Security

What is security but being free from the care of those things which the object of our security has been entrusted to by us? If our security is based upon something which in and of itself is free from us, then perhaps this could be true; under the condition that this object of security actually secures us and not those things which we ourselves secure. Do we understand this delineation?

We secure those things which we claim as ours (the claim itself touches upon another interesting topic: that of the Moral Word, and its power over objects -in a sense; the security of objects as is maintained in morality), so those things which are claimed have been secured by something outside of themselves. In the same way, we ourselves must be secured by something bigger than ourselves which must, in effect, claim us. For a more theological interest about this thought one may always refer to Containment. Yet, to maintain a resolute and less-than metaphysical relationship here, we can refer to what some have called the Practicality of Haecceity.

Haecceity has the meaning of "the aspect of existence on which individuality depends; the hereness and nowness of reality." Now, the practicality of haecceity is seen in that, there is no moment in time or place in space which is not wholly individual or unique. This conceptualization of uniqueness is what allows for there to be this following understanding: If I possess the ball, you do not. If you possess the ball, I do not. Yet, while neither of us may possess that specific ball at the same time, we both can claim it at the same time.

This is where the practicality jumps into the theoretical (and consequently where I get back on track); for this reality exists: to claim something is actually to place one's security in one's ability to secure that item. In effect, since I have the ball I may (with sound mind and logical resolution) claim it as my own. However, if I claim the ball while I do not possess it, I have stepped over the bounds of our discussion, into what we mentioned before; the power of the moral word (for in the power of the moral word, the ball may be placed in my possession and therefore is mine to secure and claim -yet, if my security over this ball is lost, the power of the moral word has the ability to return this ball to me, based first upon my claim of it, but also, (and more importantly) upon the power and timing of the moral word -in this case known as the Law. My ability within this law of the moral word only extends far enough to claim that which is mine, and secure that which I claim).

Now, back to the subject at hand (taking into account the fact that we can only claim those things which either we, in our ability can secure, or those things which the moral word may, in its ability, place into and return to our possession); those things which are our security should have the ability either through some ethical word (morality has no place in a discourse of things greater than human invention) or through some claim which in and of itself must be "free from care."

I must admit that this original entry in my journal was much longer and perhaps enjoyed a bit more proliferation and consideration of the classics and those theological and philosophical considerations which often reach my eyes via the large and full shelves of books which around my desk do crowd themselves most rudely. Yet, even so, I do wish to remind the reader that my final part of this entry is maintained in that place and I do not shrink with fear that I should be misunderstood -only that I may be left unheard. I think that what I reached in conclusion is still true, though in its current medium it is concise and bereft of all its progressive supporters.

So then, this is the place in which I find myself. Security, is the object which in its ability is able to place one (in this higher ethical discourse) in the reality of being secure. Further, secure is the one who has been claimed and maintained in a position where the Security is free of care for this one and the one is free of care for his own security. Therefore, I would submit that the one who wishes to be secure in this life, must earnestly seek God, for only God can (in His ability) claim, and maintain our being in a secure place, and only He is free of care for us (yet full of love for us). And in this freedom from care, I would even go so far as to remind the reader (and myself) that being "free from care" is defined as the state of being Carefree. If we are secured by God, and He is carefree, what have we as beloved children and imitators of God (Ephesians 5:1) to keep us from being the same?