Mythos and Logos

Message appreciated, Bandit. The devotional path of approach to God is a valid one, imho, and is certainly not without its rewards (vide Mrs. Robinson, by Simon & Garfunkel). I know something of it, but less so from practice, and more from shared experiences with many who are on that path. It is, however, not for everyone.

Geoffrey Hodson wrote a book called The Seven Human Temperaments, a favorite book of mine, and by one of my favorite authors. In it, he describes the seven main personality types. In short, they are the politican, the educator, the philosopher, the artist/actor, the scientist, the religious devotee, and the statesman/diplomat/financier. This doesn't mean that everyone fits neatly into one of these categories, but it's a good starting point.

In simple terms, I would just say that God made people of all types, and there are very good reasons why not everyone is a Christian, or even religious. Many people prefer the term spiritual, and this, in itself, helps identify the distinction between people who are natural devotees, and those who fall under one of the other six temperaments. Unfortunately, I've observed again & again that the devotee types often misunderstand folks of the other temperaments, and most certainly vice versa. It's a shame that people can't just accept that all roads lead to Rome, even if, alas, some take a more circuitous path.

The teachings I have studied for many years, suggest that only the precious few will respond to the Higher Calling (of the Soul, the Christ within). The average person, Christian or otherwise, is thus "not on the path," esoterically speaking. They are considered Christ's sheep, purely symbolically speaking. The few who are able to walk the Higher Way (the narrow, Razor-Edged path), are the goats - able to scale the mountain heights directly. And then, as the sheep wind their way more casually around the mountain, there are also wolves. Usually though, even wolves are not intentionally so, being but sheep who have strayed ... and most of whom will return, given time (to learn the errors of their ways).

As I say, I have had the good fortune, and blessing, to have known many goats ... and for a time, I perhaps made the effort to climb the mountain directly. It is not easy. And thus I have the greatest respect for those who are able thus to ascend, while I am also learning much respect for my fellow sheep ... since life presents its challenges to us all. We are wise to be thankful for every difficulty that comes our way, and wiser still if we meet these tests gratefully, and pass them joyously. :)

Andrew
 
Hi Andrew -

At the outset I said:
The 'problem' with Christianity is that it combines the two in a most direct and concrete manner, unlike any other.

Mmmm, my argument is that God is not a being beyond order, reason & logic.

Who's reason, who's logic? Yours? Mine? This is a dangerous path:

In Feuerbachian terms, the point of imago dei is not that God is an anthropomorphic projection whereby man alienates his best attributes from himself and assigns them to an imaginary being external to himself, but that man is a theomorphic projection whereby God shares some of his attributes with real beings external to him though dependent on him.
http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/10/imago-dei.html

I would suggest this is the foundation of the argument.
Your argument implies that man determines the nature of God.
I believe rather that God determines the nature of man.

Thomas
 
Thomas,

I think you're reading something into to what I'm saying. I'm not implying that we (should) base our entire understanding of Deity on simply the best aspects and attributes of our own nature alone. These simply present a good starting point. We must go further, and try to understand how the entirety of who & what we are ... can be and is related to God.

My signature line reflects what I think all-too-often happens when we begin to speak of God. As some maintain, Jesus IS God ... and this is where, and why I cringe. Sure, whatever. That's about all I can say. For once I just don't have it in me to give a d--- what folks think, and I know that comes as a relief to most, as you don't have to read another diatribe.

But I do agree! Deity is responsible for our very being, and for every aspect & attribute thereof. Responsible in an indirect sense, I mean ... not at any given moment, and for our precise actions/choices.

The Logic beyond which Deity is not, is Divine Logic. I cannot define it, no! Don't look to me for that. You can't either. At best we can speak of it. The Platonists were a bit better equipped to treat such a subject. Plato's Ideals, for example. This is getting at the Logic, Reason, and Order I am referring to. For more, try going out and looking at the Heavens. Consider now, that those stars out there - AREN'T arranged haphazardly, in the understanding of Deity. They are so arranged ... for a Purpose, and according to a Heavenly Order. And yes, they most certainly DO influence life, and all events, on our tiny little planet. Some more so than others, such as Sirius, Betelgeuse, the Pleiades, and the stars of Ursa Major. Ahhh, but this is unfamiliar territory, isn't it. Not in principle, but in detail. Is it, therefore, false? You must decide. But watch that baby! The bathwater may be swirling, but try not to let it go!

Can we, in fact, understand something of this Order and Divine Reason, or indeed - are we doomed to forever anthropomorphize, and interpret. Well, you tell me. I'm an optimist in that regard, if a pessimist in many others.

Try this link, and the three pages that immediately follow. I think you will find that my understanding of Divine Logic, Reason, etc. is hardly my own construct. I do not begin to really understand, but I know enough to stop sitting around pretending to ... ;)

cheers,

andrew
 
Hi Andrew -

The link you reference is outside the Christian mythos/logos - and from the perspective of Christianity is ancilliary, incidental, and essentially ephemeral.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
Matthew 24:35

Consider the story of Martha and Mary: Martha is 'busy' (with all its esoteric implication), Mary sits in stillness, and Jesus says "But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."
Luke 10:42

The mythos/logos of Christianity is of 'the one thing needful', it is a teaching stripped of all cosmological determination - it all boils down to this:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."
Luke 27:34

Now if we want to discuss the esoteric significance of the anthropological ordering of the elements of this commandment, then we may, but such discussion cannot add a jot to the simple meaning of what is said.

Love is the gnosis which renders all others forms 'false' in the sense that they are lesser. Love is the only mode of being which gives of itself utterly - it is the total gift of self.

Thomas
 
Yes, in simplest form, Love was certainly - is certainly - the message of the Christ. You will never find me disagreeing upon this point. :D

Andrew
 
taijasi said:
Yes, in simplest form, Love was certainly - is certainly - the message of the Christ. You will never find me disagreeing upon this point. :D

Andrew

Yep, of Faith, Hope, and Love...these three, but the greatest of these is Love...
 
I would suggest this is the foundation of the argument.
Your argument implies that man determines the nature of God.
I believe rather that God determines the nature of man.
I would suggest that God has given us the opportunity to help shape or relationship with God. Love is the perfect bond of unity. However, love requires free will in order to to truly be love.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."
Luke 27:34

Now if we want to discuss the esoteric significance of the anthropological ordering of the elements of this commandment, then we may, but such discussion cannot add a jot to the simple meaning of what is said.

Love is the gnosis which renders all others forms 'false' in the sense that they are lesser. Love is the only mode of being which gives of itself utterly - it is the total gift of self.

Yep. Love has a way of making the convolutions of our rational mind seem clumsy by comparison. {Yet another subtle flavor added to the meaning of "grace."} However, we do need the logos in order to balance the mythos. Sometimes love can be blind. We still need the law, and its rational approach to serve as a back-up system when there is a lack of love evident. And it is quite evident that law, logic, and rationalism alone are limited in that they function mainly by defining and confining evil, or whatever analogous term they wish to apply to the concept, and will eventually reach a point where the structures they build will collapse in their convolutions, and become quite lame in regards to their functionality. :eek: Mythos and Logos can each sharpen and strengthen the other, or tear each other down. It's a matter of how we define the relationship of one to the other, much like how we define our relationships with God and others. ;)
 
seattlegal said:
Yep. Love has a way of making the convolutions of our rational mind seem clumsy by comparison. {Yet another subtle flavor added to the meaning of "grace."} However, we do need the logos in order to balance the mythos. Sometimes love can be blind. We still need the law, and its rational approach to serve as a back-up system when there is a lack of love evident. And it is quite evident that law, logic, and rationalism alone are limited in that they function mainly by defining and confining evil, or whatever analogous term they wish to apply to the concept, and will eventually reach a point where the structures they build will collapse in their convolutions, and become quite lame in regards to their functionality. :eek: Mythos and Logos can each sharpen and strengthen the other, or tear each other down. It's a matter of how we define the relationship of one to the other, much like how we define our relationships with God and others. ;)

Well said. I see this relationship between Love and the law very much the same. I've said that law is the scaffold that we rely upon until love stands on its own. Once you have love, you no longer need the scaffold. Also shows that most of us have a very long way to go before the scaffold is unnecessary.

Right on too about the balance between mythos and logos.

Kudos to Thomas for a great thread and stating so succinctly in his OP what we often have a difficult time grasping, much less saying clearly.

peace,
lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
Well said. I see this relationship between Love and the law very much the same. I've said that law is the scaffold that we rely upon until love stands on its own. Once you have love, you no longer need the scaffold. Also shows that most of us have a very long way to go before the scaffold is unnecessary.

Right on too about the balance between mythos and logos.

Kudos to Thomas for a great thread and stating so succinctly in his OP what we often have a difficult time grasping, much less saying clearly.

peace,
lunamoth

Love (true love) is never blind. It is what we do despite our fear. It isn't some knee jerk reaction, nor a "heart felt issue". It is a tough choice. (cry later). Do now. Do what is best. Second guess later, or grieve later. Love is acting in the best interest of someone else's interest, plain and simple. That is how it works.
 
Quahom1 said:
Love (true love) is never blind. It is what we do despite our fear. It isn't some knee jerk reaction, nor a "heart felt issue". It is a tough choice. (cry later). Do now. Do what is best. Second guess later, or grieve later. Love is acting in the best interest of someone else's interest, plain and simple. That is how it works.
Hence, the need for free will in order to for love to be tested as true. However, not having the full knowledge of all of how the "tough choice" will play out is what I meant regarding "blind love." One can have the best of loving intentions, but still make a "poor, or blind choice" out of ignorance or by being deceived by incorrect information. {Kinda like Eve in the Garden of Eden.}
 
Back
Top