the reason of the failure and the urgency of a conversion. Humanity is not from itself. Humanity is not closed in itself. The temptation is permanent to consider the human house only in its state of nature. However it is fully achieved only in its state of grace.

goto