Replies

Howdy again, LogicWings! Thanks for your last. You wrote:

According to the world view you adhere to I am either 'saved' or I am 'corrupt.' There is no middle ground. My humour is often lost on others. This was a self deprecating joke that conforms to your beliefs. I must be this 'corrupt old logician' if I don't believe as you do. There is no other possibility allowed.

LW, I got the joke without you having to explain it to me. As to my “worldview”: What worldview, exactly, do you attribute to me? What, exactly, are these beliefs you attribute to me?

Skipping over some “mushy stuff” [:^)], you -- an apparent devotee of meditation and contemplation -- next observe:

There is insight, and then, there is insight. There is your insight that it is 'out there' and then there is the Zen insight that there is no 'out there.' Which insight do I believe? You cannot give any evidence of an 'out there' but I have only evidence of a 'here-now.' No matter where you go, you are here-now. All else is deduction, and subsequent, induction. Give me evidence, other than insight which can be contradicted by other insight, that there is an 'out there.'

IMHO, LW, you here set up a false dichotomy between my “out there” and your “here now.” There’s not an “either/or” choice to be made between them. My argument maintains that both are "normal" modes of human cognitive experience. Taking a hint from Plato, I see these two, not as irreconcilable opposites, but as two tensional “poles” between which human conscious experience normally takes place and unfolds. Man does not live entirely within the time order of the physical universe is the very point to be made.

And I suspect you already know that – and ought to acknowledge it. For, getting back to that “mushy stuff,” you clearly expressed admiration for a certain individual (please just leave me out of this entirely) that you could not possibly admire unless you were capable of a certain “spiritual vision.” For what you admire in this person are quintessentially spiritual qualities; and, absent spiritual vision, you would not have been able to recognize them. (I see them, too.) So there’s hope for you yet, kiddo. ;^)

If you want to get a handle on how to reconcile the “out there” and the “here now,” I highly recommend the following excerpt from my favorite pre-Socratic – Heraclitus – as a theme for your next meditation:

Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all…. For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine [i.e., the Logos] – which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [Fragment 114]

Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it – not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it – at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth. My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves; other men, on the contrary, are as forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep. [Fragment 1]

At other points, Heraclitus helpfully adds: “The invisible harmony is better than the visible.” [Fragment 54]. “From all is One, and from One is all.” [Fragment 10]. “But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own.” [Fragment 2]

And let’s not overlook this fateful warning: “Character is destiny.”

As for Zen: Arguably, Zen deliberately gets rid of the “out there” simply because it is a system that is designed to rationalize ultimate principles in terms of human reason exclusively.

Marx was right: Ideas have consequences. And men are accountable for them; for only men have the freedom to act on their ideas.

And yes, there is judgment, LogicWings. If you want to “go first” on that topic, please do be my guest. :^)

God bless, bb.

LW, I got the joke without you having to explain it to me. As to my “worldview”: What worldview, exactly, do you attribute to me? What, exactly, are these beliefs you attribute to me?

Well, you seemed to take it seriously! How can I tell the players without a program? Gee, you sure seem to be a Christian and it is my understanding that according to that worldview, one is either ‘Redeemed’ by believing that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrificial payment for all sin or one is not Redeemed and, therefore, still corrupt. Am I wrong on either of these counts?

-- an apparent devotee of meditation and contemplation -- next observe:

Leave no stone unturned, looked everywhere, studied everything I could find. Well not anymore than I am a ‘devotee’ of say, jazz because I listen to it from time to time, or fishing because I do that now and then too. I was once maybe, but now these things are just tools. I also have rather, ummm, unusual definitions for these things as well.

You postulated that the ‘source’ as ‘out there’ and I was responding to that assertion. Your only evidence is an alleged ’insight’ yet there are other ’insights’ that assert your insight is false. So how do I know which one is correct? I didn’t set up any false dichotomy, I asked for any ‘evidence’ that the insight is valid and you just dodged the ball and made the assertion again. Since I think Plato is mostly wrong this doesn’t help me. But you raise two points, first you say ‘between which human conscious experience normally takes place and unfolds’ which implies that it isn’t ‘out there’ but is part of my ‘human conscious experience’ which is here-now. This isn’t what you said before and this creates the dichotomy, not me. It was your assertion that the ’source’ was ’out there’ but now you seem to be saying it is also part of the normal human consciousness, so it isn’t ’out there’ after all. Which is it? The second is far more important:

Man does not live entirely within the time order of the physical universe is the very point to be made.

First I would have to ask, how do you know this? What evidence do you have for this statement? Second, what part of man is that then? (I know you’re probably going to say ’soul’ which doesn’t help me, but I’ll bite anyway) and third, suppose I take this statement as true. First I have to accept that there is anything that exists out of the ’time order of the physical universe.’ You have begged the same question yet again, it is just a different way of saying the same thing. Call it ‘supernatural‘ call it ‘out there‘ call it ‘outside the time order of the universe‘. All we experience takes place within the space time continuum, or the time order of the universe, as you call it. What experience takes place outside this? Second, if man does not live entirely within the time order of the physical universe then is man partly outside the time order of the physical universe or is that which is outside the time order of the universe part of man?

(please just leave me out of this entirely)

ok, you might be a guy in drag name anyway.

that you could not possibly admire unless you were capable of a certain “spiritual vision.” For what you admire in this person are quintessentially spiritual qualities; and, absent spiritual vision, you would not have been able to recognize them. (I see them, too.) So there’s hope for you yet, kiddo. ;^)

You know, I was thinking something very similar to this this very morning. I was thinking about how the Chinese Communists complain about the ‘spiritual pollution’ from our culture as we come into increasing contact. What is ‘spiritual pollution’ to an atheistic communist? What could they possibly be thinking of? The precise meaning of words is so very important. This such a glaring example. It certainly doesn’t mean what we think it means, of that I can be sure.

I have to hand it to you, of all the people that I have conversed with over these many years, you are the first person to actually get to this point. We are treading upon most difficult ground. This word is like ’insight.’ There is spiritual and there is spiritual and there is spiritual. It all depends upon what you mean by the word, ‘spirit.‘ The concept behind the word all important.

There is nothing to reconcile, because there is no ‘out there’ that isn’t ‘here now.’

Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all…. For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine [i.e., the Logos] – which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [Fragment 114]

Let’s skip the Question begged by the word divine and go straight to defining the Logos.

Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it –

Then how does he know it is ‘eternally valid?’

That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it – at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth.

Laotzu reincarnated! This is the Dao. This is noumenon. This is the unknown and the unknowable. The same thing over and over and over again. I’ve seen it a thousand different forms. Mysticism, all mysticism.

My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves;

But the beginnings of something in the word ‘distinguish’ which would later be called ‘Identity.’ How it behaves would be called properties, or qualities. (and some other word I can’t think of at the moment.)

other men, on the contrary, are as forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep. [Fragment 1]

Ahh, no dispute here. But I have a different take on this than you do, I’m sure.

“From all is One, and from One is all.” [Fragment 10].

Yes, but this is so general it supports anything and nothing. Laotzu again.

“But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own.” [Fragment 2]

This too.

Now, on the word ’Logos’ from John Robbins at the Trinity Foundation:

In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John wrote, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." The Greek word Logos is usually translated Word, but it is better translated Wisdom or Logic. Our English word logic comes from this Greek word logos. John was calling Christ the Wisdom or Logic of God. In verse nine, referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is "The true light" who lights every man. Christ, the Logic of God, lights every man. Strictly speaking, there is no "mere human logic" as contrasted with a divine logic, as some would have us believe. The Logic of God lights every man; human logic is the image of God. God and man think the same way-not exactly the same thoughts, since man is sinful and God is holy, but both God and man think that two plus two is four and that A cannot be not-A. Both God and Christians think that only the substitutionary death of Christ can merit a sinner's entrance into Heaven. The laws of logic are the way God thinks. He makes no mistakes, draws no unwarranted conclusions, constructs no invalid arguments. We do, and that is one of the reasons why we are commanded by the Apostle Paul to bring all our thoughts into captivity to Christ. We ought to think as Christ does-logically.

The ‘Logos’ of your pre-socratic author is ‘logic’ before it had been codified as a system by Aristotle. That’s why he thought it was ‘eternal’ and universal and couldn’t be seen or felt but had validity. Aside from the religious tone of this statement I agree with everything here in terms of the absolute nature of logic for man. This is that ‘old time religion’ that Christianity had evolved into (sorry, couldn’t think of a better word) before Calvin destroyed it with the insistence that faith take precedence over reason, and that contaminates most of modern day Christian thought. But that’s a whole other thread.

As for Zen: Arguably, Zen deliberately gets rid of the “out there” simply because it is a system that is designed to rationalize ultimate principles in terms of human reason exclusively.

I can’t tell if you are pulling my leg or what, but you couldn’t be more wrong here. Zen is just the opposite. Zen is the complete rejection of all thought, logical or otherwise, and all reason in favor of a state of ‘no-mind’ or ‘mindlessness’ that is called ’satori.’ In this state, a state of insight, the false separation that the mind creates that there is anything other than the here and now, that there is anything other than the unity of the ‘eternal moment’, is utterly vanquished. As the American Zen philosopher Alan Watts put it on one of his many book titles ’This is It.’ There is no separation between the physical world and the spiritual word, this being an illusion created by the word mind, the ‘rational mind’, the logical mind. There is no divinity and reason is thought to be a disease of the mind. It is the opposite of both your view and my view at the same time.

What you described for Zen actually describes Objectivism perfectly though. These two are polar opposites.

Marx was right: Ideas have consequences. And men are accountable for them; for only men have the freedom to act on their ideas.

This is merely opinion, and one that is devoid of meaning as far as I am concerned. It isn’t the ‘idea’ that has consequences, it is the 'decision' to act on it.

And yes, there is judgment, LogicWings. If you want to “go first” on that topic, please do be my guest. :^)

Don’t Equivocate with me, the subject was justice, not judgment. But I will say this, if judgment is predicated merely upon believing a single thing about a being that lived 2000 years ago for which there is no evidence, and not upon what actions people take, then I am with Thomas Jefferson on this one, that is not justice.

(oh, and hi and bye and all that jazz)