Since the intersubjective dialogue still leaves the subject dissatisfied in its expression of value-to-be-realized, the person is said

to be an ontological need, showing the need of a change of axis in order to complete and surpass partial communion. (McCarthy)

To be man is free not taken as simply to be, for it connotes it-being or being as objects but to be free here is to I. To be I connotes being as subject or a person. To be in man is to be free. Freedom is the value to be realized.

Now, if to be is not to be free where should i ground this freedom in order that my freedom be meaningful?

Shall I ground my freedom in my native capacity for selfdetermination?

NO! not on my free act.

If I ground it here then this would lead me to isolation. But isolation for me is meaningless for i am a man. Being a man, I have to be in dialogue.

Shall I ground it on the object around me?

NO!
Inanimate object could not be the ground of my free act. The fact that they are object shows that they could not be the ground of my free act.

Can I ground my free act with other subject?

Yes! But though grounded to intersubjectivity

But it is insufficient because our desire for fulfilment is not fulfilled by our fellow.

He cannot give totally himself to us even though we strive our full effort to create a deep relationship, something remains hidden and incommunicable and his will result to

dissatisfaction!

Dissatisfaction with others: 1. you must fade he/she 2. Reality proves me wrong, I may have identified others. 3. Others may be gone by DEATH.

Grounding free act with the intersubjectivity which leads to dissatisfaction, must have a change of axis in order to complete and surpass partial communion.

My freedom must be grounded on a Being who is more than I. This being is the

Absolute Thou.

This is the ontological need

This being is a subject but HE is more than a subject like me. He is more than a person. He must have more essence and existence than myself. Only the Absolute Thou can I ground my free act. No matter it takes, he can satisfy my being.

However, this awareness of the Absolute Thou is the persons present condition both arise as in remains the existence of

face shrouded with veils.

(Marcel)

NOT REASON BUT FAITH ALONE

Leap of Faith
Marcel started from the experience of Louise Masignon. He found this experience as reliable, thus faith is reality.

I know you are there for me, because my love is moving that way. My love is moving towards you. Thus you should be there. If I Have that longing, then you must be there existing.

Satisfaction = Change of AXIS

Why are we longing for such satisfaction? Why are we longing for the Absolute Thou?
It is that the heart when it loves, it is really certain. You cannot just be a mediocre when it comes to love certainly.

What the other to me will depend on what I am to other. Therefore the subjects fidelity to the other brings about the others presence to me; on the other hand, infidelity to the other will remove his presence. FIDELITY brings the presence of the Absolute
Thou and infidelity brings the absence of the Absolute Thou among men.

Of course, IT IS A SUBJECT! A subject that is more than a subject like me.

Why?
If HE would be like me as subject, then He could not satisfy me. He must have more essence and existance.

Absolute Thou is a person whom we can speak to but one with a face shrouded in veil.

1.
2.

Face is a property of a person. Thus, it

He is Shrouded because the present remoteness of the Absolute Thou. In

implies that the Absolute Thou is a person.

3.

veil because this is a searching phase

The Absolute Thou is the answer to the need of man. He is the giver, my being as subject depends on HIM. Absolute Thou is my co-author of my act.