I find it behooves me the writer to take an inventory of my theses, as many have been brought to bear in the short space of nine chapters. In dealing with paradoxes of self-reference, we have argued for a theory of reading which is cyclical, being at once linear and circular, and we have called this concept "recursion" and linked it with the concept of the spiral. As we will see as we continue, this will be the pardigmatic motif which binds our texts to a unity.
We have discussed number theory, and talked about two "nothings" which are not nothing, but amount to a zero sum. One is symmetry, the other variability. We have discussed the role of paradox, the role of myth, the strategies of description which unsettle their own meaning. We have mentioned regresses in terms of Aristotle's First Mover. We have transcended time in the personage of Sophia, and space in William Blake. We have fallen into time, and then out of time, and then back into time.
We have traced a magic circle, and performed a magic trick. We have seen the prevalence of fours and threes and twos and ones. We've seen contradictions become truth, and rode a beam of light into the sun. We've watched difference engines in turn, differentiate into similitudes, and we've watched luminaries of science fall into mere reactionaries. A line is a circle? A point can be a line? Artifacts which self-consume, and snakes with their tail in their mouths. Heaven and Hell are married and contraries are equally true.
This is the gift of an analysis which resists the urge to define itself. We are arguing then for a Chaotic interpretive schema which seeks out the fringes of reason, and then rationalizes itself, all the while arguing with itself, arguing for itself, as it argues against itself.
There is no transcendence here for us to find. If I want to leave this world, I'll build a spacecraft. This is an engagement with texts that understands that the fractal geometry that makes up my brain, makes up the produce of the brain. We project as we create. Creation is an act of projection, and while it's easy to see the phallic nature of $This Sentence is False$ it functions also like a projector, shooting forth light through a lens.
And yes, we have obliterated the name of God, for the name of God, the image of God, becomes the final barrier to "oneing" your soul to God, or in less secular terms, we have merged with our creative faculty without suppressing the analytical faculty.
We have resurrected the other way, the kataphatic tradition, neglected in Derrida's work. And this is where we stand, as resurrectors of ancient wars, playing out their battle in this space, attempting to explain the unexplainable.
It is now that we can move into the dialectic we have suggested. The war between sworn enemies, spiritual enemies, corporeal friends.