There are many points of view from which one might enjoy pondering the intelligible and the absurd. I am going to tackle absurdity in three ways: as (a) the residue left in reality after intelligibility has been exhausted; (b) the complement of intelligibility; and (c) as a mode of intelligibility (which is one of the absurdest words in the language, when you come to look at it).

Although no doubt it raises all sorts of problems to talk like this, it does seem that one can meaningfully say that there is a certain intelligibility built into reality. This would appear to be involved in any doctrine of creation, whether Platonist or otherwise.

To start with ‘otherwise’: in English we more naturally talk of people understanding one another, than of understanding nonpersonal objects, trees for instance; as against Platonist thought, where the object of intellection is generally non-personal.

Understanding each other means, let us say, being on each other’s wavelength, speaking the same language, and so on. It has something to do with the old definition of friendship as idem sentire and so on. I see what you mean’ does not merely indicate that I, with my inner eye, perceive your meaning; it also suggests that with my outer eye I see things from your point of view, with your perspective: we share for a while a common vision.