Sure, but the same objection applies -- The Cave itself is only given definition in terms of what we might call the Ultimate (in a Platonic setting); though it

Sure, but the same objection applies -- The Cave itself is only given definition in terms of what we might call the Ultimate (in a Platonic setting); though it's essence is to obscure the Sun (a symbol of the too bright to observe Ultimate), the very ability to do so is fundamentally related to the fact it's also a manifestation of the Ultimate. Similarly, the Fire and anything used to cast Shadows. By careful observation of the nature of Shadows and Light from the Fire upon the Cave, we observe a manifestation of the Ultimate interacting with itself, because the Light from the Fire is merely a transposition of Truth from the Sun, while the essence of the Cave is revealed in it, and we can see the Ultimate through the lens of the Cave. It's fundamentally impossible to separate the manifestation of an Essence from an expression of the Ultimate interacting with itself; ergo, any structure capable of self interacting and capturing its "Errors" will find in them the ability to distill a view of the Ultimate. -- the argument is pretty endemic to any structure capable of expressing existing: what exists cannot be cut off from the nature of existence, because fundamentally it's doing that. (Also, first time I think those philosophy classes came in handy.)