Changeability of Logos

Of course, our discussion is far from being detailed. I hope to explain with my remote and frequently intolerable dearth of knowledge in illustrating this hypothetical but highly defensible representation of a major theological question. Our aim is pragmatic. We sought to arrive at practicable concept, the success of which may be used as a yardstick in determining the validity of the principle. The truth is not our concern here but our own truth. We hope to adopt a truth that is closest to a truth in Heraclitian stream of ideas (logos). We are not being two-faced in our bashful mien for we will neither make conscious efforts at achieving substantive knowledge of the Trinity doctrine nor take too seriously, any consequent recommendations herein (for the reason of our contempt for dogmatism). The doctrine is a part of our discussion that we must explain to arrive at our target, which is the big idea of the Trinity. It is from this visible portion of our proposition that we will infer the nature of the Trinity. No subject of policy making, I suppose, is more important than this, to read the mind of God concerning the operations of nations. I have chosen to call it scientific because our methodology is similar to the widespread scientific method of extrapolating from observable properties. An example of this inductive method of research can be found in the case of the discovery of the cosmic invisible matter. Astronomers have achieved considerable success in detecting the nature of that matter even though it is invisible to them. They learned about it by studying the ‘works’ of those unseen substances. Instances abound in Mathematics where even extra-natural realities are inadvertently accounted for in equations. Those who hate to believe that God is necessary in the affairs of men have consistently proven Him in their equations, sometimes without them knowing. Stephen Hawkings, of all people, have probably explained what Heraclitus spent his life trying to explain and what John actually illustrated in his gospel.

?Our discussion’s rationale is that we can deduce the nature of God by tying together the facts that are available to us. Our first concern is; how much fact is available to us? We do not even know how well we are doing in the evolutionary ladder of knowledge because there are no parallel civilizations against which we can measure ourselves. Thomas Khun is perhaps right about paradigm 7, as every generation must explain the absolute truth that is implicitly known to them through the needle-eye of their own truth. Our best efforts would arouse cynical amusement in erudite persons, no doubt, but their own understanding is equally without doubt, candidates for future ridicule. What is important is bringing to the table, a relevant solution to a problem at hand, leaving vindication to the hands of statistics. We should find a truth not for our individual selves as Soren Kierkegaarrd said, but for our nation. Like Kant preached, we should convince ourselves about God as God had convinced Himself about us. It must also follow that we should convince ourselves about our country as God had convinced himself about human nations. We differ from Kant in believing that the change of ideas is welcome because Logos itself is in constant change. It is only when we understand that Logos has dynamism as one of its characters that we will not end up taking our conviction to the extreme like a student fan of Kant once did, killing a perceived enemy and leaving a note that explained his objective. He was convinced that his victim was an antagonist of his ideas and because Christ was the master of conviction, a Christ therefore, he must become 8. We should take notice of Kant’s opinions. His problem in this case was not of heresy as some might think, but imprecise representation of a most beautiful ideology. God was convinced about the reality we know when He decided to create it. Everything we know is one big idea of God’s and we are part of that idea.

?For us to arrive at the aim of our discussion, we must familiarize or remind ourselves with a few things; that Trinity is real and is not just some form of formal belief, that Trinity can be found in science and lastly, that we are part of the Trinity. I must explain our concept of each of the members of the triune to make these assertions a little more plausible to us.

1. Thomas Khun was the main challenger of Popper’s philosophy of science. He argued against the importance of falsifiability of theories in a popular debate with his far older colleague. Galileo, according to Khun may not have falsified the astronomy of his day but may have only shifted paradigms.Logic of discovery or psychology of research in criticism and the growth of knowledge, Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave, Cambridge University press, 1970, pg. 1-23

?

1. Carl Sand, a student of the University of Jona who belonged to a radical group, Burschenschaft, dedicated to working for the unity of Germany, murdered a writer, Kotzebue, who he believed was antagonistic to the cause. The unconditionals, as they are called, takes Christ as their hero, for He is, according to them, a good example of a man convinced in his own ideals. ‘A Christ thou shall become,’ they say, the same words Carl wrote besides his victim.??Nationalism, Elie Kedourie, The Anchor press Ltd., 1966, pg. 27