know the truth?

path_of_one said:
OK- that sounds fine. But then, I would not define "word" that way. You perhaps mean consciousness? Or concept? Or thought? Or something like this?

Word, to me, is a rather limited term to describe what you're talking about. In part, I thought this because you proposed that we cannot know another person very well without "words" (i.e., through dance or music), which to me indicates a split between consciousness or concept or feeling or thought and language itself.

So it's very confusing what you actually mean by "word."

It also seems like you are leading into a particular doctrine about how the cosmos works, rather than inquiring of what people think. If so, perhaps you could elaborate and be a little more clear on what belief you're discussing?
Click to expand...
Well the word did come to be a block of stumbling for many. For those who seek, a light of illumination. For those who oppose, a rod of discipline. For those that seek shelter, a strong tower. For those that are now first to be last and those that are last to be first. For those that are chosen, our salvation. The word is the LOGOS. The word is with God and the word is God. The word was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. In him is life and this life is the light of men, this light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not comprehend it.
 
Jarrett said:
Well the word did come to be a block of stumbling for many. For those who seek, a light of illumination. For those who oppose, a rod of discipline. For those that seek shelter, a strong tower. For those that are now first to be last and those that are last to be first. For those that are chosen, our salvation. The word is the LOGOS. The word is with God and the word is God. The word was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him. In him is life and this life is the light of men, this light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not comprehend it.
Click to expand...

Oh, so really what you want to do is talk about Christian theology, not a general discussion from multiple faiths perspectives.

This really should have gone in the Christianity section if that is the case.

Otherwise, you have defined word in the way that makes sense for you and your own religion, but that is something different from language.

Logos is not "word" the way that language is "word."
 
path_of_one said:
Oh, so really what you want to do is talk about Christian theology, not a general discussion from multiple faiths perspectives.

This really should have gone in the Christianity section if that is the case.

Otherwise, you have defined word in the way that makes sense for you and your own religion, but that is something different from language.

Logos is not "word" the way that language is "word."
Click to expand...
For me there is no section. Nor is this my religion. If you want to see my religious practice, you will find it in caring for others. And christ is not man the way we are man. In turn, Logos is not word the way language is word.
 
Jarrett said:
For me there is no section. Nor is this my religion. If you want to see my religious practice, you will find it in caring for others.
Click to expand...

I as well, but clearly you have some doctrinal notions- this is the basis for your treatise on Logos. That's all fine and good, but it makes the whole bit about language confusing, as you were elaborating that truth, including the truth about other people, is best known through language (as opposed to art, dance, etc.). If Logos is not language, then I fail to see how all of this interconnects. I could simply be missing your point, but I really find it confusing and am not sure what you're getting at.

And christ is not man the way we are man. In turn, Logos is not word the way language is word.
Click to expand...

That Christ is not a human as we are is a doctrinal assumption. Some religions see him very much as a man. It is fine, of course, to have certain doctrinal foundations, but they must be recognized as such, so elaboration is necessary when conducting dialogue across religions.

Christ is not a human for you, but he is clearly related to humans in a particular way. Therefore, according to your line of reasoning, Logos is related to language. It is the relationship between that is unclear from this discussion- perhaps you could elaborate? I would find it rather interesting theologically to hear your perspective on the relationship between Christ and humanity, and how this reveals the relationship between Logos and language.
 
I see in this a good example as to how all the paths lead to the same destination.
Here we have 2 different individuals who have walked different paths, yet arrive at similar conclusions, the variations of which are due to the journey being as yet incomplete, and the paradigm which they hold to which dictates how the language used is actually expressed.
I put forward that as they grow further (presuming an open mind and a desire to Gnow the truth) they will have even more in common.
Language puts barriers in between like wedges or obstacles: to wit; I have seen 2 people talking about the same thing but using terminology which was slightly different (basically differing definitions of words) and even though an observer could see that they were of the same mind the 2 thus engaged were quite antagonistic to each other seeing an opponent to engage in debate with rather than a compatriot.
Curious, isn't it?
 
shawn said:
Curious, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Indeed- I find language so difficult at times. Writing is part of my career, and yet either in spite of this or because of it (I'm not sure which) I find it infuriating at times to try to get at what someone is actually saying, what I am actually saying, etc.

Perhaps this is because my mind is actually visual first. I get images and a sort of "sense" of things, and then I have to figure out how to convey that in a far too limited vocabulary. :eek:
 
shawn said:
I see in this a good example as to how all the paths lead to the same destination.
Here we have 2 different individuals who have walked different paths, yet arrive at similar conclusions, the variations of which are due to the journey being as yet incomplete, and the paradigm which they hold to which dictates how the language used is actually expressed.
I put forward that as they grow further (presuming an open mind and a desire to Gnow the truth) they will have even more in common.
Language puts barriers in between like wedges or obstacles: to wit; I have seen 2 people talking about the same thing but using terminology which was slightly different (basically differing definitions of words) and even though an observer could see that they were of the same mind the 2 thus engaged were quite antagonistic to each other seeing an opponent to engage in debate with rather than a compatriot.
Curious, isn't it?
Click to expand...
I feel as if it was a misunderstanding. Nor do i have opponents, i do seek compatriots. I do not nave debate on my mind. However it seems you may have singled out a couple of opponents yourself. I do not want to argue. I just want to say my thoughts, and if in the process of doing this i seem to be argumentative, it must just be my personality. So Shawn if from your lofty seat you feel the need to point out others misunderstandings, well i find that curious. Throw me under the bus if you wish, id rather be friendly.
 
Jarrett said:
I feel as if it was a misunderstanding. Nor do i have opponents, i do seek compatriots. I do not nave debate on my mind. However it seems you may have singled out a couple of opponents yourself. I do not want to argue. I just want to say my thoughts, and if in the process of doing this i seem to be argumentative, it must just be my personality. So Shawn if from your lofty seat you feel the need to point out others misunderstandings, well i find that curious. Throw me under the bus if you wish, id rather be friendly.
Click to expand...
Awh....don't take it the wrong way.
I am not argumentative either, nor am I looking for conflict.
I would rather make friends, personally.
The first paragraph was in reference to the conversation previous, but the past part of my post wasn't at all related to it:
Language puts barriers in between like wedges or obstacles: to wit; I have seen 2 people talking about the same thing but using terminology which was slightly different (basically differing definitions of words) and even though an observer could see that they were of the same mind the 2 thus engaged were quite antagonistic to each other seeing an opponent to engage in debate with rather than a compatriot.
Click to expand...
Just a general statement about things I have seen before and not to do with you at all.
Don't be thin-skinned, I actually agree with many things you say, but just do not share all the same beliefs is all.
 
path said:
I don't seek to know truth. I seek to be truth. For me, truth is what really is...
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Truth is what is lived. Truth is right there in plain sight all the time. Truth is non interpretive. It just is. It is what is. But I think by "Truth" what people really mostly mean is something more like the "essence of meaning." Meaning is a tricky, tail chasing sort of varmint.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top