Logos

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Logos is akin to logic. They are both both metaphysical concepts that subtly describe so much about our perspective on the universe. Logic is an atheistic idea, that seems to suggest that 'order' is an impersonal dead entity. Whereas Logos, is the idea that order by its very nature MUST always be a conscious process of ordering. So where we find the most profoundly ordered aspects of the universe, we see evidence for the most profound consciousness.

So then how does Logos account for logic? If God creates the universe, why do atheists exist?

Its like the seashell and the creature that grew the shell. After the act of constructing the idea, the 'living logic' separates from its creation; leaving the unchanging shell of the idea.

How does this help us?

If you wish to discover new ideas, it has to be realized that discoveries in physics (or elsewhere) are ultimately journey's of the mind. Pay attention to your own inner moods, and seek the reasons for inner dissonance as the source of hidden ideas waiting to be revealed and liberated from their anguish.

When people pursue the logical as being a non-conscious entity, the results are clearly sophistry, solipsism, and pseudo-science.

 

[PureX]

Logos is akin to logic. They are both both metaphysical concepts that subtly describe so much about our perspective on the universe. Logic is an atheistic idea, that seems to suggest that 'order' is an impersonal dead entity. Whereas Logos, is the idea that order by its very nature MUST always be a conscious process of ordering. So where we find the most profoundly ordered aspects of the universe, we see evidence for the most profound consciousness.

So then how does Logos account for logic? If God creates the universe, why do atheists exist?

Its like the seashell and the creature that grew the shell. After the act of constructing the idea, the 'living logic' separates from its creation; leaving the unchanging shell of the idea.

How does this help us?

If you wish to discover new ideas, it has to be realized that discoveries in physics (or elsewhere) are ultimately journey's of the mind. Pay attention to your own inner moods, and seek the reasons for inner dissonance as the source of hidden ideas waiting to be revealed and liberated from their anguish.

When people pursue the logical as being a non-conscious entity, the results are clearly sophistry, solipsism, and pseudo-science.

These are all excellent observations, Jon. Thank you.

 

[Sunstone]

If you wish to discover new ideas, it has to be realized that discoveries in physics (or elsewhere) are ultimately journey's of the mind. Pay attention to your own inner moods, and seek the reasons for inner dissonance as the source of hidden ideas waiting to be revealed and liberated from their anguish.

Regardless of how new ideas in the sciences arise --- that is, regardless of how scientists themselves come up with a new insight, discovery, or hypothesis -- scientists do NOT assess the soundness or reliability of such ideas by consulting their inner moods, reasons for internal dissonance, etc. No, they base such decisions on logical reasoning supported by empirical observation. It is that combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation that has made the sciences what they are -- our most powerful means of inquiry yet devised.

 

[DavidFirth]

Logos is akin to logic. They are both both metaphysical concepts that subtly describe so much about our perspective on the universe. Logic is an atheistic idea, that seems to suggest that 'order' is an impersonal dead entity. Whereas Logos, is the idea that order by its very nature MUST always be a conscious process of ordering. So where we find the most profoundly ordered aspects of the universe, we see evidence for the most profound consciousness.

So then how does Logos account for logic? If God creates the universe, why do atheists exist?

Its like the seashell and the creature that grew the shell. After the act of constructing the idea, the 'living logic' separates from its creation; leaving the unchanging shell of the idea.

How does this help us?

If you wish to discover new ideas, it has to be realized that discoveries in physics (or elsewhere) are ultimately journey's of the mind. Pay attention to your own inner moods, and seek the reasons for inner dissonance as the source of hidden ideas waiting to be revealed and liberated from their anguish.

When people pursue the logical as being a non-conscious entity, the results are clearly sophistry, solipsism, and pseudo-science.

Actually, after the creature dies and leaves the shell behind it does change. Ideas change, too.

 

[PureX]

Regardless of how new ideas in the sciences arise --- that is, regardless of how scientists themselves come up with a new insight, discovery, or hypothesis -- scientists do NOT assess the soundness or reliability of such ideas by consulting their inner moods, reasons for internal dissonance, etc. No, they base such decisions on logical reasoning supported by empirical observation. It is that combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation that has made the sciences what they are -- our most powerful means of inquiry yet devised.

I disagree. I think a lot more science is being done at the behest of scientific 'intuition' than many a materialist will acknowledge. And that the "cutting edge" areas of science challenge our concepts of observed reality, to the core.

 

[Sunstone]

I disagree. I think a lot more science is being done at the behest of scientific 'intuition' than many a materialist will acknowledge. And that the "cutting edge" areas of science challenge our concepts of observed reality, to the core.

I will agree with you about intuition historically being a very important factor in how various scientists have arrived at ideas, but I must disagree that intuition is something scientists employ in convincing each other of their ideas. It's just not the case, so far as I know, that scientists publish papers arguing their ideas should be accepted on the grounds they themselves intuit that they are true.

 

[LukeS]

Without a logos (structure, rationality, orderly dynamic) of reality, there would be no correspondence between verbal "logic" and reality. I think that logos is like a Wittgensteinian logical form, logic "pictures" the reality, mirrros its form, its logos. There can be non real logics, self consistent, but basically logic is representative of precieved facts.

 

[PureX]

I will agree with you about intuition historically being a very important factor in how various scientists have arrived at ideas, but I must disagree that intuition is something scientists employ in convincing each other of their ideas. It's just not the case, so far as I know, that scientists publish papers arguing their ideas should be accepted on the grounds they themselves intuit that they are true.

You can disagree all you want, but you'll still be wrong. They don't rely on intuition exclusively, but they rely on it far more than the science-worshiping materialists among us would have us believe. Especially when dealing with 'cutting edge' science. And I see nothing wrong with this, by the way, unless we misunderstand or misrepresent the process by imagining that it's not happening.

 

[Thief]

I tried to get the word.....logos for my licence plate
didn't happen

but yeah.....
I lean to the pronouncement as ....the Word
a Spirit of ordering
the creation taken form by His thought and intention

as for us...logos...
is this life and the opportunity to find in ourselves a similar ability

wouldn't want to step off into the next life without some ability

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Regardless of how new ideas in the sciences arise --- that is, regardless of how scientists themselves come up with a new insight, discovery, or hypothesis -- scientists do NOT assess the soundness or reliability of such ideas by consulting their inner moods, reasons for internal dissonance, etc. No, they base such decisions on logical reasoning supported by empirical observation. It is that combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation that has made the sciences what they are -- our most powerful means of inquiry yet devised.

You only point to the results. Before the laws of electromagnetic processes could be quantified,
somebody had to notice how a glass rod attracted little pieces of paper after being rubbed.
His inner mood, had to be in a state of curiosity - he may have pointed this out and had been
rebuked in stern words how trivial the observation was. He likely would have been mocked,
and many others would have shied away from the intuition that there was something peculiar
happening. But eventually there would be a sense of overwhelming dissonance about the event.

Only then could the trial-and-error testing begin; with the mind fully focused on something which
was empirically trivial, and logically untested. The person(s) would have to take seriously something
that everyone else had considered of no consequence; something devoid of any scientific
understanding - at that point. The process would have had to have been toyed with creatively
until the sparks started being visible. Even then; there was still no precision...

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

It's just not the case, so far as I know, that scientists publish papers arguing their ideas should be accepted on the grounds they themselves intuit that they are true.

The intuition is not the reason for accepting the idea.
It is for deciding which new potential ideas should be examined closely.

One of the Wright brothers had to have been intuitively convinced that
his ideas would work, before he perhaps toyed with paper planes.

Its the initial state of curiosity that I am referring to here.
Only after intuition decides to look at something others thought trivial,
and to do so with earnest; only then does trial-and-error follow,
and after that has been explored; only then does the hard logic
and the precise empirical observation conclude matters.

 

[PureX]

You only point to the results. Before the laws of electromagnetic processes could be quantified,
somebody had to notice how a glass rod attracted little pieces of paper after being rubbed.
His inner mood, had to be in a state of curiosity - he may have pointed this out and had been
rebuked in stern words how trivial the observation was. He likely would have been mocked,
and many others would have shied away from the intuition that there was something peculiar
happening. But eventually there would be a sense of overwhelming dissonance about the event.

Only then could the trial-and-error testing begin; with the mind fully focused on something which
was empirically trivial, and logically untested. The person(s) would have to take seriously something
that everyone else had considered of no consequence; something devoid of any scientific
understanding - at that point. The process would have had to have been toyed with creatively
until the sparks started being visible. Even then; there was still no precision...

There was a fantastic TV series on PBS many years ago, hosted by James Burke, called "Connections", in which the history of some of mankind's greatest discoveries and technical inventions was traced. And the amount of creative intuition, happenstance, and just dumb luck involved was truly eye-opening! I'm not trying to discredit science, as it is an amazingly enriching method of exploring the mechanisms of the physical world. But it has never stood alone as a means of discovery, or invention.

When I lived in Chicago some of the scientists from Fermilab would occasionally show up at art openings and parties, and they were great appreciators of art and artists, and great fun to talk with. And occasionally a scientist and artist would even collaborate on some project or other. It was clearly and universally recognized by the members of both groups that imagination, intuition, and technical facility were our common 'stock in trade' even though we were working in two very different fields of endeavor. It was because of chats I had with those folks at parties that I began to read books about quantum physics and string theory (a big subject at that time).

Scientists are way more fun than philosophers!

 

[Thief]

The intuition is not the reason for accepting the idea.
It is for deciding which new potential ideas should be examined closely.

One of the Wright brothers had to have been intuitively convinced that
his ideas would work, before he perhaps toyed with paper planes.

Its the initial state of curiosity that I am referring to here.
Only after intuition decides to look at something others thought trivial,
and to do so with earnest; only then does trial-and-error follow,
and after that has been explored; only then does the hard logic
and the precise empirical observation conclude matters.

not wanting to digress too far....
Eve had a choice to make
not much info

and women are credited for having intuition

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

There was a fantastic TV series on PBS many years ago, hosted by James Burke, called "Connections", in which the history of some of mankind's greatest discoveries and technical inventions was traced. And the amount of creative intuition, happenstance, and just dumb luck involved was truly eye-opening! I'm not trying to discredit science, as it is an amazingly enriching method of exploring the mechanisms of the physical world. But it has never stood alone as a means of discovery, or invention.

When I lived in Chicago some of the scientists from Fermilab would occasionally show up at art openings and parties, and they were great appreciators of art and artists, and great fun to talk with. And occasionally a scientist and artist would even collaborate on some project or other. It was clearly and universally recognized by the members of both groups that imagination, intuition, and technical facility were our common 'stock in trade' even though we were working in two very different fields of endeavor. It was because of chats I had with those folks at parties that I began to read books about quantum physics and string theory (a big subject at that time).

Scientists are way more fun than philosophers!

True scientists ARE philosophers, and true philosophers ARE scientists.
But I think you have not met too many true philosophers (we're mostly Scotsmen).
There certainly is a breed of dry bureaucrat that tries to masquerade under the
guise of 'philosopher'; though really these are the sophists; and many others like
this also wear the mask of science too. There will always be clones, alas!