Let's leave off the gerund-participial clause for a moment.
This is a statement in the form of a question.
What may explain
that buoy in the bosom,
that warmth,
that sense of security, yea, assurance, of one's not being an island
as we say,
but
that higgledy-piggledy gabble in the surrounds of one's solitary table
which may well otherwise give rise to aggravation
Reversing:
That higgledy-piggledy gabble in the surrounds of one's solitary table
which may well otherwise give rise to aggravation
explains
that buoy in the bosom,
that warmth,
that sense of security, yea, assurance, of one's not being an island,
as we say
Now, how do we understand blessing one with an illusory sense of company after we've reversed the question into its statement form?
I understand it as as a kind of relative descriptor of the buoy, the warmth, the sense of security and assurance. It could be paraphrased as:
that buoy in the bosom,
that warmth,
that sense of security, yea, assurance, of one's not being an island
as we say,
which bless ...
I can see how linking it back to gabble as Gary Botnovcan does is possible, sort of, but question structure and the verb explains get somewhat in the way there:
That gabble explains the sense of security, blessing one with an illusory sense of company.
Perhaps if that clause had been placed at the top and if it had not been presented as a question:
Blessing one with an illusory sense of company, that higgledy-piggledy gabble in the surrounds of one's solitary table, which may well otherwise give rise to aggravation, may explain that buoy in the bosom, that warmth, that sense of security, yea, assurance, of one's not being an island as we say.