Elword Riddle The Logos And Modern Man
ELWORD RIDDLE
The Logos and Modern Man
Revised Edition
May 200
Preface to Edited
and Revised Version
May 2003
The original copyrighted version of Elword Riddle was an unfinished(unedited) work which was written hastily in a period
of just two days. Now that my own children are of age to appreciate such material, I have seen fit
to put forth the effort to
make it a more comprehensive and legible
offering. My original sources
of inspiration were drawn eclectically from a range of Authors from Rudolf Steiner to Ayn
Rand. Enjoy.
Stephen
D. Jungers
To the Human
Race
With my sincere
hope that
My perception was an accurate one Which told me that the time was right
II
Introduction
The following material is being presented in the form of a dialogue. This represents what naturally takes place in our souls as we consider the subject addressed within this presentation. No claims are being made here as to the accuracy of this presentation; for it is the author's contention that unless such accuracy is experienced as manifest from within the reader, all such claims would be as wind. The extent to which this work shall be embraced will vary directly as the degree of concern for truth among its readers.
This work is not in itself, nor should it be
considered as being, a complete theory of knowledge --although nearly all the fundamentals
contained within such a theory can be found within it. Nor should this be seen as an endorsement
for any spiritual path --although it heartily embraces all true striving for
spiritual truth and knowledge.
What then is
the purpose or message of this thesis? Nothing less than to reunite man
with existence. This is the activity
of our age... so let us be about discovering.
III
Preface
Modern man exists in the state of having been torn in two. His attention is claimed, on the one hand, by the world of existence as it lies before his senses; and again, by all that which, in the way of morals, ideas and concepts constitute the world of thought. Modern philosophy has had a bad effect on this situation-- because instead of beginning with a critical theory of knowledge, it has presupposed this foundation and started out on the premise that existence is unknowable by means of experience. The inconsistency here being that they were never loathe to borrow from experience in reaching this foundation. Modern religion has often fared no better. By the use of terminology which has long since lost its savor, much of orthodox spiritual practice has become hollow and abstract in the eyes of man. Man can hardly say, in exact terms, what is meant by all of this spiritualizing. This path, he has been exhorted, requires much faith... faith in things not seen, yet hoped for. To this exhortation can now be added: Things...not understood. For modern man this simply will not do. He must know and be clear about what he is being asked to believe in.
More recent
popular trends in philosophy have indicated that all moral ideas and mental
principles, in short anything developed through the application of reason to
experience, should be viewed as nothing more than superstition. Deep within
man, indeed on a subconscious level in most, something seems to be telling him
that there must be, somewhere in existence, a key to unlock the mystery of such
a seemingly contradictory world. Today with all the varying and opposing views,
which can be found in relation to
nearly all issues, man needs more than ever to become acquainted with that one factor
which puts all things into perspective… including
itself. What is thus stated is the aim of this writing.
A reference note as to style
It must be
said from the outset, in order to
answer questions such as the
above, that all peculiarities of style and manner of presentation
have flowed from the very nature of, the subject of, the
motivation for and the goal of what
is being presented. The level of concentration required for proper
comprehension of the material presented within, is a necessary
prerequisite to coming in tune with
the value of its truth. Though it would be nice, it has never been expected that this work would be appreciated by all that read it. It
was in fact intended for those who are aware of their spiritual need, as briefly commented upon in the prefatory remarks.
The attempt being made here is to put man into contact with his highest
faculty--one which is relatively new
in the course of human spiritual evolution. Proper evaluation of this may,
of course, require a higher degree of mental energy than one may be used
to dealing with from day to day. So much for structure in itself... now to questions concerning brevity.
Why not more detail? The reason for brevity is just that
due to the nature and the quality of
the information presented--
such brevity is required. Many
philosophical or spiritual treatises are so loaded with examples, references and
assorted details that a reader must
take care so as to not be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of
what is being presented. This is not what has been the aim of this work. To the contrary: all that is presented is in skeletal
form, lacking the meat and various
organ systems which would complete its comprehensive being. It is the reader who must add the
details, references and examples by drawing from his own world of experience. In so doing the reader is enabled to experience the act of knowledge
and thus become aware of the accuracy
of the material being considered.
Table Of Contents
Preface.
II.
III. Introduction.
IV. A Reference Note as to Style.
1.)....................................................................................................... Kant Never Could.
4.)............................................................................................ Gabriels' Announcement.
9.)......................................................................................... Immanuel.
16.)....................................................................................................................... The Law.
19.)...................................................................... And The Light Shone in the Darkness.
23.)........................................................................................................... After the Law.
29.)............................................................................................... Storing Up Treasures.
35.)................................................................................. Dividing of the Soul and
Spirit.
42.).............................................................................................. The Two-Edged Sword.
50.).................................................................................................... Father Knows Best.
58.) ...............................................................The Mystery Of God’s
Word.
68.)................................................................................................ The Act of Cognition.
70.)................................................................................................. Quadruple Entendre.
1
i
Kant Never Could
0 Oh but isn't it really absurd?
*
What?
0 The way
that beliefs are clung to today. It’s hard to conceive of anyone who would be willing to stand for
what they believe in.
* Why is that?
0 I just don't see how that anyone who
considers all the facts can feel certain about anything in life,
let alone be willing to risk everything over something he believes.
*
You can be certain that you exist.
0 Yes, but
that's not what I'm talking about.
What I'm saying is that no matter what view that a person wishes
to take in life, there are always one or more presuppositions that must be accepted, on faith alone as the
foundation for his beliefs. That is why a person’s certainty will vary directly
as the strength of his faith.
* That is true.
0 You admit it yourself. But then... do you think
that you can be justified in being sure of yourself?
* Yes.
0 You know all that you're really saying then,
is that what you have faith in, your
presumed reality, is better than the presumed
reality of anyone who disagrees with you.
*
Correct again.
0 But how can you be so arrogant? There are
literally millions of people who are
fooling themselves into believing
that their world view is correct while everyone else lives in darkness. And I fail to see how you are any different.
*
You have failed to look.
0 What difference
does it make where you choose to direct your smug self assuredness? Especially since what you're clinging to is just another view, based on faith with
no means of verification... faith, in
all probability, in an illusion.
*
Is existence an illusion?
0 I don't know and neither do you. But really if it were nothing would matter; this whole
discussion along with everything else in life wouldn't mean anything.
*
I agree.
0 Jesus, you're hard to pin down! You sound like a living contradiction. You seem
to be trying to support your stand
while agreeing with the argument that destroys it.
*
Contradictions exist only within the hearts and minds of immature men. Isn't it
nice that things are not always as they seem?
0 You're
certain that your views
are correct.
*
Yes.
0 Well
then you're wrong.
*
Now look
who's clinging to an opinion.
You haven't even bothered to consider
what it is that I hold as the
irreducible primaries of my world view.
0 What
kind of primary?
*
One that is irreducible. Something to support the whole of my beliefs which is itself
supported by as little as
possible ... a kind of
foundation cornerstone. You know, the big presupposition.
0 As I said
before and thought you understood; what difference does it make? Faith in
one thing is the same as faith in another…unverifiable.
*
Unverifiable, but not necessarily the same; your statement is incorrect.
0 Just like that? You're right...
and I'm wrong?
*
Who is
correct is unimportant. What is correct
is.
0 Can't you see
that it is only you who are deciding where and where not faith is justified?
Don't you realize that this sort of appraisal dissolves into total subjectivity?
*
Yes and no. Yes I am deciding where
faith is justified. No, this has little to
do with subjectivity but rather quite the opposite. It is incorrect to assume that all presuppositions are equally unjustified because they happen to be unverifiable. Faith in one thing is not the same as
faith in another when there is a significant difference.
0 What kind of difference are you
referring to?
*
One which
is the underlying principle in all of
existence as we know it. One which
also becomes the key that leads us beyond the same.
0 Oh God: You're
starting to get weird on
me. Okay, what's this principle
which tells you what to have faith in and opens the door to higher worlds?
*
It cannot be communicated to you at this time.
0 What kind
of holy mumbo jumbo is this?
*
It is the holy
truth. There is a very
important reason for my reservation.
0 If that's all you have to say I've
got to step back into the real
world. Been strange talking with you.
*
If you'd
like to hear more about what makes me
so certain and in greater detail, why don't you come back
next week, and we can advance this subject to a deeper level?
0 I'll think about it
ii
The Conception (Gabriels' Announcement)
*
Well, have you done any thinking about last week?
0 Yes I have and I really couldn't think of
anything that you said that I could
disagree with. It all came down to the point where you mentioned a factor that
seemed to mediate between you and existence. I just couldn't get over how, that you
continued to agree with what I said, but had drawn such a totally different
conclusion by taking into consideration something which you wouldn't
let me in on. Are you going to clue
me?
*
Clues I will give you.
0 Are you having fun insulting me like some kind of Guru
with a mystical secret? I
don't know why I allow you to condescend to me.
*
I try
to have fun... but not at
the expense of others. What I have discovered does not have to be seen as mystical, nor does
it allow me to condescend.
o Then why don't you just tell me?
*
Because
today our form of
communication has been bastardized. The language and the thought
processes of man have been compromised to
the extent of being unable to communicate some of the most profound and life
giving ideas to ever grace the mind.
0 Bastardized? Is that a
clue?
*
It certainly
is. The full comprehension of that phrase alone
would bring an individual right into the heart of clear
understanding of how truth can be either
embraced or subverted.
0 You spoke last time about the foundation of your beliefs, but never said what it was.
*
It has to do
with existence.
0 That's right. You kept saying things about existence.
*
I'd like to say this about beliefs:
everything that we believe in and hold dear is a product of acceptance without
concrete proof. For someone who
hasn't discovered the key to
understanding, beliefs have neither
to make sense nor to be consistent. To such
an individual one belief is as good
as another--unless of course he has a
particularly strong emotional presentiment in favor of one certain view or another.
Any number of contradictions cannot sway him from his opinion. Someone who, on the other hand, realizes
that all real value in life is derived
from the great unifying principle of the universe will say that faith is only
justified in as much as it corresponds to this principle. In other words, the more conducive a view is
to this underlying key of understanding the universe... the greater
the justification for faith in it.
0 What about your irreducible primary?
*
Just
getting to that. Today, because nearly all ideas
are not irreducible primaries but are
dependent upon other presuppositions which
are held up by still more conceptual acceptance ... there
exists a need for man to tum his thought to his own view of life and explore its foundations. There are only two beliefs of mine that
I would consider
to qualify
as irreducible primaries, not having
to depend upon further presuppositions for support. These I have chosen to from the foundation
for all of my other beliefs. Without getting into a detailed epistemological presentation,
I will simply say that one of them is what we have already considered-- namely
that existence exists. If I am
correct in this assumption then I will benefit from the strength of a solid foundation, if incorrect...well as you yourself admitted, if existence doesn't exist, then it just
doesn't matter about anything else.
0 That's it? Existence exists?! And from there you can proceed
to make complex decisions about life?
*
There remains yet another
cornerstone.
0 I'm ready.
*
Not
yet.
0 What are you talking about?
*
The chalice
must be made ready.
0 I think that
you've been in the conceptual mode for a little
too long-- it’s starting to get to you.
*
Not like it’s going to get to you.
0 Do I correctly
perceive some sort of spiritual
under or overtone to some of your statements. .. like when you said
that what you've discovered can take man
beyond existence?
*
That statement was made
to illicit a reaction: the very one that you have just
expressed.
The existence that I was referring to is that which is accepted
in everyday living-- our physical
surroundings as well as our everyday
thoughts and feelings about the
same. Spirit, or that which is
spiritual, is usually not considered part of existence as we know it. To me, this points to a rather arbitrary line of demarcation. From my way of
looking at
it, existence would include
everything that exists;
including those realms which are said to be supernatural.
0 So that's really profound. Everything that is, is.
*
You would do well not to underestimate the power of that axiom.
Remember that in
the realm of thought, not to mention feeling, there exists
a much untapped area of existence... and
that all human endeavor is a product of one or both of
these normally overlooked fields.
0 Now let's see;
we have bastardized communication, a secret mediator and another cornerstone. Don't you
think that the possibility
of my following your conceptualization
becomes ever more remote with each added vague variable?
*
Bastardization is up to you to unravel, the time has come for the mediator and you'll receive
the cornerstone on the occasion
of our next meeting ..that is if you choose to come.
0 What do you mean, “It is time for the mediator”?
*
The Logos.. it’s time that you should be made aware.
0 What's The Logo?
*
Logos.
O So.
*
Don't say so. It happens to be the key I've
been telling you about.
0 Well, what's the meaning?
Don't tell me-- research time huh?
*
Its meaning cannot be
given. Research would be
my suggestion.
0 Is it really necessary to go through
all of this?
*
I'll let you be the judge of that.
0 What if
I don't feel like it?
*
Don't do it.
0 You don't care?
*
Whether or not I care is immaterial. You must do that which your instincts demand of you.
0 Part of me is interested
in this whole affair and part of me wants nothing to do with it.
*
I can only offer a piece of not wholly
original advice. If there is a
contradiction between your heart and
your mind, follow your mind for
a change. Just remember
that a healthy balance is the goal.
0 Nothing to add to that?
*
Nothing except that you have now been
given something of the utmost importance. What you choose to do with it is up to you.
At any rate, you now have more
than enough to keep you
occupied for quite some time.
0 It’s getting late. I'll let you
know before next week if I’ll be back.
iii
Immanuel
*
Did passing of an extra seven days prove illuminating?
0 Sorry about last week. I take it that you got my message.
*
Yes.
0 I've
done a lot of research.
*
Have you?
0 Yes...look…I needed more time to work
out some of the implications of these discussions
we've been having. That’s why I didn't show.
*
That's perfectly all right.
0 I don't know why I feel like I must apologize.
*
I
do.
0 Oh
really?
*
Yes.
0 Do you think you know everything?
*
No.
0 Just checking.
*
You had that feeling because
of another, both of which are really the same: guilt.
You've no need to
feel guilty. You’re experiencing what we all experience when we are
faced with a Bonafide improvement in our
outlook. That is until we come to the point of gaining control.
0 What
kind of control?
*
Control over our souls. There is an immature aspect within us that will
war against and attempt to subvert anything that threatens to lift our
attention above a simple mundane level.
0 Oh.
*
You must
realize that you are not expected
to accept any of what has been
presented to you unless you are compelled to do so of your own nature.
0 Yeah, that's
the impression you've given me all along. But anyway, I came to do
some more listening and to share what I found out about the Logos.
*
I'll give you a chance to share
your findings but first I must make good on a promise to relate to you the second feature of my irreducible foundation.
0 I've been waiting too
long for this... do go ahead.
*
I'm sure
you'll recall that the first part of what constitutes my philosophical primary
is that existence exists.
0 How could I forget.
*
Right.
To begin to understand the second
one must put oneself into the position, through a process of maturation and contemplation
of experience, whereby he may
realize that not only must existence
exist... but it must of its own
nature be non-contradictory
0 But contradictions exist everywhere.
*
They exist not outside
but inside humans and only when there is immaturity.
0 Wow! No wonder you saved this one until
now. My first reaction is to remind
you of how absurd this would be to any of the leaders of modern ideology. I'm not so sure that I can share your
enthusiasm for that statement.
*
Then neither shall you share in
happiness of a life based
on the only correct
understanding possible to man.
0 But you just
said that contradictions are actually
not present save in the hearts and minds of immature men.
*
That is my position
concerning contradictions.
0 No problem. I just wanted to make sure.
*
But the acceptance of a non-contradictory existence only becomes the path to my
second primary which is--that thought..... non-contradictory thought
is a valid means of
understanding existence.
0 Non-contradictory thought... now
why couldn't I have come up with that?
*
Thinking is the primary means of understanding and
communicating anything. If the world were
suddenly to lose everything which has been produced through non-contradictory
thinking, tell me what would remain.
0 Contradiction in the hearts and minds of immature men I suppose.
*
Not even that.
0 So what you're suggesting is a left-brained linear society devoid of all spontaneity.
*
We are living
in a world where men have, through lack of evolution, temporarily allowed their lives
to run amuck. Thought has been pushed into the
background to the extent of
distorting definition. And where
there is no definition there can be no understanding. Without understanding there can be no principle. Without
principle priorities become arbitrary products of limited thinking and
unlimited emotion.
To the extent that he removes himself from non-contradictory thought, an individual
will gradually begin to reap the bitterness that is associated with a range of
the moment mentality. The further this process continues the more certain he will become
that man is at the mercy of life and that through continual suffering he is
somehow fulfilling the requirements of
a curriculum in the school of life. He will live in misery,
not realizing that what he is experiencing is pain set in
motion by his own immaturity. Or he may find escapes in substances or activities, thus setting in
motion still greater pain for the future. This highly unproductive way of life is a product of and corresponds to the views of
current
modern philosophy,
which is a valuable and accurate
barometer in determining the evolutionary status of a society. If man is able to master life through consistent
thought and reap the benefits of success and happiness, where is the crime?
If through a definition that
eliminates contradiction, life
suddenly becomes 'linear'-- what does that mean? It means that we have been penalized by being branded with one of today's more popular catch words-- and
why? All because we have refused to latch on to a pre-
supposition
that is wholly
unjustified and completely speculative - -that
existence does not exist or
that it cannot be understood by man.
0 Keep going I think you're on a roll.
*
All that any of us can do
is the best we can with what
we have. Not doing anything, or
acting without principle, simply because there might exist more than we know
about, is a huge cop-out. If there is more out
there but we have no means of perceiving
it-- let alone defining it-- how are we supposed to be held accountable for it? Even if a
person were to develop some sort of clairvoyance
whereby, he was enabled to perceive more of existence than at present; it would still have to exist and be
non-contradictory if it were to have meaning.
Modern philosophy attempts to objurgate man’s responsibility to understand existence and lead a mature life by saying in effect:
that either existence is unknowable as it exists....
and or that thought is an invalid means of knowing anything, contradictory or otherwise. With regard to what you said about spontaneity... it must be determined at what point spontaneity becomes self-destruction. When life is directed by purpose
imbued with understanding; even our spontaneous gestures
will not, to any significant degree, come into conflict
with our higher goals. You see...
intuitions, gut reactions and
emotional responses, will most generally reflect the mental status of an individual. If he is immature in this aspect of his soul,
chances are that he will be immature
emotionally as well. The more
consistent a person’s thinking becomes, the more accurate his intuitions, gut
reactions and emotions will be. This
is not where fun ends, but where true enjoyment of life begins.
0 You actually
believe that everything can be explained
and understood by means of
eliminating
contradictions from our thought process,
while many facts
of life tend to prove
otherwise? You know that purposeful
ignorance of the facts, is a sure sign of dogmatism.
*
The statements and convictions which you
have expressed represent a world view which
I myself used to hold...
that is, until I
discovered that nature’s
greatest law in terms of our thinking and comprehension, is that of non-contradiction. Everything that exists has conformity to and exists through this law. Its application
in considering life gives us understanding and answers to
questions which would otherwise remain unanswered.
Such answers provide a
satisfaction and a profound emotional confirmation that can only
be known through experience. I firmly contend that this is the evolutionary leap of our time and
that through the consistent application of this law, coupled with an ever-developing
emotional life, no necessary question need go unanswered. The facts that you cite
as proof that
non-contradiction does not hold true for life in general are all a result of man’s failure
to understand and make use of the same.
Just because a majority of the population have
yet to discover and make use of non-contradictory thought, does not mean that
it is not the most accurate means of knowing
existence. Immaturity has resulted in the mess we see in the world today. And my definition of
immaturity in this case is the failure to think things through...the
unwillingness to be consistent. When men, because of immaturity, fail to act in a consistent
manner and an inconsistent society is the result; you cannot cite the lack of consistency in society as proof that non-contradictory thought doesn't work or that consistency doesn't exist in nature.
0 That's going to take some time.
*
It always does.
0 How did
you ever come up with that?
*
Desire.
0 I've found lately that the desire to know within me has been reawakened.
*
Speaking of knowledge, what did you discover about the
Logos?
0 Just as you had
said. It is the great unifying
principle in the universe. Logos is a
Greek word meaning the Word, or
thought. It is even used in the
Bible in the book of John and elsewhere, although John’s use seems to outshine the others. It seems to represent some sort of irreducible
primary of creation. Its Biblical
use has indisputably been understood to
refer to Christ, the Son of God, the mediator between man and God.
I might as well tell you that as a youth I was given extensive training in the scriptures
but somehow had never checked into the Greek root of the Word of God. So, of all of the possible meanings for
Logos, which one were you referring to?
*
All of them.
0 Well, that
is not possible.
*
Okay, one of them.
0 Well, which one is it now... all or one?
*
The extent
of the Logos is so profound
that it doesn't matter what terminology you decide on using. Its
fuller meaning can never be communicated until a person has matured to the point
where the meaning is already present
just below the level of his awareness.
0 Would I be correct to assume that your key that you call the Logos has something to do with the Bible?
*
Yes.
0 And that it also plays a part in
your philosophical system?
*
Yes.
0 Now you've got my attention.
* Good, see if you can keep it focused until next week.
0 I guess I have no choice.
16
iv
The Law
0 Through these
last few days I've been
getting a strange feeling that much
of what you're saying could be
correct and that's weird.
*
Is
it?
0 It’s just that
if you're correct then the whole of modern established philosophical,
psychological and sociological trends are not only incorrect,
but actually detrimental to everyone
who has been affected by them....and that is
nearly everyone. To think
that I have actually been apart of...
*
Don't be too hard on yourself. All of what we are going through mentally is just a process of moving forward in
our maturity of life. We all begin as children to parents that we look up to for
everything. To us they represent
society, truth and even God-- for they give to
us all that we need from a masculine and
feminine perspective in sustenance
for maintenance of our lives. Most of
us reach a point, however, where we
begin to see contradictions which we perceive to be faults manifesting
themselves in our parents.
Upon leaving home we may begin to discover
that our parents are actually not the holy institutions that we had, at
a younger age, believed them to be. We
may in fact see other people who are seemingly at least as good, if not better-- that is with at least
as few if not fewer contradictions-- than our parents. This process may be
illustrated by what can happen when a young man enters college. He will hear many views of life being
articulated in a way that his parents had never conceived
of. He will begin to have
serious doubts as to whether his parents knew
what they were talking about. Then a
change can take place wherein
parents lose their status of being
the final authority in their child’s
life; for he has now put his faith in
someone who sounds as if he knows much more about life
than do his parents. This new
authority may be an instructor, an author or even a religious leader ... it really makes no difference. Now here
we are at an important stage
in the person’s life. For he will continue on in these external authoritative leaders of the mind...
perhaps acquiring conversational ability on a multitude of subjects
but never being certain about the truth on any of
these... or he may realize that each and every authority that
he has ever listened to including his
parents--are just human beings themselves;
as he himself is a human being.
Moreover, he may grasp the
fact that it is not these outside authorities who must live and be
responsible for his life but he himself. When
these two ideas work together in the
proper manner, something of the
utmost significance will dawn on him. He will come to understand that he alone can be the final authority in his life and what lives
in his rational thought process can
be the mediator between existence and the truth. You see, the point of contact
between each one of us
and the divine lies not in external authorities, but within each one of us.
0 Divine point of contact?
Mediator? You seem to be attempting
to integrate some form of spiritual
doctrine into your philosophy.
*
Attempt is the wrong word. It has been accomplished. The sheer immensity of the Logos spreads into every
field and aspect of life. It should
be no surprise then to find
it in a philosophical system.
0 Will I ever know what you mean
by the Logos?
*
Part of you already knows.
0 What part is
that?
*
When you come into contact
with it you will know.
0 Where is it now?
|
* |
It’s in what is known as your subconscious
mind. |
|
0 |
What am I supposed to do in order
to find it? |
|
* |
Exactly what we've been
doing. |
|
0 |
You
mean talking? |
|
* |
No. |
|
0 |
Then what? |
|
* |
It
is time for you to leave. |
|
0 |
All right ... but
you'll be available next week--right? |
|
* |
Oh yes. |
V
And the Light Shone in the Darkness
0 How goes it?
*
The
same.
0 The same as what?
*
Always.
0 Must be nice.
*
It has its points.
0 So
do you.
*
Do I remind you of Mr. Spock?
0 As a matter of fact ... Hey I’ve got a question for you.
*
What is it?
0 If each one
of us were to become the final authority for our own lives, on each aspect
of life, wouldn't that require a tremendous amount of study?
*
Nothing near a prohibitive amount.
0 Why not?
*
Research is required. But it isn't
necessary to the extent of
making the acquirement of
truth impossible or even impractical. Most
conceptual systems that we can
encounter
will be correct - given their standpoint. By this I mean from what they will allow to enter their mind, they are drawing a
fairly non-contradictory conclusion.
It has been said that "Everyone is correct;
given their standpoint." This statement acknowledges the fact that man
will, given that he is willing to
think, naturally come to at least a semi non-contradictory view of however much of existence he is willing to accept. What would be
optimum in a truth-seeking procedure
would be to always be open to new ideas while
neither accepting or rejecting
but continually integrating in a non-contradictory fashion--in an attempt to form the biggest picture possible. But even given this-- a person will do well to begin at the beginning; that is, with
the very basics in truth... with an epistemology and general world view
wherein contradictions cannot enter.
0 I like that. Don't question the answers, question the questions.
*
Exactly.
0 I didn't
mean to interrupt. Go ahead.
*
Upon
solidifying the fundamentals
of a general non-contradictory world view, we are prepared to
tackle any of life's more specific questions.
In truth, no matter how complex an issue may seem, it will rarely exceed
in complexity the detailed concepts contained within the epistemological
foundation of the basic world view with which we've been dealing. In fact it is usually the lack of this
foundation in understanding that creates difficulties in 'ironing out' the
various issues of daily life. All views are the
result of very definite philosophical premises--it’s
just that people usually remain unconscious of
the latter. It can and should
happen that through the development
of a basic world outlook, an
individual will have conceptually experienced all the major ideological systems and become familiar with their
tenants. This is where the work is
done. This alone is an immense
undertaking and one which provides us with an invaluable head start. We can then begin to see beyond the
trivial aspects of an issue and get right down to the actuality of what is
presented. The whole matter then simply becomes a process of ascertaining what
is being presented from as many sides as possible
and developing an overview with the fewest contradictions possible.
0 You make it sound easy.
*
It
is.
0 Which kinds of things are most important to research?
*
Beyond a general world view it is up to the individual.
0 You've
referred to truth a lot. What do you mean
by truth?
*
Truth is the actuality of existence: Pure non-contradictory accuracy. The reality that each of us accepts
is at best an accurate
portion of this whole; the bigger the portion, the more truth in our possession. Our concepts are like models and tools
for comprehension and communication which
we continue to strive to improve upon.
.0 So in dealing with everyday
reality and in learning and understanding;
the Logos helps you?
*
Yes, without him ours
would be a sad lot.
0 You are referring
to Christ then.
*
Yes.
0 Why does your seemingly scientific method hinge on a
religious figure?
*
Christ has little to do with what we have in the form of religion today.
0 Why not?
*
Because he cannot
be explained without pointing to the error of the context
in which religion has tried to place
him.
0 What context would you
have place him in?
*
That of universal liberator of mankind...
0 Isn't that the same as what Orthodox
religion has done.
*
Yes.
0 So where's the difference?
*
They have not accepted
his proper significance.
0 What significance have they given to him?
*
One similar to that of Moses.
0 What do you mean?
*
They look at him as a leader
who has come with another
written code.
0 No they don't, because they say that in Christ the written codes become unnecessary.
*
What they say and what they do are two distinct things.
0 How so?
*
They say that the law of Moses
is finished, while replacing it with one of their own
which they try and fashion out of the New
Testament.
0 People need rules.
*
No,
they don't.
0 There appears to be a gap here somewhere between
our understanding. What is it?
*
It is the gap of not having experienced the full value
of the Logos.
0
Besides that, what can you tell me?
* Before,
I told you that without definition
there can be no principle. Religion is wrong in principle because they have failed to
define what Christ
is in our lives.
0 I'm not so sure that I'm ready for what you're going to come up with next.
*
You are
very near to being ready. Time is running short for today. I
would like for you to do something
during the coming week.
0 What's that?
*
I would
like for you to see if you
can, on your own, come up
with a non-contradictory definition of “Love”.
0 But love is
one of the most contradictory aspects of life.
*
There are no contradictions in actuality.
0 Right. Okay. I'll give it a shot.
VI
After the Law
0 Go to church
Sunday?
*
Worship is a continual
process. The way we live tells it all.
0 Just kidding.
*
Are you prepared?
0 For what?
*
To give me a proper
definition of love.
0 You gave me
a tough one. Remember what you told me about when there's a contradiction between your heart and your mind?
*
Yes.
0 Well I seem to have discovered what appears to be a chasm
between what we feel and what we think about love.
*
And?
0
Looking at the problems
that almost all relationships of “love”
seem to share, I came
up with some interesting
conclusions. I would define love as concern
for others. But this feeling of
concern so easily turns into meddling or the desire to possess and ultimately
destroy those at which it is directed. It
seems to begin as something with the
best intentions but then quickly dissolves
into a nightmare of anxiety, pain and
alienation. Has this been your observation?
*
Yes.
0 What do you make
of it?
*
There is something lacking in their understanding.
0 The Logos?
*
Yes.
0 What kind
of definition would be obtained
through what you call the Logos?
*
One without contradictions.
0 A mature understanding?
*
Precisely
0 Would you share
it with me?
*
Yes.
0 Well...
*
Not today. There are other aspects of what man has gained through the Word of God that should be considered. Besides, as near to a definition of love
as given through the Logos as you are, it would probably do much better to let
you continue.
0 When you say the "Word of God" do you refer to the scriptures or to the
Logos?
*
The immensity of the Logos encompasses the scriptures.
0 So the 'Word' is both? Is there anything
that the Logos isn't?
*
Yes.
0 What?
*
Contradiction.
0 My word.
*
And everyone else's.
0 You were right. I think that it is starting to get to me. It’s almost as if l can feel something growing within me. I must be
nearing either a breakthrough
or breakdown.
*
“Man know thyself”. This awareness must
also take into consideration the
emotional field. Monitoring our
feelings is of the utmost importance for anyone who wishes to comprehend human existence. As I touched on earlier,
I believe that all people have the truth no
matter how suppressed locked
within them. This is why
many times an intuition or an emotional response may be what works out to be a
non-contradictory truth--even
though the person
involved may not be aware of it on
a conscious level. Your feeling that
something is going on inside you is a
result of this process. When a person is able to understand his own
thinking, then he may also be
able to comprehend his emotions. Both
thinking and emotion are paths to a fuller
appreciation of life - but
of the two... it must be said that the entrance through thought affords the better,
more surely lit path. This is
something that cannot be communicated
by normal means but can only be understood by someone who has
advanced to a certain level of maturity.
0 Are you recommending that we disregard our feelings?
*
Nothing should be disregarded.
0 That would be limiting ourselves to only certain
portions of existence.
*
That it
would. But it is not the area of emotion
that is being neglected by modern philosophy. It has, to the contrary, elevated emotion to the level of that which should discriminate in our lives.
0 But that is the job of the Logos!
*
My you are getting close. But I would like to carry further your thought on limiting existence.
0 Don't let me hold you back.
*
The failure to consider any one part of
existence can certainly lead to an erroneous
view. This is due to the
non-contradictory nature of existence. Failing to take something of an
integral nature into consideration during any concept forming process can be
the failure to see that which would
compel us to arrive at a more correct outlook. A good example of what can
happen when our minds become closed to the opportunity of improving our beliefs
exists in what can be seen in countless ideological systems. Systems
wherein a healthy open mind is encouraged
only for the length of time required to accept as truth, that which the
system dictates. Here an extremely interesting and equally revealing
phenomenon can be seen. While the
concepts of the belief system
are connected in a fairly non-contradictory fashion--given the portion of existence they are
considering--those promulgating the belief system will become authorities for
those taking their lead by telling
them just how much of existence that they can consider in the application of non-contradictory thought. This will
precipitate a situation wherein the individual
is forced to 'screen-out' much... often huge portions of what is available and
26
should be considered;
accepting and limiting himself to consider
only that which poses no threat to what has already been
presented and accepted as truth. Here we can visualize a person’s mind
surrounded by a complex network of grids which function to filter
out any material which might shed some uncomfortable light on and thereby show the
inferiority of his life's prized truth.
This is the very process which marks all inferior systems ... the use of the mind up to a point, after which it becomes of little or in some cases no importance.
0 You know, if the mind were of as little importance as so many of those systems assign to it, how could they even
claim that what they believe is correct? I mean if the mind is good to tell them
that they have a viable view... then it
should also serve well to indicate truth in other areas. Individuals
who fall prey to this inconsistency
are really only using their mind to accept something which has been worked
out by the mind of another. And you know this is rarely done in a
detailed investigative manner--yes.............................................................................................................. that's
easy for me
to see --they're giving the responsibility for their beliefs to someone else.
*
Kind of like relying on a
Moses?
0 That's it! That's what you meant when you said that
religion was trying to make Christ into another Moses. The Israelites were
always bound to follow an external authority... one who had contact
with the divine. So, would you say that people who seem to
only want to be led by other men are the modern day counterpart of the ancient Israelites?
*
0
so?
That
is exactly what I have said.
Why, if it was proper for the Israelites to play follow
the mortal leader,
is it no longer
*
Because of the event
of the appearance of the Logos.
0 Are you assigning
some sort of evolutionary significance to the Logos?
*
Yes, the greatest
single leap that man has experienced.
27
0 Why is it that this has never been explained
in this context
by religion?
*
The major fault that can be found with religion
as we know it is that it fails to
translate the principles which are found in the scriptures into that which
can be directly identified and thereby utilized by modern man. For a large part you could just say that
it simply lacks definition. Religious
authorities tell us to follow the example of a savior,
but do not give us the important key to unlocking what this means on an individual day-to-day
level. That is why when it comes to Christians-- they must study the various deeds of Christ, trying to see how what he did in a
given situation might apply to them in
a modern setting. Once we have unraveled the meaning of the Logos all of this becomes child's play.
0 Anyone with an honest
view cannot deny that, for at least
a majority of its followers,
religion seems to fall short of providing a meaningful or truly satisfying
solution to the higher yearnings of man’s soul. Most people that I have met -
those who have gone through a religious experience that is--given
that they are of an aware
nature... have said that after a certain length of time they have found it
wanting.
*
That experience, if not already,
will soon become a proverb.
0 What makes you say that?
*
The fact that I
have experienced the fuller impact of
the event of the Logos.
0 I should have guessed as much. Religion has-- on the whole-- failed to
explain the Christ in his proper
context. This you say has resulted
in the contradictory mess
that can be witnessed today.
*
I wouldn't be so quick to lay all of the
blame on religion. What we can observe today
is a result of man’s spiritual
growing pains.
0 Where does this all
lead?
*
Right now to the end of this conversation, in the future possibly to the end of con-versation as we know it.
28
0 Well Spock?
*
Continue to develop
your definition of love.
0 You got it.
vii
Storing Up Treasures
*
How'd it tum out?
0 What is that?
*
Your week with
Love.
0 I was surprised with what I came up with,
but have no doubt of its accuracy.
*
What makes you
so certain?
0 Don't start that. If my definition is incorrect then that would be like saying that there is no gravity; the world
and our knowledge about it would be found to be in a pretty compromising position.
If it is incorrect then there are no means of knowing anything.
*
Why not?
0 Because it is based on a non-contradictory foundation. It
is also a fact that a person following my definition will not become
trapped by the snares that nearly all people experience in love. Joy and happiness will be the result
of a love understood in this light.
*
You're on.
0 I actually came up with two definitions: one
general and the other specific. That's because to me love in its proper
significance can mean at least two things. The first definition or type of love is to love in a general sense;
a love for mankind in general, or for existence as a whole. That is to have concern for or to care with the desire to see people and existence
attain to the highest level of advancement
possible. Once again, this is a
general form of love; one that can be had for everything, regardless of who,
what or where it may be in life. This does not mean that you would like to live
with or even continually be in the presence of one loved in this sense,
but simply have the desire to see them make progress.
So much for Love #1- the general one - let's get
into Love 2 the specific love. This second form of love involves knowing. The knowing of something and having a reverential respect or desire for it.... that is, to know something and to love its nature. This type of love promotes closeness, either emotional or
physical, to that which is loved. This
is the form that can be had in a marriage or in any relationship wherein people
are drawn close. Moreover, I can see
that these two forms of love must never contradict one another, allowing our desire of proximity to a loved one interfere with the best interests of that person’s personal
advancement. This means no
attachment. Feelings of possession or
jealousy must take second place to, or even be obliterated by, the
power of this definition.
*
Very good. You should
do well.
0 In what?
*
In application of the Word.
0 You liked my definition?
*
Yes. But to it should be added a few necessary corollary definitions to help smooth
out its proper application.
0 Go ahead.
*
Your making two definitions out of your understanding of love can be of great aid
in articulating what you have
experienced of this virtue. For now,
I would just like to say that
the more mature we become in the Logos,
the more that all such divisions tend to merge into one great overview
wherein contradiction is unknown. This
is not said in the way of a correction-- but rather as an indication of the implications of what you have discovered. To begin with in carrying further your
observations, I would like to amplify
of the meaning of what you called 'love
in a general sense'. This form of love in its
31
proper application necessitates the ability
to discern the true definition of at least two other things. First, we must come to understand
the meaning that the Logos gives to
us of the word care. Secondly, we must come
to grips with what it means to make
advancement. This
need becomes apparent in the
exercising of this general love,
where we find these two terms
continually impinging and inter depending upon one another. In the immature person there
will always exist a subconscious conflict between what seems to
be right at the moment, and what works out to be the best in the long run. Someone attempting to make
application of this first and more
general form of love must bear this in mind: that the conflict
between the range-of-the-moment and
the long-range interests of an
individual is essentially one between the heart and the mind. And seeing as how the whole pretext of this explanation is from
a non-contradictory point of view, we are going
to listen to the mind. Let us now consider
the meaning of care. It can be summed
up in this way: a certain
amount of wisdom is a necessary prerequisite to exercising proper caution while attempting to administer care or aid to an individual or group lest we
cater to their short-term
emotional needs while overlooking and perhaps hindering their long-term spiritual progress. That is why a
parent who understands this mature definition of love will not allow a
child to be over indulged in unruly
behavior--realizing that while he may
well seem happy while getting what he wants
at the moment; they would actually be allowing him to set up behavior patterns that will prove devastating as an adult.
For true happiness and discipline go hand in hand.
0 Are you suggesting that parents use corporeal punishment?
*
Only if its administration can be directed by love in the strictest
sense. Any spanking that is given in anger
undermines the whole purpose of
discipline-- which is to, by
enforcing a structured and consistent view of life, promote
those inner qualities which lead to long-term
happiness; thus giving true love. You see it is in those
earliest of years
32
that we form our
strongest and most basic feelings
about life and it is precisely
during that time when parents are most
obligated to enforce a non-contradictory development within their children. This is
also a time in which the full power of rational thought
formation has long yet to be developed. Like the wandering Israelite of old... children
up until a certain age need disciplinary non-contradiction enforced upon them in an external
manner. We must never be so short-sighted as to imagine that the momentary physical discomfort of corporeal
punishment would outweigh as a �negative
factor the lifelong emotional torment of not having been introduced-- even if from without-- to the Logos during those
critical formative years.
0 But you can't discipline
everybody. What about adults? How would
this love apply to them?
*
When we are dealing with adults
this rational view of love only
allows us to intercede in the subtlest
of ways, through example and counsel
... and the latter only when we are certain that the individual is ready. Telling someone too much too soon
--actually before they can possibly derive any value from it -- may well be doing them a disservice, by
causing them to prejudge that which they are unable to properly evaluate......................................................................................................... thus setting
a block in the way of progress. This general form of love, as mentioned
before, also necessitates in its application a comprehension of what it means to
make advancement. To know what would constitute progress in an individual
we would have to first be able to determine to a certain
extent the present status of the individual in
question. Do you see what I
mean about requiring wisdom? I fully
realize that many would consider
this an impossible and possibly unethical undertaking-- but at the risk of
being called unspontaneous-- I must say that they are prejudging that which at present they have no means of properly
evaluating due to their immaturity.
0 I guess that our views are as accurate
and detailed as we are willing to make them.
Do
you have anything to add that might further
my definition of “Specific Love” ?
*
What you will love in this way will
depend almost exclusively on what you value. What you value depends, in turn,
upon your understanding, your
principles and your priorities. In short--what you love specifically will depend upon your sense of life.
I can tell you what it is that
I admire most in someone-- the one
thing that when I see it in people, allows me to have a reverential respect and
desire for them--above say--another
. '
who is lacking this quality. It is none other than non-contradictory thought or the Logos.
To me these persons represent the divine; a glimpse of heaven on earth. They are
a well that never leaves you thirsting-- a fountain of the spirit that continually
refreshes. And do you want to know
what really excites me?
0 Sure.
*
The potential to become as one of these
exists within each and every one of
us. To love in these ways, to know
what people can be and yet to see them suffering and in turmoil -all the while knowing
that it is just this suffering that will eventually prod them
into change--a discomfort that they themselves have participated in setting into
motion... and again to see those
shining examples of what it means to be human and long to be in their presence,
yet knowing that they must be allowed
their freedom--to love in these ways brings much refinement to the
soul. This is a higher form
of love and one which I can view as consistent with existence. When you look
at immature love--that emotion which is so
prevalent today--along with its consequences
of attachment and jealousy or the emptiness of trying to help someone who can
and should help themselves... you
must out of honesty if nothing else, admit
that there is something lacking in
people’s lives. That something is the
power of the Logos.
0 So all we need to do is identify and make use of the Logos. This seems to be a
reoccurring theme. So,
in a nutshell, how can a person seeking to be non-contradictory apply general love?
*
Personally, I would go about loving everyone that I meet by making an effort to get them to think on their own,
with the conviction that all they will need to begin advancement is already within them... stored away in that part of their soul
which allows no contradiction.
. 0 Given that communication has been bastardized,
do you feel that you've been able to communicate your ideas to me?
*
The ideas are being communicated... but it is not I nor our contemporary language which is responsible for the communique.
0 What then? No…don't tell me…I can guess.
*
What I want you to think about for the
next time that we get together is the human condition. That is; what are
our fields of operation, and how are our lives dependent upon them? Specifically... what lies within our consciousness and how are our
actions a product of the same?
0 You mean... what is existence as we can discover it?
*
Yes. This will lend toward what we need to
enter into next on our odyssey
through the soul.
0 I'll give it my best.
viii
The Dividing of Soul and
Spirit.
0 Before we begin to consider my assignment, could I ask you a question?
*
Okay Sure.
0 Why is it that
every time we get to the subject
of Christ, you invariably will use only the term Logos to refer to him? This may not be in line with our subject,
but it has been on my mind a lot this past week.
*
The reason for its preferential use
is that it denotes, in a way
much more conducive to modern man, what is meant in the appearance and activity
of the Christ. Christ means 'the
anointed one' and is usually taken to mean savior. The Logos is much more
specific, while at the same time infinitely broader in meaning. This is
not a contradiction. Another
reason is that
there have been so many preconceptions as to
what is meant when Christ is referred to-- preconceptions which can work against a proper understanding of what he is to modern day man. The terms “spiritual
messiah” and “spiritual leader” are oxymorons. Reference to the Logos,
on the other hand, is not weighted
down by such prior understandings, and
can easily be considered with an open mind. The quest for the significance of the Logos brings us right down
into the very soul of man, to his true savior, which can be located, developed
and utilized................. leading
man out of the world.
0 Sounds heavy.
*
It’s light, with an easy yoke.
0 Does your system give new meanings
to what is found in the scriptures?
*
The system is not
mine and the meanings unlocked by it are anything but new-- but may very well seem
new to us upon their discovery. Now
to your discovery.
0 Existence-- as it is confronted by man-- includes
thoughts, feelings -including
emotions
- instincts, intuitions and all sensory perceptions...and oh yes, will.
' . '
*
How did you amass
such a complete agenda?
0 Research. I went to the library
and did a little reading.
*
Well now then, how are these connected to human activity?
0 From what I
can gather it seems as if man, upon having a
sensory or 'outer' perception, will
receive a thought-- a feeling-- or
one of the other 'inner' perceptions which I have mentioned which will act to motivate his will and him into action. Where
this whole thing gets interesting is in the fact that a sensory perception may call
forth any number of inner perceptions in
the way of thoughts or feelings from which an individual may choose. In the
face of danger some will remain calm
while most will experience fear, an emotion, followed by thoughts connected with it. Or when a person is insulted by another,
he may go virtually unaffected or may react with anger or embarrassment. What occurred to me is that
every moment of our lives we are surrounded
by or bombarded by
sensory perceptions. And whether these work toward happiness,
peace and joy on the one
hand... or sadness, fear and despair on the other, depends largely upon what goes on inside us. It’s like I've heard before: “Everything is attitude”.
*
You've made an excellent observation.
0 There seems to be all manner
of preset determining thoughts and feelings
that can
come into
play in this process. A person who has strong beliefs along a
certain line will see events in
the outer world as fitting
into those beliefs. Some seem to simply react to each different situation,
with no apparent guiding factor other than what their feelings dictate at the moment.
What you have called on so many occasions the key to understanding existence
must, to my way of thinking, have its activity within this process of
cognition. What is needed to discover
the meaning of the Logos?
*
Desire... and awareness.
0 Why is it that you are always so cryptic?
*
Not always. Only when it would be detrimental
to be otherwise. You have everything necessary to find what you need. For me to blurt out some words in an attempt to explain
that which must be experienced in order to be understood
would be of no help to either of us.
0 You do feel that
I am essentially correct in what I have described
up until this point.
*
Yes.
0 Isn't
there anything that you can add? Perhaps some examples to further illuminate how it is that the
Logos can come into play in the process of cognition?
*
You have already done well. What must be infused into this process is
non-contradiction. If for instance an
acquaintance or even a stranger makes an attempt to insult us - using your example - we must realize
that it is we ourselves who are in a position to scrutinize our lives. It
is we alone who possess the insight to see into our motivation for any given
action. Further, we must understand
that any such disparaging remark can in no way affect or alter our intrinsic
worth. Such statements as made by
others can and should; only be considered
as a means of gaining
information. In life our
sensory perceptions - our
environment if you will - will
constantly be in a mode of change. For
many this means that their internal perceptions will shuck and jive--following
suit with their surroundings. Thus,
we have life's ups and downs.
0 And you do not believe
that these ups and downs are an irrevocable aspect of life?
*
They most certainly are not. We define ourselves
by our choices in terms of reaction.
0 Do you view emotional swings as a contradiction?
*
I view nothing as a contradiction. It all depends
upon your standpoint.
0 And where
are you standing?
*
At this point that
would be irrelevant.
0 Okay then, where does this discussion lead us?
*
Into the human soul.
0 Define
soul.
*
Everything that we are which would be considered as existing on the interior of our being is our soul. This
includes thoughts, feelings and will, along with the various nuances of each.
The soul also contains the self--that individuality within each of us which is not addressed by, but addresses, all other aspects of our awareness. The self is the ego, the 'I'. It is the self that
controls, or is controlled by, its
environment. From this, can you create an order
of importance which these soul qualities
should take in the eyes of man?
0 The ego must be first. Without
the self there would be no consciousness. No wait-
thought would
precede even ego, for although thought may be dependent upon consciousness, understanding--which is the prime thing- is dependent upon thought................................................................................................................... and
correct
understanding upon non-contradictory thought. Non-contradictory thought must take precedence over all as far as order of importance goes. Left then, would be ego,
feeling and will. Thought enlightens
us to the order in which these should
follow. Ego would be of next
importance, it seemingly being the
entrance through which thought gains access to the soul. Will is a force called
into play by our thoughts................................................................................................................ and
of our
feelings
as well. For we never
see an act of volition
which has not been
preceded by
either a
thought, a feeling, or both. Since feeling would have to come after thought and as we have seen, precedes will-- it would be up next for
candidate in order of importance.
This leaves only will
which comes finally, not as a determinant but, as the power
to complete that which has been determined.
*
Although it’s a little rough around the edges,
your perceptiveness is remarkable.
0 You like that huh?
*
It gives me a good feeling.
0 What kind of feeling?
*
Joy.
0 Over what?
*
Truth...
0 I have truth?
*
You can make it your possession, but you must remember that it has
originated with the Logos.
0 I think that if l hear that word again before I know what it means I’ll go crazy.
*
You already know what it means.
0 Do you
mean non-contradictory thought?
*
Yes...
0 But
there has to be more.
*
There will always
be more.
0 Then how
can we experience satisfaction?
*
By growth. By being self-conscious of and
able to choose the path which
we shall take toward progress.
0 Do you mean that there is a way of spiritual
progress which allows us to be aware
of
what we are doing--
to actually comprehend each and every step we take even as it is
being taken?
*
If there weren't
could there be any satisfaction in learning?
0 I don' t know.
*
You've been through a lot. If you'd like to have an idea to examine in my absence,
there
is one which would be appropriate.
0 All right. I'm game.
*
I would like
for you to examine some of the seeming contradictions in the world and
see if they can be seen from a non-contradictory standpoint.
0 That's it? What will that accomplish?
*
It is
just another in what has been a continuing series of exercises designed
to reacquaint your ego with the underlying principle of existence. There will
be a point at which you will be overwhelmed by the sheer immensity
of what this implies. This point
is not long in its arrival from where you now stand.
0 What will I experience?
*
0
it?
A truth which is utterly self-evident.
If it is self-evident, then why hasn't a majority of the population already discovered
*
Because of awareness and desire. First, we must have a keen desire to know existence. Secondly, we must be aware of
more sides of existence
in order to form an accurate
picture of it.
0 So people
lack sufficient desire and are only
partially aware?
*
Yup. How many theoreticians have you known
who are acutely aware of their ideas, but insufficiently alert to
that part of existence which lies outside of those ideas?
They will lack in practical ability because their ideas
do not have an accurate, non-contradictory counterpart in existence. There are also those and we see them from
time to time--who have much experience in a certain
field--but have not developed a mastery of it due to being unaware of the conceptual
aspects of the activity that are found in existence.
0 Strong desire,
coupled with an awareness of the mental and emotional
fields as well
as physical existence, will--when seen from a non-contradictory vantage point-- lead man
to the meaning of the Word.
*
Flawless.
O See ya.
ix
The Two-Edged Sword
0 I've made an observation about one of my inner perceptions.
*
That is good.
0 What is good? I haven't
even told you what I've observed.
*
Your awareness which lead to what you've
found is good. Remember, without
awareness of your inner faculties your
observation would have been impossible. Since
this awareness is not automatic,
but must come as an act of will, your cognitive faculty is making
some positive progress. It is being influenced
by your ego. This is good
indeed.
0 Ego. Another concept to be added to the already weighty list of ideas that I've been introduced to through you. Is
this going to play a heavy role in our further discussions?
*
You could say that.
0 Why do you say could?
*
Because it would be more accurate to state that the ego has been the topic
of
communication from the beginning.
0 Are
you saying that your Logos and man’s ego are the same thing?
*
The Logos does encompass such a vast amount
of significance...but a more
complete definition of both ego and Logos would be necessary in order to determine
to what extent their meanings are interchangeable.
0 Well, can't you define them for me?
*
I can but I will not.
0 Up to me then, huh? Well then drop it.
*
Doesn't it seem to be a contradiction-- my wanting nothing better than to
communicate what I know, but not even giving
you so much as the proper definition of the one thing which
is the axis axiom of the whole message?
0 Well yes it does. Hey wait, you son of a gun! That brings up what
we were supposed to
go over today.
*
Oh?
0 Don't pretend
that you weren't aware. Seeming
contradictions. That was my
assignment for this week.
*
What did you discover?
0 Well first I
wanted to tell you about that inner perception that I have observed. I seem to be getting
a feeling of accomplishment from
all of this ... you know... our little voyage through the sea of
understanding.
*
That
is good. But understanding would be better
likened to something other
than the sea.
0 Like what?
*
The atmosphere...
0 Okay Spock, have it your way.
*
Let's have
your findings on contradictory versus non-contradictory standpoints.
0 Well, I discovered that where there are seeming
contradictions, it is always
the
persons viewing them
who determine whether or not something is contradictory... and
if in their eyes it is, then they must be presupposing something which is unverifiable --perhaps even unjustified.
44
*
Example?
0 Well say
someone has a child who is born challenged-- either mentally or physically.
They may feel that this is unfair…a contradiction. Something which they received but did not
deserve. Here they would be presupposing that having such a child was not in fact a blessing but rather a
curse. In the case of the child whose has developed with a handicap concerning his bodily organism the same is also true. It must
be decided if this is unfair, undeserved and a contradiction-- or whether it can be seen as
completely in line with a
non-contradictory outlook.
*
How could something like a congenital defect
be considered in anything but an unfair light?
0
Simply by ceasing to presume that it
is unfair. There is a scientific reason for it. You just don't know…so why
presume that life is unfair? The thing is this:
either contradictions exist or they
don't. And there must be,
if non-contradiction is the underlying principle of existence, a way of rising to a view that demonstrates the profound
wisdom inherent in all such seeming contradictions.
*
But doesn't that seem like kind of a cold way to look at things?
0 I'm sure that that is exactly the way it would
seem to some people. But they must determine what it is that
gives them the authority to hold existence as contradictory. Oh my God I'm
beginning to sound like you.
*
Are you finding
something attractive with this way of looking at existence?
0 It has a definite appeal to my ego. It forces
me to realize that much of what happens to me in life is largely my responsibility to accept due to my having participated in its
creation. And also that my future is in my hands to a large extent. I cannot completely
blame others including God for my lot in life but must depend much upon myself. A non- contradictory
world view places man more in control of his own destiny.
*
Are there any more examples
that you can use to explain this?
0 I kept thinking
about love. Most relationships that I have seen are far from
ideal. In most cases a similar
procedure takes place. Due to lack
of all-out emotional stability, one or the other of a couple will allow detrimental feelings to control them from
their subconscious. I say subconscious because
neither party is usually aware of what is going
on... just that it is painful. It is a seeming contradiction that the
one we love so dearly could cause us to
feel so badly-- at first from
time to time and later on continually, until
something gives.
*
Do continue.
0 Okay. What actually takes place, from a non-contradictory view,
is that someone will unconsciously and, due to their immaturity, allow
negative feelings to control
their actions. The contradictory nature of the actions of a loved one will often cause a person to feel that they must somehow be responsible. This feeling-- that we are responsible
for the negativity of others--
is one which is inconsistent with a
non-contradictory view, and which
supports a grave misconception in
those who are originating the negativity. The misconception I speak of here seems to me to be at the
heart of so many deteriorating relationships
that it could be argued to be the single most detrimental factor in close human relationships.
*
Are you going to keep me waiting?
0 No, I'm just not sure about why what I have observed takes
place. I just know that it
does.
*
Well...
0 Well what I see and what seems to be an integral
part of all emotional
animosity is
that the person
who is experiencing a negative feeling will generally assume that there is
a rational justification for them having
it. Moreover, they will attempt to assign the responsibility
for their feeling to something outside of themselves. This is the illusion that we
all create when we default in
the activity of mature living. Rather
than realizing that the emotion has originated
within our own soul, allowing us to take responsibility for it, we simply see it as coming at us from the outside-- whether
it be from a person, place or thing.
And here is where this fits into what I'm saying about relationships of love. Not only does the passive party begin to feel
that it is their fault-- but the one who
is actively belligerent will find in
their lover the perfect cause for their otherwise unexplained feelings.
*
Well done.
0 But there's more.
*
A
solution?
0 The Logos special
non-contradictory home remedy.
*
Good.
0 The answer is
so very simple. Desire and awareness. A couple must have a keen desire to eliminate unnecessary pain from their relationship. If this desire is present in the proper manner,
it will seek out awareness to
keep it alert to what is going on. Awareness
is so key to getting over this biggest hurdle facing happiness-- in a marriage type or any other relationship
where people are involved. We must
become aware of our feelings and how they operate. Once this has been accomplished, we will not be prone to fall into the
subconscious trap that I have described. Upon noticing a negative feeling, we will attempt to discover its cause.
Not by trying to see how that something exterior to ourselves has caused
it, but rather by putting our own ego in control--
monitoring our inner perceptions and making sense of them in a
non-contradictory fashion. We will
come to fully realize
that our happiness is greatly a product of our own inner activity depending less upon external props.
* How would a person use this knowledge to the advantage
of happiness?
0 By
communicating the feeling to others. If
he is unable to rid himself of an unproductive feeling it will be
of great aid to discuss
what he is experiencing with another person, especially
if the other person is a loved one. All negativity can be
diffused this way. A couple
will, through conquering the multitude of lower. emotions, have actually made
great progress in comprehending life.
* Do you really believe
that this is possible?
0 I have seen
it. I know a couple who've been
married for over ten years and have
used the very same method of awareness and communication to stride easily over
the obstacles which have become the undoing of
countless relationships. But you know,
it wasn't until this last week that I fully understood why what they were doing worked so well. I kind of thought
that they just had a good thing going but did not connect their success to
practice of non-contradiction. And
that's funny, since they've told me on several occasions how they work it. It just didn't get through.
* And now you know why.
0 Yes. I had not gone through the necessary
contemplation of how relationships either succeed or fail. How could I...without some sort of standard
to determine success or failure? Happiness
would be success but then that leads to the requirements for happiness.
If all
of these requirements were tallied and reviewed, the key would still be the same--
non-contradiction: what you refer to as the Logos.
* Why don't we see more people using the principles which you have described?
0 I've wondered a
lot about that. It just
comes down to your definition of maturity. Some of us got it and some of us don't. The ones who are mature
and successful will
have no doubt of their
methods and accomplishments. Unsuccessful
onlookers will rarely be in the
position to allow themselves to comprehend these
accomplishments but will look for mundane explanations where there is super
mundane achievement.
*
Your respect for the Logos is growing.
0 What’s next?
*
Do not wonder.
0 Why not?
*
Have I
disappointed you yet?
0 No.
*
Have I ever told you something before I was ready to?
0 No.
*
Curiosity.
0 What about it?
*
Do not allow it to create a contradiction within you.
0 How could it?
*
By causing you to desire to know more or to have more knowledge than you can grasp.
0 The chalice must be made ready?
*
And we should not put new wine into old wineskins.
0 Then what should motivate my quest to learn?
*
The desire to serve the eternal cause of truth and knowledge.
0 What's in it for me?
*
The only positive
actuality that you will ever eventually obtain.
0 What does that mean?
*
Simply that truth will always be there
to confront us whether we try to hide from, fail
to accept or impatiently attempt to use it to satisfy our idle curiosities. The truth will not go away. We should work to prepare ourselves for an
ever-expanding comprehension of it.
0 So curiosity is out. Commitment is in..... I can have
it now or later.
*
Or never.
0 What!? Don't we all have to face up to the truth sooner or later?
*
In order for truth to become
yours, you must make it so. We
may also face the truth.
But being forced to face something
and actually possessing it are two distinct things.
0 How does a person go about making truth his possession?
*
You ought to know the answer to that one.
0 Think so?
*
Sure.
0 Why don't you just tell me?
*
Because I would like for that knowledge to become your possession.
0 The lesson of possession to be continued
next session.
*
That is not the only point
to be
covered.
0 What is the other?
*
It is time for
you to begin to come to terms with
the phrase bastardization as it
applies to modern understanding.
0 Okay. I'm not sure of what I'll come up with.
*
You might be surprised.
X
Father Knows Best
0 During the week I, more
or less, got your drift on what you
said about curiosity versus dedication to the truth and making truth our
possession.
*
And?
0 Well, I caught myself tending to be a
little cynical toward everything that
I've learned through talking with you. It’s a good thing that I'm aware
and caught myself... because being
cynical is not the answer to anything.
*
Catching yourself in a negative
state is haphazard awareness.
0 Oh yeah? Why?
*
A fuller
awareness would have allowed you to meet with the dragons' breath at
the threshold of your soul and dispense with it there--thus
circumventing the release of darkness within your soul.
0 Nipping negativity
in the bud.
*
Yes.
0 But dragons'
breath? Threshold of the soul? Why cloud the facts with all that abstract vocabulary?
*
It helps
to, in the debastardization process, communicate what may
otherwise go uncommunicated.
0 I see.
*
Not really. But let's not drift too
far from the topic of gaining possession of truth.
0 Right. It is something that can only be done by the individual. It’s an experience which is indisputably real and which cannot be.... communicated, I guess. Non-contradiction, when used to define or
identify an aspect of life, seems to enable us to make the vital connection. This is the connection
between subject and proper
predicate.
Every time that I, because of taking
into consideration an aspect of existence of which I
was formerly unaware, am able to apply this principle to something new, the conceptual
products derived therein
will have become
fused with my soul. In this way they become my possession. I really
doubt that this can be understood before
it has been experienced.
*
It
cannot.
0 Then knowledge cannot be given from man to man.
*
It never has. Not in the usual manner of communication.
0 Then how?
*
By aiding them to experience truth.
0 But then they must do all the work.
*
That's the Logos for you. Would you have it any other
way?
0 Well, what would be the implications of free knowledge?
*
At this time, it would cause a gross devaluation of the truth.
Man is not ready to
value that which he has not worked for.
0 Sounds like Capitalism.
*
It
should.
0 Oh no... not political non-contradiction.
*
Why
not?
0 Well-- I guess it’s like you said; the Logos
in its immensity, takes on all aspects of
human activity.
*
That
would be a great exercise
in practical application of the Word.
0 What would?
*
A discussion on the philosophy of political activity.
0 When could we do that?
*
At some future time. Now how about Bastardization?
0 A very interesting concept.
*
A very pregnant
idea.
0 Yeah. I recall that on one of our first meetings
you indicated that a complete
understanding of what bastardization, when used in reference to communication, implies; can bring us to the heart of
truth as it can be known by man.
*
Good memory.
0 That's one of my natural assets, always has been.
*
So what do you make of
it?
0 Memory or bastardization?
*
The former combined
with non-contradiction and applied to the latter.
0 I feel a little
nervous. What I arrived at may seem a bit
abstract.
*
Tum about is fair play. Don't be anxious.
0 It's just that I had such a profound emotional
confirmation when it all came together.
I shudder to think about the possibility of being
wrong.
*
Try not
to lose your sense of enjoyment.
Anxiety is not a prerequisite to learning. Let's have it.
0 Okay right. To be bastardized would mean to become, through some agency, a bastard. A bastard, as far as I can tell, is a fatherless child. To become a bastard would require having
once not qualified as such. Applying this as symbology to the realm of cognition would necessitate making
the proper connection between the symbols
of father and child and what would
correspond, in a conceptual way, to them in
this process of understanding. Stop me if I’m blowing it.
*
To the contrary. Quite to the contrary.
0 You have continued to indicate that our language, the vehicle for our communication, has lost its significance. Could this mean that our language could be the son which has
been bastardized through the removal of meaning which is its father?
*
From the mouths of babes.
0 No corrections?
*
Where could any apply?
0 Is that why
my feelings were so strong?
*
Yes. But there is still more to the analogy.
0 In what direction?
*
Something else is necessary in order to have a child, bastardized or otherwise.
0 A mother?
*
Precisely.
0 Okay right.... mother; the feminine aspect of existence.
*
Think in Latin.
0 Mater. Matter---
Holy Mother Earth. Matter is the
physical side of creation. Father is the spiritual
side and “the Word” is the son. Have
you been trying to say that our language has become too
material in what it is able to convey?
*
To a 'T'.
0 Wait a minute. I've got to absorb the impact of all of this.
*
Let's go, five minutes is enough for now, it's time
to move on.
0 What? Oh....huh? Five
minutes? What are you talking about? It really has been five minutes.
I just experienced one of those
time warps. I Wouldn't have guessed it to have been more than thirty
seconds.
*
You'll get accustomed
to the experience.
0 What does it mean?
*
It's just the
opening of a door to a little
more of existence. The Logos is still valid.
0 Fascinating.
*
Now look who is sounding
like Spock.
0 Why do you keep mentioning him?
*
Don't worry. There is reason.
There is meaning... and you will no doubt discover them.
0 Don't tell me... it’s in my subconscious.
*
You've got it.
0 Why so much preoccupation with the subconscious?
*
The value of becoming aware of subconscious
feelings you well know. But do you know how that area... which lies just below our awareness relates to our
spiritual progress?
0 The more
of existence that we come into contact with or become aware of and apply
the Logos to, the greater our
understanding--which according to the scriptures,
is of prime importance.
*
Not bad.
0 Do you have anything to add?
*
Nothing really to add. Just a different way of expressing the same thing.
0 Shoot.
*
All spiritual
progress is a matter and becomes a process of taking that which is
subconscious and bringing it to a conscious level.
0 We must be aware. Man, know thyself.
*
Amen.
0 But how much could possibly exist in the subconscious?
*
More than you can experience in a lifetime. And each new experience sheds more
light on existence.
0 Could a person actually
discover the meaning and purpose of life by this method?
*
It is best not to speculate. Remember-- the truth is unchanged by
speculation and we should concentrate on what we are learning at present... which in your case is something really great indeed. In this way the future will take care of itself.
0 How so?
*
This is not a “live for today”
admonition. Rather, by securing what
our non-contradictory foundation has enabled
us to arrive at for the
present, we'll be forming a base for future discoveries. The strength of our structure of this base will determine the weight of that which may be added to it.
0 I guess you’re right. There's a lot that
I have come across which definitely
deserves more contemplation. I guess
that the more that we are willing to apply
open minded contemplation, the less chance there is for us to fall prey to
contradiction.
*
Of course.
0 Did you have something planned for our next visit?
*
No.
0 What do you mean? You always have something planned.
*
I seldom have.
0 What!?
*
Why try to pre-determine where the Spirit will lead us during any one conversation?
The end result will be the same. I only
attempt to look ahead from where we are now, to another foothold in the proper
direction.
0 I could have sworn
that this was all some sort of
outline.
*
It is... but not one of my
design. I would prefer to let the light of the Logos shine upon those aspects of the path which are most
beneficial--given what we have to
work with-- to both of us.
0 You are learning?
*
Always.
0 What have you learned
from our meetings?
*
Conceptually, not a thing.
0 Then how have you
learned?
*
Some of ·my past discoveries have been reconfirmed.
0 For instance.
*
The similarity of each one of us in our soul aspects
for one.
0 How are we similar?
*
We all seem to
go through much the same process
when the Logos is beginning to be aroused in us through
exercises in the Spirit.
0 I feel that there
is something else that you would like to relate
to me.
*
Oh, there is. You need to be given just a
hint of the overall magnitude of what you have been learning.
0 Don't let me interfere.
*
Not now, for we have come to the topic
of our next discussion. See how this happens?
0 I guess.
What am I supposed to think about during this next week?
*
I'll let you
decide.
0 But what? No specific
assignment?
*
I just gave it to you.
0 Oh,
I get it... if it is to be it is up to me.
*
It is good to see that you understand. Also, I will attempt to elucidate some of the
profundity surrounding the mystery of the Word incarnate within
man.
xi
The Mystery of God’s
Word
0 Ready?
*
Usually.
0 Not always?
*
We all have our goals.
0 Would you like to hear what topic I came up with?
*
Of course.
0 Modern philosophy.
*
Wonderful.
0 You see I...
*
But first I would like to say something about man’s spiritual
evolution.
0 Okay.
*
To begin with it should be recognized
that man continues to evolve; to move forward and this is the case
in a spiritual sense infinitely more so than in his physical apparatus. Within
the scriptures of the holy books of
the world, we find great testimony
and much documentation of that fact. So, what is it that evolves? It is none other than those qualities which comprise the various aspects of the human soul. These we have delineated
in a prior discussion to be ego, thought, feeling and will--will being the most difficult of the four to apprehend,
ego being experienced by thought,
thought experienced by itself and feeling simply felt by the soul. This of course could
be stated with far greater
accuracy, but not without leading us a bit far afield in the topic of our discussion.
Let us begin with man as
we are told he was in the beginning using the Bible as a guide. Man began as a sinless being. There
was nothing within his soul that could be termed
'ungodly'. Actually, the possibility
of error was not present. Then came what
is known as the “fall”. Something
which has since come to be known as the Luciferic influence
entered into the soul of man. With this
new addition came the possibility of sin and error. Likewise, was made possible a
prospect for even greater perfection through the overcoming of this new
influence. Simply stated man had now
the free choice between good and
evil, with the latter acting as a
weight or hindrance to man’s working out of the former. Here we must make note of a very important point: without
opposition there can be no strength.
It is through the overcoming of opposition that strength is gained. To be clear
about what actually happened at the time of this entering in of the Luciferic influence, we must
understand exactly what was its sphere
of influence in relation to
man’s soul. In other words where did this
possibility enter in? Was it among man’s
thoughts, his feelings, his will...? This question can be more precisely formulated once we retrace, in reverse sequence, the
steps which precede a sin or any other action of the will of man. Man does
not act or use his freedom of action without first having generated a will impulse. Action, whether good or bad, is dependent upon will--
even though man is under normal circumstances highly unconscious of this inner
activity. Now we are getting closer
to the initial cause. If activity is
dependent upon will, then what is will
dependent on? It is none other than desire--desire which may or may not be further dependent upon something else. Desire and will alone are sufficient for action. For more complex activity a desire may enlist the aid of thought in carrying
out an act of volition, but this is not the point. The point is, however, that
will is dependent upon
feeling or desire and that it is precisely
here that the Luciferic influence entered
into the soul of man. If this is the
case, then what was the exact mode of
the operation of this influence? --You may ask.
Man at that time began to have desires which went against the
non-contradictory nature of existence. Within his soul countless desires could be
encountered-- but he lacked the means
of discriminating between those which were good or non-contradictory, and those which were evil or in contradiction
to existence. Man ran amok and reaped the full reward for his inharmonious
action. Then came the Prophets and the Law which in turn continually pointed
toward the coming of a savior
to help man overcome the Luciferic desires, which had become such
a hindrance to his well-being.
People were admonished, in fact commanded, to
keep to their group whose contact with non-contradiction was through a Prophet--a spiritual leader. Through
these Prophets came the Priests
and the Law... a written code which
detailed nearly every aspect of life. Good was
to be found only in the group... in the individual only evil. The name of God, the 'I AM', was
forbidden as an utterance to the common man. In all of this there seemed to be something lacking, man did not have within him the means to overcome the Luciferic desire impulse. All that
was done in the way of the Prophets, and the Law can be seen as an external measure to guide mankind until
such a time as he would--with the aid
of the Savior, be able to
guide himself in the area of
non-contradiction. Such external
means of controlling the activity of man was destined, due to its very nature,
to fail to achieve any kind of true consistent results.
This is so because it failed to be able to address the true cause of contradiction within man-- they were unable to change or
sufficiently influence man’s desire. Now
we have arrived at a very
important juncture in our
consideration of man’s spiritual progress. Here
we must ask ourselves: What was it
that man was actually lacking at that time which, when added to his soul
nature, would have enabled him to discern the thoughts and intentions of
the heart? What is it that is able to
define our feelings?
0 Thought!
*
What type of thought is it that
gives us the principle by which we can
prioritize our feelings?
0 That which is non-contradictory.
*
That's
it. That is exactly what man had been lacking up until
something happened which entirely changed the course of human evolution.
0 So what you're saying
is that what Christ brought
man is common sense.
*
He is common sense. And infinitely
more. The aspect of him which relates to our
soul nature is non-contradictory thought, which can influence our desires in order to
create non-contradictory feeling,
which can go a long way in establishing a non-contradictory
physical bodily nature.
0 That's why we no longer have to follow a written
code. With the advent of the faculty of common
sense, man has gained the ability to be in touch with truth at any given moment-- given that he is
willing to do so.
*
Man has
been united with existence by being
given the Logos and the comforter sent by the same, the
spirit of common sense.
0 But if the Logos
is the universal principle
of the creation and his spirit
is of common sense then why is it that it seems to be so uncommon
today?
*
We must remember that what man has in
him of Christ begins as in seed form and may lay dormant for long periods of time. The
expression common
sense refers not to the fact that it is manifest as highly developed in all people in an
active way, but rather that it is the
common denominator in man--the one thing which all men should hold in common. Whereas our own personal sentiments tend
to lend toward only that which pertains to ourselves, we find within our rational
thought process that which enables man to transcend his individuality and unite
with the great universality of non-contradiction.
0 So the Logos is individual yet universal... the supreme
paradox.
*
If you will permit me to
continue...
0 Do go ahead.
*
A correct understanding of the strategies involved between those forces which--on
the one hand, represent all that has promoted what is Luciferic in its influence upon mankind; and those which,
on the other hand lead man above this influence: can do much to explain the
currents of human activity--in the past
as well as in the present.
0 Strategy?
*
Yes. Without getting into the causes
which produced it, we will begin
with the Luciferic influence setting itself up
with its sphere of activity within man’s feelings. Man at that time had not the means at his disposal to combat the urges
whose fulfillment lead to actions
which are in contradiction to existence. At most he could be aware of the difference in the way varying desires appeared to his feelings. In other
words, a wrong desire would, if he was aware enough to perceive it, bring with
it a feeling peculiar to its
wrongness. This may appear to be
clumsily stated but we should realize
that man at that time was not
constituted in his soul as he is today.
He had yet to receive that
which was to give him a clear and
certain discrimination between what is right and what is wrong. This
being the case, man needed external guidance. This was made available by means
of the Law and the Prophets. Now-- and here is something
we should keep in mind-- at that time the major thrust of the Luciferic strategy was to get men to
break away from the group which whose leader had a mediated contact with the divine. Civilization and truth came through those inspired individuals
who were advanced enough to determine
between good and evil. Only by strict
adherence to the written
code produced by the same, could man live without contradiction. So, we see that
which was Luciferic tending to lead
away from the group in order that its
desires could be brought to fulfillment
in a state of utter contradiction. Things
since that period of man's development have
changed.
63
Man
has, with the advent of the Logos, been given
a new faculty. One which
absolutely makes obsolete any attempt at
group behavioral control and which is to
be found within the individual. With this
we notice a change in
Luciferic stratagem. Today in order for
Luciferic impulses to be fulfilled
their influence must seek to lead man away from that which gives him power over
contradiction. That is why today we
can see the Luciferic influence in the form of anything which attempts to lead
man away from or to subvert his divine
faculty of non-contradictory thought, reason and common sense. At a time when the divine was to be found in outside
leaders-- the forces of contradiction made every attempt to lead
man within... there to become mislead by his undifferentiated desires. Today, in
an effort to subvert the indwelling divine, the same forces are more than content to encourage man
to give up his faculty of discrimination to
an external
authority.
And for those who wish to make a critical study of life, in an individual
way, it seems as though that which is Luciferic in its influence has made
special efforts; by completely
undermining the role of reason within what has become modern philosophy.
0 So-- we can
give up our responsibility to use the spirit of the Logos in determining right
from wrong by following an external
authority who has been indoctrinated in and
swayed by modern philosophical trends
which further distances us from experiencing
true non-contradiction--or we can study
for ourselves and take it right from the horse’s mouth
so to speak.
*
That's right. But of the two ways
the second is the one which is
able to bring about the
awakening of the spirit of the Logos.
0 How so?
*
We all probably begin as followers and then graduate into students. As we become familiar with modern
philosophical tenants-- as long as
our desire for truth is keen--
we will begin to become uneasy with the idea that truth is unknowable. We will experience the Logos -unconsciously of course - which will give us ever growing confirmation as to the correctness of some of our views... while on the other hand we will see views
which are directly opposed to ours. We will
wonder how in the same universe that
there can be such opposing views with no way of determining which is
superior ... after all, it would seem self-evident that two opposing views cannot both
be better than each other. inflexibininfl
Here, is .
where many people become inflexible in that what they
believe makes
sense to them
but are unable to find the
error in an opposing view other than
the fact that it doesn't make sense. So,
they simply cease to explore the situation.
0 I've seen that,
particularly in older people. The
problem there would be that by ceasing to explore
matters of seeming complexity they are stunting their chances for a
fuller appreciation of the truth.
*
A little further
digging on their part would uncover the fact that those concepts
which
don't make sense, are often
playing by a completely different
set of rules. A set of rules in which things do not have to make
sense, but just have to feel right
at the moment.
0 Sounds like Luciferic influential ground rules to me.
*
And that they are. What they would actually
discover is that there exists
a difference
in philosophy
between themselves, who apply
non-contradiction at least
to part of existence... and those who feel that such mental
discipline is so much superstition.
0 And would prefer to follow their immediate feelings.
*
The trouble is that it is just our immediate
feelings which are so often riddled with
contradiction.
0 You know—if
you'd have laid all of this on me the very first time that we met, I could
not have possibly been able to appreciate its full significance.
*
Neither do you now.
0 But it seems so complete.
*
It's just the groundwork. A foundation may be complete, but in order to serve its true
function it must support a structure.
0 Is that what I will be working on next?
*
There is still,
in your case, some work to be done on the foundation. These things
must live in you for a while
in order to develop
integrity.
0 So what do I do now?
*
You can
begin by letting me hear what you
came up with as a topic for today's discussion.
0 It’s uncanny
how that what I've been thinking
about since last time we met exactly
coincides with what we just got
through talking about--that is--modern philosophy.
*
I'm all ears.
0 Another reference to Spock?
*
Not one that I am conscious of.
0 You see modern
life is so affected in so many ways by philosophy that it's just something that I had to come to grips
with. Everything that is taught and has been taught for over a hundred years now by the major Universities of the
world seems to be permeated by Kantian Philosophy. It has found its way
into the political, sociological, economic, psychological and even religious ideas of our time. There was something about it though that seemed contradictory ... but
I just couldn't pin down what it was. Then I remembered our discussion about how all inferior ideological systems
encourage non-contradictory thought to a point-- after which it seems to be
unneeded. Then the whole thing made
me laugh-- it was humorous. Kantian Philosophy
makes use of
thinking in
a most complex line of
reasoning to prove that thought is invalid as a means of gaining knowledge. I mean really, if thought is invalid as a
means of gaining knowledge, then how
come Kant himself was not loathe to make use of it in developing his complex
philosophical system. Give me a break, this guy's too much. But then we see all of what has become popular modern thinking
follow suit directly in line with
what Kant said. This is serious.
Why do you suppose that people are willing to accept this baloney?
*
Remember the influence within man?
0 Lucifer?
*
Yes.
0 Why don't they see that?
*
It takes desire, awareness, will and discipline,... it’s not immediately easy. The
popular way is easy and it satisfies Luciferic desires.
0 You were
right. What I've been given cannot be fully appreciated in a single lifetime. Do
you suppose that there could be
something to the teaching of reincarnation?
*
I told you before that it is a waste of
time to speculate. The truth is not going to change-- no matter how emotionally attached to a certain belief
we become. If the teaching that you mentioned is true, then nothing
can change its being or having been true.
If not, then no amount of faith will
make it true.
0 Is there anything
that I should think about for next week?
*
That's up to you.
0 How about Politics?
*
As you wish.
0 Are you going to
talk about anything
special?
*
This was our last
discussion.
0 But why? Just when I am beginning
to understand.
*
You have been put into contact with all
that you need to be successful in
mastering life. You must bring the Logos
into your most inward parts. Allow the spirit to illuminate your feeling world
and work hard to strengthen your
will toward doing what is right.
0 Isn't there anything
else you can tell me?
*
There is one facet of the Logos
which might be of aid in the way
of helping you to define it for yourself.
0 But the Logos means
the Word of God. At least in English
translations of it.
*
Not exclusively. There is another
more common rendering.
0 You mean I missed one?
*
Not completely.
xii
The Act of Cognition
The last several weeks had created a blitz demand for mental energy the likes of
which he had not experienced since his first
heavy curriculum load at the University. But somehow the
rewards for acuity had never been so satisfying. The use of reference
materials, an activity which he had relegated to the past, had been reborn out of the necessity of the desire to know.
Approaching his table, he moved to
one side what he thought must surely
be the most exhaustive, if not cumbersome, English word dictionaries in print-- clearing the space in front of him for the work on Greek meanings which he had just taken from the shelf.
This was the same work which he had
used earlier during his first probe
into the meanings of Greek scripture.
There seemed to be a sense of nervous
anticipation as he sat down which,
when he became aware of it, caused
him to hurriedly leaf through the pages until he came to what he was
looking for.
There it
was: LOGOS- word; The Word of God; thought; logic....LOGIC! Moving with adrenalated deftness, he quickly pushed aside the Greek reference and using both hands
brought to himself in its place--while at the same time opening-- the mammoth dictionary. Whirling first to and then
through the L'S with miraculous
precision... he arrived at the word.
Logic-- Clear and controlled thought.
The art of non-contradictory thought.
Quadruple Entendre
For
the Word of God is alive and exerts
power and is sharper that any two-edged
sword and even pierces
to the dividing of the soul and spirit ...and is able to
discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart Hebrews 4:12
But
we know that the Son of God has come and he has given us intellectual
capacity that we may gain the
knowledge of the true one. 1 John 5:20
For this I have come
into the world,
that I should bear witness to
the truth. Everyone that is on the
side of truth listens to my voice. John 18:37
Carefully concealed in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge.
Colossians 2:3
When that one arrives, the spirit of truth, He will guide you into all truth.
John 16:13
Wisdom is the prime thing. Acquire wisdom; and
with all that you acquire,
acquire understanding. Proverbs 4:7
"I, wisdom,
have resided with shrewdness and I find
even the knowledge of thinking
abilities. I have counsel and common sense. I am understanding; I have mightiness. The Lord possessed me as the beginning of His way, before His works of old I was
set up from the everlasting, from the
beginning, or ever the earth was."'
Proverbs 8:12,14,22,23
"By means of Him
all other things were created in the
heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible. All other
things have been created by him and
for Him. Also, He is before all other things and by means of him all things were made to exist". Colossians 1:16,17
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All
things came into existence through
him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. He was in the world, and the world came into existence through Him, but the world did not know Him." John
1:1-3,10
"The kingdom of God is
not coming with striking
observableness, neither will people be saying, 'see here 'or 'there '. For
look! The kingdom of God is within
you".
Luke 17:20,21
Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought
by which all things are steered
through all things---Heraclitus (fragment
19).
Comments
Post a Comment