A philospoher (can't remeber which one) longed to find just one fixed point. Then everything else would make sense. Think about it for a second and there is sense to be made of this. If there is nothing to rely upon as sure (if there is no fixed point), then there is no refernce point for anything else. If there is no fixed point, then how can there be meaning of any lasting value? How can meaning even be shared?
Modernism (militant modernism) says there is not only one fixed point, but that everything has a fixed point. Everything has a place it should be - in its fixed point. This kind of modernism played out to its logical end is ridiculous. What is the fixed point of toasted almond fudge ice cream? Well, if you ask me it is the one and only ice cream worth eating. There may be one or two of you who disagree with me (fools). But in that disagreement we must conclude that one of us is wrong or that there is no fixed point for toasted almond fudge ice cream.
I fall on the side of no fixed point for this one, though it is tough for me to believe anyone would not exalt toasted almond fudge ice cream as I do. But now let's go to militant postmodernism. That would say there are no fixed points anywhere, ever. Played out to its logical end runs into lunacy itself. The fact that there are no fixed ponts is a fixed point and therefore disqualifies its own assertion by proving itself.
APPARENT RANDOM TANGENT: I love the andromeda galaxy.
What if there is one fixed point? What if rather than trying to find it outside of ourselves or inside of ourselves, all that there is occurs inside of that one fixed point? What if all of creation is a fixed point amid the nothingness of pre-creation? Which of course leads to the question as to whether or not there remains a lingering nothingness that is still in pre-creation stage - but we won't got here right now.
What if creation is the fixed point and God is the context of the one fixed point? So in essence, creation is a fixed point within the larger fixed point of God (if encompassing everything can be considered a fixed point). God can enter creation but creation cannot transcend God.
Ah, but what if the context, God, permitted the creation to transcend its context - God himself? Would that be anything but Hell?
Only God can be self-contextual. Creation requires God as context in order to be sustained. But God, loving the fixed point so much he allows it permission to exit its context, though does not desire its exit.
Does this make sense to anyone or do I have tumor on my brain?