logos, barley-parleying & lockshen soup
July 13th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: logos, barley-parleying & lockshen soup :: logos, barley-parleying & lockshen soup :: logos, barley-parleying & lockshen soup :: logos, barley-parleying & lockshen soup
>> Tude:
>> >>From the viewpoint of the Scripture (John 1:1 and Acts 17:28), the
>> >>Word is
>> > the world and the world is the Word. They are not different from each
>> other.
>> > God is the Word, and the Word is the world. Pantheism, thus. Logos
>> > also means reason (rationality), therefore God and world are
>> rational,
>> > perhaps not from our very limited viewpoint (comprehending everything
>> > is an utopia for the size of our brains), but considered from God’s
>> Own viewpoint.
mP:
>> Sorry, Tudor just noticed your response: briefly (I’m in the thick of
>> it, work, that is), naively, why do you drag God into this?
Tudor:
> Because Logos (as in the Scripture) was being discussed on this list.
OK, yes, but…
mP:
>> Does the
>> notion of the (worldly) source of intelligibility and thus language’s
>> possibility to language (logos for me) necessarily involve some kind of
>> god or theist thinking?
Tudor:
> Heidegger defined Being as that which in the last instance overwhelms
> everything, just as Marx defined economy as deciding over everything in
> culture and society, but only in the last instance.
>
> Since God can be defined as Total, Fundamental and Absolute, we see that God
> and Being share the same attributes, so we could believe they are One and
> The Same Being.
You could only “believe” that if be-ing were a being, but, the ontological
difference means that be-ing can not be (a being). Furthermore we were
speaking of logos not be-ing as such, unless we can say that logos is he
be-ing of language (and worldly orderliness?).
>
>> I certainly was not suggesting any kind of
>> identity (lack of difference)between world and word, rather, on the
>> contary, that one is open to the other (thus, they are utterly
>> different)…
>
> I was aware you were not implying that. What I offered is some commentary
> about the Scripture, for we were already speaking about the wolf (video
> lupum).
lupus toons, eh.
regards
michaelP
>
> Greetings,
>
> Tudor
