Particity: participatory being in relation to a whole who transcends it.
This statement, I think, refers to particity: “In true love it is the soul that envelops the body.”
I am interested in recognizing evidence of the particity that saturates the being of a self, and the interpretive tricks used to explain it away or cover it over in order to preserve our individualistic conceits. Imagine each of us as participants in a conscious being trying to come to terms with itself through our ordinary (no unusual or supernatural conceptions added) human interactions. Why not? A mind can be of two minds on a matter and remain a mind.
*
I understand Logos to be the being that arises from beings participating in dialogue who through their participation become a unity that exceeds each but includes both.
*
A series of statements from Heraclitus, who lived 500 years before the birth of Jesus Christ:
Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it — not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it — at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth.
My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves; other men, on the contrary, are as neglectful of what they do when awake as they are when asleep.
–
We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet, although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own.
–
Although intimately connected with the Logos, men keep setting themselves against it.
–
Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one.
*
Now read this as if you’ve never heard it before:
In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
–
…For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
*
For some reason when i try to click your links such as “This Statement” they don’t follow through instead I am prompted for password.
solution?
Ok…I think there is a problem here but I am hesitant to speak about it, so i know i must.
I don’t think intelligence can be assumed purely because an individual speaks. Like so much bird-song, some is mere call and response.Perhaps it is too harsh to say that there may be no intelligence where this is the case, but then certainly if a lack of intelligence is not the issue what of the morality that leads an individual to the conclusive decision not to exert the effort of will?
here is the problem I see…In such a situation there is only the vestige of Logos, the mere signification of it, but Logos is not there.
I think if you want to recognize Particity, we must first find some situation in which we may be assured that if it exists we will observe it. After that…short work to accept it’s behavior.
here it is I think.
The castle is definitely more than merely the some of it’s bricks, but yet if one can not be assured that these bricks are strong (or even actually bricks for that matter) how can you build the castle?
and I am not saying it’s impossible for something solid to come from something insubstantial, from a universe of only laws and characteristic differences we have matter…
but how?
I have some Ideas, but people don’t like it when I start dividing by Zero. :)