IndieAgora

I just want to point out that Rhema and Logos do not mean the same thing. Logos has always had more to do with the faculty of reason, whereas Rhema is more akin to the utterance of a word, speech.

Check out Ferdinand De Saussures' structuralist view of language, he was a Swiss linguist, he made a distinction between 'langue', which are like 'images' or 'concepts' of words within a language, which are dependent on their relations (differentiation) and 'parole' which is the actual utterance of the words. What he does is separate language from human subjective ideas.

Logos/Rhema would have much the same differences.


I understand that Logos and Rhema are not the same thing. And it seems that Ferdinand De Saussures' is saying the same thing but in a different way.

I have this crazy notion that people who try to "think" separate ideas into more "thinking" which separates into more "thinking". Its a never ending spiral. I believe this is why no one can ever get to the "right" way of doing anything. And can't fully accept any idea that isn't their own, so they create new ideas based on the old ones. A rehash if you will, this is why everything seems to be "already said, or thought." But this isn't true. Everyone has a unique perspective given to us by the fibonacci sequence by fractal design by evolution. The same notion that no snowflake is the same.

I heard that "Thinking has been what keeps us in the illusion of separateness within our own identities" Also, "the more we align with thought, the more removed we become from the source"

So what can we do if all we can do is think? And think - separate. And think - separate. I guess that's a higher question than "What it is it to be Human?" But then I argue that to Question or "think" is to be Human. What we can do is find our being, or enlightenment, or our purpose, or ourselves. Become fully self-aware. It has been thought to be unobtainable because someone labeled it as such. And also no one can "see" it.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" - Buckiminster Fuller

Philosophy is always a work in progress, when a problem is solved, it opens up many new problems and becomes increasingly complex. I'm not advocating relativism, or that there is sn absolute 'right' answer as you mentioned, just that nothing is fixed and that all is a dependent origination, therefore there are no innate ideas, or things in themselves. I don't know if it's possible to have an idea we can call 'our own' either, all is inherited, embodied and incorporated.

Everyone has a unique perspective given to us by the fibonacci sequence by fractal design by evolution. The same notion that no snowflake is the same.


Can you elaborate on this in another thread please?

Everyone has a unique perspective given to us by the fibonacci sequence by fractal design by evolution. The same notion that no snowflake is the same.


Can you elaborate on this in another thread please?


sure thing.
[hr]

Philosophy is always a work in progress, when a problem is solved, it opens up many new problems and becomes increasingly complex. I'm not advocating relativism, or that there is sn absolute 'right' answer as you mentioned, just that nothing is fixed and that all is a dependent origination, therefore there are no innate ideas, or things in themselves. I don't know if it's possible to have an idea we can call 'our own' either, all is inherited, embodied and incorporated.


The "right" answer is just that, a answer in that time, a decision based on the information at that point in time, at the speed of sensation. And then it changes just as fast because we create something new to replace the old. In other words, it is constantly changing and there isn't absolute answer for anything, just a absolute way to understand how we get to a answer.

Foucault's epistemes and Hans Gadamers' Fusion of Horizons say a similar thing, that each 'epoch' that had certain meanings and practices throughout its duration, seems to be forgotten by the following episteme/horizon.

https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-Fusion-of-Horizons-vs-Epistemes

Foucault's epistemes and Hans Gadamers' Fusion of Horizons say a similar thing, that each 'epoch' that had certain meanings and practices throughout its duration, seems to be forgotten by the following episteme/horizon.

https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-Fusion-of-Horizons-vs-Epistemes


Correct, because we keep thinking, therefore create new questions that need answers and the continuously "re-hashing" is like destroying the original and forgetting it. But obliviously, I don't believe it....I just came to the conclusion based on the "absolute principle of path." Which is something I totally made up using my own conclusions reflected by your post, which made me write this and create new "holograms."

Wow, this is so cool, you fellas are on another level!