Posted by cav on March 18, 2005 at 20:00:21:
In Reply to: Some rambling logos... posted by PS on March 18, 2005 at 18:53:26:
It is always strange to me that once we begin thinking of something we tend to encounter related matter everywhere. Just recently I read a teaser from a book by the guy who developed Super String Theory, the latest contestable theory of the nature of the universe. I've learned about this before to some extent, and basically it theorizes with excellent circumstantial and mathematical evidence that below subatomic particles are things called strings that vibrate in more than ten dimensions. The math suffices to unify the disparity between the physics of macrobodies (i.e. galaxies, etc.) and microbodies (i.e. quarks, electrons, etc.) But my point here is that if there are truly more than 10 dimensions to space, it makes understanding how things can be "both and", in the case of inspiration. It has been established for many years that particles can move in 4 dimensions...the fourth not being time, as many people think, but the square of the third dimension, which when graphed and rotated through all dimensions shows an object passing through itself, kind of like how an x-ray can pass through objects.
Anyway, my leap on all this is that it seems we are moving into a realm that begins to make spiritual phenomena observable. There have been studies on prayer and meditation that show how these things can actually alter brain function and even alter the movement of subatomic particles in subjects. So all that to say, it is entirely logical to me that we can exist both in God and apart from Him. That he can exist in three distinct persons. And that inspiration, or the revelation of a latent belief, could be both derived from an outside source, and generated from within. As you said, I think our common finite ways of classifying things do not suffice for these subjects. And to tie to the other ongoing string on metaphor, in the absence of complex mathematical evidence (i.e. physics), we must revert to the traditional metaphorical way to explain such phenomena in an understandable way...Long live the Storytellers!
: : Regarding the idea that speaking or writing allows us to realize our own opinions, I have often wondered how much of that cohesion is actually based in our own thought...I'm moving into a more metaphysical area here, but mediums and spiritualists in many traditions practice a form of writing or speaking that allows them to channel. If you've ever practiced true stream of consciousness free writing, especially regarding questions in our own mind, it is strange how much it can take on a tone completely different than our own voice. And as Christians who believe in the influence of the Holy Spirit, I wonder how much of what we call our own thought isn't really. I mean the Apostles were instructed to not worry about what they would say when brought before authorities because the Holy Spirit would reveal to them in that very moment what they should say. I'm really just musing here, but I can't help thinking that all of it is related in some way that we don't understand.
: : As an aside to that, I am often frustrated that these sorts of questions are not legitimately researched. I think empiricism so crushed any other form of investigation of natural phenomena that for centuries these parts of our reality were ignored. Now psychology and natural scientists are starting to turn attention to these matters that are observable but not directly documentable. I'd just be interested to know what similar characteristics were going on among a large segment of people in different cultures and languages, and maybe even monitor brain activity during such an activity.
: * * * * * * *
: Well, since you mentioned the need for research, I suppose you will permit a few rambling observations on this subject. You bring up an interesting distinction, that is, between what we had mentioned--already possessing an understanding or belief not fully realized but which is revealed when needed for communication or necessary action--versus receiving from a divine connection or "channel" the revelation at the time needed. (The "revelation" could of course be truth, wisdom, insight, creativity, power, faith, etc.)
: I would first suggest that either way it is realized or understood, it is a GIFT. If it is provided, who provides it? If it exists already in some latent subconscious way, it was still received at some point. When it is revealed when needed, who reveals it? If it is part of some persistent cosmic stream, from where does it flow? All that to say that if the source is God, the distinction as to whether revelation comes from without or within is blurred by the greater reality of the Giver. (Don't I sound like an apologist for ontological proofs of the existence of God here?)
: The distinction for me is blurred based on one's understanding of the NATURE of a gift and WHEN it is imparted. Is a gift a gift before it is received? Can a gift be received before the revelation of it? How can it be fully received without the realization of it? Does the "nature" of the gift change with its realization? Certainly when the gift becomes efficacious the human perception of what is "possessed" is radically altered, but is the true nature of the gift changed? Does the "gift" itself only become the gift when it is realized/utilized/experienced?
: The anthropological aspect would deal with the perceptions of the giver and the recipient, but it doesn't answer the theological question. When God gives, does the gift itself change in essence/nature based on its reception or utilization? Does the gift require human reception to be what it is decreed to be? Or does it have a sort of immutable existence in itself? You could think of it like the Logos, eternally proceeding from God but having existence in itself (Himself). Does wisdom only become wisdom when someone knows it? Does love only become love when it is realized and accepted? Does Jesus become Savior only when he is received? And so on...
: If I say that I have my wife's love, doesn't that mean that she is continuing to impart love to me? Can I ever possess it all? But if I say that I have my Father's eyes or nose or brains, that is an inherent quality. By such finite reasoning, we might say that the image of God is intrinsic in the human, yet by seeking to be recreated in His image by the power of His Spirit we seek something from without. So where does the progress (or "gain") in being conformed to His image come from, without or within? Does the Spirit impart or actuate? I suggest that these finite distinctions (as with love versus genes above) do not work in understanding our existence relative to God.
: Do we exist in God, or does He exist in us? When he gives us his love, is it continually given and experienced or is it living in us, as if it has life in itself? Do our actions impart his love to others or actuate the realization and reception of his love within them? In a word, BOTH. And on and on and on I could ramble... I love this stuff because it testifies of the incomprehensibility of God, and of the mystery of who we are and what we possess--in Him and from Him and through Him and by His will and His design.
: All that to say again that the distinctions between receiving from within or without and the time of reception are blurred to me, but the blurring is a joining and a consistency, not confusion or paradox. I see the Gift as an existing entity, an extension of God Himself, existing both within and without us.
: I have much more logos on this, but I am late for sci-fi night with Terry. More later maybe. ;-)