Saturday, March 7, 2009

Elword Riddle The Logos and Modern Man AKA ertlamm


Be kind, I wrote this in my early twenties. With no notes, while working overtime and raising a family. I know its dumb, but hey... I ended up seeing the swastika. Steiner and Rand folks...please forgive the plagiarism, it was completely unconscious and innocent. I would feel very honored if these similarities were considered to be taken in the spirit that they occurred, as being a sincere tribute. Its just in the introductory notes, preface and reference note as to style that I seemed to have enthusiastically sampled.

Bjork: Human Behavior
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwpi-dXlqww

Show Me- The Pretenders


ELWORD RIDDLE



The Logos and Modern Man





To the Human Race
With my sincere hope that
My perception was an accurate one
Which told me that the time was right




Revised Edition


May 2003





The original copyrighted version of Elword Riddle was actually 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




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 of the fundamentals contained within such a theory can be found within it. Nor should this be seen as an endorsement for any particular 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.



IV


A reference note as to style



One might ask: Why, in a work which seems to claim to unite man with the key to understanding existence, do we find such peculiar style and brevity? If what is being said is really all that important, why not make it easier to assimilate? Why do we not see more in the way of references, examples and proof of what is being maintained?
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.




V

Table Of Contents




II……………………………………………………Introduction
III…………………………………………………………………Preface
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 Darkn
23.) ………………………………………………………After the Law.
29.) …………………………………………toring Up Treasures.
35.) …………………………………Dividing of the Soul and Spirit.
42.)……………………………………………The Two Edged Sword.
50.)………………………………………………..Father Knows Best.
58.) ………………………………………The Mystery of Gods’ Word.
68.)…………………………………………………The Act of Cognition.
70.) …………………………………………......Quadruple Entendre.



1


I

Kant Never Could


O Oh but isn’t it really absurd?
* What?
O The way that beliefs are clung to today. Its hard to conceive of anyone who would be willing to stand for what they believe in.
* Why is that?
O 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.
O 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 persons’ certainty will vary directly as the strength of his faith.
* That is true.
O You admit it yourself. But then… do you think that you can be justified in being sure of yourself?
* Yes.
O 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.



2


* Correct again.
O 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.
O 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?
O 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.
O 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?
O You're certain that your views are correct.
* Yes.
O 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.
O 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.


3


O 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.
O Just like that? You’re right… and I'm wrong?
* Who is correct is unimportant. What is correct is.
O 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.
O 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.
O 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.
O What kind of Holy mumbo jumbo is this?
* It is the holy truth. There is a very important reason
for my reservation.
O If that's all you have to say I've got to step back into the real world. Been strange talkin’ with ya.
* 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?
O I'll think about it.


4

ii


The Conception (Gabriels’ Announcement)


* Well, done any thinking about last week?
O 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.
O 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.
O Bastardized? Is that a clue?



5


* 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.
O You spoke last time about the foundation of your beliefs, but never said what it was.
* It has to do with existence.
O 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 greater the justification for faith in it.
O 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 turn his thought to his own view of life and explore its foundations. There are only two beliefs of mine that I would consider


6


to qualify as irreducible primaries, not having to depend upon further presuppositions for support. These I have chosen to form 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.
O That's it? Existence exists?! And from there you can proceed to make complex decisions about life?
* There remains yet another cornerstone.
O I'm ready.
* Not yet.
O What are you talking about?
* The chalice must be made ready.
O I think that you've been in the conceptual mode for a little to long-- its starting to get to you.
* Not like its going to get to you.
O 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


7


looking it existence would include everything that exists; including those realms which are said to be supernatural.
O 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 exist a much untapped area of existence... and that all human endeavor is a product of one or both of these normally overlooked fields.
O 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.
O What do you mean, it is time for the mediator?
* The Logos.. Its time that you should be made aware.
O What's The Logo?
* Logos.
O So.
* Don't say so. It happens to be the key I've been
telling you about.
O Well, what's the meaning? Don't tell me-- research time
huh?
* Its meaning cannot be given. Research would be my
suggestion.
O Is it really necessary to go through all of this?
* I'll let you be the judge of that.
O What if I don't feel like it?


8


* Don't do it.
O You don't care?
* Whether or not I care is immaterial. You must do that which your instincts demand
of you.
O 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 healthy balance is the goal.
O 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.
O Its getting late. I'll let you know before next week if I'll be back.


9


iii

Immanuel

* Did passing of an extra seven days prove illuminating?
O Sorry about last week. I take it you got my message.
* Yes.
O I’ve done a lot of research.
* Have you?
O Yes… look…I needed more time to work out some of the implications of these dis-cussions we’ve been having.. that’s why I didn’t show.
* That’s perfectly all right.
O I don’t know why I feel like I have to apologize.
* I do.
O Oh really?
* Yes.
O Do you think you know everything?
* No.
O Just checking.
* You had that feeling because of another, both of which are really the same: guilt. You've no need to feel guilty. Your’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.
O 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.


10


O 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.
O 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.
O 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.
O 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, where he may realize that not only must existence exist… but it must of its own nature be non-contradictory
O But contradictions exist everywhere.
* They exist not outside but inside the human and only when there is immaturity.
O 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 in your enthusiasm for that statement.
* Then neither shall you share in happiness of a life based on the only correct understanding possible to man.
O But you just said that contradictions are actually not present save in the hearts and minds of immature men.


11


* That is my position concerning contradictions.
O No problem. 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.
O 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-contra-dictory thinking, tell me what would remain.
O Contradiction in the hearts and minds of immature men I suppose.
* Not even that.
O 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


12


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 can not be understood by man.
O 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 mans’ 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


13


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 persons' thinking becomes, the more accurate his intuitions, gut reactions and emotions will be. This is not where fun ends but where true enjoyment begins.
O 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 natures' 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 site as proof that non-contradiction does not hold true for life in general are all a result of mans’ 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 site the lack of consistency in society as proof that non-contradictory thought doesn't work or that consistency doesn't exist in nature.
O That's going to take some time.
* It always does.
O How did you ever come up with that?


14


* Desire.
O I’ve found lately that the desire to know within me has been reawakened.
* Speaking of knowledge, what did you discover about the Logos?
O 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 Johns’ 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.
O Well, that is not possible.
* Okay, one of them.
O 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.
O Would I be correct to assume that your key that you call the Logos has something to do with the Bible?
* Yes.
O And that it also plays a part in your philosophical system?
* Yes.


15


O Now you've got my attention.
* Good, see if you can keep it focused until next week.
O I guess I have no choice.


16


iv

The Law


O 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?
O Its 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


17


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 persons’ 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 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.
O 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.
O Will I ever know what you mean by the Logos?
* Part of you already knows.
O What part is that?
* When you come into contact with it you will know.
O Where is it now?


18


* Its in what is known as your subconscious.
O What am I supposed to do in order to find it?
* Exactly what we've been doing.
O You mean talking?
* No.
O Then what?
* It is time for you to leave.
O All right ... but you'll be available next week--right?
* Oh yes.


19

v

And the Light Shone in the Darkness


O How goes it? * The same.
O The same as what?
* Always.
O Must be nice.
* It has its points.
O So do you.
* Do I remind you of Mr Spock?
O As a matter of fact ... Hey gotta question for ya.
* What is it?
O 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.
O 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


20


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 episte-mology and general world view wherein contradictions can not enter.
O I like that. Don’t question the answers, question the questions.
* Exactly.
O 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--its 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.
O You make it sound easy.
* It is.
O Which kinds of things are most important to research?


21


* Beyond a general world view it is up to the individual.
O 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.
O So in dealing with everyday reality and in learning and understanding the Logos helps you?
* Yes, without him ours would be a sad lot.
O You are referring to Christ then.
* Yes.
O 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.
O Why not?
* Because he cannot be explained without pointing to the error of the context in which religion has tried to place him.
O What context would have you place him in?
* That of universal liberator of mankind…
O Isn’t that the same as what Orthodox religion has done.
* Yes.
O So where's the difference?
* They have not accepted his proper significance.
O What significance have they given to him?
* One similar to that of Moses.
O What do you mean?


22


* They look at him as a leader who has come with another written code.
O 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.
O 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.
O People need rules.
* No they don't.
O 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.
O 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.
O I'rn not so sure that I’m ready for what you’re going to come up with next.
* You are very near to ready. Time is running short for today. I would like for you to do something during the coming week.
O 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.
O But love is one of the most contradictory aspects of life.
* There are no contradictions in actuality.
O Right. Okay. I'll give it a shot.


23


vi

After the Law

O Go to church Sunday?
* Worship is a continual process. The way we live tells it all.
O Just kidding.
* Are you prepared?
O For what?
* To give me a proper definition of love.
O You gave me a tough one. Remember what you told me about when there's a contradiction between your heart and your mind?
* Yes.
O Well I seem to have discovered what appears to be a chasm between what we feel and what we think about love.
* And?
O 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.
O What do you make of it?
* There is something lacking in their understanding.
O The Logos?


24


* Yes.
O What kind of definition would be obtained through what you call the Logos?
* One without contradictions.
O A mature understanding?
* Precisely
O Would you share it with me?
* Yes.
O 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.
O 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.
O So the 'Word' is both? Is there anything that the Logos isn’t?
* Yes.
O What?
* Contradiction.
O My word.
* And everyone else’s.
O You were right. I think that it is starting to get to me. Its almost as if I 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


25


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.
O Are you recommending that we disregard our feelings?
* Nothing should be disregarded.
O 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.
O 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.
O 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 on 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 persons' 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.
O 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?
O That's it! That’s what you meant when you said that religion was trying to make Christ into another Moses. The Isrealites 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 Isrealites?
* That is exactly what I have said.
O Why, if it was proper for the Isrealites to play follow the mortal leader, is it no longer so?
* Because of the Event of the appearance of the Logos.
O Are you assigning some sort of evolutionary significance to the Logos?
* Yes, the greatest single leap that man has experienced.


27


O 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. Modern religious authority tells 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.
O 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 mans' 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.
O What makes you say that?
* The fact that I have experienced the fuller impact of the event of the Logos.
O 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 Mans' spiritual growing pains.
O 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


O Well Spock?
* Continue to develop your definition of love.
O You got it.


29



vii

Storing Up Treasures

* How’d it turn out?
O What is that?
* Your week with Love.
O I was surprised with what I came up with, but have no doubt of its accuracy.
* What makes you so certain?
O 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?
O 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.
O 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 maybe in life. This does not mean that you would like to live with or even con-


30


tinually 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 persons' 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.
O In what?
* In application of the Word.
O You liked my definition?
* Yes. But to it should be added a few necessary corollary definitions to help smooth out its proper application.
O 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 advance-ment. 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 continually 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 over looking 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.
O 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 Isrealite 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 out weigh as a negative factor the life long emotional torment of not having been introduced-- even if from without-- to the Logos during those critical formative years.
O 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.
O I guess that our views are as accurate and detailed as we are willing to make them.


33


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?
O 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 them-
selves…you must out of honesty if nothing else admit that there is something lacking in peoples’ lives. That something is the power of the Logos.
O So all we need to do is identify and make use of the Logos. This seems to be a


34


reoccuring 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 advance-ment is already within them…stored away in that part of their soul which allows no contradiction.
O 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.
O 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?
O You mean…what is existence as we are able to discover it?
* Yes. This will lend toward what we need to enter into next on our odyssey through the soul.
O I’ll give it my best.


35


viii


The Dividing of Soul and Spirit.


O Before we begin to consider my assignment, could I ask you a question?
* Sure.
O Okay, 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. 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.


36


O Sounds heavy.
* Its light, with an easy yoke.
O 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.
O 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?
O Research. I went to the library and did a little reading.
* Well now then, how are these connected to human activity?
O 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 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. Its like I’ve heard before: ‘Everything is attitude'.
* You've made an excellent observation.
O There seems to be all manner of preset determining thoughts and feelings that can


37


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 under-standing 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.
O 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.
O You do feel that I am essentially correct in what I have described up until this point.
* Yes.
O 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.


38


O And you do not believe that these ups and downs are an irrevocable aspect of life?
* They most certainly are not. We can define ourselves by our choices in reaction.
O Do you view emotional swings as a contradiction?
* I view nothing as a contradiction. It all depends upon your standpoint.
O And where are you standing?
* At this point that would be irrelevant.
O Okay then, where does this discussion us?
* Into the human soul.
O 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?
O 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


39


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 its a little rough around the edges, your perceptiveness is remarkable.
O You like that huh?
* It gives me a good feeling.
O What kind of feeling?
* Joy.
O Over what?
* Truth...
O I have truth?
* You can make it your possession, but you must remember that it has originated with the Logos.
O I think that if I hear that word again before I know what it means I’ll go crazy.
* You already know what it means.
O Do you mean non-contradictory thought?
* Yes...
O But there has to be more.
* There will always be more.
O 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.
O 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


40


being taken?
* If there weren't could there be any satisfaction in learning?
O 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.
O 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.
O 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.
O What will I experience?
* A truth which is utterly self evident.
O If it is self-evident, then why hasn't a majority of the population already discovered it?
* 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.
O So people lack sufficient desire and are only partially aware?
* Yup. How many theorititians have you known who are acutely aware of their ideas, but insufficiently alert to that part of existence which lies outside? They will lack in


41


practical ability because their ideas do not have an accurate, non-contradictory counterpart. 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.
O 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.

42

ix

The Two Edged Sword


O I've made an observation about one of my inner perceptions.
* That is good.
O 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.
O 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.
O Why do you say could?
* Because it would be more accurate to state that the ego has been the topic of com-munication from the beginning.
O Are you saying that your Logos and mans’ 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.
O Well, can’t you define them for me?
* I can but I will not.


43


O 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?
O Well yes it does. Hey wait you son of a gun! That brings up what we were supposed to go over today.
* Oh?
O Don't pretend that you weren’t aware. Seeming contradictions. That was my assignment for this week.
* What did you discover?
O 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.
O Like what?
* The atmosphere...
O Okay Spock, have it your way.
* Let’s have your findings on contradictory versus non-contradictory standpoints.
O 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?
O Well say someone has a child who is born retarded-- 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?
O Simply by ceasing to presume that it is unfair. 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?
O 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?
O 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 as having participated in creating. And also that my future is in my hands to a large extent. I can not completely blame others including God for my lot in life but must depend much upon myself. A non-


45


contradictory world view places man more in control of his own destiny.
* Are there any more examples that you can use to explain this?
O 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 its 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.
O 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?
O No, I’m just not sure about why what I have observed takes place. I just know that it does.
* Well...
O Well what I see and what seems to be an integral part of all emotional animosity is


46


that the person who is experiencing a negative feeling will generally assume that there is a rational justification for his having it. Moreover, he will attempt to assign the respons-ibility for his feeling to something outside of himself. 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.
O But there's more.
* A solution?
O The Logos special non-contradictory home remedy.
* Good.
O 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


47


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?
O 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?
O 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.
O 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 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?
O 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


48


have no doubt of their methods and accomplishments. Unsuccessful onlookers will rarely be in the position to allow themselves to comprehend these but will look for mundane explanations where there is super mundane achievement.
* Your respect for the Logos is growing.
O What’s next?
* Do not wonder.
O Why not?
* Have I disappointed you yet?
O No.
* Have I ever told you something before I was ready to?
O No.
* Curiosity.
O What about it?
* Do not allow it to create a contradiction within you.
O How could it?
* By causing you to desire to know more or to have more knowledge than you can grasp.
O The chalice must be made ready?
* And we should not put new wine into old wineskins.
O Then what should motivate my quest to learn?
* The desire to serve the eternal cause of truth and knowledge.
O What’s in it for me?
* The only positive actuality that you will ever eventually obtain.
O What does that mean?


49


* 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.
O So curiosity is out. Commitment is in…. I can have it now or later.
* Or never.
O 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.
O How does a person go about making truth his possession?
* You ought to know the answer to that one.
O Think so?
* Sure.
O Why don’t you just tell me?
* Because I would like for that knowledge to become your possession.
O The lesson of possession to be continued next session.
* That is not the only point to be covered.
O 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.
O Okay. I’m not sure of what I'll come up with.
* You might be surprised.


50


x

Father Knows Best


O 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?
O 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.
O 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.
O Nipping negativity in the bud.
* Yes.
O 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.
O I see.
* Not really. But let's not drift too far from the topic of gaining possession of truth.
O Right. It is something that can only be done by the individual. Its 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.


51


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.
O Then knowledge cannot be given from man to man.
* It never has. Not in the usual manner of communication.
O Then how?
* By aiding them to experience truth.
O But then they must do all the work.
* That's the Logos for you. Would you have it any other way?
O 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.
O Sounds like Capitalism.
* It should.
O Oh no....not political non-contradiction.
* Why not?
O Well-- I guess its 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.
O What would?
* A discussion on the philosophy of political activity.
O When could we do that?


52


* At some future time. Now how about Bastardization?
O A very interesting concept.
* A very pregnant idea.
O 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.
O That’s one of my natural assets, always has been.
* So what do you make of it?
O Memory or bastardization?
* The former combined with non-contradiction and applied to the latter.
O I feel a little nervous. What I arrived at may seem a bit abstract.
* Turn about is fair play. Don’t be anxious.
O 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.
O 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.
O You have continued to indicate that our language, the vehicle for our communi-
cation, has lost its significance. Could this mean that our language could be the son


53


which has been bastardized through the removal of meaning which is its father?
* From the mouths of babes.
O No corrections?
* Where could any apply?
O Is that why my feelings were so strong?
* Yes. But there is still more to the analogy.
O In what direction?
* Something else is necessary in order to have a child, bastardized or otherwise.
O A mother?
* Precisely.
O Okay right.... mother; the feminine aspect of existence.
* Think in Latin.
O Mater. Matter--- Holy Mother Earth. Matter is the physical side of creation. Father is the spiritual 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’.
O 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.

O 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.
O What does it mean?
* It's just the opening of a door to a little more of existence. The Logos is still valid.
O Fascinating.


54


* Now look who is sounding like Spock.
O Why do you keep mentioning him?
* Don’t worry. There is reason. There is meaning…and you will no doubt discover them.
O Don’t tell me… its in my subconscious.
* You’ve got it.
O Why so much preoccupation with the subconscious?
* The value of becoming aware of subconscious feelings you well know. But do you know how that that area…which lies just below our awareness is connected with our spiritual progress?
O 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.
O Do you have anything to add?
* Nothing really to add. Just a different way of expressing the same thing.
O Shoot.
* All spiritual progress is a matter and becomes a process of taking that which is subconscious and bringing it to a conscious level.
O We must be aware. Man, know thyself.
* Amen.
O 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.
O Could a person actually discover the meaning and purpose of life by this method?


55


* It is best not to speculate. Remember-- the truth is unchanged by speculation 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.
O How so?
* This is not a ‘live for today' admonition. Rather, by securing what our non-contra-dictory foundation has enabled us to arrive at for the present, we’ll be forming a base for future discoveries. The strength of our structure will determine the weight of that which may be added to it.
O 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.
O Did you have something planned for our next visit?
* No.
O What do you mean? You always have something planned.
* I seldom have.
O What!?
* Why try to predetermine 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.
O 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


56


work with-- to both of us.
O You are learning?
* Always.
O What have you learned from our meetings?
* Conceptually, not a thing.
O Then how have you learned?
* Some of my past discoveries have been reconfirmed.
O For instance.
* The similarity of each one of us in our soul aspects for one.
O 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.
O 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 over all magnitude of what you
have been learning.
O Don't let me interfere.
* Not now, for we have come to the topic of our next discussion. See how this happens?
O I guess. What am I supposed to think about during this next week?
* I'll let you decide.
O But what? No specific assignment?


57


* I just gave it to you.
O 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.



58


xi

The Mystery of Gods Word


O Ready?
* Usually.
O Not always?
* We all have our goals.
O Would you like to hear what topic I came up with?
* Of course.
O Modern philosophy.
* Wonderful.
O You see I…
* But first I would like to say something about mans spiritual evolution.
O 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.


59


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 mans' 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 mans' soul. In other words where did this possibility enter in? Was it among mans' 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


60


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 amuck 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 mans’ desire. Now we have arrived at a very important juncture in our consideration of mans’ 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?
O Thought!
* What type of thought is it that gives us the principle by which we can prioritize our feelings?


61


O 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.
O 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.
O 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.
O 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.
O So the Logos is individual yet universal....the supreme paradox.
* If you will permit me to continue...
O Do go ahead.


62


* 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 man--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 the present.
O 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 mans 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 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 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.
O 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 horses’ mouth so to speak.
* That's right. But of the two ways the second is the one which is actually able to bring about the awakening of the spirit of the Logos.
O 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--


64


we will begin to become uneasy with the idea that truth is unknowable. We will exper-ience 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. Here is where many people become inflexible. They know 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.
O 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 thing's do not have to make sense, but just have to feel right at the moment.
O 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.
O 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.
O You know--if you'd have laid all of this on me the very first time that we met, I could


65



not have possibly been able to appreciate its full significance.
* Neither do you now.
O But it seems so complete.
* It's just the ground work. A foundation may be complete, but in order to serve its true function it must support a structure.
O 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 awhile in order to develop integrity.
O 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.
O Its 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.
O Another reference to Spock?
* Not one that I am conscious of.
O 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 perme-ated by Kantian Philosophy. It has found its way into the political, sociological, eco-nomic, 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 that 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. The Kantian Philosophy makes use of


66


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?
O Lucifer?
* Yes.
O Why don't they see that?
* It takes desire, awareness, will and discipline.....its not immediately easy. The popular way is easy and it satisfies Luciferic desires.
O 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 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.
O Is there anything that I should think about for next week?
* That's up to you.

67


O How about Politics?
* As you wish.
O Are you going to talk about anything special?
* This was our last discussion.
O 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.
O 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.
O But the Logos means the Word of God. At least in English translations of it.
* Not exclusively. There is another more common rendering.
O You mean I missed one?
* Not completely.


68


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 adreanalated 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 to and then through the L's with miraculous precision… he arrived at the word.


69


Logic-- Clear and controlled thought. The art of non-contradictory thought.


70


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:l2

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 everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.'" Proverbs 8:12,14,22,23


71


"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).

Superstition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZFf0pm0SE

Jesus of Suburbia
http://music.aol.com/video/jesus-of-suburbia-aol-sessions/green-day/1201395

No comments:

Post a Comment