THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR EXISTENCE

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR EXISTENCE

Post by jufa » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:14 pm

THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE TO EXIST. To be more percise, there is no logic to existence. None this means all that exist in the universe should not be, and so, to deal with the effect, will always lead one to deduct on that which has no meaning.

Let's step back from all our reading, personal analysis and interpretation and ask ourselves the question what is? In asking myself this question, I found the answer as followed. What is is there is no logic to creation, therefore, there is no logic to the universe nor mankind. Being there is no logic to be found for creation nor the universe, then that which occupies the universe has no logic to exist inclusive of man. And being one cannot find intellectual reasoning, nor comprehension for existence, then there is no logic for that which should not be [man] to worship that which should not be [existence].

Now whether one believes or not in the logic or illogic of creation, what one believes or doesn't believe is not enough to override the truth which the Apostle Paul told us when he stated: "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitutious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotion, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. WHOM THEREFORE YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP, HIM DECLARE I UNTO YOU. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is he worshiped with men's hand, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."

Now for this writer, this alone nullifies any belief in denomination or other teaching which has rules and by-laws to rule the collective mass. But going one step further, it also nullifies the belief, for this writer, that there is another god of this world who has dominion over the inner man Christ. And just one more step must be taken at this juncture, what one beliefs is not enough to make one a true believer, because the suppose god of this world, whom some has given the name satan, is also a believer in God. Yet look what his believes has done to the world, should he be a reality.

But let us return to the subject matter. There is no logic to the universe because there is no logic for existence, with one exception, and that is found in Rev.4:11, "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.."

Now to go even deeper, we see in Gen.1:26 that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." But wait, let us look at Heb.1:1-3, a parallel Scripture where it states God spoke once through his prophets, but now, "in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESSED IMAGE OF HIS PERSON."

There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for God's pleasure. And what is God pleasure, that which is the brightness of his glory, and the expressed image of his person. And what is that? male and female.

Should there be a reason for worship it is because God has spoke to His image saying THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED."

"Awake thou that sleepest, arise from the dead, and Christ will give thee life."

jufa
boringguy
Associate
Posts: 459
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:36 am
Location: Idaho

Post by boringguy » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:56 am

Jufa, I like your call to action, although its not logic that leads me there. (but thats another story )

Seems christianity has become in many ways the religion of static belief. As in, I'm told what to belive and what rules to follow and gauge myself by what I am not, rather than by what I am. I understand how the John gospel served the agenda of the time that they were adopted, and why Thomas was left to go his own way. How this was the religion of the conquerors as it embodied a power structure and they carried it to the far corners of the world. And all that likely for a reason I don't understand. ( only God does ) However I believe Jesus ( the metaphor that I choose to associate with ) said, " Follow Me" , which requires action, not static belief.

So I follow, and in this journey I'm always grateful for love, grace and compassion when I become so easily distracted and lallygag behind, as little brothers will do.
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:51 am

Hi Boringguy, I agree with you
christianity has become in many ways the religion of static belief.
I have found the by-laws and interpreted goveerning rules christianity lays down do not push one to find one's own destiny, insted, it is to power up the church leaders.

I find the mentality of the christianity has not changed from yesteryear, it has become a more sophisticated
religion of the conquerors as it embodied a power structure and they carried it to the far corners of the world.
More and more, I do find to be as Thomas. And I as you
I follow, and in this journey I'm always grateful for love, grace and compassion when I become so easily distracted and lallygag behind, as little brothers will do.
jufa
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:21 pm

Jufa writes:

THERE IS NO LOGIC FOR ANYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE TO EXIST. To be more percise, there is no logic to existence. None this means all that exist in the universe should not be
And yet here we are. Go figure ...

I'm certain Joseph Campbell (and Carl Jung) would agree that nature and the universe-at-large is inherently irrational.

Logic and rational thought, best as we can tell, is a human quality. Reason is a trait not generally associated with trees, rocks, amoeba, thunderstorms, cancer cells, or gods.
Jufa states:

There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for God's pleasure.
I have no problem with the first part of this statement, but I'm baffled by where it goes from there. What is logical about God's pleasure - and why is that pleasure a "logical reason for you and I to exist"? God's pleasure, as expounded in scripture, strikes me as mostly irrational and egomaniacal - or is there some other determination of God's pleasure?

Maybe I'm being unintentionally obtuse (wouldn't be the first time), but makes as much sense to me to say "There is no logical reason for you and me to exist except for Baba Yuga's agony."

I'm not necessarily taking issue with the statement that we exist for God's pleasure - I'm just suggesting this statement by itself makes no logical sense.

Then again, maybe that's the point - kind of a Zen thing

... which brings up a delicious irony revolving around Paul's speech to the Athenians that Jufa references:
Now whether one believes or not in the logic or illogic of creation, what one believes or doesn't believe is not enough to override the truth which the Apostle Paul told us when he stated: "I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitutious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotion, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. WHOM THEREFORE YE IGNORANTLY WORSHIP, HIM DECLARE I UNTO YOU. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is he worshiped with men's hand, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."
In the paragraphs preceding this excerpt Jufa made a compelling case for an irrational universe - "there is no logic to existence" - so I am intrigued to find Paul's speech to the Athenians used to support this position.

The excerpt is from a speech recorded in Acts 17:16 - 34, and is generally cited by students of Christian apologetics (which is the application of logic to the formal defense of Christian dogma) as the epitome of rational, logical argument.

Indeed, Paul is responding directly to the criticism of Epicurean and Stoic philosphers on Mars Hill (the Aeropagus). They refer to him as a "babbler," and seem to expect irrational utterances - but instead Paul of Tarsus offers a rationally developed argument (even citing Greek sources - "as certain also of your poets have said, 'For we are his offspring.'"), based on God as the power behind the universe, which itself declares his power by its very existence - so Paul reasons from there that it follows that there will be a day of judgment when God will resurrect all from the dead.

Perhaps I didn't catch the connection. Is this argument - generally considered the primary example of logical argument in scripture - offered in support of there being no logic to existence, or is this offered to counter the belief that there is no logic to existence?
Jufa continues:

But let us return to the subject matter. There is no logic to the universe because there is no logic for existence, with one exception, and that is found in Rev.4:11, "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.."
I don't see the exception, and find no logic in this claim - and it is an unsubstantiated claim, if by "Lord" in this context we mean the supreme deity of the book of Revelation, God the Father, identified with Yahweh of the Hebrew scriptures - a claim at odds with the role of multiple other Gods, from Allah to Zeus to Kali, Wakontaka, Vishnu/Brahma/Shiva, etc

- and the assertion that the world was created for the pleasure of god - whichever god that might be - is again a statement hardly grounded in logic.

I'll apologize in advance if I seem to be picking nits. That's not my intent -and I believe Jufa is on to something.

I do agree the universe is by nature irrational, as empirical science, based on the laws of causality, is slowly, gradually, reluctantly affirming as well. The laws of causality ultimately break down - whether we are talking chaos theory (the chaotic flux underlying seemingly random, orderly systems like meterological patterns and evolutionary development), or the observations of the particle realm in quantum physics (where time flows in more than one direction, and cause-and-effect gives way to simultaneous associations).

Myth traditionally offers a window whereby humans peer into that irrational mystery that transcends male/female, life/death, time/space, being/nonbeing, cause/effect - and seems to me Jufa is borrowing some of the language and imagery of Christianity to point us to the same timeless depths

and I do appreciate that take.

namaste
bodhibliss
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:53 pm

Exactly, Clemsy - how can one use the rational mind to analyze the rational mind - sort of like touching your right forefinger with your right forefinger ... which is why so much of mythology and metaphysics is marked by paradox ...

Edit: The above is an accidental editing of a Clemsy post by Bodhibliss. So that's not Clemsy up there, that's Bodhi. however, this is Clemsy here, who will try to recall what he originally posted up there in order to satisfy Bodhi's discomfort down below.

I mean in the following frame... not down below... er.., never mind.

Bodhi, mod fingers are very powerful. I think you hit my edit button by accident.

Okay... where was I. Oh yes:
I do agree the universe is by nature irrational,
I don't know how the universe can be defined as either rational or irrational. Here we are in this current moment, riding the wave as it were... and the vocabulary of 'mind', reason or unreason, can't apply absent a mind (god). Isn't this a patina of personification being spread over creation?

My original post was better... but I can't quite get it. I think the above is captures the gist, though.
Last edited by Clemsy on Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:51 am

Whoa , Clemsy - what happened?

My response to your post somehow replaced your entire message! Yikes!

Sorry - I don't know how to get it back - oops!
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:08 am

Bodhibliss writes;

And yet here we are. Go figure ...

I'm certain Joseph Campbell (and Carl Jung) would agree that nature and the universe-at-large is inherently irrational.

Logic and rational thought, best as we can tell, is a human quality. Reason is a trait not generally associated with trees, rocks, amoeba, thunderstorms, cancer cells, or gods.
Being able to state there is no logic for existence, is the answer to Bodhibliss statement:
And yet here we are. Go figure ...
And how is this so, "yet here we are." The gist of "No logic for existence" does not in anyway indicated existence is not a reality. It steps off into the logic of man not being able to touch the mystery of why existence exist.

By there being no problem with the first half of the following statement;
There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for God's pleasure.
there really should be no problem question as to why, being an explanation of why was provided in the same paragraph, which seemed to be overlooked.
And what is God pleasure, that which is the brightness of his glory, and the expressed image of his person. And what is that? male and female.
And how can this be stated, or how can I have knowledge of God's good pleasures? Because the hero's journey is to find conscious union with the source which when found will make man whole, perfect, complete, and pure again. How? By entering the kingdom of the unconditioned mind which is the kingdom of 'no more.'

The kingdom of 'no more' is the kingdom of God being about the business of God. And has been attested to herein;
I'm certain Joseph Campbell (and Carl Jung) would agree that nature and the universe-at-large is inherently irrational.

Logic and rational thought, best as we can tell, is a human quality. Reason is a trait not generally associated with trees, rocks, amoeba, thunderstorms, cancer cells, or gods.
This also attest to the Pauline statement of man serving an unknown God. If this is not true, then God would not be a "metaphor of an absolute mystery" - Campbell, which is beyond man's rational and words. But it doesn't stop there, it is also the reason why illogic is applicable to Bodhibliss' statement of:

"Maybe I'm being unintentionally obtuse (wouldn't be the first time), but makes as much sense to me to say "There is no logical reason for you and me to exist except for Baba Yuga's agony.

I'm not necessarily taking issue with the statement that we exist for God's pleasure - I'm just suggesting this statement by itself makes no logical sense.

Then again, maybe that's the point - kind of a Zen thing." - Bohibliss


Perhaps he had forgot his own words in attempting not to be obtuse;
Logic and rational thought, best as we can tell, is a human quality.
This makes the logic reason for his assumption that:
"There is no logical reason for you and me to exist except for Baba Yuga's agony."
even more of a split personality assumption prompted by an obtuse ego.

I have come to know that myth tradition eliminates obtuse ego's and attempts to define that which is undefinable. And most certainly it eliminates any position of being right by any individual.

jufa
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:31 pm

Again, though, I don't understand your point, Jufa.

"There is no logic to existence."

You seem to accept this statement - then spend several posts trying to logically explain it.

Why not accept there is no logic to existence - that the universe is irrational - and leave it at that.

Why attempt to use logic to explain there is no logic?

Why try to come up with exceptions that are simply assertions (we exist for God's pleasure - where's the logic in that? Just because someone says that's logical doesn't make it so.)

Makes as much sense to spend the space and time describing how to bite your right eyetooth with your right eyetooth, or how to look into your left eye with your left eye.

"Highly illogical," as Spock would say.
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:02 pm

Bohi, you seem to be confused here. I have not in anyway attempted to prove "There is no logic to existence." I made a statement. It's purpose was to accept what I stated, or reject what I presented.

With Boringguy, who was the first to respond to my theme, changed the subject matter and the conversation changed into the following theme;
Seems christianity has become in many ways the religion of static belief.
There was no more conversation thereafter until your message appeared, which tends to show you will be deceiful rambling to prove your correctness.

Anyone who reads this thread will see that you have fabricated the statement
You seem to accept this statement - then spend several posts trying to logically explain it.
vying to make your position. What you have done however, is to show other you are "a penny wise, and a pound foolish." This is especially true when what you state;
Why try to come up with exceptions that are simply assertions
is nothing more than an assertion itself.

Clemsy established to me this board was help people understand, so I changed my approach of presentation since I posted the theme above. If you have anything further to add or subtract from the theme itself, I will be more than willing to dialogue. But if your objective is to defame me, I tell you now you are not intellegent enough to do that. And so I will not waste my energy on nothingness.

jufa
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:27 am

Fascinating.

I am sorry if you are distressed, Jufa - that's not my intention.

I was intrigued by your initial premise - "There is no logic to existence" (you'll recall I agreed).

But then immediately after making that statement, before anyone else joined the conversation, you claimed that this means that all that exists in the universe should not be (which is, of course a logical argument)

... and then spent the next paragraph following the logic of the illogical universe (through deductive reasoning - logic) to arrive at the conclusion that one should not worship existence.

Am I wrong? Are you not using logic to reach that conclusion?

And then, even leaving aside St. Paul's appeal to reason on Mars Hill, you declare again there is no logic to existence - and then, for some unexplained reason, follow this with an exception and quote scripture, claiming that to glory, honor, and give God pleasure provides the logic for existence.

This does seem where you at last leave logic aside, as you offer no insight as to why this is a logical reason for existence.

I offered an alternative view - that to increase Baba Yuga's suffering is the logical reason for existence - to demonstrate the difficulty I had understanding that statement.

I'm not trying to win an argument with you, Jufa - I'm trying to penetrate your thought. I'd like to know what you are saying here, because it goes swoosh right over my head.

Much of that is no doubt due to my own inadequacies, but neither can I read minds. It does seem odd to me that you aver existence has no logic, and then hang from that a number of logical arguments. That doesn't mean you're wrong - I'm just missing the point, and am curious where my train left the track.

I need your help to clarify what you're saying.

If you'd like to prove I'm in error, go right ahead, but I'm not trying to prove I'm right here. I'm sorry my posts haven't managed to convey that sense to you - but I feel like I'm asking someone who just gave a recipe in German for baking a pie to help me translate it into English, and the response I get is that I am trying to defame the piemaker and don't bake as good a pie.

Well, I don't - but I'd like to at least try your pie. I'd appreciate it if you would help me understand.

I am curious why you make the assertions you do (logic? impulse? revelation? hunch?) which might help me understand your point by placing it in context - and I am genuinely confused as to why the God of the Old Testament's pleasure is the logic behind my existence (it does seem to me you give a lot of weight to Judeao-Christian texts, which I'm not suggesting is a negative, but I am curious how that factors in to the antipathy toward Christianity you express in your response to Boringguy - but that comes later in the conversation).

If I had more information about how you arrive at that, I might disagree with your observations and conclusions, but I could respect where you're coming from and understand what you're saying.

That's hard to do when I'm not sure what you mean.

I didn't respond to your exchange with Boringguy because I wanted to understand your initial, very intriguing post first - hard to understand the thread without it, wouldn't you say?

As for the time it took to respond to your original post, you'll note from sampling other conversations that's not an unusual phenomenon. Conversations unfold leisurely here. We all have lives outside cyber space, and often can't respond immediately (in fact, I replied in at least one conversation today that started months ago).

(Of course, because of a faux pas in the forum upgrade last February, no conversation has a date earlier than Feb. 23 - but in the five months since, you'll notice there are often lengthy lags in threads - and conversations have unfolded over months and even several years in the past - some that started years ago have been revived in just the past couple weeks.)

I'm not sure how posting my comments after Boringguy's shows "deceitful rambling to prove" my correctness (it's a discussion - I don't know if I am correct, but it is legitimate to ask questions and highlight differences).

I tend to believe my delayed response was more the result of addressing the recent site breakdown and doing battle with our webhost, dealing with a backlog of over a thousand emails to various JCF departments, preparing the distribution of our RoundTable Guide and re-organizing that program, researching and writing the next Practical Campbell essay, editing an upcoming addition to Joseph Campbell's posthumous collection, preparing and composing the next Associate UpDate, and putting out a variety of other fires - rather than kicking back, rubbing my hands together and gleefully cackling as I scheme ways to score cheap ego points off you.

I don't get to spend much time in the forums anymore - and when I do, the conversations I choose to participate in are those that intrigue me - I have little time to waste on chatter - and I found your initial premise promising, was curious where you intended to go with it, and why you were taking the twists and turns that you did.

It's alright to suggest I'm confused - heck, I believe I was the first to point that out - but to call someone a liar ("deceitful," "fabrication"), no matter how we couch it, is not cool. (It's a good thing my objective isn't to defame you, because then seems I would be unintelligent as well.)

You've expressed a willingness to discuss the theme, and I've certainly asked plenty of questions about it, so please, feel free to continue the dialogue. We can certainly be friendly about it. I'll work to be clearer and phrase my questions in a manner that is less challenging.

Perhaps it would help if we focused on just one point, instead of several.

The one I'm most unclear about is why giving honor and glory and pleasure to God is the logic underlying existence. How does one reach that conclusion - is there a way to reach it apart from accepting the Judeo-Christian revelation?

namaste,
bodhibliss
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:26 am

Your assumption of my distress Bodhi is noted, but that is all that is real about it, the assumption. I will leave it there.

What you have positioned youself to do is to mis-lay the premise of the statements I've presented. And should you have read my post for solid nourishment instead of milk from the titty, you would have found my reasoning was with myself;
In asking myself this question, I found the answer as followed. What is is there is no logic to creation, therefore, there is no logic to the universe nor mankind.
Where you have step off the foundation of this platform was in your interpretation that I was presenting an issue which nullified logic. Never did I present logic not to be a viable essence, I stated there is no logic for existence. Your agreement with me on this matter did nothing to present a logical vision for us to see. It only verified my conclusion, that you, nor I, nor anyone could logically explain not only why creation was not logica, but man himself. Therefore, with you not being able to explain the logic for Bodhibliss, then what logical reason was there for you to worship existence?

Although initially there was no question mark to this theme, you have applied opposition to it based on my using logic to comfirm my presentation. And in so doing, you have not applied me with a logically reason as to why you exist nor creation. You simply state 'I Am' and leave it hanging there. This is just like saying;
"Lord, help me in my unbelief."


belief in what?

Of course I state that all was for God's glory and honor. And here again in your speaking on this matter, you deceptively state;
And then, even leaving aside St. Paul's appeal to reason on Mars Hill, you declare again there is no logic to existence - and then, for some unexplained reason, follow this with an exception and quote scripture, claiming that to glory, honor, and give God pleasure provides the logic for existence.
Deceptive because you failed to mention to the readers that the logic I applied was to this effect;
Now to go even deeper, we see in Gen.1:26 that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." But wait, let us look at Heb.1:1-3, a parallel Scripture where it states God spoke once through his prophets, but now, "in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESSED IMAGE OF HIS PERSON."
There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for God's pleasure. And what is God pleasure, that which is the brightness of his glory, and the expressed image of his person. And what is that? male and female.
And you failed to mention that you agreed to this proposition when you stated to me;
And yet here we are. Go figure ...
which more than indicate I had to use logic to come to my conclusion based on your following words;
Logic and rational thought, best as we can tell, is a human quality. Reason is a trait not generally associated with trees, rocks, amoeba, thunderstorms, cancer cells, or gods.
It need be stated here, the theme of this post originality is not comcerning my use of logic. This is your ploy to attempt to sway the vision of this theme.

You being a moderator of this board have violated the principle of Campbell. Campbell did not believe there was a purpose for existence. And this means he did not find a logic for man to worship anything but life, Life is not existence. Life is being fulfilling that wanton need to discover you.

Whatever excuses you make for not responding to my theme earlier than you did, an for whatever reason that gives you the initiative to do so now, does not interest me.

And my words are clarification in and of themself. Because you can't relate to them tell me you stuck your head in a stock and can't get out.
Again I repeat, to put this thread back on the right track. This thread is not about my usage of logic, for never do I explain any logic as to why the universe exist. I did indeed point out;
Rev.4:11, "Thou are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.."
as the logic for existence. And since God is a metaphor, even this Scripture has no logic. But then God to me is Life Itself which is a metaphor. So this Life I Am is metaphorical, and so, even I am a metaphor.

In closiing, just want to ask. Who is it that can defind logic, or illogic definitively? And in defining logic or illogic, give the authority which makes it absolute accordingly please!

jufa
User avatar
Martin_Weyers
Working Associate
Posts: 4054
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Odenwald
Contact:

Post by Martin_Weyers » Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:27 am

Jufa, please check your PM box before you continue posting.

Martin Weyers
CoaHO Conversation Coordinator
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:31 pm

Thanks for clarifying, Jufa.

It does help - I did somehow miss the sense that you were thinking out loud, ruminating with yourself - which places your comments in a completely different context.

And I certainly agree there is no logic to the existence of man (especially given that humans existed long before logic emerged).

I still didn't know how we arrived at the glory and honor and pleasure of god providing the logic of the universe's existence, apart from accepting the word of scripture. Your extrapolation about male and female, derived from another scriptural reference, is an interesting point of discussion, but you hang that on the premise of the universe existing for god's glory and such, so didn't make much sense to discuss that until I understood the initial premise

- otherwise, it's sorta' like adding the third story of a house before you build the bottom floors - just doesn't work so well.

I'll admit I still don't see how you logically arrive at that point, but since you mention "Of course I state that all was for God's glory and honor," I'll assume it's an assertion of belief, and leave it at that. One either believes it or not, and logic does not enter the equation.
There is no logical reason for mankind to exist. There is no logical reason for this universe to exist. There is no logical reason for you and I to exist except for God's pleasure. And what is God pleasure, that which is the brightness of his glory, and the expressed image of his person. And what is that? male and female
Accepting the scriptural revelation that God's pleasure, et.al., is the logic behind existence, you make an intriguing case, one that shakes up traditional Christian dogma - following that line of thought, I admire the connections you make here.

I know it can be frustrating covering ground you've already covered, explaining things in greater detail, but I thank you for helping me get a better sense of what you're saying.

My reasoning takes me down a different path - most likely because I don't accept the premise that a god created the universe to provide himself with honor and glory and pleasure (I have trouble with ego-bound deities - which, surprisingly, so many of them are).

What we do know is that the universe existed for 18 billion years before gender differences and sexual reproduction enters the scene (at least on this planet - we don't know if such exists elsewhere in the universe, or what other combinations might have arisen).

If we compress the universe down to the scale of a clock, the appearance of differences between male and female enter the scene on the final stroke of the second hand before midnight - and our appearance, that of humans - Homo Sapiens sapiens - is even more recent, occupying but a fraction of that final second.

That awareness makes it difficult for me to accept that human sexual differences (and, I'm assuming, the accompanying act of sexual congress that brings female and male together) is the logical foundation underlying the existence of the universe.

(However, speaking from personal experience, it has often provided the rationale for my existence! That's the fun of coming of age and growing up - though I do notice the fires dim a bit with age ... and sex certainly is inextricably entwined with human existence.)

My logic doesn't make me right - it just explains a difference in conclusions. Nor am I inalterably opposed to your conclusion about male and female - in fact, I'm curious where you had planned to go from there, for it is a fascinating rumination.

Might there be a way to arrive at your observations regarding male and female without resorting to biblical revelation? If we can find and follow another path to the same end, that would not only strengthen your conclusion, but could bring us both closer to the same page. That, after all, is the power and the joy of discussion.

Let me add, Jufa, that I am by no means belittling your intellect or reasoning abilities, which I find quite impressive. You bring compelling, provocative ideas to the table, and I appreciate that - but it's certainly not worth taking offense when someone questions or disagrees with you

... and there's no need to feel intimidated because I happen to be a moderator.

You'll find elsewhere on this board I've engaged in some discussions marked by sharp, sometimes insurmountable disagreement - in fact, there are a couple threads where Noman and I adamantly argue and take issue with each other's reasoning over a dozen pages of conversation

- yet I have great respect for Noman and the way his mind works, and I've learned much from him over time, just as I hope to share with and learn from you - yet no matter how strenously Noman attacked my logic and my conclusions (and vice versa), I don't believe he ever worried about moderator intervention.

However, in the course of our disagreements we never resorted to personal attacks or questioned each others motives.

In fact you'll notice in our the current conversation, Jufa, that though there are many times you have misunderstood me, I don't accuse you of lying. Misunderstandings are common in conversation - especially over the vague medium of the internet, where the absence of nuance, from tone of voice to facial expressions, often leads us to make inaccurate projections.

But just because one person misunderstands another does not mean deceit is involved. Yet when you twice claim I am being deceptive (apparently because, as I pointed out above, I try to nail down one point before moving on to the next), it's difficult not to take offense.

It's not cool to call someone a liar, Jufa, because they disagree - and when you claim someone is being deceptive, that's exactly what you are doing - determining another person's intentions and motivations and leveling an accusation. That's hardly conversation of a higher order.

That does not enhance discussion at all. I know I'm not being deceptive - I'm simply trying to understand, and then add my voice to the discussion. To be called a liar several times (along with implying I'm unintelligent, in an earlier post), doesn't go very far in persuading me to keep an open mind. It's hard not to take offense at personal attacks.

Given that I'm a moderator, I tend to allow more leeway in conversations with me than I would in conversations between others - and then, I do understand that when we're feeling attacked, it's sometimes only natural to respond with rude personal characterizations - that's the nature of stress.

But please keep in mind that's not the norm here - when I witness this in conversation between others I usually send a cautionary pm to the parties, as it's so easy for those characterizations to elicit responses in kind - and then the conversation spins out of control and the subject under discussion gets lost in a flame war.

I suspect that's what Martin's pm might be - I wouldn't know, as it would be inappropriate for me to discuss such measures with him given that I'm involved in the discussion - but that is pretty much standard practice around here.

There's no problem with you demonstrating how my logic is faulty, where my arguments don't make sense or my facts might be wrong - but I'd suggest steering clear of language that ascribes intention and motivation. Saying I'm wrong or in error is no problem - I often am - but to say I "deceptively state" something is beyond the bend, for that's saying I'm intentionally lying, which is one heck of a leap. That's not a direction we want the forums to take - let's keep these conversations of a higher order, and we won't draw the attention of the mod squad.

Thanks again, though, for your taking the time and energy to expand on your thoughts, Jufa. As you point out, the recognition that "my reasoning was with myself" completely changes the gestalt of what I thought you were trying to say.

ad astera per aspera,
bodhibliss
Joemac
Associate
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:49 am

Post by Joemac » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:17 pm

Careful! The largest Tree in the Universe is the Tree of Knowledge. It can all be categorized. We just do not have the capacity. We only understand tiny pieces of it.

Who can know God?

That’s why God sends the Prophets and the Saints, to help US understand the important parts, Truth and Love and to confound others especially at the end of their lives.

Remember it's Patient Endurance.
Joemac
Associate
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:49 am

Post by Joemac » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:31 pm

Oh! Once you eat of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge it can cause confusion and many become delusional.
Locked