Logos-Becoming

[insert header]

[insert picture]

1. WHAT IS LOGOS-BECOMING?

????

The Logos

The book begins with this statement:

“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 … though all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it … 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 forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep.”

What does Heraclitus mean by “Logos”? The literal Greek translation is “word” and it is sometimes rendered as “account.” He is saying that what follows in the book is an account of something timeless and truthful: an unseen force, not that different from the biblical “Word” or the “Tao” in Taoism, which reg- ulates and runs the universe.

Humans can only act in a right way if their actions are in attunement with the Logos. Most people, however, do not understand it, even if it is the force that regulates their lives. Whoever thinks that they have a separate mind, and manage themselves as if they are an isolated kingdom, is fooling themselves. They believe their own opinions instead of seeing things in their true light. “Thinking,” Heraclitus says, “is shared by all.” Ultimately, we are all of the same mind. Staying blind to this fact is the cause of our suffering.

Constant change

Much of Heraclitus’ renown comes from his idea that nothing stays the same. At a time when natural science was in its infancy and people were try- ing to pinpoint what was certain and stable in our universe, Heraclitus said: “Everything flows and nothing abides; everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.” The most famous line in the Fragments is:
“You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters are continually flowing on.”
In a world that identifies with matter, this is an almost heretical thought, and put Heraclitus in contrast with another ancient thinker, Parmenides, who argued that motion and change were not real, and that reality was fixed and stable. Indeed, Heraclitus’ idea that the stability of the physical universe is largely an illusion is one we that associate more with Eastern philosophy. “Cool things become warm, the warm grows cool,” he writes, “the moist dries, the parched becomes moist.”
This view of the universe as essentially energy (Heraclitus saw the element of fire as its basic physical component) that is perpetually taking on different forms has major implications for the human condition. Heraclitus was known as the “weeping philosopher” because he despaired at the lot of humankind; we are conscious beings with the full range of feelings, yet we exist in a world whose very nature is conflict.
As Heraclitus sees it, in a universe made of matter (and competing con- ceptions of truth among intelligent animals), conflict is inevitable. War sorts out human fates, making some people slaves and others free. Heraclitus notes Homer’s wish that “strife may perish from amongst gods and men” and says that, in fact, “all things come to pass through the compulsion of strife.” Conflict, or, in more abstract terms, the dynamic tension between opposites, is the very nature of the universe. Yet he also says: “Opposition brings con- cord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.”

It is our nature to separate things into parts, to make distinctions, but if there were a Supreme Being, is this the way it would see the universe? No, says Heraclitus: “Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one.” And he is not simply talking about the physical uni- verse, but what we call ethics too: “To God all things are beautiful, good and right; men, on the other hand, deem some things right and others wrong.” This does not mean that we should act however we like, but rather that good and bad, right and wrong are part of a larger whole, everything about which is right – if it is part of a whole, it cannot be otherwise.

Heraclitus seems to contradict himself on whether there is a God. The Logos is not God as such, and in some statements he sees the universe as a kind of self-perpetuating mechanism that “has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be – an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures.” Yet elsewhere, he clearly says that there is a divine mind with an intelligent purpose, in contrast to the blindness of man:

“Man is not rational; only what encompasses him is intelligent.”

It is possible to know, or at least be aware of, “the intelligence by which all things are steered through all things.” There is a “hidden harmony” in the uni- verse, hidden because all our names that might approximate it – God, Zeus, Logos, and so on – are our conceptions, when the essential unity is beyond words and concepts. Of the average person Heraclitus writes, “They pray to images, much as if they should talk to houses; for they do not know the nature of gods.” The only thing stopping us from awareness of this hidden harmony is our incredulity. Our minds are so fixed on the material that we take this relative level of reality to be everything, yet there is an absolute reality that awaits our appreciation.

Logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”)plural logoi, in Greek philosophy and theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. Though the concept defined by the term logos is found in Greek, Indian, Egyptian, and Persian philosophical and theological systems, it became particularly significant in Christian writings and doctrines to describe or define the role of Jesus Christ as the principle of God active in the creation and the continuous structuring of the cosmos and in revealing the divine plan of salvation to man. It thus underlies the basic Christian doctrine of the preexistence of Jesus.

The idea of the logos in Greek thought harks back at least to the 6th-century-bc philosopher Heracleitus, who discerned in the cosmic process a logos analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics, philosophers who followed the teachings of the thinker Zeno of Citium (4th–3rd century bc), defined the logos as an active rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. They called the logos providence, nature, god, and the soul of the universe, which is composed of many seminal logoi that are contained in the universal logos. Philo of Alexandria, a 1st-century-ad Jewish philosopher, taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. According to Philo and the Middle Platonists, philosophers who interpreted in religious terms the teachings of the 4th-century-bc Greek master philosopher Plato, the logos was both immanent in the world and at the same time the transcendent divine mind.

In the first chapter of The Gospel According to John, Jesus Christ is identified as “the Word” (Greek logos) incarnated, or made flesh. This identification of Jesus with the logos is based on Old Testament concepts of revelation, such as occurs in the frequently used phrase “the Word of the Lord”—which connoted ideas of God’s activity and power—and the Jewish view that Wisdom is the divine agent that draws man to God and is identified with the word of God. The author of The Gospel According to John used this philosophical expression, which easily would be recognizable to readers in the Hellenistic (Greek cultural) world, to emphasize the redemptive character of the person of Christ, whom the author describes as “the way, and the truth, and the life.” Just as the Jews had viewed the Torah (the Law) as preexistent with God, so also the author of John viewed Jesus, but Jesus came to be regarded as the personified source of life and illumination of mankind. The Evangelist interprets the logos as inseparable from the person of Jesus and does not simply imply that the logos is the revelation that Jesus proclaims.

 

2. WHAT IS THE ESSENTIAL DIALECTIC OF LOGOS-BECOMING?

The Essential Dialectic of Logos-Becoming is:

{???? ⇆ ???? ⇅ ????} ↻ ????

3. WHAT IS THE INTERMEDIARY DIALECTIC OF LOGOS-BECOMING?

The Intermediary Dialectic of Logos-Becoming is:

{???? ⇆ ???? ⇅ ????} ↻ ????

????

4. WHAT IS THE COMPLETE DIALECTIC OF LOGOS-BECOMING?

The Complete Dialectic of Logos-Becoming is:

{???? ⇆ ???? ⇅ ????} ↻ ????

????