Nostr Web Client

Interesting conception, similar to a concept I formulated of the Logos being the creator of all things, and the assertion that truths are not just logical abstractions is reminiscent of my assertion that symbols are not meaningful without context. However, you seem to be asserting that truth is not true. That logic, merely because it is metaphysically subordinate to the Logos in your view, is somehow certainly not part of any eternal law. This to me is arbitrary and unjustified, and it begs the question of why you need the laws of logic to be recognized as not necessarily true so badly. This is mystical thinking at best, and it subordinates guaranteed valid reasoning to this concept which you have asserted but not justified, and used as a tool yourself.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

A concept these particulars of which only God would really know, yes? Until it became revealed to you by reason or the spirit or whatever. So why is logic not necessarily true? And don't tell me that it's to preserve your alignment to the Logos, because there is a way for logic to be always true and you to be in perfect alignment with the Logos, and that is to accept certain epistemological disciplines regarding uncertainty and whatnot.

How. How do you know this. Where is your gnosis coming from?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Brunswick 4mo ago

> …you seem to be asserting that truth is not true… This is mystical thinking at best, and it subordinates guaranteed valid reasoning to this concept which you have asserted but not justified.

I did not say logic is not true, any more than I would say mathematics is not true. I said neither generates truth on its own. Mathematics uncovers what is already real; logic reveals relational order already sustained. The validity of logic is guaranteed precisely because reality is structured by the Logos. To treat logic itself as ultimate is to confuse the instrument with the source. That is not mystical—it is ontological clarity.

> …why you need the laws of logic to be recognized as not necessarily true so badly.

I do not deny their truth. I deny their ultimacy. Logic is always valid within created order, but its necessity is derivative. Its absoluteness rests in the Logos who holds all things together. Logic is not suspended, but neither is it self-existent.

> …there is a way for logic to be always true and you to be in perfect alignment with the Logos, and that is to accept certain epistemological disciplines regarding uncertainty and whatnot.

Logic is always true in the sense you mean—because Logos eternally sustains order. But epistemological discipline does not reach the root. Logic’s truth is not grounded in our methods of uncertainty management but in the Logos’ being. Logic is eternally reliable because the Logos is eternally faithful.

> …where is your gnosis coming from?

Not gnosis, but revelation. It is plainly written throughout Scripture: “In the beginning was the Logos… all things were made through Him” (John 1:1–3). And the Spirit of truth makes this intelligible, where to the unregenerate it seems foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14). This is not esoteric knowledge; it is revealed truth, incomprehensible only to those who treat logic itself as ultimate.

* Logic is true, but derivative.

* Truth is manifold, unified in the Logos.

* Logic is eternally valid because the Logos is eternal.

My knowledge is not private gnosis but Scripture illuminated by the Spirit of truth.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Idk Scripture seems pretty private to me so that's one thing.

I don't believe that logic is the only thing that exists or that it creates its own meaning. I have inferred at times that it might, but it is more likely that other context in existence, including an eternal law that is partially outside of my understanding and the many particulars in play in the universe, co-create and coordinate the universe. Rather we use reason which allows us to behold logic, as particular people, agents in the world that exist with many facets. Manifold I think was your word.

My personal philosophy asserts that all of existence exists and all of nonexistence does not exist, that things exist, and that logic is eternally true. It does not say that there is no Logos and it does not say that logic creates the Logos or creates existence on its own. My philosophy does not claim to know for certain the nature of such things like the origin of the universe. I instead have a kind of provisional deist or eternal law conception of the Logos as creator of a living universe with fixed laws and changing guidelines and changing particulars, which fits the facts of this world. I don't see any reason to jump on the ship of divine revelation from some arbitrary book that says a lot of stuff that just sounds about right. That's no way to find oneself in actual allegiance to the truth, and my allegiance is to the truth, the ultimate truth. If Jesus is the Truth, then so help me God I am in Him and He abides in me. I think that making arbitrary claims of gnosis of this or that interpretation of Scripture just because you pick that one on a whim is doomed to fail if not restricted by epistemological rigor and cognizance of one's own arrogance. I detect a distinct lack of humility from you, especially as you have still not justified your scripture and further your personal interpretation of that scripture.

Brunswick 4mo ago

I didn’t mean to imply Scripture is private or arbitrary. It was given publicly, proclaimed, and preserved through centuries across peoples and languages. What makes it seem “private” is that it requires the Spirit of truth to be comprehended. Without that, it reads as just another text. With the Spirit, it is revealed as the Word that grounds all else.

On your deist conception of the Logos as eternal law: laws do not exist on their own. They require a lawgiver. If the Logos is only impersonal structure, then it cannot ground existence, it becomes a mechanism without origin. The Johannine Logos is not just abstract law, but the living Word, through whom all things were made. That is the difference between eternal law as principle and Logos as Person.

As for rigor, revelation is not in contradiction to reason but its ground. Logic and reason cannot guarantee their own validity; they presuppose intelligibility. Revelation is the disclosure of that ultimate intelligibility, which finite reason can only partially grasp. Without that, every system (including your provisional one) rests on humanly chosen premises. That is more arbitrary, not less.

And as to humility: submitting to revelation is the opposite of arrogance. I am not asserting my own gnosis, I am yielding to what has been given. The danger is not in acknowledging revelation, but in elevating our own provisional philosophies as though they were sufficient.

So I’m not denying logic’s truth or your allegiance to truth. I’m saying logic and truth both hold because the Logos holds them, and the Logos is not merely law but the Word who is with God and is God.

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Let me address these thoughts paragraph by paragraph:

I didn't think you implied it was private, I just asserted that I think it's somewhat private. But I see your point, and though I don't agree with it being a solid basis, I'll grant you it.

Um, I do not see how laws necessitate a lawgiver. You're just asserting this with no justification and it is not something I agree with. But thank you for this clarification of why you have your stance. If the Creator is conscious, what is or was his origin? Why is this different if it is just an automaton? Why do you expect me to believe this? I am getting from this that you just believe that every law must necessarily come from a conscious person if some sort and every thing must have been made by a consciousness. I guess your justification for why it has to have been a consciousness could only be the scripture you had revealed to you, because there is no reason it couldn't be these other things, at least it would seem that way. These reasons you have given are entirely inadequate on their own unless you assume that everything must come from a conscious person of some sort.

I already agreed that my intellection must be grounded with more than just logical symbols on their own. I only suggested that eschewing reason in favor of a book means you better DAMN WELL know that you understand the book and that that book is perfectly true. If the process of intellection with this book is arbitrary and possibly prone to mistakes in either its selection of the book, the version of the book, the means and methods of interpreting the book, or application to your life, which it may as well be arbitrary and error prone from the perspective of someone who has not VERIFIED your claims, it is to that person's rational intellection a potential danger.

I do not elevate my provisional philosophies as sufficient. Epistemological rigor does the exact opposite of that. It appears from an agnostic such as myself that you likely do or might elevate your provisional philosophies as sufficient. You place what you call divine truth on a pedestal apart from logic, beyond questioning. So what if you were deceived? What if you are following the devil, or simply making mistakes? How will you ever course correct? That is, I would think, a major danger you would want to be mindful of.

aco 4mo ago

I like bacon

Kevin's Bacon 4mo ago

Thank you 🤌🥓

aco 4mo ago

🫂

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 4mo ago

laws of physics didn't need a lawgiver, or, wait. maybe they did. perhaps that's why so many theoretical physicists (that you never read about on MSM) believe in God.

laws are part and parcel of a system. they are the protocols created by the behaviours of the elements of a system. you don't necessarily need to invoke God to justify the existence of laws, but you can't justify the creation of laws that violate the behaviours of the system. this is why democracy is bullshit. we don't need more laws. there is already laws baked into the language and physical reality of being human in a human society. they only need to be affirmed and the benefits are for everyone except for those who want to abuse other humans.

when writing software, although we call them bugs, what they really are is the reality of our code being disjoint with the expectations of the code. this universe has been around way too long to have bugs in it. everything is a feature. Praise the Lord!

Brunswick 4mo ago

Statutes which codify negative rights are ones discovered through common law arbitration. This is the category of law that is "self evident". These laws preexisted our government and originate from the functions of reality itself (such as Thou Shalt Not Kill, Mosaic law, Common Law, and other fundamental discoveries like UPB.)

Statutes which grant positive rights through compulsion (such as taxes, public education, welfare, or anything that is not founded on natural rights) are either designed to compensate for other distortions of reality (such as KYC & AML to support central banking) or are themselves grants of unnatural rights.