Chapter 7- Unity In the House of Reason

We find that we share with others despite our own want, that others possess this spray of consciousness, glorious in the unity of how it feels to know, terrible in the certainty of how it thinks to fear, perfect in the unity of what it means to love and be loved.
The purpose of this essay is to describe three themes of Unity in the Critique of Pure Reason1 and therefore in the process to illuminate the arena of Unity that encompasses the entire Kantian critical project. The three themes I take up are Likeness, Necessity, and Relation, and the unity which arises through each theme. This piece does not comprise a complete exposition of these themes, but rather is a critical song, an expression and description of three fundamental notions.
The first notion of unity in the Critique of Pure Reason is the ‘affinity of the manifold’ unified in the synthesis of intuition. The second element is the active judgment of reason in bring concepts to action with another, in bringing Reason to the world through the wish to try. The third is the architectonic of Reason in the notion of subordination of concepts to a category through a common sense, and thus the unity in the subordinate relation. Reason doubles itself socially in the workings of the world, as we find likeness in the structure of our thinking with that of the structure of the cosmological world.

The Affinity of the Manifold

we are now the sons of God: and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he shall appear we shall be like to him; because we shall see him as he is. 1st john Ch. 3 Vs. 2 2

And ‘we shall be like to him’.
What is postulated in the Critique of Pure Reason is the possibility of the unity of consciousness, and the process of synthesis is precisely the attempt to make consciousness a unit, a thing- not just any thing, but each and every time through our efforts the ideal thing. The purpose in reason is to unify the structure of apperception to make consciousness seem one with itself. As this perception is mine, as that perception is mine, as this is the consciousness I see, the consciousness I hear, I think, I feel- is not only mine, but is me. In so far as this consciousness can be certain, I am certain.
As I consider this current state of consciousness in reflection, I am not in the present, and am not in the moment, but outside the moment, not acting in the world, but solely with myself. Reflection comes to itself as a totally self-encompassed act, therefore selfish in its very existence.
But what precisely makes this unity a project is the proliferation of what constitutes experience and what this does then to a sense of place in the world. Without unity, the certainty of self dissolves in the shotgun spray of experience, and what this means to me and thus my safety.
This consciousness I find is the same, although the experience is different, so thus the filament of intuition which brings this to consciousness constantly changes in the instant. But in fact it is indeed not a single experience but a variety of experiences which are mine, and in fact it is thus not a single experience that constitutes the unity of consciousness; but a variety of different consciousness and different colors of consciousness. So the segments of consciousness that I call mine come to the end of each day. So then that each day constitutes a new day, each day constitutes a new world, but still a world and a day that both are mine in the structure of time.
What changes this consciousness is experience in the reception of apperception as the action of another, so it is that the present can disappear and so it is that the world becomes a new world. But still it is the same new day of the same time, and as the earth spins so as to make its day into the time of a same time, so appearance becomes a standard appearance, again and again. It is a single consciousness that exists in the instant -currently-, and exists again and again and again. And in the ‘again’ of each new experience there comes sense under the fabric of dynamic flux, an ear that hears a silent language in the past, each again becomes ‘once more’. There is voice in the past of the threefold present3. This voice informs the present, gives it consul, warns the present of hidden dangers, soothes the present of its suffering by saying the suffering shall pass, exhorts the present to attain ‘the’ level of effort. The present is a collection, then collected again in reflection, collected and recollected. Kant shares this ground with Levinas4, ‘Same and other’, like. United- the affinity of the manifold.
For consciousness to exist once more, I cannot rest.
But this space and this time, these conditions of the form of experience, have been passed to me, from others, like to me, and in their existence prior to mine, compose and recompose the manifold through words. The manifold speaks as my eyes see, as my nose smells, as my tongue tastes, as my hands are touched. Existence itself resounds through-out the manifold I find before me. And so this affinity of the manifold first takes the form of appearance that promises phenomenon to be composed of things. Secondly the reach of this appearance, this view is a feeling itself, a field of domiciliation, a whisper, a voice throughout reason- a cry and song that carry with this voice a place that becomes filled not with objects, but with words that make each space such as it is. Strength in voice, as the common in choice, creates the world as a space, and carries the world through words.
Seeing is shared, hearing is shared, taste is shared, smelling is shared, touch is shared- feeling, is shared in the faculty of pleasure and pain, same and other, and ‘we shall be like to him, in the tactile weight of the skin and things, in the press of flesh and the thump of a felled body, in the flight of birds and in the suspended state of planets and the pirouette of dancers.
So the sky itself is full of feeling throughout, reaching out and touching me, painting blue throughout my eyes, soothing me just to look. I open my eyes to the touch of God, awaken to hear songs in the sounds of every-thing, played to me. Space is present to let me breathe , reaches to my lips and lungs with abundant smell. The sky exists to let me look, the soil exists to let me be nourished. The ground holds me up to let me run, to let us come home, run home, to loved ones. Everything is as it comes upon me, be-comes, and it becomes as it is revealed to us. As the world be-comes, it becomes revealed, and in being revealed we are allowed.
The bird is like to us in so far as it sings to us, as it flies for us, as its feathers are soft for us. The ground is like to us as it gives us firmness like our bones, as it gives life as we do in the birth of a child. The sky is like to us as it gives us spectrum and backdrop of light, as it gives us our breath, our fresh air, as it gives to us our rain- warm soothing, cold stinging. Shelter is like to us as our skin, as our bones. Another is like to us in all these things, and in all these ways, making for us the world more, and making our world and our view of it, every-thing. God is like to us for all these, pure, reasons, so we are like to God- but when we give- to others, when we sing, for others, when we make soft, for others, give light, for others, nourish, others, shield, others, heal, others. As God is love-(charity) in first John, so love is God in feeling, providing life for others, and is thus not only in everything, but is present through every-thing. We are like to him in unity with another, to-gether as unity- in a common sense, we- United.
In the making of space and time- the conditions of intuition- in the apriori unity of consciousness, we are like to God as words are like to the field of intuition, and we carry with these words weight like objects, and carry with them feeling, falling on us and others like a shower. As we speak to others only then does the manifold unify in the object, and not only is the object reproduced, but the manifold itself is reproduced in a spectrum. Speech presents both the form of intuition of inner sense as outer sense and the unity of this intuition, to both me and others. Shared by all like light and darkness, shared by all like the whisper and howl of the wind, sweet and sour to all alike, soft or hard to all just as well. Not only does the symbol give rise to thought, but so do things, and from the consciousness of this thing as I find myself now, I cannot rest. The ‘drawing’ of the line that reproduces the intuition that I find in myself, the unity of my thought as it comes to try, this action is a saying, a saying that points at the thing itself and says ‘this is so’, and determines the thing as the declaration to all. We know all intuition as saying, it is what we share with the extant manifold of God, it is how he is like to us, in the drawing of the object and in the act of saying, not only is the structure of consciousness unified, but the entire structure of the manifold itself is unified, reproduced, not just the object itself. So the testimony referred to in 1st John is the very deepest type of ecstatic sharing, a Glorious touch of the breadth of existence in the miraculous spray of intuition that declares, in touch, that ‘God hath said’..... And so we know this overwhelming abundance, this super-abundance of sense and perception as a saying and a singing- shine, shine, shine sings the sun.....- Blue, blue, blue, sings the sky..., wash, splash, cool, sings the ocean....whisper, howl, cry cries the wind. ‘Hello Hello Hello’ is the first thing sang by the new thing. All thinking is transposed in the form of concepts to data and vision, to the inscribed. Thinking becomes words, and thus becomes things. Weight turns the press of flesh and lifting into dials and digital data, thus the thing in vision becomes pronounced. All intuition, all perception becomes as if it were composed of words, words that we find and cannot, words that stumble and withdraw, words that become hands, enveloping the world in gentle grasp and suspended caress, and that make for us each time the ideal thing.

Absolute Necessity
The notion of logical necessity is a process of logical building from the past. What we do now logically follows from what we have done- so that what we are doing now has been certified by some sort of map. This necessity is a type of flashlight into the darkness that is the present. It Is not the future that is dark, but the present. It is ‘here’ that we find ourselves, it is ‘here’ that we do not know what to do, it is ‘here’ that we fully believe that what we have done is right. It is ‘here’ that we are told no. ‘Here’ and ‘not here’, in the space created ‘here’ and ‘not here’.
Space is a product and relation of motility, and therefore of trying, and only has meaning in relation to motility. Therefore space is the first condition of possibility. Space indicates this possibility of movement by its speaking, within the dynamic interplay in the separation and togetherness of flux. Space is that which separates us, it is distance. But distance is always a distance traveled, a distance covered, whether traveled by the work of my eyes in vision, whether traveled by the distance of hearing in calling to you, or whether it is the distance already measured and now imagined between you and I, space is that which is traveled. Space is the pirouette of the two shining hands of God, spinning a dialectical matrix of atmosphere that encompasses capability, in the projected blown kiss of the ‘Yes You can’. Space is the ache of distance, the enclosure of the ‘we’, and in the face of the other I first and always see myself. In the distance between sensation and reflection, between feeling and Reason, this firmament I see- this sky of my thought is a mirror, a mirror that looks like a sky, an exaggerated sky- from the hyperbole of thinking. Space is the first condition of possibility, and is thus charged, live. Space is within and beyond you and I, in a common sense- the spray of light of the ‘we’. Space is a condition of possible experience, our experience, and thus the light within which all experience occurs.

Space is not a discursive or, as we say, a general concept of relations of things in general, but a pure intuition. pg. 69 5

Intuition is framed in this the dynamic arena or apperception, meaning that the edge of apperception is within the space created by the dynamics of flux. The notion of extension is created, is followed out in the act, forming this arena. Space is not discursive, it is pronounced, created itself by the dynamics of relation and the valences of power, so it is not the relation of things which defines space, but the forming relations of power, of the dynamism between things, which creates space, which makes space exaggerated, as pronounced. All space is thus the second part of creation and the first part of possibility, simultaneous with the firstness of all other things, simultaneous with the firstness of all other feeling, simultaneous with the firstness of all other love.
Things appear to us- we cannot know them in themselves, but only through the framework of this intuition. Does this mean that things are only as they appear to us, perhaps, but the structure of intuition and apprehension, the force of these say that things are for us, and they are determined necessarily. Things are to us as we need them to be, things are necessarily. Throughout all the fabric of our need, present in the manner of our intuition, throughout all sense and the need of our sense, throughout the structure of intuition. Things are necessarily, as we need them to be..... certainty, certainly, in relation to the structure of our need. So As things are, this is why we love them, and so must we love them.
Separation is determined as a word- as one or two, over there, far and near- and in this distance the thing becomes not only as pronounced, but becomes subordinate to the function of need. The word of number extends this distance even more, subordination becomes equal to sublimation, as the word ‘tries to’ throw itself outside the tragic drama of suffering life. The word of number is not devoid of sympathy, but to the contrary is completely interested- self-interested- overwhelmed with sympathy to the point that sympathy must be denied. The overwrought edge of sympathy and feeling becomes the ‘you must’ of survival. Need becomes terrible, becomes necessity, and the beauty of my thinking becomes as a Razor, an instrument, and even if the ‘I’ of myself cannot escape the structure of terrible need, my thinking ‘tries to’. Terrible is the need, the incessant scratch in words of number. The transposition from word to verbal sign in mathematics is thus not only for ease of reading, but denies speech, masks the terrible need, the howling need of the words of number. The need in Mathematics is deafening, and its’ writing a howling terrible poetry, and so we try to make it silent, remove it from the signs of speech. Necessity becomes absolute.
The absolute part in absolute necessity finds an equivalence between the need in necessity and the gradation of effort, of exertion. What becomes equal to need is effort, in the rising of the will in trying, in struggling to attain the object, the objective of that need. The angst of need seems absolute, seems endless, beyond measure, and so it is. But this ache is met on the cosmological scale equally by effort. The pain of labor makes of need not ‘nothing’, but makes of need a purpose, makes of need some-thing. Effort changes need- and makes it a goal, transforms need into its own possibility. The pain and labor of exertion makes of necessity, possibility, and thus the logic of need approaches an incredible reversal, a re-order that turns inside out the valences of power in the encapsulated sphere of gravity, the hyperbolic character, the need of thought. This is the hope, the absolute hope, that arises out of the absolute depravity of need. Through need we work, through need we try, through need we help, through need we love. Within and beyond. Again and again, and again and again.
It is now that I absolutely must and it is now that I absolutely try. I bring all my effort and strain to meet and vanish the need that rises. And the effort I give becomes heavy and hard, and smells like an animal, and sounds like a beast, and I become like to objects. The effort I give brings a pain in itself, like a pain caused. In the pain of my effort I know myself, I know the ‘I’ as a thing, and I come together with the world as a collection of things. I become common with things, and become common to the need of others-and I am certain. It is the ‘I’ that can no longer carry this effort, as pain and incapacity come together upon the ‘I’ and make of me weary, make of me exhausted, make the surge of this need vanished. I find the thing-like quality of my existence both inner and present in exertion, and the excess of need becomes the vanished, becomes the ‘no more’. The urgency once absolute- through effort- becomes the ‘no more’, and all that I have done is ‘no more’. And all my labor is vain.6
In our common contest we find that the ‘I‘ is not enough, that there will be a time, that there is a time when I call out, when I ask for help, when I plea. I find in my weakness and in my dying that ‘you’ are the one that feeds me, that ‘you’ are the one that protects me, that ‘you’ are the one that heals me, that ‘you’ are the one that loves me, that ‘you’ are the one that saves me. Your labor becomes the object of my need. I find that there is no ‘I’ without ‘you’, that there is no mission without ‘you’, that there is no life without ‘you’. I find originally that- yes- ‘I’ am the one, but then I find also that ‘you’ are the one. Within and beyond the power of the ‘I’ resides the ineluctable ‘you’. All my effort and all my making are the absolute same- for through my effort all I have done is to ‘make ease’, have made the ache of the other’s need ‘no more’. And all my labor is vain, but through effort I become common with things, and through effort I become common with others. Through effort two needs become vanished and through effort I be-long. Through effort this vanity is exhausted- finally. Again and again.

A similar experiment can be tried in metaphysics, as regards, the intuition of objects. If intuition must conform to the constitution of the objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter a priori; but if the object (as the object of the senses) must conform to the constitution of our faculty of intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility. Since I cannot rest in these intuitions if they are to become known, but must relate them as representations to something as their object, and determine this latter through them, either I must assume that the concepts, by means of which I obtain this determination, conform to the object, or else I assume that the objects, or what is then something, that the experience in which alone, as given objects, they can be known, conform to the concepts. pg.-22 7

Capability is a primary vision, and in it the world changes before my eyes. However the nature of this is not idealistic in any way. What this means is that the horizon of possibility open to seemingly everyone- is not open to everyone in the same way, and remains closed contingent upon the level of capability of the individual under consideration. The world as it is, is a world of possibility, and this possibility differs so much from one to another.
Real possibility is governed by the structure of probability, by the probability that comes from contest with another, and another, and another. With the shine of possibility is the exaltation experienced with expectation, and the distance between possibility and this expectation is a series of contests with others just like me. There seems an invisible wall between the possibility of an aim and achievement of it, with unseen obstacles, with puzzles to figure out, with predators to conquer. ‘Can it happen’, this is the question affirmed in the notion of possibility. This question however is not an accurate picture of the arena of hope- it will happen, someone will be victorious in the pyramid structure of hierarchy in any competitive sphere. A team will win the NCAA tournament, a man will be #1 income earner in his or her field. So this person, this victor of the social contests of income and achievement will say look- anyone can do this- it is possible, but the reality of the whole spectrum is not that which is possible, but what happens to the whole in this distribution- and so this is how we have built our arena of hope, as materially false.
But what is before me now is open, a new day, and what is it that I want to accomplish, to do, what is it that I want to achieve. And in this wish the probabilities before me vanish, and I am set to endure what I must to achieve this end. Perhaps what the central truth of possibility is, is that to have possibility means that one is able to try to accomplish what one wishes, to try to accomplish one’s aim. How an individual confronts the steps necessary to accomplish this aim is up to the m. Here the structure of probability does not present itself as incapacity or failure, as paralysis, but as an adventure, the journey of which is not possible without trying, without effort.
This edge of effort, this horizon of capability is not however merely a conceptual border which a different perspective changes, but is a border built by the pain of negative feedback, and the disintegration of failure. The horizon of capability operates as a border of safety, of safe operation within which an individual is successful, and outside of which there seems no possibility. This is behavior the individual clings to desperately, for outside this border risks destruction. Capability frames and conditions what one sees in the world and what one can see, and thus a horizon presented by another may appear sound conceptually, but for all intents and purposes is a fantasy- is not real in any sense, for the individual can not really see it.
The negative is a closed door on the horizon of capability. Present on its face is always a way that can allow us to identify how not to do something. The negative, if we wish to use it, in this manner, then shows us how to do something, how to accomplish something, how to perform better. Possibility is always present somewhere within the negative, just where the path of possibility lies, what that possibility is, and where it will take us, these are unknown. Paths open upon trying to accomplish something that which in itself may not be achievable, but in the striving for brings incremental achievement of other aims and learning which now open other unforeseen paths and opportunities, and paid for in pain and risk. Behind every negative is a reason why not, and if we listen to this reason we can use it to map what we are doing wrong. Possibility may shine, but its path is in most instances invisible and strenuous.
Fear makes nothing. Fear learns nothing. Fear does nothing, joins nothing, loves nothing. And the sky has claws throughout, swiping down, staring at me always, watching me like prey, and the winds hiss and whisper, talking about me, conspiring to get me. Each path I walk is mined, and as I walk this path I can hear the hideous laugh rise from the mantle of the earth and I know that I am stalked. It is this way everywhere under the firmament of Terror, everywhere throughout the sky of Terror, and throughout all of this, everywhere and at all times there is no-thing, and all of this is no-thing.
Fear sits in the anguish of nothing and says that it is everything. Fear withdraws exposure of the self from the act, and paralyzes the self. There is no unity in fear, but only when we move from it. The production of fear by violence never unifies those to its cause, because there is no unity in the message. Defeat experienced in the contest of living may indeed feel like degradation but it does nothing to tell us how to live, it shows us not another way, but focuses on a pain that no other can ever take away, and that all men must live with. Terror attempts to paralyze, to stop the judgment of the world, but enters a world in which men do fear, but act anyway, do fear, but make anyway, do fear, but work anyway, do fear, but love anyway.
Terror has no voice, can say nothing but only that it has been wronged, that it is victim. Terror does not try again. The mistaken belief of Terror is that violence is power. What Terror wishes to change it cannot, for through violence there will change none of the production and capability of the world. Terror is a magnification of the weakness of the self, an attempt to show others a degradation and weakness that when felt, will change thinking. Terror thinks that the world will see it as capable and it will be restored. Terror sees its position only, and sees no difference between themselves and others, but sees itself less for it. Terror feels degraded and wishes others to feel degraded as well, only then according to Terror will the attitude change that ‘causes’ the degradation to occur. What Terror does not see is that its’ message does not connect, not because we are distanced and do not see, but its message does not connect because we have felt our own weakness, and we allow it.
We work from our weakness, and see the possibility that arises from it. Once death is accepted as a principle throughout the structure of life then No violence can ever make us feel less than dead. I do die, once I accept this the violence of what you do to me will never make me feel that you are great, will never bring approval, will never bring me together with you, will never make you capable, will never make you more. The ‘I’ is weak, I accept this about myself, but together ‘we’ are more, and in this more there is nothing that violence and terror can do.
Terror calls its own ‘victim’ in a type of attention that does not help because it exalts the incapacity of its own. Terror is a magnification, an explosion of the anticipation of suffering into the very firmament of thought- the hyperbole of weakness. Terror cannot accomplish what it wants because its focus is to bring the ‘I cannot’ into relief through the effort of others, through its violence. To make others choose, to make others love, through violence. For assistance Terror must look to itself to move into the realm of making, into the realm of doing, into the realm of the ‘I can’. So long as I am victim I do not make, so long as I am victim I do not learn, so long as I am victim I do nothing.
The ’you’ does not make solely the suffering of the ‘I’. Suffering is constitutive of the ‘I’ from the very start, and no act of another can remove all of this suffering. But an act of the ‘I’ can re-move suffering, by moving from suffering, and thus making of it some-thing. If I work to become a doctor, I move from my own suffering, when I try and help others, I move from my own suffering, when I immerse myself into the details of life, I move from my own suffering. Terror- fear, must allow itself to die to become victor, it must move from itself, and become something other, become one with the need of the other. So the light of ‘you’ takes me from fear, leads me through fear, and ‘I’ make it something other, as a shadow.

Though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me. Psalm 22 vs. 4 8

The relationship between possibility and necessity is thus a logical one, and thus is a relationship between need and effort in the cosmological arena of human endeavor, in the dialectics of human interdependence and capability, whereas logic attempts a linguistic mathematics of need and its subordination in the structure and order of the world. Knowledge is what we hope for through the path of reason, but through it we find that certainty is what we need, from this path- this use- of Reason. The Unity in knowing is found in the feeling of what it means to know, the certainty of knowing what to do. Certainty is the need of reason, the need to know, the need to belong. This need is not exhausted by knowledge, but informed by it, and exhausted by effort. Again, and again, and again. Capability is a primary vision, and the light of capability is effort and exertion, and through effort I become more capable and move from fear, and in this light the world as possibility opens before my eyes.

Unity and the Triune

Time as a condition of experience does not refer to the fleeting nature of experience, but refers to the formal properties of condition in the recollected nature of time’s measurement. The ability to place into suspension the dynamic nature of movement by a relation, a relation of movement to that of another movement, to the that of another movement. The dizzying whhrrrr of movement becomes clear, establishes a clarity in relation to the appearance of another such movement. Only then does there become a standard appearance, only then does the nature of time make sense- become one to the feeling of sensation and sensibility. So motion for us is a knowing in itself, becomes our way of knowing in the suspended character of the present, and enters us into a state of condition by sub-ordination- by action we enter into relation. So it is that we can know, in and through the likeness we have in and through dynamic relation, and thus the sense of different experience becomes the same experience, and brings to me the feeling of identity, the certainty of identity, all in the face of a tenuous suspended present. Through action, and thus in the midst of this type of Love, Relation becomes the lens by which our knowing is held together. Triune is the structure of dynamic relation and the clarity of synthesis, thus motion is a knowing and action becomes a unity.
Agreement occurs between the I, the other as subordinate/master and the structure of things as a common spirit, and thus common sense. There is no unity without active engagement with the structure of things- that you and I agree on the state of things does not constitute active unity per se but provides a basis to join into a unity. Agreement as unity is taken up in the Antinomy of pure reason and its resolution, in a Triune structure of synthesis. The resolution of antinomy is the use of reason to find order in the situation of conflict, to determine the proper order of subordination of concepts when presented with competing interests. Perhaps the triune structure can be better described through an elevated version of the master/slave dialectic, in a dialectical relationship of subordination to the social common sense, in a relationship of action.
The dynamics in the language of ‘God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit’ in triune theology speak directly to the dynamics of authority and subordinate relation that comes to be autonomous, that differentiates a concrete role and then comes to operate independently within and under the structure of authority, of order. The subordinate relation rests on the fractured axis of victory and defeat in the social contest of sovereignty, and thus determines the terrain and makeup of the entire social dialectic- the capability and atmosphere of social thinking, of what people can see as possible and thus how the world appears- thus the structure of hope. Order, and thus its symbol- agreement, come about through a working relationship to the larger world, through a working relationship together with a larger common spirit, common sense. Relation occurs between sets of action, between sets of use, between things as we judge them in use.
‘God the Father’ in the trinity is a symbol of the omnipresence of authority and love within the order of man- within this ordering of men- and the fracture that occurs throughout the relation between men in the midst of this love- within and beyond the relation between men.
The symbol of ‘God the Son’ subordinates the human material condition to the structure of life in general. Material human life is subordinate to the principle of life, and to life itself as a principle- the principle of approach. The material condition of ‘God the Son’ is subordinate but equal to the invisible condition of ‘God the Father’, with familial likeness active between the spheres. The principle of authority exists throughout creation, throughout the structure of love.
The pole of ‘God the Holy Spirit’ universalizes this unity and brings it to the indefinite, brings the level of likeness and power beyond the reach and capability of our action and understanding. The character of this power, its source- is elusive, over-arching, all encompassing, within and beyond the sphere of material life. Dynamism carries this life principle, but the principle does not exist solely through a dynamism alone- through an animism alone- it is shared, present in us, outside us, empowering, mysterious.
Suffering, dependent, physical, ‘God the Son’ becomes God while dying, becomes God in dying. The symbol of the ‘God the Son’ is exalted to the ultimate power, exalted to power as an ideal- as a principle, and that power as a principle is sacrifice. Sacrifice unifies, cements togetherness, exalts its power by exalting its weakness, by exalting the interest of another, by finding a strength where there was weakness. Sacrifice differs not one bit in structure from the social frame constructed by subordination, the difference however lies in the autonomy of participation, in the dissolution of contest that characterizes subordination and thus a freedom from the subordinate relation. Thus the very character of this bind is radically different.
The Architectonic of Reason, the order of Reason is formed from the order of subordination. This is the order we find in the world, this is the order we share with and bring to others, this is the order we find throughout our Reason. But this order in subordination is not the end of things. The order of men through subordination, this form, this structure finds itself subordinate to the larger common spirit, the larger common sense. Subordination comes about- not in itself- but in the collective of endeavor, of mission to serve others. It is a common mission that binds us, binds the ordering of ourselves to the order of function. Subordination is then next the subordination of contest into the structure of order. Subordination does not eliminate the contest in the spirit of man, but integrates this contest into the form of the common.
Common is our rage, common is our effort, common is our joy, common is our suffering, and common is our aim. Through contest itself we become like to others in ways so humanly basic that the identity of the other is undeniably present, and undeniably like ours, same yet other. We find ourselves like in fragile need, and in this need we find each other same. So it is that we find ourselves, together, in a common sense, we.

In the latter case the outlook is more hopeful. For experience is itself a species of knowledge which involves understanding; and understanding has rules which I must presuppose as being in me prior to objects being given to me, and therefore as being a priori. They find expression in a priori concepts to which all objects of experience necessarily conform, and with which they must agree. pg. 23 9

Agreement is the hard duet of contest that dissolves, that comes to see the opposition of the other as an asset, a value, through the course of real opposition, through struggle. The cacophony of talking at someone, in the disorder of double one way conversation, changes form, con-forms on each end and transfigures to the rhythm of a discourse, but through labor. This alternation of voices thus teaches each the common song, brings each voice to sing then at the same time, and in this singing the order of subordination becomes invisible through the focus of work, of common labor. Each comes together, sees together, speaks together, works together. The voice of each becomes then a harmony, directed by an invisible third, not middle, but higher in voice- a common voice, the silent voice of Reason. ‘Come with me’. So it is that unity between the three poles is found in real agreement, where the binds of subordination dissolve but remain clear, and the interests of each participant find an equal valuation in a common goal and come into agreement with a common spirit, the common sense that grounds the truth of power.
The agreement present Is thus first the agreement to this subordinate relation, in a clarity of human relation, of human action. Thus we become like to each other in the agreement of non-equivalence, through our own choice and its power. This Choice is a judgment, a common judgment that comes through the music of thoughts and words, and from their power. No violence ever changes this structure. Thus the voice of the civil rights movement spoke a language so powerful that none could deny, so beautiful as to make a nation tremble, to wilt guns and hate, if only for a short time. The words of these people became one with the need of others- with the common need of dignity in a song of soaring display, and others throughout saw themselves in the marchers, saw themselves in their order and this new relation. Through their choices- through their voices- the people in the civil rights movement found a common power and became victims no more.
The triune structure crystallizes in symbols the mystery of the dynamics of separation and power, with the omnipresence of authority and likeness throughout the three poles of relation- with the omnipresence of authority and likeness throughout all creation. The more we look, the more likeness we find, the more our condition remains the same. The opponent character of experience itself remains the same through the contest of each judgment. There is no present opponent, thus there is no-thing for us to conquer, there is no-one for us to conquer. Through the use of reason there is no final escape from the contest of judgment and thus from all experience. Reason is a vehicle that never escapes itself, that stays within the elements of condition no matter what the analysis produced, no matter what the analysis rendered. This changes the valences of value in the approach to life that suffers with each other, and brings us to the end of Reason and to the beginning of action. The triune structure remains- and remains as a vehicle for the preparation of faith. Reason can bring us to the advent of life anew, bring us to the understanding of the conditions- the condition of experience, and the hope that arises from this condition. Reason becomes dominant, and it is not. Reason is power, and it is not. Reason is wondrous, and it is not. Reason justifies action, and it does not. Reason triumphs, and it does not. Always. Thus the symbols of the Christian Triune crystallize the dynamics of separation and power in struggling relationship with others, in a mutual exaltation that occurs through the inflammation of the inner dynamics of need and belonging, expanding and multiplying the hyperbolic arena of a common thinking, and therefore of a common firmament of thought. Every part of this thinking and firmament immersed in feeling, every part concrete, every part ever so real. So we find ourselves, together, in a common sense, we.
Reason is shelter, for Kant, as a layer of distance between the self of the ‘me’, of mine, and the violent storm of a nature that wants to devour me, and the storm of humanity that wants to conquer me, to make me subordinate. The Architectonic of Reason is a house we build of absolute necessity that stores the fragile ‘me’, that cages the horrible ‘me’, that keeps anxious sentry through its window, that gives me a place to work, that silences the terrible, that keeps safe the love that is ‘me’, and in its absolute need cannot rest. Through the necessity of the contest of judgment and its absolute need to see the other first as a threat, the possibility of agreement arises as a choice. Through fighting each other we are able to hear the brilliance and color in the silent choice of peace. Through the agony of our wars we see the absolute glory in the choice of the common life lived, and in relationship to fear and hate we are able to find the absolute salvation chosen in a common love- larger in our thinking, ever so real. Thus the symbols of the Triune God crystallize the ineluctable paradox and mystery of this shared life- what can be called the struggle for Unity and in doing so the Unity in struggle.
Above all the dialectic of thesis- antithesis: synthesis, is a dialectic of opposition and contest, so the opposition and contest in antinomy finds a resolution in the higher voices of Reason, and so the mystery of the Triune describes in symbols the dynamics of human authority and separation within and beyond a higher togetherness, a higher common choice, a clearer common voice, divine, singing the spirit of our life.

What if all the more you wish is before your eyes, is under your nose, is within your house, everyday? Why would it be so hard to believe? Why is it so hard to believe? Perhaps all the more you wish is before you, present to you- how then would you know? Why must it look different and feel different? What if chains were casted off? And What if it were you that had to cast off these chains?
What if all the more you wish were present to you, and to others every moment, at all times? What if all the more you wish is not yours to have solely, and never was solely yours- why would it diminish you any less, all the more? What if all the more you wish- what if this Kingdom of God, were at hand, and was always at hand? Would the world end should you take this real opportunity?- Yes! But would a different life, a new life begin again? Certainly! What if this were always, has always been, part of this life- the world ending and new life beginning- in the structure of opportunity, in the choice, of participating in the real salvation of a common love?
What if the end of the world and the beginning of life happened all around you at all times in a glorious light and what if you were just afraid to look, and just afraid to believe? What if all the more you wish is already given to you, and has always been given? Perhaps all the more you wish does look different than you have ever imagined, and is yours to be given, but is also yours to make for others. Perhaps the opportunity in the need present throughout life is the key to this Kingdom of God, this Time of God, this clarity of God. Why would it be so hard to believe? Why is it so hard to believe?


Notes
1. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1929).
2. The First Epistle of St. John the Apostle, Chapter 3 Vs. 2.
3. St. Augustine, Confessions, (Doubleday, New York, 1960), Book 11 Chapter 20, pgs. 292- 293.
4. Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity, (Duquesne University Press, 1969), pg. 39.
5. Kant, pg. 69.
6. Kant, pg. 87.
7. Kant, pg. 22.
8. The Book of Psalms, Chapter 22 Vs. 4.
9. Kant, pg. 23.