What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that to utter the words makes beginnings possible at all? In the beginning there was the word? Take this quite literally: How are such things that are "begun" to be conceived prior to their beginning; or, what is presupposed by a beginning? An absolute beginning makes no sense at all, for to begin would have to be ex nihilo and this is a violation of a foundation level intuition, a causeless cause, spontaneously erupting into existence simply is impossible, just as space cannot be conceived to "end".

But this takes the matter in the wrong direction. For it is not about trivial intuitions like sufficient causality, but about the origin of ideas and meaning. The event begun presupposes the ability to conceive it, and language as such does not speak, and logic does not make sense. Here is the terminal point of "beginnings" where religion finds its existential reality: the impossibility of conceiving beyond the boundaries of the thought that makes beginnings possible by conceiving of them, for what is possible that cannot be thought? One must take Wittgenstein very seriously here; but then, one must put him down very emphatically: it is in the saying, the twilight world, where meaning meets its dark underpinning, and the world is a naked impossibility---this is brass ring of both religion and philosophy. — Constance

Logos (Greek): variously meaning ground, plea, opinion, expectation, word, speech, account, reason, proportion, and discourse.

The Greek ‘logos’ as presupposed by a beginning has precedence. Yet the ultimate in logos means not just ‘word’ or ‘logic’ - it points to the possibility/impossibility of experiencing the perfect relation or absolute interconnectedness (omniscience). And logos is not alone.

What else is presupposed by a beginning? Aristotle refers to logos alongside ethos and pathos in terms of one’s capacity or potential to persuade. Except an ultimate notion of ethos is not just about character, but points to the possibility/impossibility of achieving quality, or excellence (omnibenevolence) through distinction. And the ultimate in pathos is not just about feeling or motivation, but points to the possibility/impossibility of tapping into an infinite source of energy (omnipotence).

It is at the intersection of these possibilities/impossibilities of absolute, infinite perfection, which both limit and are contingent upon each other, that we find a beginning, the origin of ideas and meaning, to potential and value, and from there to events and ‘beginnings’. No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience: the possibility of energy source differentiated by quality. And no source of energy, however infinite, is even useful without identity: the possibility of distinguishing the quality of proper relations. And finally, there can be no distinction of excellence or quality without the fundamental laws of physics: the possibility of ideal relation in the use of energy. And vice versa.

No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience: — Possibility

And vice versa?

No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience:
— Possibility

And vice versa? — frank

No experience exists without relation.

No experience exists without relation. — Possibility

So they're inextricable? I think I understand what you mean.

Re: LNC sans PSR?

What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that [ ... ] How are such things that are "begun" to be conceived prior to their beginning; or, what is presupposed by a beginning? An absolute beginning makes no sense at all, for to begin would have to be ex nihilo and this is a violation of a foundation level intuition, a causeless cause, spontaneously erupting into existence simply is impossible, just as space cannot be conceived to "end". — Constance

"In the beginning" there were (are?) vacuum fluctuations.

Here is the terminal point of "beginnings" where religion finds its existential reality: the impossibility of conceiving beyond the boundaries of the thought that makes beginnings possible by conceiving of them, for what is possible that cannot be thought? One must take Wittgenstein very seriously here; but then, one must put him down very emphatically: it is in the saying, the twilight world, where meaning meets its dark underpinning, and the world is a naked impossibility---this is brass ring of both religion and philosophy.
— Constance

Could you expand on this? — frank

Remember Wittgenstein in the Tractatus was adamant about stepping beyond what the rules of logic prohibited. There is this line that cannot be crossed, the line of impossible utterances, for what is given to us must be able to be cast in logical structure, which prohibits, for example, talking about the "nature" of logic itself: to explain what logic is, one would have to step out of logic to a point of observation through another medium of symbolic representation, and this would need further to be validated in the same way, and so on. So one is stuck within the self affirming givenness of logic.
But this encourages a positivistic take on analyzing the world at the level of basic questions. Clarity of what logic permits is the best we can do! And this is where my complaint begins, for the world is not clear at all at the basic level, yet it does yield meaning when analysis is brought to bear on it at its foundations. One could call this an apophatic approach to philosophy, which is where the logic takes one: not the dull precision of making finer and finer adjustments in arguments, and not the attachment to empirical science so popular today. Rather, the "openness" of thought that encounters itself, and instead of merging more abstractly into discursive trains of thought, one is brought into the the world "itself", back into Being, into presence.
Of course, all this is much debated. I would say this is exactly where the debate should be.

How are you defining “primordial” exactly? Is it an abstract term with some concrete meaning, or just a ritualistic and impressive noise one might make - a group identifying chant? — apokrisis

I take my place among those who genuinely think that philosophy's job is to "discover" something original, beneath the complexity of language and culture and all of its indulgences and presumption, that is the existential basis for terms like divinity or the metaethical good. Real philosophy begins with a reduction method of suspending the vast number of competing claims that clutter thought and give misleading impression that what we seek is complex, like a scientific theory.

What is primordial or if you prefer, originary, is intimated through a pursuit of givenness as such. Of course, such a claim is readily dismissed by most. Such is the thinking that holds whatever can make a cell phone or a flat screen tv must also be suitable for philosophy. Naïve.

Language is the technology for negation and absence. It's allows us to say what the world isn't, and that allows us to say what it is.

It makes the world that way. — frank

Very Hegelian, and not wrong, by my thinking. But what happens when one explicitly allows language's abundance to fall away, and loosen its tacit grip on the given moment? One can do this; it is philosophy's job to do this, that is, to hammer away at assumptions that most don't even know are there. This is a process of litereally unmaking the world, for these assumptions were never inert eidetic entities sitting in some mental basket just waiting to be summoned. They are actively, quite literally, defining the world, making it a familiar place. It is this familiarity that is the enemy of philosophical enlightenment.

So yes, let's say an assertion, an affirmation carries in its meaning the all that is not what sits before one, just as a number sits, in its affirmation, a broad range of contextual "other" numbers. One is not two, but were it not for two, one could not be one, for to apprehend one is a diffuse, "regional" affair, and there is no real singularity.

Then how do my assertions acquire validity at all? It is via the elephant in the room: existence. Put one's attention on the reduction of the actuality that lies before one, reducing its Being to appearance, to phenomena only, dismissing all else. My claim is that this is an astonishing method of foundational thinking that intimates something deeply important about being here.

which prohibits, for example, talking about the "nature" of logic itself: to explain what logic is, one would have to step out of logic to a point of observation through another medium of symbolic representation, and this would need further to be validated in the same way, and so on. So one is stuck within the self affirming givenness of logic. — Constance

And this insight is not from a transcendent vantage point?

The passage in John 1:1 is mysticism with roots in platonism and stoicism. I think the assumption running through it was that the world's logic is our logic. We perceive the world's logic through a kind of sympathy that could be described as having access to the divine mind through logic. Or you could say our minds are the Divine mind, just muddied.

Two side effects were:

1. The One, which is a higher, unexpressable truth, and

2. Matter, the mind's dead end.

These are like poles between which the mind swings like a pendulum. And this is the trinity, btw: the Christian translation is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The original was One, Logos, and Anima.

Rather, the "openness" of thought that encounters itself, and instead of merging more abstractly into discursive trains of thought, one is brought into the the world "itself", back into Being, into presence. — Constance

Yes. The stoics and platonists wouldn't allow that you ever go beyond the pendulum's swing. There's logic that says you can't. The One, if you think if it as a domain, is unified. There's no way to form a sentence in that domain, so if you entered, you wouldn't be able to remember it, because you were never there. You are a product of primal judgement.

You can't extend down into the realm of matter, either, for basically the same reason.

Just an ancient language for talking about the same issues, maybe?

Then how do my assertions acquire validity at all? It is via the elephant in the room: existence. Put one's attention on the reduction of the actuality that lies before one, reducing its Being to appearance, to phenomena only, dismissing all else. My claim is that this is an astonishing method of foundational thinking that intimates something deeply important about being here. — Constance

If I'm following...

You're referencing sort of a raw data feed that enters your brain, unprocessed at all by reason. It's a hyper-empiricism, devoid of rational organization within the mind. Was this not part of Kant's project in responding to Hume? That is, we can't see the causation when one billiard ball hits the other, so our mind imposes it, which is no different than all the other things our mind imposes on the world in order to understand it, whether that be space, time, or other sorts of things?

The immediate sense impression you reference doesn't make sense to me because it would necessarily be mediated in some way. That mediation isn't limited to sense organs, but by reason itself, which is in fact impacted by language.

So explain to me the elephant just as it is, unmediated by sensory organs or reason. How could that ever be done - the pure unadulterated elephant?

I can undestand all your doubts and questions abour the meaning and lack of foundation of this statement, which is so basic for the Jewish and Christian worlds. So, the following are my ideas about it, only to reinforce your position.

***

The word "Word" is a translation of the Greek word "logos", literally meaning "word" or "speech". This is the meaning ancient Greeks used initially. But with time it came to mean "reason", which in Greek is "logiki", clearly a derivation of "logos".

Now, "In the beginning was the Word" never made sense to me since the first time I heard it in school. It still doesn't, if I connect "Word" to and with the meaning of speech. If you echange the words, the saying becomes: "In the beginning was Speech". (Not as elegant, of course, but it shows the point.) It certainly doesn't make sense. Yet, Jews and Christians managed to keep alive this meaning with all sorts of explanations, the most important of which are that God created the world by (the power of) his word, that God's Word became flesh (Christ being that Word), etc. Still, all that doesn't make much sense, does it? Instead, I believe that logic and reasoning (the second meaning of "logos") make much more sense ... "In the beginning was Reason". This can be easily extended to mean "Consciousness", something which a lot of thinkers today consider as governing the Universe. "Consciousness" has no language, no face, no location and not time. It really makes much more sense than the materiality of speech. Indeed, just think, would God with all the powers that He possesses, use something material like speech to create the world? So, most probably we are talking about a figure of speech and not actual speech! But even if someone insists to use speech literally, the following --at least-- questions arise from that story:
1) What has speech to do with the creation of something physical like the world?
2) What kind of speech could be that?
3) Did or does this speech have existence or any meaning for other parts of the universe beyond our planet? As far as I know, we don't have any evidence, not only about speech, but even about life in other parts of the universe.

These questions are rhetorical, of course. They rather show the irrationality of the matter. And they can be explained as follows:

We all know about how egocentric Man has been and still is and that in essence he considers this plant as the center of the universe (not spatially, but conceptually). The Bible actually "speaks" as if there is no one else alive in the universe than the Mankind. Everything is said and happens with Man in the center. In fact, not the whole Mankind but only part of it: the Jewish! God delivered the 10 Commandments to Moses. In his language, Jewish, of course. Since then these Commandments, as well as the stories in the Bible, had a huge impact on a big part of Mankind. What about the rest of Mankind? And what about all the other religions of the world that have a different story to tell about the creation of the world?

Now, why "Word" is interpreted literally as speech and not as reason? I have only an idea for that: Speech (language in general, including writing), is the main communication tool Man has. By giving such and imporance to it, the Church and religious leaders and authorities, can then us "The Word of God" (and the "The Word of Christ" in Christianity) as a powerful way to control the faithful, subduing them to the will of God. The Word seems more powerful than action. "Listen to the elderly" is an extension of that, used to force blind discipline. "If you don't listen, ... "That great man said ..." Words are more powrful than actions, examples, reasoning, and so on.

What if they used "Word" as "Reason"? They would impel people to think, to reason, to doubt! "Have faith and not doubt!" is their motto. Authorities know best. You must listen to them. You are no one to doubt them. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Conclusion: Unfortunately, the statement "In the beginning was the Word", wherever it comes from, has no value for me as interpreted by the Bible and the majority of the Jewish and Christian people.

"In the beginning" was (is?) vacuum fluctuations. — 180 Proof

Sure. Ok. I've used that answer when people ask how something can be created from nothing. They just say the quantum vacuum isn't nothing.

They just say the quantum vacuum isn't nothing. — T Clark

Usually I retort 'Yeah well, a thing has structure and the vacuum does not have any structure, therefore the vacuum is not any thing (which is why the vacuum fluctuates, or "is unstable" as Frank Wilczek says.)'

Sure. Which experts do you have in mind? How about Heidegger? — Constance

A speculative thinker who is almost unreadable and readily misinterpreted is unlikely to help. How about one of the numerous physicists writing on the subject?

:up:

The word "Word" is a translation of the Greek word "logos", literally meaning "word" or "speech". — Alkis Piskas

I know enough Greek to know this cannot be correct. logos, like many ancient Greek words, simply does not easily translate into English. I find this online:

"Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning."

Thus "word" just does not suffice. Further, if logos did mean word, then why the fuss about the Bible's use of it?

This, from A Brief History of Thought, Luc Ferry, p. 59:
"First and most fundamentally, the Logos, which as we have seen for the Stoics merged with the impersonal harmonious and divine structure of the cosmos as a whole, came to be identified for Christians with a single and unique personality, that of [the] Christ. To the horror of the Greeks, the new believers maintained that the Logos - in other words the divine principle - was in no sense identical with the harmonious order of the world, but was incarnated in one outstanding individual, namely [the] Christ."

The moral of the story is don't make points with Greek unless you know your Greek at least adequately for your purpose. Failure on this point makes of your argument a walk on a holzwege, a wood's path to nowhere. The remedy is to make your own argument without the Greek word.

To the horror of the Greeks, the new believers maintained that the Logos - in other words the divine principle - was in no sense identical with the harmonious order of the world, but was incarnated in one outstanding individual, namely [the] Christ." — tim wood

That observation from Luc Ferry does draw, in sharp contrast, the different purposes being pursued by using the language of the "Greeks" to connect or not connect to the meanings of the cosmic order as it was expressed at that time.

For some, this meant that the world was involved in another process where the unchangeable world described by the Greeks did change.

Another group wanted to prove that the desire for the cosmic order was really about seeking an even more unchangeable thing than what people had previously been asking for. This group wanted to appropriate the efforts of previous philosophy where the other group could not have cared less.

The word God means moral perfection and innocence. Such a state seems impossible for humans and for a necessary being, although not for a lower "god". There cannot be a being of Pure Act because virtues are divided up between ones a being can have by nature and ones that require the eye of the tiger to obtain. There might be a being of infinite innocence but it couldn't have the maximum of courage if it was always in a blissful changeless state "rolling around heaven all day". Again, there is innocence and acquired goods, childhood-natural goods and goods that must be performed. So are there wizards and a pantheon? Are these who "aliens" really are? It's not bad to think so. I listen to a lot of traditional religious music and connect with the mystical ethos of it. But all this talk of the world coming from a language, whether it be of Genesis or an Om, goes back to the paternal Pure Act being of traditional religion who in reality can't represent all reality because some goods in reality must be experienced in order to partake of.

The word God means moral perfection and innocence — Gregory

Is man then morally perfect? Or comes the devil to play around? And the apple to take away innocense? What is the difference between the word of God and God? Does he use His words as we do? Does he create a beginning like we do? What starts his talking? A desire to express?

:up:

Usually I retort 'Yeah well, a thing has structure and the vacuum does not have any structure, therefore the vacuum is not any thing (which is why the vacuum fluctuates, or "is unstable" as Frank Wilczek says.)' — 180 Proof

Anyway, I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that I've never found that the quantum vacuum ends any arguments or leads to any resolution in these types of questions.

Man is not perfect as I said

My experience is that the 'vacuum fluctuation argument' exposes anyone who persists without refuting it as a reality-denier (who is also anti-science) which, therefore, ends the discussion for me since there's nothing to be gained from arguing over facts of the matter. The question is resolved with the absence of grounds offered to doubt the conclusion that a 'vacuum fluctuation' is not some thing. I only seek to publicly expose nonsense (i.e. "shame stupidity" as Deleuze suggests), not persuade others to change their minds.

I know enough Greek to know this cannot be correct. logos, like many ancient Greek words, simply does not easily translate into English. I find this online: — tim wood

Don't be so sure about that. The description I gave at start is taken from a standard (the biggest) dictionary of the Greek language. So, it is certainly correct. Your reference instead was from a foreign source. And one can find a lot of and different variations from foreign sources ...
Then I said that this meaning was extended to mean "logiki" (= reason), which is a derivative of "logos". Thus, I covered the the meaning of the word "Word" sufficiently enough to expose my view on the subject.

You may know some Greek but certainly not so well as a Greek person, who might be a translator and have all the necessary Greek references for such an analysis.

So try not to reject something that is so analytically described and belongs to a language that is not your native one. You could just bring up your interpretion as an alternative and to be discussed. That would be acceptable.

God! Or a joint effort of more of them. The usual meaning of a beginning doesnt apply to his act of creation. His word must not be taken litterally. He usher the words "let it be", and the universe, in its eternity, came to be. It's the eternal and infinite universe we see today. Describable by physics (and math describing the physics) as far its material an spatiotemporal structure is concerned. God(s) stands on the outside of it (again, not an outside applicable litterally, as outside the house) and on the inside as well, as he created the universe from within himself.

So when you curse, God(s) curse(s) himself (themself). Comit suicide and you kill a part of God(s). Not that he (they) would mind, after all, that would be to confess his (their) own fallibility. — DeScheleSchilder

He "ushers" the words? What could this be? Speak, usher, actually ushering is so vague one might as well leave it alone altogether: God.....then there was a world. But this "then" is a causal word, or is it meant to be sufficient reason, so the creation is simply a mere thought? But thought and speech cannot be separated, can they?

But then, it is the literal I am most concerned with. Not the idea and its intent, obviously, but the simple, albeit ignored, fact that in order to conceive of God, creation, or anything else, one has to conceive, that is, think, use words. It is here, in the language relationship to the world that the term God and creation that such things have to be unpacked. What we find, I claim, is a world reduced to its actuality that has been neglected in all the clutter. Here you find disclosure of what these concepts mean, but it is existential disclosure, not discursive. A reduction (see Husserl's epoche) simplifies.

from a standard (the biggest) dictionary — Alkis Piskas

Which, for present purpose, is the wrong dictionary.

You touched upon it with your quote from Wit. Dig a little deeper and you find that the relationship of two things, is the metaphysical base of logic. It turns out that this relation, or interaction is information. A bit much to unload here, but If you skim this short thread, you'll get the idea — Pop

I skimmed. The metaphysical basis of logic, as you say, and Wittgenstein: you know such an idea is an oxymoron in his thinking?
As to the tutorial, I found it a bit elementary. Not wrong, but a bit off the mark. Such discussion of perceptual knowledge relationships begs the question, what is knowledge? which is presupposed in all this. Wittgenstein's Tractatus draw lines between sensible propositions, and nonsensible one, claiming that even in his own exposition he was in violation. Many take this as they take Kant: an endorsement of positivism, which attempts to reduce what is unclear available, familiar language. this, I claim, cleanses philosophical thought of all that is truly extraordinary about being human, the opposite of philosophy.

λόγος? Or as a can of tomato soup. But actually, neither. The rest pure nonsense, at least wrt λόγος. — tim wood

This term has a long history. It is taken up to refer to a basic analysis of the world as it is understood, received by the understanding. It is the property of language that makes thought possible as if the thoughts of individuals are strung together by something essential, the very essence of intelligibility, the way the world "discloses" itself in language, if you like.
But don't see how this is all nonsense (or, maybe I do), unless you tell me how.

I only seek to publicly expose nonsense — 180 Proof

Yes. You are a bit less forgiving than I am. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Which, for present purpose, is the wrong dictionary. — tim wood

First of all, I have not mentioned anything about "wrong dictionary"!!

But since you ask, I googled your description "Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy" (as such), to see where you have copied it from and found two occurrences, both in Facebook. The following is copy-pasted form one of these FB entries:

Imran Abdul Jabar
26 October 2020 ·
Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) plural logoi, in ancient Greek philosophy.

You could at least look in a standard dictionary, which I thoght you did, instead of using a description from an member of Facebook! And then telling me that my description --which I took from a dictionary of Ancient Greek language-- is not correct!

Come on, this is not serious! That's all for me here.