KAG:


Not quite. Philosophy deals with matters that religions also dogmatically cling to: metaphysics. It's not encroaching, as the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

You should tell Syrup that. She is the one that suggests that it's use in philosophy makes it untenable as a religious factor. (or that is how i understand it, if I'm wrong perhaps she would like to explain what it is she actually means.) I don't think the two are mutually exclusive and perhaps you don't like the word 'encroaching' so I withdraw that and say instead that they overlap.

KAG:



It's not religious because it's not a philosophy that pertains to the worship of a particular deity. Although Heraclitus was vague about what he meant by the logos, it can be deciphered from the extracts that are available, etc, that the logos wasn't a being of substance. It was a part of Heraclitus's cosmology, and a staple element in his philosophy, but it isn't quite the same thing as the Christian conception of the word, nor the modern understanding of what logos entails.

So by your definition is Buddhism a religion? Is Taoism a religion? I actually understand religion to be something other than the worship of a particular diety but that would be too petty if we reduced this to an argument over the definition of a word. For the purposes of this thread I will accept your definition. The Logos is the source and creator of the universe however ever Heraclitus is not religious because though he believed in the Logos he did not advocate worshipping it. I'll grant you that.

What I really need you to explain to me is how you arrived at the notion from studying Heraclitus that he wasn't talking about a 'being of substance', whatever that is. I don't actually understand what you mean by that phrase but perhaps it will become clear as you explain.

How can Heraclitus' logos which is the source, the creator, the molder of the universe, whose plan we had best adhere to in order to live a good life, . . . how is this different from the christian understanding of Logos?

KAG:


Um, Syrup said the use of the term predates Christianity, not religious aspects as a whole. Alluding to the use of the logos in a capacity that precedes Christianity has ensured that your initial argument has been falsified. Further, that the word "logos" also precedes Heraclitus should not be overlooked.

What do you think of this quote from Christ. 'Before Abraham, I am'.

Or of all the mentions of Christ 'prior' to Christianity. All the prophets. Of Melchizedek. Of the salvation of those who lived before Christ. Did not the Law and the Prophets bear witness to this. The Logos precedes genesis and has been at work through out all of history. Those that know him are Christians whether the term or the religion christianity had been coined by that time or not.
And as for those that don't know. . . Well you've got semantics.

Pastor AIO:

You should tell Syrup that. She is the one that suggests that it's use in philosophy makes it untenable as a religious factor. (or that is how i understand it, if I'm wrong perhaps she would like to explain what it is she actually means.)

No, that wasn't what syrup or her post indicated. What she said - amongst other things - was that the "the term 'Logos' did not originate as a Christian or theological term." That is the application of logos preceded its use in a theological sense or, indeed, in the Christian scripture.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive and perhaps you don't like the word 'encroaching' so I withdraw that and say instead that they overlap.

Yes, they overlap.

So by your definition is Buddhism a religion? Is Taoism a religion?

Some versions of both, yes.

I actually understand religion to be something other than the worship of a particular diety but that would be too petty if we reduced this to an argument over the definition of a word. For the purposes of this thread I will accept your definition. The Logos is the source and creator of the universe however ever Heraclitus is not religious because though he believed in the Logos he did not advocate worshipping it. I'll grant you that.

what would be your definition of religion? Mine was a quick idea of the connotations i associate with the term, it certainly isn't meant to be the final definition of the word.

What I really need you to explain to me is how you arrived at the notion from studying Heraclitus that he wasn't talking about a 'being of substance', whatever that is. I don't actually understand what you mean by that phrase but perhaps it will become clear as you explain.

I can't find my notes, so I can't quote from them, but, Heraclitus's conception of the Logos is perhaps closely comparable to the Tao: a force akin to an energy that permeates all things. It wasn't a being itself, according to Heraclitus.

How can Heraclitus' logos which is the source, the creator, the molder of the universe, whose plan we had best adhere to in order to live a good life, . . . how is this different from the christian understanding of Logos?

Christians conceive of the logos as a part of the Trinity/godhead beings. The logos is a definable thing in the Christian sense. A cognizant creator. not so with Heraclitus.

What do you think of this quote from Christ. 'Before Abraham, I am'.

Or of all the mentions of Christ 'prior' to Christianity. All the prophets. Of Melchizedek. Of the salvation of those who lived before Christ. Did not the Law and the Prophets bear witness to this.

Superficial nonsense.

The Logos precedes genesis and has been at work through out all of history. Those that know him are Christians whether the term or the religion christianity had been coined by that time or not.
And as for those that don't know. . . Well you've got semantics.

The logos isn't a him. So is your argument now: although the concept "logos" existed long before Chistianity, because Christians believe their God-man precedes all, then despite pointing out the flawed application of logic, the concept is still Christian.

I'm leaning towards the idea that this thread is a joke.

Well I'm sorry you consider it a joke. I'm not laughing so you'd better say something funny quick or just scram.

Pastor AIO:

Well I'm sorry you consider it a joke. I'm not laughing so you'd better say something funny quick or just scram.

Then, in that case, the premises of your argument weren't well thought out. Worse still, we now appear to be at the point where Christianity is defined by appreciation of the etymology of logic as opposed to belief in Jesus.

KAG:

No, that wasn't what syrup or her post indicated. What she said - amongst other things - was that the "the term 'Logos' did not originate as a Christian or theological term." That is the application of logos preceded its use in a theological sense or, indeed, in the Christian scripture.

Yes, they overlap.

I think I ought to wait for Syrup to come speak for herself.  But while it's you talking KAG,  . . . I think that you are falling into the same trap of allowing categorisations and constructs to cloud your thinking.  A discussion about the creator of the universe is a discussion about the creator of the universe whether or not you frame it in theology or philosophy.

KAG:


what would be your definition of religion? Mine was a quick idea of the connotations i associate with the term, it certainly isn't meant to be the final definition of the word.

I can't find my notes, so I can't quote from them, but, Heraclitus's conception of the Logos is perhaps closely comparable to the Tao: a force akin to an energy that permeates all things. It wasn't a being itself, according to Heraclitus.

You're kidding.!!  I would have thought from the forceful and determined way you posted that you had a fixed definition that you wanted to put across.  Maybe that's just your writing style.  

My definition of religion is the practice of making whole something that is deemed to be fractured.  For instance the relationship between a man and his diety.  Religion is the act of seeking reconciliation.  Yet it does not just apply to the relationship between a man and his diety, but also a man and his environment, and a man and the different parts of his being.  Though the etymology of the word religion is unsure I am inclined to accepted the explanation that it comes from the latin roots Re Ligere.  To bind back, or to bind again.  

I take it that you are an expert on the Tao too.  What makes you so sure that the Tao is not conscious?  I really wish you had your notes so I know better where you are coming from.    I suspect that you are making some humungous assumptions about stuff you know nothing about.  All I can say for now is that I hope you are aware that Taoism is a practice and those that are steeped in this practice are unequivocal about one thing.  'The Tao that you can talk about is not the real Tao'.   The same thing goes for philosophy.  That is not to knock your conception or understanding of what you have read which might even actually be an elegant conceptualisation.  But ultimately it is just a conception.  

ps.  What constitutes a 'being'?

KAG:

Christians conceive of the logos as a part of the Trinity/godhead beings. The logos is a definable thing in the Christian sense. A cognizant creator. not so with Heraclitus.

Logos is not a concept for me. It is not definable. and if by cognizant you mean conscious then I would say 'he'( as per convention) is he above categorisation into conscious or not conscious. The more talk we carry on about this the more we will come to the point where we have to recognise that we are talking about something beyond human conceptions and which can only be experienced as a mystery.

Pastor AIO:

I think I ought to wait for Syrup to come speak for herself. But while it's you talking KAG, . . . I think that you are falling into the same trap of allowing categorisations and constructs to cloud your thinking. A discussion about the creator of the universe is a discussion about the creator of the universe whether or not you frame it in theology or philosophy.

That or I'm appreciating the fact that the context gives an idea of what terms are meant to indicate.

You're kidding.!! I would have thought from the forceful and determined way you posted that you had a fixed definition that you wanted to put across. Maybe that's just your writing style.

When it's my thoughts it generally is forceful and determined.

My definition of religion is the practice of making whole something that is deemed to be fractured. For instance the relationship between a man and his diety. Religion is the act of seeking reconciliation. Yet it does not just apply to the relationship between a man and his diety, but also a man and his environment, and a man and the different parts of his being. Though the etymology of the word religion is unsure I am inclined to accepted the explanation that it comes from the latin roots Re Ligere. To bind back, or to bind again.

It would seem your defnition encompasses philosophy and even environmentalism, when taken away from the deity aspect, no?

I take it that you are an expert on the Tao too. What makes you so sure that the Tao is not conscious?

I am not an expert on the Tao. I'm not so sure that the Tao is not conscious, my intention wasn't so much to describe the Tao but to give an idea - through a vague comparism - of what can be inferred from Heraclitus's writings.

I really wish you had your notes so I know better where you are coming from. I suspect that you are making some humungous assumptions about stuff you know nothing about. All I can say for now is that I hope you are aware that Taoism is a practice and those that are steeped in this practice are unequivocal about one thing. 'The Tao that you can talk about is not the real Tao'.

I doubt that - regarding the former. I've used google to double-check, and its clear Heraclitus wasn't presenting logos as either a being or a deity. As for the latter I've always understood it as "The Tao that can be defined is not the Tao", meaning that it can be talked about, but not defined. Semantics?

The same thing goes for philosophy. That is not to knock your conception or understanding of what you have read which might even actually be an elegant conceptualisation. But ultimately it is just a conception.

I agree.

ps. What constitutes a 'being'?

Oh, geez, that's a tough one. May we save that for another thread?

Pastor AIO:

Logos is not a concept for me. It is not definable.

I'd agree that it's a concept that is not particular to you, but it would seem that it is somewhat definable for Christians that accept the Trinity: the logos often defined as the Jesus aspect of the godhead.

and if by cognizant you mean conscious then I would say 'he'( as per convention) is he above categorisation into conscious or not conscious.

Why he? I'm not sure I understand the question. By the way, recognition of cognizance in the logos is, perhaps, a step towards definition of the term.

The more talk we carry on about this the more we will come to the point where we have to recognise that we are talking about something beyond human conceptions and which can only be experienced as a mystery.

May be. May be not. I doubt it, though.

The evangelist make no mention of a trinity

Just a thought: was the word in common usage at the time the gospel was written. in what sense was it meant. and was the evangelist aware that there could perhaps be misconstruing of what he meant.

Pastor AIO:

The evangelist make no mention of a trinity

You're right the evangelist didn't, but the implication of a duality is present.

Pastor AIO:

Just a thought: was the word in common usage at the time the gospel was written. in what sense was it meant. and was the evangelist aware that there could perhaps be misconstruing of what he meant.

Hard to say. The word must have been in use at the time, though, because it needed no explanation and it had been in use long before the birth of the author of John.

KAG:

You're right the evangelist didn't, but the implication of a duality is present.

Hard to say. The word must have been in use at the time, though, because it needed no explanation and it had been in use long before the birth of the author of John.

The entire gospel is based on the fact that reality is a duality. The duality of flesh and spirit.

There are two possibilities. Logos was a specialised term, a jargon, that belonged only to christianity and which christians understood in a sense quite different from how other people understood it. Or it was meant in the general sense in which case the Evangelist is laying claim to something that predates christianity. Does this make it any less christian?

What about if Paul the apostle goes to Greece and finds there a shrine that has been raised to an unknown god. And he then subsequently starts to preach to the people about their shrine that he found in their country. Was that just opportunism? Or were the Greeks worshipping the christian god without knowing it. Could they thus qualify to be called Christians?

KAG:

It's not religious because it's not a philosophy that pertains to the worship of a particular deity. Although Heraclitus was vague about what he meant by the logos, it can be deciphered from the extracts that are available, etc, that the logos wasn't a being of substance. It was a part of Heraclitus's cosmology, and a staple element in his philosophy, but it isn't quite the same thing as the Christian conception of the word, nor the modern understanding of what logos entails.

I've mentioned in another thread that the accurate translation of Logos into Yoruba would be to use the word Ori. See what the Yoruba consider as Ori. They consider it a road map of their lives. They believe that prior to coming to this world they knelt before God and pick out an Ori. Ori is often described as destiny or Ayanmo (that which is chosen).

Consider these words:
Ise meta ni omori odo nse
A pestle can be applied to 3 tasks
Won a f'ori re gun'yan
The head is used to pound yam
Won a f'idi re gun elu
It's base can be used to grind herbs
Won a fi agbedemeji re ti ilekun dain dain dain
It's middle part can be used to barricade the doors firmly
Thus was declared to Oriseku (the non-starter, or the defective ori) child of Ogun
Thus was declared to Ilemere (the short-lived) child of Ija
Thus was declared to Afuwape (the fulfilled destiny) child of Agbonmiregun
They went to the home of Ajalamopin to each pick themselves an Ori (destiny)
They were prescribed Ebo.
Only Afuwape tarried to comply.
Lament: "If I had known where successful people choose their Ori (destinies) that is where I would have gone to pick mine.
If I'd known where Afuwape choose his destiny from that is where I would have gone to choose mine."
Response: All Ori (destiny) is chosen at the same place, yet they unfold differently for different individuals.

The question that I wanna ask is, Does Ori sound like a being to you here or does it sound merely like a cosmological concept. A concept not dissimilar to Tao perhaps.
Or statements like A a ki fi ori w'ori. We do not compare heads, or destinies. In other words don't judge a man's life by the measure of another man's destiny.

But then again amongst the same people we find that they pray to their Ori. In fact Ori is the most venerated diety in Yoruba belief.

'Ori mi gbemi, ori mi la mi
Gbemi atete niran a tete gbeni ku f'orisa
Ori lo ngbeni, kii se Orisa

Ori save me, Ori prosper me
you are quickest to consider me
you are quicker to my aid than Orisha
It is Ori that saves one, not the Orisha

So my main question is whether the Yoruba consider Ori to be a 'Being' (I'm still not sure what you mean by this though) or just a concept without 'cognizance'. Would you consider Ori to be a being?

I would like to suggest that these traditional people were perhaps a bit more sophisticated than you are theologically and the problems lies in your inability to keep up. This same inability can be at the root of your problem with Heraclitus' Logos or the Tao. You see incongruity where they don't.

Pastor AIO:

The entire gospel is based on the fact that reality is a duality. The duality of flesh and spirit.

I disagree with the former; and agree that the latter is a factor that can be interpreted from the text.

There are two possibilities. Logos was a specialised term, a jargon, that belonged only to christianity and which christians understood in a sense quite different from how other people understood it. Or it was meant in the general sense in which case the Evangelist is laying claim to something that predates christianity. Does this make it any less christian?

I'd say the latter is probably more closer to the fact: that is, while logos has long and varied history, nuances could have influenced understanding of the general conceptions of the term. Does it make it any less Christian? It predates Christianity; it isn't a Christian term; and has a life outside of the Christian faith. Yes, that makes it definitely not Christian - as an exclusive determiner.

What about if Paul the apostle goes to Greece and finds there a shrine that has been raised to an unknown god. And he then subsequently starts to preach to the people about their shrine that he found in their country. Was that just opportunism? Or were the Greeks worshipping the christian god without knowing it. Could they thus qualify to be called Christians?

Opportunism. The Greeks wouldn't have been worshipping the Christian god without knowing it, no more than they were worshipping Jupiter when the Romans syncretised Zeus with their legends.

Would they qualify to be called Christians? Depends on what you mean by Christian. By that logic, they'd also qualify for adherents of a wide host of conflicting religions.

Pastor AIO:

I've mentioned in another thread that the accurate translation of Logos into Yoruba would be to use the word Ori. See what the Yoruba consider as Ori. They consider it a road map of their lives. They believe that prior to coming to this world they knelt before God and pick out an Ori. Ori is often described as destiny or Ayanmo (that which is chosen).

[snip]

The question that I want to ask is, Does Ori sound like a being to you here or does it sound merely like a cosmological concept. A concept not dissimilar to Tao perhaps.
Or statements like A a ki fi ori w'ori. We do not compare heads, or destinies. In other words don't judge a man's life by the measure of another man's destiny.

But then again amongst the same people we find that they pray to their Ori. In fact Ori is the most venerated diety in Yoruba belief.

'Ori mi gbemi, ori mi la mi
Gbemi atete niran a tete gbeni ku f'orisa
Ori lo ngbeni, kii se Orisa

Ori save me, Ori prosper me
you are quickest to consider me
you are quicker to my aid than Orisha
It is Ori that saves one, not the Orisha

So my main question is whether the Yoruba consider Ori to be a 'Being' (I'm still not sure what you mean by this though) or just a concept without 'cognizance'. Would you consider Ori to be a being?

To explain being isn't as easy as it may seem; however, since it seems to be a sticking point, perhaps a provisional, concise idea of what I mean by being might do. Being, for me, indicates some level of awareness [and perhaps perception] towards something.

As to the "Ori" question. It's hard to say without a context of the people using the term. For instance, the conception of Ori as perceptive entity may be peculiar to just some parts of the Yoruba people, as opposed to all; or that may be the case with the other conception.

I would like to suggest that these traditional people were perhaps a bit more sophisticated than you are theologically and the problems lies in your inability to keep up.

Somehow I doubt that.

This same inability can be at the root of your problem with Heraclitus' Logos or the Tao. You see incongruity where they don't.

I don't have a problem with Haraclitus's logos nor with the Tao - I'd say you're the one having problems with grasping them. There are several problems here, not least that you either don't seem to have realised the flaw that started the thread or that you aren't understanding the terms in place.

In any case, are we still at the strange point where any one that extols a sense of the unknown - or, if you want, logos of whatever variation - is somehow a Christian? Or has your argument shifted?

KAG:


I'd say the latter is probably more closer to the fact: that is, while logos has long and varied history, nuances could have influenced understanding of the general conceptions of the term. Does it make it any less Christian? It predates Christianity; it isn't a Christian term; and has a life outside of the Christian faith. Yes, that makes it definitely not Christian - as an exclusive determiner.

Would they qualify to be called Christians? Depends on what you mean by Christian.

I believe a Christian is a follower of Christ.  In the gospel of John Yehoshu'a ben Yosef is identified as the Christ.  What is Christ?  Greek Christos is the translation of hebrew Messiah which means the anointed one, the Chosen One.  

Yoruba also call Ori Ayanmo meaning that which is Chosen.  They follow the Chosen One.  

Christianity itself predates the term christian.  The term was coined after the movement began.  

Prior to orthodoxy Christianity was itself a wide host of "conflicting" religions.  Although I personally do not see the conflict.

Pastor AIO:

I believe a Christian is a follower of Christ. In the gospel of John Yehoshu'a ben Yosef is identified as the Christ. What is Christ? Greek Christos is the translation of hebrew Messiah which means the anointed one, the Chosen One.

Yoruba also call Ori Ayanmo meaning that which is Chosen. They follow the Chosen One.

You're equivocating. Christians adhering to the belief that salvation comes through the being that was realised in Jesus is not the same as Yorubans adhering to an idea of a "chosen". I use sugar all the time. Jude calls his girlfriend sugar. Therefore, I use Jude's girlfriend on food all the time. Equivocation.

Christianity itself predates the term christian. The term was coined after the movement began.

Yes, but it didn't predate Jesus, the one called the Christ.

Prior to orthodoxy Christianity was itself a wide host of "conflicting" religions. Although I personally do not see the conflict.

There were many grounds for conflict, but that's another topic.

KAG:

To explain being isn't as easy as it may seem; however, since it seems to be a sticking point, perhaps a provisional, concise idea of what I mean by being might do. Being, for me, indicates some level of awareness [and perhaps perception] towards something.

By awareness I take it you mean consciousness.  Of all the things we know for sure in Life Consciousness is the most subjective.  It is such a totally subjective experience that it cannot be demonstrated in anyway whatsoever.  (Which is a point I was going to bring up in another thread but I got distracted, but there are two types of Proof.  Demonstrable proof and subjective proof.  Subjective proof cannot be demonstrated and so cannot be raised in an argument to convince someone else.)

I know for sure that I am conscious because I experience it.  I can never know for a fact whether or not you are a conscious being.  It can never be demonstrated to me, your consciousness.  It could be that you are a very clever automaton or some form of Artificial Intelligence.  They have AI now that can have conversations and appear to think like conscious humans but in actually fact it is just sophisticated programming.  How am I sure that you are not just a cleverly neurologically programmed automaton.  I'll never know if you are in actual fact conscious because you cannot demonstrate or communicate that to me.  

I, for reasons of my own, actually believe that the entire universe is conscious, from the Rocks to the wind blowing through the trees down to Space and time itself.  And as for perception which is the ability to receive and retain information, everything can receive information.  A plasticene receives information when you imprint it with a stamp.  There are many qualities of consciousness and I fear that you might be taking ego-bound consciousness for the whole of consciousness.

KAG:


As to the "Ori" question. It's hard to say without a context of the people using the term. For instance, the conception of Ori as perceptive entity may be peculiar to just some parts of the Yoruba people, as opposed to all; or that may be the case with the other conception.

Being on Nairaland I would presume that you are nigerian.  Of course that could be wrong, but if you are nigerian and even if you are not yoruba I would presume that you've come into contact with enough of yoruba culture to have some idea of their context.  I don't blame you if you say that you've made an effort to avoid yoruba people for most of your life, but even then you ought to have some idea of the culture.  I try to learn as much as I can about different african cultures because I feel it is inappropriate that I can quote european classics and yet have so little knowledge of my own motherland.  Trust me Ori is a conscious entity in all of Yoruba land and it stretches further.  I know in igboland it is called Chi and God almighty is called Chineke which means Great Chi.  

KAG:

I don't have a problem with Haraclitus's logos nor with the Tao - I'd say you're the one having problems with grasping them. There are several problems here, not least that you either don't seem to have realised the flaw that started the thread or that you aren't understanding the terms in place.

In any case, are we still at the strange point where any one that extols a sense of the unknown - or, if you want, logos of whatever variation - is somehow a Christian? Or has your argument shifted?

Oh, so I see now, the difference between us is that you have 'grasped' the Tao.  

I don't think that I ever said that anyone who extolled the unknown was a christian.

KAG:

You're equivocating. Christians adhering to the belief that salvation comes through the being that was realised in Jesus is not the same as Yorubans adhering to an idea of a "chosen". I use sugar all the time. Jude calls his girlfriend sugar. Therefore, I use Jude's girlfriend on food all the time. Equivocation.

Yes, but it didn't predate Jesus, the one called the Christ.

There were many grounds for conflict, but that's another topic.

My entire argument is not based on the fact that both terms refer to being chosen. On numerous points the two are seen to be identical. They are creators and give form to the world. But I've already stated a lot of these points.

Christ predates everything.

Pastor AIO:

By awareness I take it you mean consciousness.

No, I mean awareness.

Of all the things we know for sure in Life Consciousness is the most subjective. It is such a totally subjective experience that it cannot be demonstrated in anyway whatsoever. (Which is a point I was going to bring up in another thread but I got distracted, but there are two types of Proof. Demonstrable proof and subjective proof. Subjective proof cannot be demonstrated and so cannot be raised in an argument to convince someone else.)

I know for sure that I am conscious because I experience it. I can never know for a fact whether or not you are a conscious being. It can never be demonstrated to me, your consciousness. It could be that you are a very clever automaton or some form of Artificial Intelligence. They have AI now that can have conversations and appear to think like conscious humans but in actually fact it is just sophisticated programming. How am I sure that you are not just a cleverly neurologically programmed automaton. I'll never know if you are in actual fact conscious because you cannot demonstrate or communicate that to me.

I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point.

I, for reasons of my own, actually believe that the entire universe is conscious, from the Rocks to the wind blowing through the trees down to Space and time itself. And as for perception which is the ability to receive and retain information, everything can receive information. A plasticene receives information when you imprint it with a stamp. There are many qualities of consciousness and I fear that you might be taking ego-bound consciousness for the whole of consciousness.

I find the idea of a conscious Universe interesting. No, that's not what perception means. No, I have not used the ego as the catch-all for all consciousness.

Being on Nairaland I would presume that you are nigerian. Of course that could be wrong, but if you are nigerian and even if you are not yoruba I would presume that you've come into contact with enough of yoruba culture to have some idea of their context. I don't blame you if you say that you've made an effort to avoid yoruba people for most of your life, but even then you ought to have some idea of the culture. I try to learn as much as I can about different african cultures because I feel it is inappropriate that I can quote european classics and yet have so little knowledge of my own motherland. Trust me Ori is a conscious entity in all of Yoruba land and it stretches further. I know in igboland it is called Chi and God almighty is called Chineke which means Great Chi.

I haven't made any efforts to avoid Yoruba people, etc. If Ori is a conscious entity that is comparable to the notion of "God" a being with awareness and the abilities to influence based on prayers, etc, and it requires worship, then it's not likely the same as Heraclitus's Logos.

Oh, so I see now, the difference between us is that you have 'grasped' the Tao.

No, the difference between us as far as this thread goes is I have an idea of the concepts I am employing and I'm appropriating them logically.

I don't think that I ever said that anyone who extolled the unknown was a christian.

It's a summary based on my perception of several things that you've presented in this thread. For instance,

"There are two possibilities. Logos was a specialised term, a jargon, that belonged only to christianity and which christians understood in a sense quite different from how other people understood it. Or it was meant in the general sense in which case the Evangelist is laying claim to something that predates christianity. Does this make it any less christian?

What about if Paul the apostle goes to Greece and finds there a shrine that has been raised to an unknown god. And he then subsequently starts to preach to the people about their shrine that he found in their country. Was that just opportunism? Or were the Greeks worshipping the christian god without knowing it. Could they thus qualify to be called Christians?"

"The more talk we carry on about this the more we will come to the point where we have to recognise that we are talking about something beyond human conceptions and which can only be experienced as a mystery. "

"The Logos precedes genesis and has been at work through out all of history. Those that know him are Christians whether the term or the religion christianity had been coined by that time or not. "

"References to the "Ori" concept. "

By the way, it's not extolling the unknown, but extolling the sense of the unknown.

Pastor AIO:

My entire argument is not based on the fact that both terms refer to being chosen. On numerous points the two are seen to be identical.

It's equivocating. It doesn't necessary require just one similar [superficial] property. On numerous occasions my sugar and Jude's girlfriend are seen to be similar. Equivocation.

By the way, your argument was based, at least to some extent, on the fact that both terms refer to the conception of the "chosen":


"I believe a Christian is a follower of Christ. In the gospel of John Yehoshu'a ben Yosef is identified as the Christ. What is Christ? Greek Christos is the translation of hebrew Messiah which means the anointed one, the Chosen One.

Yoruba also call Ori Ayanmo meaning that which is Chosen. They follow the Chosen One. "

They are creators and give form to the world. But I've already stated a lot of these points.

So is Zeus. It doesn't mean that Zeus and Al'lah are the same conception.

Christ predates everything.

I doubt that.

Mr. KAG I have been so totally flummoxed by your standpoint that it has taken me this long to respond. Where does one start?

KAG:

No, I mean awareness.

I am yet to understand the distinction between awareness and consciousness. But for your sake I will restate my position thus, that Awareness is a totally subjective experience and it cannot be communicated to another. I can never know if you are an aware being or not. It is more likely that you are a cleverly programmed machine. Greater minds than yours in the Atheist camp have conceded this fact.

KAG:


I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point.

Well I invite you to present your argument that will convince me that you are aware of your existence. And far from consciousness not being the point ( it might not be central to your point, but that is because you are not familiar with the territory covered by this issue) it is at the very core of the point.

KAG:


No, the difference between us as far as this thread goes is I have an idea of the concepts I am employing and I'm appropriating them logically.

To better contrast the difference between us, you have 'an idea of concepts' while I have Experiential knowledge. Almost everything you are saying just demonstrates your ignorance and you inability to think with Reason rather than regurgitate the textbooks and notes that you studied in university, concepts written and taught by people who are (importantly) not practitioners of the disciplines that they teach. It's the classic example of the blind leading the blind and now they are all writhing in the gutter.

It is not extolling the unknown to say that God cannot be conceptualised or fit into the categories of human thought. However we are endowed with other faculties through which we can experience him.

KAG:


It's equivocating. It doesn't necessary require just one similar [superficial] property. On numerous occasions my sugar and Jude's girlfriend are seen to be similar. Equivocation.

By the way, your argument was based, at least to some extent, on the fact that both terms refer to the conception of the "chosen":


"I believe a Christian is a follower of Christ. In the gospel of John Yehoshu'a ben Yosef is identified as the Christ. What is Christ? Greek Christos is the translation of hebrew Messiah which means the anointed one, the Chosen One.

Yoruba also call Ori Ayanmo meaning that which is Chosen. They follow the Chosen One. "


So is Zeus. It doesn't mean that Zeus and Al'lah are the same conception.

I doubt that.

In other words you are saying that something that hops like a frog, croaks like is frog, and is wet and slimy like a frog must be an orangutang. Just how many 'superficial' properties must be shared in common before it is no longer equivocation.

That they both refer to the chosen is not the entire basis of my argument but it is a point to be considered.

Please don't embarrass yourself with that talk about Zeus. If you know nothing about Greek Cosmogony it will not be held against you so you don't need to embarrass yourself by spouting crap.
Go and read Hesiod. The World is created by Eros (love) who emerged out of Primal Chaos. Then other beings are created through Ouranos and Gaia. These two give birth to the Titans and Cronus is one of them. Cronus kills ouranos and gives birth to the Gods including Zeus. Zeus eventually Killed Cronus and thus became the king of the Gods. That is how Zeus came to be. He is not the creator of the world by any means.

It seems that your knowledge is half baked. Perhaps you are just a dilettante which is cool but you ought to be aware that when you take a cursory glance at something and then quickly form an opinion or have[b] 'an idea of the concept'[/b] you should consider the fact that you could also be getting the wrong end of the stick completely.

Pastor AIO:

Mr. KAG I have been so totally flummoxed by your standpoint that it has taken me this long to respond. Where does one start?

i'm sure that's what it was. In any case, the beginning is often a good place to start.

I am yet to understand the distinction between awareness and consciousness. But for your sake I will restate my position thus, that Awareness is a totally subjective experience and it cannot be communicated to another. I can never know if you are an aware being or not. It is more likely that you are a cleverly programmed machine. Greater minds than yours in the Atheist camp have conceded this fact.

I can appreciate not understanding the distinction between the two terms, as they can often seem syonymous, so perhaps, it would have helped if I had provided a definition of the term. Awareness would be the abiity to realise a happening. It is cognizance at a most basic level. Consciousness, on the other hand isn't so basic a factor of cogizance, and implies self-awareness.

So, no, awareness is not a "totally subjective experience [that] cannot be communicated to another." You know I'm aware because I'm acknowledging your ideas, parsing them, and responding accordingly.

What greater minds have conceded that awareness can't be determined?

Well I invite you to present your argument that will convince me that you are aware of your existence.

The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.

And far from consciousness not being the point ( it might not be central to your point, but that is because you are not familiar with the territory covered by this issue) it is at the very core of the point.

How so?

To better contrast the difference between us, you have 'an idea of concepts' while I have Experiential knowledge.

Somehow I doubt that. From arguing that only Christians possess logic to the spurious arguments that acknowledgment of either logos (disregarding its varying forms) or conceptions that can fit into the framework of a logos is indicative of Christianity, even pre-Christ, strongly suggests that you haven't grasped what you are arguing for or against.

Almost everything you are saying just demonstrates your ignorance and you inability to think with Reason rather than regurgitate the textbooks and notes that you studied in university, concepts written and taught by people who are (importantly) not practitioners of the disciplines that they teach. It's the classic example of the blind leading the blind and now they are all writhing in the gutter.

That's nice. First, that I have been able to point to the necessary differences in the things you equivocated, and that I have presented premises that stand unrefuted, shows that I do in fact ave the ability to reason and present reason (to say otherwise is to be dishonest, as far as this thread goes).

Second, I didnt study any of these things at university (Mechanical engineering has been the most I've learnt), so the rest of your argument is moot.

It is not extolling the unknown to say that God cannot be conceptualised or fit into the categories of human thought. However we are endowed with other faculties through which we can experience him.

No, it's extolling the sense of the unknown, and you'd have to equivocate terribly (and, indeed, beg the question) to say that those who do that can be broadly represented by the term "Christian".

this thread isnt logical

Pastor AIO:

In other words you are saying that something that hops like a frog, croaks like is frog, and is wet and slimy like a frog must be an orangutang. Just how many 'superficial' properties must be shared in common before it is no longer equivocation.

No, I'm saying that saying that something that has a bill and webbed-foot isn't necessarily a duck. Or better still, thatit has limbs, a head and a breathing mechanism, doesn't mean it's a humyn being. I don't know how many superficial properties to which you'd need to appeal; however, appealing to the fact that two different peoples have the conception of "chosen" in their beliefs, is equivocation.

That they both refer to the chosen is not the entire basis of my argument but it is a point to be considered.

IT may not be the entire basis of your argument, but for that aspect that was all that was presented. It is a point to be considered if fallacies are the order of the day.

Please don't embarrass yourself with that talk about Zeus. If you know nothing about Greek Cosmogony it will not be held against you so you don't need to embarrass yourself by spouting crap.
Go and read Hesiod. The World is created by Eros (love) who emerged out of Primal Chaos. Then other beings are created through Ouranos and Gaia. These two give birth to the Titans and Cronus is one of them. Cronus kills ouranos and gives birth to the Gods including Zeus. Zeus eventually Killed Cronus and thus became the king of the Gods. That is how Zeus came to be. He is not the creator of the world by any means.

Wow, thanks for that unnecessary nonsense. If, however, you have the time, feel free to read what you wrote an to what I was responding. Here, I'll help:

AIO: They are creators and give form to the world.

KAG: So is Zeus

You'll notice that the subject matter wasn't creators of the world, but "creators" and giving "form to the world." Just in case you don't know, Zeus is that. No where did I state or indicate that Zeus created the world. So, feel free to get off your high horse, and address the point itself.

By the way, if it's any consolation, I have a good working knowledge of Greek mythology.

It seems that your knowledge is half baked.

Or that's a psychological projection on your part. *shrugs*

Perhaps you are just a dilettante which is cool but you ought to be aware that when you take a cursory glance at something and then quickly form an opinion or have[b] 'an idea of the concept'[/b] you should consider the fact that you could also be getting the wrong end of the stick completely.

Beam. Thine eye. Mote. Other's eye. I forget what scallywag is credited with a saying that uses those terms.

KAG:


I can appreciate not understanding the distinction between the two terms, as they can often seem syonymous, so perhaps, it would have helped if I had provided a definition of the term. Awareness would be the abiity to realise a happening. It is cognizance at a most basic level. Consciousness, on the other hand isn't so basic a factor of cogizance, and implies self-awareness.

KAG:


So, no, awareness is not a "totally subjective experience [that] cannot be communicated to another." You know I'm aware because I'm acknowledging your ideas, parsing them, and responding accordingly.

What greater minds have conceded that awareness can't be determined?


The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.

Okay Mr. Mechanical Engineer. I can presume that you have a high knowledge of mechanics. Is it or is it not possible to invent a machine that is sensitive to it's environment to such a high degree that it seems to be aware and reacts to the slightest changes in the environment.

There is a website called AskJeeves.com whom you can ask questions and it will respond accordingly. Is AskJeeves aware?

An entity or a body responding to it's environment is not a sign of awareness. Tree leaves swaying in response to the passing breeze is not a sign of awareness.

So though you are 'acknowledging my questions, parsing them, and responding accordingly' that tells me nothing about whether you are aware or not. AI can do the same.


So this: The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.
[/b]
is not an argument to prove your awareness. I don't know that you're cognizant of anything. Not anymore than any of those clever japanese robots. You are just a more sophisticated version of AI. I can never know that you have the experience of awareness. The experience itself is much too subjective.

I quote Keith Augustine (a naturalist):

One of the most persistent difficulties for reductive physicalism has been the apparent inability of physicalistic explanations to capture qualitative features of conscious experience. It has been persuasively argued that qualia--the experiential feels of 'what it is like' to be in a conscious mental state--cannot be captured by any physicalistic explanations in principle because physicalistic explanations inherently refer to objective or public features of phenomena, whereas the experiential features of consciousness are inherently subjective or private (Teller 1992, pp. 190-191). While such arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are not the last word on the subject, they have not been decisively refuted either--at least not in the view of several prominent philosophers. Although such difficulties may be resolved in the future, their current resistance to a clear resolution that gains widespread acceptance gives us good reason to resist simply identifying the natural with the physical.


This was taken from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html

I was furnished with this source by either you or Huxley. It could be Huxley actually and I remain grateful.

As far as I know consciousness does not exhibit any qualities that someone else can now come and measure. The only effect that consciousness/awareness exhibits is the subjective effect that it has on the conscious person. Every other effect exhibited by the human being and observable by others can be explained by neurology. You don't need to be conscious to respond to questions if your brain has been programmed with the appropriate answers.

I'm on the cusp of giving up this thread completely but I'll persevere if we can make headway with just this point.

KAG:

Quote
Perhaps you are just a dilettante which is cool but you ought to be aware that when you take a cursory glance at something and then quickly form an opinion or have 'an idea of the concept' you should consider the fact that you could also be getting the wrong end of the stick completely.

Beam. Thine eye. Mote. Other's eye. I forget what scallywag is credited with a saying that uses those terms.

Okay I'll make a deal with you. I promise I'll honestly and with integrity consider the beam in my eye. Would you promise to look also to your own prejudices though they may only be a mote (compared to my beam).

Pastor AIO:

Okay Mr. Mechanical Engineer. I can presume that you have a high knowledge of mechanics.

No.

Is it or is it not possible to invent a machine that is sensitive to it's environment to such a high degree that it seems to be aware and reacts to the slightest changes in the environment.

Sensitivity to environment isn't awareness.

There is a website called AskJeeves.com whom you can ask questions and it will respond accordingly. Is AskJeeves aware?

No.

An entity or a body responding to it's environment is not a sign of awareness. Tree leaves swaying in response to the passing breeze is not a sign of awareness.

An entity realising and that realising implicating a response would be a sign of awareness. The leaf isn't aware.

So though you are 'acknowledging my questions, parsing them, and responding accordingly' that tells me nothing about whether you are aware or not. AI can do the same.

Any AI that can do the same has awareness. To acknowledge something as complex and abstract as the factorsin your arguments, then to parse those ideas and appropriate them and then respond accordingly, is certainly indication of awareness. Creatig an artificial intelligence that possesses those skills will be the pinnacle of technology as science will have succeeded in creating a being-it-itself.

Just to be clear, no AI can do the same at this point in time.

So this: The easiest argument is to point out that I am fully cognizant of being an I. That I can postulate that indicates awareness.
[/b]
is not an argument to prove your awareness. I don't know that you're cognizant of anything. Not anymore than any of those clever japanese robots. You are just a more sophisticated version of AI. I can never know that you have the experience of awareness. The experience itself is much too subjective.

It wasn't an argument to prove my awareness, it was an argument for my awareness. What clever Japanese robots have not only demonstrated the skills mentioned earlier, and, further, awareness of an "I"?

The experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable and have been presented in this thread.

I quote Keith Augustine (a naturalist):

One of the most persistent difficulties for reductive physicalism has been the apparent inability of physicalistic explanations to capture qualitative features of conscious experience. It has been persuasively argued that qualia--the experiential feels of 'what it is like' to be in a conscious mental state--cannot be captured by any physicalistic explanations in principle because physicalistic explanations inherently refer to objective or public features of phenomena, whereas the experiential features of consciousness are inherently subjective or private (Teller 1992, pp. 190-191). While such arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are not the last word on the subject, they have not been decisively refuted either--at least not in the view of several prominent philosophers. Although such difficulties may be resolved in the future, their current resistance to a clear resolution that gains widespread acceptance gives us good reason to resist simply identifying the natural with the physical.


This was taken from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html

I was furnished with this source by either you or Huxley. It could be Huxley actually and I remain grateful.

Okay? It would have been Huxley.

As far as I know consciousness does not exhibit any qualities that someone else can now come and measure. The only effect that consciousness/awareness exhibits is the subjective effect that it has on the conscious person. Every other effect exhibited by the human being and observable by others can be explained by neurology. You don't need to be conscious to respond to questions if your brain has been programmed with the appropriate answers.

Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? What aspect of conscious is your referent point? I'll come back to this if necessary.

I'm on the cusp of giving up this thread completely but I'll persevere if we can make headway with just this point.

I'd understand if you gave up on this thread. If nothing else, the op did you no favours.

Pastor AIO:

Okay I'll make a deal with you. I promise I'll honestly and with integrity consider the beam in my eye. Would you promise to look also to your own prejudices though they may only be a mote (compared to my beam).

Sure.

KAG:


I'd understand if you gave up on this thread. If nothing else, the op did you no favours.

Ah! Perhaps you failure to get anything I'm saying is rather a negative reaction to the opening post than a reaction to anything I've said since. Trust me, I'm no threat to you so you don't havee to attack anything I say irrationally.

From what You've said above you seem to think that awareness is a result of the sophistication of an entity. So the more sophisticated the more likely to be aware. I refute this.

KAG:


Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? What aspect of conscious is your referent point? I'll come back to this if necessary.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're just doing this to tease me. I thought you just defined consciousness as self awareness. so consciousness is awareness but in specialised form. what difference does it make whether I was there talking about broad awareness or just consciousness?

KAG:


An entity realising and that realising implicating a response would be a sign of awareness. The leaf isn't aware.

Please can you tell me what you said above again in plain english.

Have you heard of 'The Ghost in the Machine'. check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Machine

The ghost in the machine is British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's derogatory description for René Descartes' mind-body dualism. The phrase was introduced in Ryle's book The Concept of Mind, written in 1949, to highlight the perceived absurdity of dualist systems like Descartes' where mental activity carries on in parallel to physical action, but where their means of interaction are unknown or, at best, speculative.


Bodily processes and states can be inspected by external observations. Thus a person’s bodily life is as much a public affair as are the lives of animals. But minds do not exist in space, nor are their operation subject to mechanical laws. The workings of the mind are not witnessable by other observers; its career is private. A person therefore lives through two collateral histories: one consisting of what happens to and with the body (public); the other consisting of what happens to and in the mind (private).

KAG:


I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point.

This is a long shot from this:

KAG:


I'd understand if you gave up on this thread. If nothing else, the op did you no favours.

Ah!  Perhaps you failure to get anything I'm saying is rather a negative reaction to the opening post than a reaction to anything I've said since.  Trust me, I'm no threat to you so you don't havee to attack anything I say irrationally.

From what You've said above you seem to think that awareness is a result of the sophistication of an entity.  So the more sophisticated the more likely to be aware.  I refute this.

KAG:


Are we talking about consciouness or awareness? What aspect of conscious is your referent point? I'll come back to this if necessary.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're just doing this to tease me.  I thought you just defined consciousness as self awareness.  so consciousness is awareness but in specialised form.  what difference does it make whether I was there talking about broad awareness or just consciousness?

KAG:


An entity realising and that realising implicating a response would be a sign of awareness. The leaf isn't aware.

Please can you tell me what you said above again in plain english.

Have you heard of 'The Ghost in the Machine'. check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Machine

The ghost in the machine is British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's derogatory description for René Descartes' mind-body dualism. The phrase was introduced in Ryle's book The Concept of Mind, written in 1949, to highlight the perceived absurdity of dualist systems like Descartes' where mental activity carries on in parallel to physical action, but where their means of interaction are unknown or, at best, speculative.


Bodily processes and states can be inspected by external observations. Thus a person’s bodily life is as much a public affair as are the lives of animals. But minds do not exist in space, nor are their operation subject to mechanical laws. The workings of the mind are not witnessable by other observers; its career is private. A person therefore lives through two collateral histories: one consisting of what happens to and with the body (public); the other consisting of what happens to and in the mind (private).

KAG:


I disagree, consciousness can be demonstrated and raised in argument. For the most part it would be human-centric, but it can be shown. In any case, that's another topic as consciousness wasn't my point.

This is a long shot from this:

KAG:


It wasn't an argument to prove my awareness, it was an argument for my awareness. What clever Japanese robots have not only demonstrated the skills mentioned earlier, and, further, awareness of an "I"?

T[b]he experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable [/b]and have been presented in this thread.

It's either an argument to prove (demonstrate) your awareness and you are capable of presenting such an argument, or it's not.  

T[b]he experience isn's subjective as a demonstration of the factors that implicate awareness are presentable [/b]

Then please present them, for God's sake.  Demonstrate to me that you are an aware being.  Demonstrate to me how you will prove that a clever AI is an aware being.