Change my mind?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
I will have to check out your threads then.
But just for a quick reply, to the point of the "corollary to Jesus in his own culture", I've also read in occult circles the idea of "Logoi", or that there is more or less a Logos for each planet, or perhaps more accurately for each star.
One thought that's rather entertaining is that we are all Logoi of respective planets or stars, we just don't know it. "Space" is set up so that there is infinite potential in which this can be realized.
Yeah, Law of One mentions Logoi.
At any rate, reptiliandude claimed LO1 is BS. Instead he claims that these "solar allegories" appear on multiple worlds and are one of the teaching actions that are meant to lead to the One God. He says that the Naigaje aren't as dogmatic about this as monotheists are here. In his case, he interprets this as a form of unitarian deism. But he also claims that God works with whatever belief systems He finds are present.
Personally, I actually subscribe to a traditional Christian paradigm. Theosis rather than apotheosis. This is more of a fact finding and hypothetical track of thought for me.
Well, if God is Logos, then beyond knowledge I would think it would imply a logical basis for everything, so fact finding like you said helps to piece a lot of things together.
I was told that the ultimate purpose for reality was to provide for love, beauty, and glory, in that order.
Glory is something a bit left behind, isn't it? Probably because the world is a little out of sync in regards to the first two.
Indeed, I think it's fair to say God has a logical basis. It's also correct to recognize, as you have, that may be beyond our knowledge. Furthermore, it may remain so indefinitely.
There's a very distinct qualitative difference between God's Logos and man's reasoning. Our reasoning is in some respects a derivative form which is less absolute than His. In some ways less potent, but in some ways we can do things that His absolute perspective would make difficult. I tend to think of it like this: Our reasoning is based on deductive inference, induction from multiple cases, or abduction from revelation. All of these systems result in a set of principles that is akin to taking an observation and drawing a line on a map from reference points given by these methods.
God doesn't have the map from His standpoint. He's drawing it from His own artistic vision. The reasoning there is something implicit in His Nature. The nature of reality itself. God also must be operating on some kind of "first order logic" which isn't susceptible to the "incompleteness" limitations that arise from our formalized axiomatic reasoning structures. God's reasoning is perfect because it reflects the absolute nature of reality. Not something we can say about our own reasoning.
It's obvious that narrowing the ignorance is a goal that is profitable, however, since we should be able to minimize errors by doing so. Plotting out these unknown areas so we can draw more accurate lines of deductive reasoning by studying the broader canvas is good way of doing that.
I was going to say that most of my formal logic comes from reading Sherlock Holmes, but I learned quite young the power of inductive reasoning.
A gal I know said in defense of watching movies (not my favorite thing) "that in the end, we are all reduced to stories."
And I think that's an important part of the picture. There is a "narrative" at play, because stories are used to drive things forward (and I would assume also to keep things interesting). I would assume that if there are other universes, they just may be based around a single consciousness (like a person after they die), and a narrative is created around that consciousness.
I mean, how cool would it be to visit someone else's universe?
Of course, you can do that on Earth too. ;)
I'm pretty sure I've got a pretty handy grasp on that narrative. It's more just seeing it play out at this point.