The positive Reason

Even at this point of our discourse we are still faced with a dilemma. Alas, the greatest of all.?Does the big reason for creation entail anything good for the world? Was creation meant for a purpose transposable to our own collective benefit or was it just a conscious experiment, a mere show of grandeur? As any reader would agree, the existence of the Big R does not necessarily exclude those possibilities. Should we device an equation using the Big R without caring to know whether it is positive or negative, we would be no better than the chicken that feeds so well only to be eaten at dinner. Is it beneficial for nations to split up or for erstwhile sovereign countries to come together??Is the pursuit of industrial independence a wise venture or a snare by which we would miss the benefits of arts? Should we endeavor to advance cryonics so that we may live forever or should we consider natural replenishment of human population as an act for greater benefit?

?Permit me to utilize the third agent of our epistemology in explaining the Big R operator. Our inability to use science, beyond apparent incompetence, is because we are now discussing an actuality that is independent of the three dimensions of reality. So far, we have acquainted ourselves with the two of the three that makes up the Christian-like trinity; the persona and the idea. Our desire to know the nature of the big idea leads us into querying the nature of the person behind the idea. Good ideas are likely to emanate from good people as wicked are, from bad people. We find a perfect answer from the doctrine of Trinity for there is a third member of the triad, called the Holy Spirit in Christian scriptures. This is the attribute of the person from which the idea is borne. Arriving at this has been aided by the choice of the name of this primordial entity and third member of the triune. It has been easy for us to discern, as it is for the kid, unfamiliar with Atlases, who is told to point at the nation of South Africa. She quickly runs her hands over the southern tip of the African continent, a thing she wouldn’t have achieved had she been told to spot Uganda. The choice of the word ‘Holy’ for the third member of the triune inspires our curiosity and we ask; why not simply ‘Spirit’ or ‘God’s Spirit’? The ‘Holy’, I presume, is to emphasize the attribute of the Godhead, which consequently affirms the nature of the big idea. Charles Barret captured this affirmation in page 325 of Understanding the Christian faith, where he wrote:

?

?Spirit, then, names those capacities in God that makes Him to remain Himself even as He transcends Himself; to live without doing violence to His self-unifying love, and to love, or remain self-consistent, without surrendering His freedom to live, to change, to develop. 23

?

Even though Barret failed to bridge his theology sufficiently with Philosophy and Science in his book, we perceive a most important relationship between the Trinitarian concepts of his’ with Greek ideology.

?Heraclitus never stops to amaze us with his hindsight and that is why he continues to earn our trust in our discussion. He says that the primal substance (which he called “fire”) is in constant flux. Now we know what is truly dynamic and what is not. The logos transmutes but the Spirit does not. Now we know why there was an old testament and a new one. Our probe of the Big R operator had opened our eyes to a vast terrain. Allow me a momentary indulgence when I say it has become perfectly understandable why Christian scripture declares a sin against the Holy Spirit as unforgivable. It sure sounds like this; you may not like my face and even my idea but I will definitely kick your butt if you disdain my noble character.

23.?Understanding the Christian faith by Charles D. Barret, Prentice Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1980, pg. 325