Will 21st century therapy be quantum, metaphysical or simply logic? (No. 24 Logos)
Basically, this is an exhortation to indicate that it is not by our efforts that things happen, but we should not conclude that it is an encouragement to passivity either.
Let’s get from the basic: we are pure spirits, but embodied, along with a “mental” accessory. What then can we “do”, outside “thinking”? But I have a better word! As you may have noticed I often refer to etymology which allows me to escape human interpretations, since the origin of languages is intertwined with that of the universe and they have necessarily been produced by the Verb, Which tells it to us by offering His name: the “Verb” which is the one word that indicates an action! And yet it is in English. But not so new, isn’t it? For safety let’s learn from the languages of the Bronze Age, that is to say, more than 6,500 years ago, like Greek. And in Greek, this “Verb” is called “logos”! From there have derived a lot of variations of the idea of “development of relationship”. Because, basically, the Verb Himself, relates mere possibilities to their actual achievement! And the least of these diversions is not the Logic, of which the job of the Verb is precisely the expression. What John did not missed by starting his Gospel by “In THE Principle was THE Word”! This Principle is nothing but all the possibilities of what we can see, in physical, dreamlike, conceptual or otherwise form. And the job of the Verb is to manifest these possibilities, that is to say, to make them exist in one area or another.
But not in some messy fashion!
Imagine that one of the objects around you exists simultaneously at all possible places in your room! Where do you sit now? This stuff is everywhere, even everywhere on the planet, since it can be somewhere other than in your room.
So this Verb needs to know what to manifest, and this choice is the “function” of His Father from whom He expects orders. So He expresses His Will. But the Bible tells us that the first will (thought or “word”) from His Father was “Fiat Lux” (which is Latin to give it a taste of old, but it can be translated as “Be Light!”. Obviously as this “order” was the source of all manifestations, calling it the “word of God” can only be a “figure of speech” , since it would need the Speech to exist first, something for which one must wait for the manifestation of the universe and stuff (human people) who can pronounce it.
It is so difficult to understand? So why no one says it?
And what is this so-called “light”, with no space and no time?
That of “understanding”, as when someone is asked to enlighten us with his lights…
And do not expect to get away with a silly primary anticlerical pirouette, the Hindu Vedas tell exactly the same thing, explaining that the first production directed by Brahma is that of Buddhi, the “Universal Intellect”, i.e. the possibility that things are understood. As it stands, the nuances between the Father, the Verb and Brahma, are not part of my immediate explanations projects, but you may expect that they have relations…
In fact, all the people on the planet had understood that, 25 centuries and more ago; the Celts, the Chinese, adding the Native Americans, whether from the north, center or south!
You will appreciate the intelligence of a Father who thinks first to make that everything can be understandable before asking His Son to manifest anything else! And you can also appreciate in what state is a humanity that understands nothing of it anymore!!!
In fact, the real mystery is that, to manifest the light, the Verb would have had to first “manifest” Himself!!! But who said that He should be manifested? John tells us that He is Himself one of the possibilities of the Principle, like His Father as a matter of fact, and elsewhere, that it is already in that state that He is going to manifest everything as He will later explain, for example in Paul´s Letter to Colossians 1:16 and the Epistle to the Romans 11:36! Besides, this original light (which make us understand everything) is not very different from the Holy Spirit (which should teach us everything) and which seemed to miss in the Trinity!
Let’s give to the Father the name commonly given Him: “God”, and continue.
So how could that “God” that has no throat to speak, and his Word that no hands, no feet, no GPS or interplanetary rocket, and no ears to hear what his Father does not utter, fabricated the entire “thing” in which we cry… And which is, thanks to the Father, rather cleverly arranged. In other words, He knows how to choose in his stock, those items that will not make a mess… Since He shows so much discernment in His choice, I would even suggest that we let him be the Almighty!
Returning to earth with our logos…
And so back to my etymology. I would like to tell you about the word “consideration”. It relates to the fact that with our thoughts, we can be “with” (con-), the “stars” (-sidera-tion). In other words as a consciousness, we can be “con-scious” (obviously), that is to say, know about things which are remote (-scient = scio, separated) by integrating (or assimilating) them in (con-) us. We are often asked what is the signification of a word, but thanks to the etymology, we may request the word itself to tell US where it is pointing at (signum-facere), or even what the Logos wants to tell US because it comes from Him, if men have not been disfiguring it later!
So if we consider the only possible action of a spirit, thinking, in terms of the word “to consider”, we will discover the many surprises that this word hides. The very first of your considerations is probably just that we can consider? Does not it remind you of the history of that Verb that manifests everything without having to be manifested Itself?
Now consider a blue bear! It’s easy: just imagine it! Consider the screen as you read this. It’s easy: just look at it with your eyes open… Now consider the sun or the stars. It’s easy: for the sun it’s enough if it’s daylight and for the stars if night has fallen. And don’t confuse me with stories of clouds, or simply consider them! Everything I’m trying to get you to do is to consider something apparently a little further than a mental image or your immediate surroundings…
If the consideration of stars express the “sidereal” part of the word “consideration”, your blue bear is even more justifying it, because while you may feel it is only a few inches from you, nobody else can see it: because in fact it is “beyond the universe”, its space and time, and it is, strictly speaking, even more than « sidereal », really “flabbergasting” !!! That does not mean that no one can see it, if one of your buddies considers that he can see the mental images of others, and if that’s true: once I met a guy who healed his cat by erasing the mental picture in which the creature was stuck… So do not limit your paradigm too much either. Or consider a more extensive one. This time I did not say it was easy.
You may have noticed that I have made you consider a lot of different stuff, but that each time it was considered to be ONE consideration of ONE particular thing… So forget the mathematicians and their axioms: the word “ONE” is simply the name of this spiritual operation, the only thing we can do as spirits. And if you “count” your considerations, you will use numbers, i.e. the names of the series of your considerations: one thing, two things, three things … These names of numbers exist in all languages. The novelty is that in all countries and at all times, two and three make five, a consideration that does not depend on any one’s personal fancy, because it is universal: a “divine” consideration as Plato called them: The Mathematics “beings” are indeed “ideas of God”. So if you ignore the new math, you can consider those ideas without a teacher imposing you his little shriveled view from a human being. A new “sidereal” element for our collection of considerations.
Now look at your hand, and consider in it ONE thumb, ONE index, ONE major, ONE ring finger, and ONE auricular, if you have them all. As amounts, they are all ONE, as far as quality is concerned, they all have different names. But if you consider now ONE finger, then ONE other finger, yet ONE other finger, ONE more, and a final ONE, using your generic name of “finger” you have counted up to five. Using the words “stuff”, “widgets” or “gadgets” for your considerations, you can count indefinitely, without the need to identify what you consider. Nevertheless, if you consider ONE palm along with your FIVE fingers, you will be considering ONE hand. Thus, considerations allow you to group things to your leisure, they do not prove ANYTHING as to the truth or the reality of what you see. You can consider a square circle, you will only have trouble to do, even a mental image of it. It will not prevent mathematicians to say that you can see it as the limit of a circle when its radius tends to zero or the limit of a square when its diagonal also tends to zero. Forgetting what the limit of a series mostly does not belong to this series, and that their “square circle” is only a “point”, no more a circle or a square.
If you consider that mathematicians are “serious” people, the example I have just given shows that, having forgotten to stick to the ideas of God, they are especially showing an impressive imagination, like scientists who base on modern math the consideration of their assumptions, often without any foundation other than their own imagination again, which does not prevent that others can share or rather replicate them. And that does not only apply to the only people you might expect to be indisputable… And what can we think of philosophers, historians, inventors of political systems…
Our freedom of consideration IS ABSOLUTE, but it should not induce you to take care of anything but UNIVERSAL considerations, i.e. that everyone can do, like those I spoke of here (forget the story of the cat!). That is to say: stick to what the universe ITSELF can tell you or a selection of “sacred books” that tell truly universal considerations, referring to the etymology of the original version in case of doubt. Anyway shun like the plague the considerations of individual human nature, or you will never gain any discernment. This means that you will continue to walk on the head! Forever!
Also: imagine yourself around a table with friends. Each participant will have a DIFFERENT consideration of this table as each sees it from a different point, and yet you will agree on its “existence”. This passage from the subjective to the objective will hold only to the consideration that you have of it, so it is useless to seek a method. But you’ve got to master it if you do not want to look like a crackpot.
One last point: you can consider things very real without it being easy to share. For example consider any square inch on the table or the opposite wall. If you do not draw it, few people may consider the same. In other words, the material or physical existence are not the criteria of the “reality” of the individuality of your considerations.
Obviously, I wish that Dr. Anthony had understood all that, but I doubt it, given the enormities he sets about a “God” he is careful not to explain, as I said last time…
And by the way, you are not cool. You let me write piles of gloss on the assumptions (free?) of which I accused Anthony. You only have to pick on you if we need to wait to the next post to examine the sensational statement that “The will of God is our will”, yet you may already suspect what we will say … thanks precisely to this text!