Title: The entanglement of logos and mythos

Posted: http://www.opensourcejudaism.com/forum Nov 30, 2004

Gambista wrote:
"David's problem with using scientific concepts to address theological questions, at least less than carefully, is that the extent to which these concepts are actually shared is illusory and therefore misleading. Yes, shared concepts are the most useful, and David would be the first to agree. We just don't want misunderstandings as to what actually is shared."

The question of what concepts are or are not shared is twofold and then squared. What concepts are shared within sets of associations and between sets of cognitive associations? What is shared in the personal experience and what is shared in the collective experience, on a small intimate or large cultural scale? In other words, we can question the issue of privacy or communality of concepts and the mixing of narrative metaphor and logic sets.

- phoric : able to bear (to hold or support meaning)
Ana - (phoric): up (understood from preceding meaning)
Cata - (phoric): down (understood from succeeding meaning)
Meta - (phoric): beyond (understood from external meaning)
Eu - (phoric): well, good, true (understood as self evident)

These questions also come back to the entanglement of logos and mythos. How do we know what is, or to what degree, a thought or concept, is self evident in the mind of the thinker and to what degree in the correspondence of thought among communicators? Do we know to what degree a re-thinkable thought or concept or re-cognitive knowing, personal or shared is dependent on a sustainability web of sense, intuition, convention and conjecture? What does self evident actually mean? What does support from evidence mean? Do we understand this (proposed) personal and collective sustainability web of sense, intuition, convention and conjecture?

Do we use narrative metaphor to work with logic and logic to work with narrative metaphor? Do our efforts to develop a personal and communal framework to communicate our inner and outer worlds, and the correspondence between them, require a bilateral crossover or conversation between logos and mythos? Do we believe our personal and shared GOD experiences hold the master copies, the keys to our recognitive self evident knowledge, to which all our experiences depend for our sense of outer reality and inner integrity, in both the personal and communal spheres?

Interpretations on the Bible:

In the midst of the garden, a tree of life, a tree of knowledge. Eat from all the trees of the garden but when you eat from the tree of knowledge, you will surely confuse it with the fruit of the tree of life. Beware lest you confuse your sense of ripeness, with not yet ripe or even confuse your sense of ripe with your sense of over ripe, lest your sense of ripeness withers and you die.

Do not confuse My Intentions, your authenticity, with your sense of influence from the other authorities. To those that disobey my commandments, I will show anger, even to the third and forth generation but to those that keep my commandments, I will show kindness, even to a thousand generations.

Wherever I allow My Name to be mentioned I will with you and bless you. I have put before you, the blessing and the curse, choose life. Choose life that you may live and inherent the good land which I have promised you.

When you have settled all your tribes in the land in peace, from the place I will choose, you will establish a House of Prayer for all Nations. In those days, the Nations will say, let us go up and walk in the paths of God, recognized by all of these tribes. Let us go in the light of reason of their most central and most self evident agreements.

If you sense my post is over complicating our forum conversation, I thank you for your patience.

Yehoshanah

2004-11-30

Your visit adds one for the site: and adds one for this page: