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
No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience: — Possibility
No relation, however perfect, could even exist without experience:
— Possibility
And vice versa? — frank
No experience exists without relation. — Possibility
"In the beginning" there were (are?) vacuum fluctuations.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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The word "Word" is a translation of the Greek word "logos", literally meaning "word" or "speech". — Alkis Piskas
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
The word God means moral perfection and innocence — Gregory
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
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 ...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
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
Which, for present purpose, is the wrong dictionary.from a standard (the biggest) dictionary — Alkis Piskas
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
λόγος? Or as a can of tomato soup. But actually, neither. The rest pure nonsense, at least wrt λόγος. — tim wood
First of all, I have not mentioned anything about "wrong dictionary"!!Which, for present purpose, is the wrong dictionary. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.