Are You Spiritual?

[sonoman]

Read my response to your attempts to redefine logic as to exclude the root meaning of the word which is derived from "Logos", where a rational system defined the way in which the universe operated but that rational system was believed to be spiritually based. This is why both Philo of Alexander and the author of the Gospel of John could use the word "logically" and so do I. Our definition being the root one of Logos and not the latter man-made idea of that "logic" excludes the spiritual dimension altogether.

No, no, and no.

Your definition is not the "root" one of logos, and anyone making such a blatantly false statement has no familiarity whatsoever with the etymology of the term.

Also, the Greek word logos is itself a "man-made idea".

It was later theistic philosophers who did the very thing you accuse Interbane of, and that is redefining the word.

The pre-Classical usages of the word logos was primarily to denote language and speech, such as that seen in Homer for example. Hence why in English the very Gospel of John you mention is translated as "In the beginning was the Word," and "word" is the most common way logos is used in the New Testament, accounting for more than 200 of its 330 occurrences (218 for the KJV, "sayings" making another 50, and "speech" for another 8 ). That is closer to the "root" meaning. Hence why, aside from it being the ancestor to the English word logic, it is also ancestor to the word logo, like in a company logo such as
or or
It's a word. And hence comes its relation to what we call "logic," because it was believed that thoughts, once formulated in the mind, were expressed by means of words, and that words were necessary to reason things out logically (especially if using Socratic method). Its Indo-European ancestor is believed by etymologists to be "leg," which means to gather or collect, and they relate this to "words" because words are a collection or gathering together of sounds and thoughts, and by extension the use of logic requires the gathering of ideas as well. Hence where we get our word "lexicon"- a collection of words.

Certainly ideas categorized as "spiritual" can be communicated through words or "logoi," but the Greek word logos hardly originated as some spiritual concept the way Neoplatonists and Johannine Christians used it, nor did it innately carry with it spiritual connotations by default. It was later generations who adapted the word to mean various different things, and even the "original" logos was adapted from a different Indo-European meaning. So when it comes to "redefining" the word, you are no less guilty than Interbane, who is no more guilty than the Greeks themselves and their various communities.

I hope you read the responses after your posting again false history of the word "Logos". You don't seem to realize there never was a point in history in Greece where the idea of an overarching world paradigm in operation was ever considered secularly based, the random acts of physical elements and energies. "Logical" is in no way automatically secularized and divorced from this overriding spiritual Grand Design, i.e. a Logos identical to God's Plan. That's atheist delusion of grandeur that never happened and never will because even now God's stepped in with presentation of a Logos, Grand Design, God's Cosmic Plan, that follows the logic of history and the logic of infinity to predict evolution of humanity into God, again another logical conclusion that eludes atheists because of being fundamentalist believers unable to see anything contradicting the basic atheist mindset.

[Vishnu]

The pre-Classical usages of the word logos was primarily to denote language and speech

On Logos, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Logos

This Logos holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this Logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is.

This definition of logos from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus is similar to the Chinese concept of Tao, as the unseen way of nature. The existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger interpreted Heraclitus as using logos to mean the original connecting connectedness of being. So the hymn of Colossians 1:15-20 and the prologue of John's Gospel appear to rest in some older ideas.

I can't quite tell if you're contesting against me or just chiming in with extra info (I'll assume the later, since it's you) but for by-standing readers who might also not be able to tell- there's no discrepancy here. Homer far predates Heraclitus, in fact Herclitus falls at the tail end of the pre-classical age. Homer's earlier usage of logos attests to its meaning as a form of word or speech, e.g. Odyssey 1.56 "soft and flattering words(logoi)".

In Homer, logos basically means "a story, word, or tale." Logoi in the plural refers to "soothing speech."

Heraclitus on Meaning and Knowledge Legitimation by Matthew P. Meyer, Phd dissertation, 2008.

[Vishnu]

Well, it looks like sonoman is one of those confused by-standing readers whom I jsut referred to in my previous post.

I hope you read the responses after your posting

I did, and none of them contradict anything I posted about logos. Heraclitus and Aristotle both post date Homer, Heraclitus is right at the end of the pre-classical age and Aristotle is within the Classical age.

again false history of the word "Logos".

There is nothing false in what I posted. It is all from scholars' texts.

But more than that, I heard this voice and saw this image say to me "Thou art correct. Now go forth and rebuke the false prophet that calleth himself 'sonoman'."

So I've got both of my bases covered. I've got the academic support and the divine revelation, therefore I'm incontestable.

You don't seem to realize there never was a point in history in Greece where the idea of an overarching world paradigm in operation was ever considered secularly based, the random acts of physical elements and energies.

This bit is clearly not addressed to me, as I never commented on any thing relating to "an overarching world paradigm," whether secular or not. My post was exclusively about the history of the usage of the Greek word logos. World views or secular vs religious were issues that were simply never brought up in my post.

"Logical" is in no way automatically secularized and divorced from this overriding spiritual Grand Design, i.e. a Logos identical to God's Plan.

To borrow your words "you don't seem to realize there never was a point in" the history of my post to which you are here responding in which I ever even so much as alluded to what you just wrote here in this sentence.

You had previously asserted of yourself, Philo, and the Gospel of John that "Our definition being the root one of Logos," which is false.

That was a later development. I nowhere said that was not a meaning that was used. I merely refuted your error that such usage was the "root" one, as well as demonstrating that such a definition was no less a "redefining" of logos than Interbane's use of the word "logic". BOTH are a stage removed from the earlier definition of "word/speech" that predates the Classical era, that predates Heraclitus, or Aristotle, or Philo, or the Gospel of John, etc., etc. And even that earlier definition is a stage removed from its Indo-European root.

I even explicitly stated that "Certainly ideas categorized as 'spiritual' can be communicated through words or 'logoi,'" so there is absolutely no way to misconstrue that into some assertion that logos was a purely secular term as you seem to have mistakenly assumed of my post.

I mentioned nothing of secularism.

I mentioned nothing of atheism.

I explicitly admitted that ancient groups used logos in the way you are using it now.

I explicitly stated that logoi can be used to communicate spiritual ideas.

I addressed your claims about the root meaning of logos. The root. That's it. All of this other stuff you're bringing up about secularism and atheism is just you trailing off onto your own thing, it has nothing to do with my post. At all.

As a matter of fact, I don't even recall having ever even clarified here on Booktalk whether I identify myself as theist or atheist.

[grizzlyman]

"spiritual" is another word like "god" it can mean different kinds of things ranging from well adjusted, at peace, content, all the way through to mystic visions, incredible dreams, then there is ritual, and practice that can be from funny to bizarre through to downright dangerous, and on and on all the way to completely insane and broken. all of this in one word "spiritual"

how the hell anyone can be reasonably expected to know what a person means when they use the word "spiritual" or "god" is beyond me.

i often think the same thing though when people ask "how are you" i immediately start thinking "what the hell do you mean?" financially, physically, musically, erotically which particular aspect of my current state do you want my opinion on and why the hell would you take my word for it, i'll probably lie, and i'm the worst judge because i'm stuck in here, judge for yourself, it should be obvious enough or are you too lazy to do the work, or are you just asking because it's polite and you in fact dont give a rats, or is it genuine interest, damn it now i'll have to judge etc etc !!!!

ahhh the thing between our ears what blessing and yet a curse also depending on the training it's recieved

Hi, the last line of your quote hits the nail on the head.

Some years ago I attended a lecture that included a film of researchers interviewing a ‘primitive’ native group. When questioned, the natives answered readily and nodded agreement with suggestions that forest ‘spirits’ affected almost every aspect of their lives. But the look on the native faces suggested there was more to be understood than they were able to express. There appeared to be a gap between our literal understanding and their appearance of understanding. What did it mean? Was their understanding of the question a little 'fuzzy'? Did they nod agreement because they felt it was expected?

Today I believe our understanding that forest ‘spirits’ were interfering in a supernatural sense was at odds with their understanding of the word ‘spirit’. For them, the word 'spirit' did not include a supernatural element: it represented the intrinsic anthropomorphic characteristics of natural phenomena as described in the book Miraclescam. This distortion of natural to supernatural religious understanding is rife in Western society and overwhelms rational discussion of spiritual belief.

Is it not a little odd that our advanced, literate and sophisticated society, can be so lacking in awareness of the spiritual 'body language' of nature, when it is so clearly seen by illiterate, unsophisticated and shabbily dressed aboriginal peoples.