« Links Mentioned on the Show | Main | Biblical Authority Is the Real Issue »

July 23, 2012

Comments

Greg,

If Moral Ought stemmed from an un-created, eternal Moral Rule, which is void of Personhood, then the affront of the Cold and the Heartless and the Loveless would be just that: merely illogical, or unreasonable. This is the Cold and Heartless Ceiling of attempting to build Love on Matter in any Ultimate Sense, even if Un-Created Rules are granted. Spock raises his eyebrow and comments, “How odd” and that is the most we could expect from such a Moral Absolute void of Personhood, even if we grant that it is eternal, immutable, uncreated, and Primary.


If we mean to speak of the Impersonal, then we are done.


But of course there is more.


Personhood here enters, and, with it, all the Immutable Semantics of that Eternal Language which both our Logic and our Love use to speak of that which lies at the End of Ad Infinitum.

Outside of Immutable Personhood, Immutable Love, we have only Need, only Have-To. Photons Have-To. Persons-Ought-To. It is a different Substrate and demands its own Language, the Semantics of which are as Immutable and as Eternal as is Love Himself. This is why "DNA neither knows nor cares, DNA just is, and we dance to its music" very well has its own "Is" yet provides no Personal Affront to Eternity, no "Ought" against Eternity. We are right that "is" by itself only gives us Eternity’s cold, heartless raised eyebrow of “how illogical” rather than that fierce Passion of Love Himself which we all know and taste in our own finite version of His Everywhere And Always as our Love, as well as our Logic, sees to and at the End of Ad Infinitum, while not knowing Infinitely, and therein Personhood swallows up whole the Mere Rule of Matter Alone.


When we as Persons shake our fist at the hard fist of This-Now, we divulge the truth of the matter.

Greg,

One further thought:


It would help to define Smart, or to call "Smart" something related to the Highest Ethic, which is Love. "Sin" is perhaps those acts which, at the end of the day, violate the Highest Ethic, no matter how "smart" they appear in the short term. I think "smart" needs to be defined. I think defining such as it is related to the Highest Ethic is the Smartest thing to do, Ulimately.


"I think defining such as it is related to the Highest Ethic is the Smartest thing to do, Ulimately. "

Don't we have to first define "Highest"?

Louis great question; define God and give two examples........


I think we must define "define" really.


Do we mean to Think about Definition, and therefore Understand but not Know, or, do we mean to Know Definition and therefore not Understand?


As in:


"Human intellect is incurably abstract. Pure mathematics is a type of successful thought. Yet the only realities we experience are concrete; this pain, this pleasure, this dog, this man. While we are loving the man, bearing the pain, enjoying the pleasure, we are not intellectually apprehending Pleasure, Pain or Personality. When we begin to do so, on the other hand, the concrete realities sink to the level of mere instances or examples: we are no longer dealing with them, but with that which they exemplify. This is our dilemma; either to taste and not to know or to know and not to taste, or, more strictly, to lack one kind of knowledge because we are in an experience or to lack another kind because we are outside it. As Thinkers we are cut off from what we think about; as tasting, touching, willing, loving.. we do not clearly understand. The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter into reality, the less we can think. You cannot 'study' Pleasure in the moment of nuptial embrace, nor repentance while repenting, nor analyze the nature of humor while roaring with laughter. But when else can you really know these things? "If only my tooth ache would stop, I could write another chapter about Pain." But once it stops, what do I know about pain?" (C.S. Lewis)


......We cannot 'study' Pleasure in the moment of nuptial embrace..... but when else can we really "Know" these things....?


This is the other half of Language and of Know and of Consciousness fully real, fully tasted, fully known.


What I mean is, which half of our Consciouness shall we employ? Which half of Know shall we dive into? Logic? Love? Both of these Eyes?


How shall we Know He Who Is-Love, and, how shall we Know what we Know? We cannot 'study' love in the moment of nuptial embrace, nor analyze the nature of humor while roaring with laughter. But when else can we really "know" these things?


If only my tooth ache would stop, I could get around to "understanding" pain.......


This, by the way, is why the Hard Agnostic is only Half-Human. He thinks he can "know" pain without ever feeling pain.

Two Kinds of Knowing, one of Personhood's Logic and the other of Personhood's Love. The Immutable Semantics of that Eternal Language by which we touch all that lies at the End of Ad Infinitum is spoken by Consciousness, though we do not know infinitely. "This is our dilemma; either to taste and not to know or to know and not to taste, or, more strictly, to lack one kind of knowledge because we are in an experience or to lack another kind because we are outside it. As Thinkers we are cut off from what we think about; as tasting, touching, willing, loving.... we do not clearly understand. The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter into reality, the less we can think...."

We are two Species in One really, that of the Eternal and that of the Temporal, and we have Eyes to see All-Contexts, as does our Father, whose name is Love.

A little more on those Two Kinds of Knowing:


Personhood is discarded outright by the Atheist and the Hard Agnostic as ultimately illusion, and, so too, Love, Pain, Will, and all the other nuances which are found in that other half of Consciousness. The Hard Agnostic attempts to defend his Logic, or the Logic of Consciousness, as arbitrarily reliable up to a point, and attempts therewith to teach us all about Pain and about Love and about Laughter, while claiming we need never Taste Pain or Love or Laughter, ever, to “Know” or to “Understand” what each really “Is”. He is Half Human. Half Real. He sees only Half of What-Is, only Half of What-Exists, and he knows only Half what the rest of us Know, understands only Half of what the rest of us understand. When we dive into that moment of unrestrained Laughter, or Pain, or Love, we there Know and Understand Fully, Wholly, and at no other time does our Consciousness Know and See to this degree as when immersed there in those moments. The Hard Agnostic forbids us to ever See or to Know or to Taste in that Arena of Consciousness and charges all such Sightlines as guilty of Illusion. Yet what is Pain? Does it exist? What is Laughter? Does it exist? What is Love? Does it exist? When do we “know” what each “Is”?


The Hard Agnostic will try to teach us all about Pain and tell us of Substance-P and of neuro-chemical junctions and of spinal-thalamic tracts and of aimless photon reverberations, yet utterly fails to “Know”, utterly fails to “Understand”, utterly fails to “See” for none of that Half of Consciousness (Logic) is fully sighted but by the 3-D perspective gained only by the Two-Eyed and Fully-Sighted where Logic and Love give to Consciousness the Whole. He sees only in 1-D, and wishes to give us lessons about what is Real and what is Illusion. "All is illusion, all is illusion..... we're not real....." and objective reality is dispensed with and he claims all is illusion and now there can be no "actual" illusion for illusions become impossible. What we really would mean by illusion would be simply one more irresistible trick played by unthinking photons upon yet one more cluster of non-seeing neurons, and this would be but one more act of Non-Think upon but one more bundle of Non-See. There could be no "Mistake" for there could be no "Actual" from which to mistake off of. “We cannot know and see into All-Contexts and thus we know that the Is-Statement of [A Is A] is itself Arbitrary.” And further, the arbitrariness of that Arbitrary is itself Arbitrary, for [A Is A] just may be, for all we know, False in Some-Context Somewhere, and thus [Round Is Round] just may be a Falsehood in Some-Context somewhere, for all we know, for we cannot access All-Context Knowledge, and there the Subtext beneath our feet embraces a faint possibility, somewhere, of Round-Squares and Nonsense becomes the foundation of the Subtext beneath our feet upon which we build our thesis about the Context above our heads. We cannot help someone who clings to a faint possibility of round squares in Some-Context somewhere, and we cannot take seriously someone who claims Semantic Objectivity for his own Arbitrary Assertions and then simply dispenses with Semantic Rules if and when it suits his larger thesis.


When we say "God Is Love" we see, and taste, and know, and understand the Is of this with that body of Immutable Semantics comprising the Eternal Language whereby Consciousness makes Is-Statements of What-Is there at the End of Ad Infinitum, though it does not know Infinitely, for Logic lays claim to the Truth of All-Contexts and asserts that there are no such things as Round Squares, Any-Where, Any-Time, Ever, Always, and, so too, Love touches that which is True in All-Contexts and makes Is-Statements of Love's Personhood upon the "I" in All-Contexts and upon the "You" in All-Contexts and upon the "We" in All-Contexts where Love’s Intrinsic I-You Eternally-Begets the Singular-We as the Triune I-You-We of Love and of Personhood lives Uncreated.


C.S. Lewis helps us here with the humor of this intellectual blunder: "If only my pain would stop I could begin to "understand" and to "know" what pain "really" "is"....".


The comments to this entry are closed.