THE ABSTRACT
The precision of this presentation will be based on a clear defining and understanding of the linguistics involved concerning what is termed as “faith-things not seen,” and what non-religious people would refer to as “the transcendent state.”
In short: I’m going to reveal that which is invisible by presenting a calculus that will allow us to see manifestations of its work.
This is an introduction into the linguistics for understanding that manifestation.
INTRODUCTION
Faith, according to the King James Version of the Bible, can be best described, I believe, in the following passage:
Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Let's take a scientific look at this passage. We see that we have two things that allow us to understand what we’re dealing with.
1. Substance
2. Things not seen
We know what substance is. That would be all things physical and things that can be measured as some type of energy.
The "things not seen," in this context, is the substance that is referred to when attributing something to the nature of God that has yet to be made manifest. God is invisible. God is the “things not seen.” We believe those things are there and because they are there in existance, we consider our belief to be an act of “faith.”
Faith: I believe that it’s there, even though I can’t see it, and I want to access it.
Another thing to point out is that the word is “things.” That’s with an ‘s’ at the end, as in plural.
What we're trying to access are the “things.” For example: The cure for disease. We want the "things" that would allow us to cure anything.
The word “things,” in the passage, is the Greek word:
πρᾶγμα: pragma – (pronunciation: prä'g-mä)
The Greek definition, in this context, is:
1) that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact
2) what is done or being accomplished
3) a matter, question, affair
4) that which is or exists, a thing
My understanding of the matter is that the Greek word for “things” contains all four of the listed definitions as its content. But we’re going to leave this alone for a while. We’ll come back to it when we want to apply it to the context of what is going to be presented later on in this section of the protocols.
Before we move on, let's be clear about this one thing: We want to access these “things” so that they can manifest some type of substance that will allow us to evolve as a society.
_______________________________________
THE BODY OF THE FINDINGS:
INTRODUCTION TO THE "LOGOS" THEORY
In this section I'm going to introduce you to the philosopher Heraclitus, who was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, 535–475 BC. Heraclitus, from what I understand, was one of the first philosophers to give a detailed account of the theory of the "logos".
I’m going to use Heraclitus' theory on the "logos" to emphasize a direction that I want follow. The theory is pretty detailed so I have to break it up into it's own personal sections.
Before we get into that, let me introduce this thought: In the beginning of this segment, I introduced the Book of Hebrews 11:1 to emphasize the subject matter: Faith, substance, and "things not seen." But, by the time the Book of Hebrews was written, Heraclitus had already examined, debated and written about the “things not seen” some 400 years earlier. Heraclitus referred to the “things not seen” as the “Logos.”
At this point I’m going to interject what has been written about Heraclitus’ definition of the “Logos.” Or better yet, how the definition was developed. Again, this section is so detailed in what it’s saying, that I’m going to break it up into my own little sections. That way I can refer to each section individually as the need for that information arises.
HERACLITUS' DISCLOSURE ON THE LOGOS:
a) “From him logos can mean discourse, didactic discourse, i.e. teaching word, and even reputation. But at the same time, it can also mean relation, proportion, and meaning common universal law.
b) It is worth noting with this breadth of meaning that Heraclitus has the whole field of meaning in mind in each individual use of the word: the words which contrast the objects with one another, the relationships which exist simultaneously between objects, the law which underlies these relationships – a common law, in fact, including human beings as well – and the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior.
c) It becomes clear from this that Heraclitus was not concerned with a philosophical system, but with getting hold of the unity of the One and the All through the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change. Logos for him is thus the instrument of thought, expressing both the thought-process and its conclusion, and also its consequences for the thinker.
d) Since the logos, “unlike myth, which the god places in the soul of the poet as an inner truth…is directed to that which is existent and material,” it embraces “the whole empirical breadth of everything which one has ascertained by the use of eyes and ears.”
e) These conclusions are founded on the meaning of the verb lego, which underlies logos, and which denotes the activity of collecting, carefully selecting, cataloguing in succession, and arranging together in an orderly sequence. Thus originally it had nothing to do with talking or speaking.
f) Everything that man sees he explores with his mind and relates together; this relationship, according to Heraclitus, is the logos of individual objects, contained in the objects themselves, and exhibiting a law common to all existents. He is therefore able to say “the One is All.”
g) The world represents for him a reciprocal relationship between the objects and with the whole, into which man himself is drawn, on account of which he is also capable to reason. Hence he recognizes universal laws within himself (physical/mental) and the laws of his own being in the world-whole (metaphysics).
h) This “world-whole”, however still remains “world.” It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”
OK, let's get into interpreting what is being said here.
From section a) and b) we get two things.
From a) “common universal law” and:
From b) “…the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior.”
In short: We’re talking about "appropriate human behavior" in relation to what exists. Let me illustrate that a bit more but in its simplest terms.
A person sees a tree (An object) and concludes that if he/she runs headfirst into the tree…it’s going to hurt. And if anyone else did it, the results would be the same. It hurts! That is a “common universal law.” And “…the demand which grows out of this law, common to all men, for appropriate behavior” is respected as truth. In other words: Running into trees headfirst is inappropriate behavior.
That would be in the context of Heraclitus’ time. In modern times we could use the same “common universal law” to say that if we ran a red light, while driving, the possibility for causing great harm, to oneself and to others, is high. Therefore, to avoid such an unnecessary circumstance, we write laws that make it illegal to perform such an act as driving through a red light. Again, that’s inappropriate behavior derived from the “common universal law.” (Can you believe that without these simple little laws people would be wrecking all the time? And that’s simply because people don’t consider the consequences of their behavior.)
Let's move on to sections c) and d). From this we see that Heraclitus is examining the thought process in relations to the objects around him. But, in my theory, he’s not really concerned about what he sees and hears and how it relates to each other as much as he’s trying to understand this: What the heck is out there beyond what we are able to see, hear and touch?
That was the initial question that he wanted to answer when he first started with this whole thought process. And clearly, he wasn’t able to come away with anything other than what he concluded to be the relationship between human beings and the objects of the world. Also, in his conclusions, he acknowledges that whatever it is that is "out there," it is the source of all the things he observed and understood. Thus, he defines the source of his observations as the "Logos."
In other words: Everything he observed is what he came away with, while trying to comprehend the thing he couldn’t measure with his sight, hearing, feeling and reasoning. But, he left himself, or humanity, room to observe what he couldn’t comprehend, in his time, by introducing the thought that: “…with getting hold of the unity of the One and the All through the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change”; Therefore, leaving us the ability to ascertained it in our time, whatever it will eventually come to mean.
And, again, in other words: He concluded that things would eventually change through the natural course of evolution. And when humanity evolves to a certain point, it would be, at that time, that we would be able access the fullness of the “One and the All.” The one thing he wasn’t able to do in his time.
Well, it's not that he didn't access it. But that what he came away with was something that left him longing for more. But he did understand the natural direction of such a grand concept, enough so, to write about it and to describe it as the “Logos.” And the things he did ascertain, the common universal laws for appropriate behavior, he attributed the source of that understanding as part of the "things not seen" that are provided by the "Logos," the instrument of thought, hence, the understanding of what is appropriate human behavior: Morals, values, and ethics.
Let's move on to section e) and f). From these two sections we see Heraclitus’ intention wasn’t to find a common universal law for appropriate behavior. It was to see what or why these laws exist. He was trying to reach the highest high. And with that, the conclusion he came away with, the initial philosophical definition of the word “Logos” was introduced.
In other words he said this: “The "Logos" is the source of all we know to be just, true and appropriate.” That’s why he referred to it as “the One is All.”
Let's move on to sections g) and h). These sections are loaded with good information.
First section g): What I want to pull out of this section is this: “Hence he recognizes universal laws within himself and the laws of his own being in the world-whole.”
The universal laws within himself are, of course, how the body works. That's biology. This, also, includes the thought process. That's psychology. When we combine that with the objects that are in the world, physics, what we have is metaphysics. For those of you who don’t understand what metaphysics are, here is the definition of the word that I'm applying to it:
Metaphysics:
(I'm using the definition in number 1 in this segment. I'll be using number 3 in a later segment.)
1. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
Priori
1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
2. a) Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
b) Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
All of that, the first definition of metaphysics, is fine and is already considered common knowledge. So much so that we don’t even pay attention to it. We take it for granted. The real reason I put such detail into this section is because I wanted to get to section h). “This “world-whole,” however still remains “world.” It must not be interpreted transcendentally; in fact, the thought of transcendence does not yet exist.”
That’s where we want to be! We want to get to the point of accessing the “transcendence” and giving the thought some type of definition. In doing so, we bring it into existence as part of our normal way of thinking, just as the “universal common laws” idea/thought already exist in our minds. (That would be the definition of the word metaphysics in number 3 and number 1 and 2 of the word priori. Except, when I finish presenting the calculus, the word priori won't be attached to the idea. The whole idea of using a word like priori, in this case, about "the transcendence," is because it has yet to be defined.)
Continuing: In my theory, the “transcendence” and the “things not seen,” described in the Book of Hebrews 11:1, are the same thing. The difference between the thought of transcendence, in Heraclitus’ time, and the "things not seen," in the time that the Book of Hebrews was written, is this:
The thought of “…getting hold of the unity of the One and the All through the existence of the universal law of proportion which underlies continuous change,” had been in process for a period of over 400 years.
In other words: The changes that occurred in the 400 years that passed from Heraclitus’ time to the time that the of the Book of Hebrews was written, has allowed us to access the “transcendence” or the “things not seen” through “faith.”
Simply put: Our minds have developed to the point where we can visualize these concepts and access them without fear or superstition.
We know it’s there! Now we have to access it. This brings me back to its content.
The Greek definition of the word "things":
1) that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact
2) what is done or being accomplished
3) a matter, question, affair
4) that which is or exists, a thing
These four “things,” in my theory, are in continual motion within that, which we cannot see. They’re continually trying to manifest themselves through it’s own creation. (The human experience)
The good we want to do, in our minds, is already done or is being accomplished in the mind of the “things not seen.” And when we think of it, it’s because the “Logos” has already thought of it and wants to manifest it through your life. In other words: The "Logos" planted it in your mind to begin with.
With that: what we need for the “things not seen” to do, is to manifest itself as a “substance of things hoped for.”
What the “things not seen” wants from us is this: It wants us to apply certain laws into our thinking and lives, so that we can present ourselves as vessels for the manifestation of the “substance of things hoped for.” I’m going to describe these laws in detail in sections 8, 9, and 10 of the protocols.
Let's be clear on this one thing. When I refer to the manifestation of the "substance of things hoped for," I'm not referring to money, a good job, cars, beautiful women and things like that. I not talking about the American version of the Gospel of Jesus-Christ. We’re talking about the truth of what is in the Holy Bible.
In other words: We’re not talking about the American version of a prosperity teaching. We’re talking about the "substance of things hoped for" that would benefit the “whole.”
In other words: Cures for diseases and laws that bring justice and peace to people’s lives.
When scripture refers to the "things not seen" providing the "substance of things hope for" it is intended to be "evidence" that these things are real. Evidence, as in a testimony, that through our "faith," we have access to the "things not seen." But what good is all of that if the Church doesn't show "evidence" that it has legitimate access to the "things not seen?" That is a serious resource if God/The Logos has truly made it available to us.
If you read the rest of Hebrews Chapter 11, you'll see the testimony of what can be accomplished when we properly access the great "things not seen." The things described in Hebrews Chapter 11 is what this whole presentation is all about. We want to access that, in this day and age, to see how it will allow us to evolve as a society.
THE LOGOS
To this point, I’ve introduced the word “Logos” to you in regards to how Heraclitus defined the word, and not how the Apostles' applied the word's meaning in Holy Scripture. Between the two time periods, Heraclitus' and the Apostles', the word, itself, went through a number of changes in how it is defined and understood.
By the time the Apostles took hold of the word, and used it in their letters to the churches, it had a different or a more precise meaning than what Heraclitus had given the word. I'm going to explain the difference further down the road in this section of the protocols.
My reason for writing about it, in this section, was just to introduce the concept and a little of its history to you. That’s because I’m going to bring it up, again, in this section of the protocols. And it’s going to come into play, again, when I define our psychological make-up in section 17 of the protocols.
IN SUMMARY
Here we are, some 2000 years after the Apostles used the word “Logos,” and the changes that have occurred between that time and this time, just can’t be described with a few clicks of computer keys.
How the changes from then to now, and how it effects accessing the "things not seen" has to be revealed slowly. Again, this is only an introduction to the concept of the “Logos.” That’s important because you'll need to be familiar with such terms to understand how it operates.
OK, so this is where we are: This segment contained an "abstract" and an "introduction" to the body of my findings, which I will begin to explain in the next segment.
In the next segment I'll be starting from the ground up. What I mean is this: From the beginning. How the Kingdom of Heaven is structured is what needs to be explained. Once it's explained, then we can understand it properly and repent accordingly.
With that: I’m ready to move on to the next section.
mike t.
0 comments:
Post a Comment