ECT Our triune God

[1Mind1Spirit]

Verrdy, veeeeeerrrreee, interesting.......:think:

 

[StanJ]

yes, it seems we lost data

Yeh it looks like all of yesterday and today until it came back up.

 

[Anto9us]

I lost my whole IGNORE LIST (3 PEOPLE) AND A LOT OF POSTS

 

[fzappa13]

This points dramatically to the necessity for appropriate priorities in translation from donor to receptor languages. The emphasis should never be upon the receptor language conforming the donor language to the receptor. Extreme care must be taken to retain content rather than promote concept.

One of the more interesting posts I've read since I started fishing these waters in '03. Many salient points most of which are likely worthy of their own thread. I fear it is nigh unto impossible for those attempting to translate the Bible to be completely divorced from their beliefs concerning what it says despite the best of intentions. I prefer to use Bullinger's take on the King James as he makes extensive use of the Masoretes notes as well as being pretty faithful in noting what is and is not in the original texts but even he couldn't resist a trip down Dispy lane when it came to Revelation. It lay with each individual to satisfy themselves that they have ferreted out the meaning of what they have read to their own satisfaction. Some of us are more quickly satisfied than others and some are satisfied to rely entirely upon the scholastic efforts of others. Pre-chewed food, as it were.

And this is exaggerated when dealing with a great distinction in context levels for any languages involved. Going from higher context languages to lower context languages means a change in the patterning of thought; and it's almost impossible for someone to police their own inherent language-determined patterns of thought.

So the result in English (as nearly the lowest context language ever on the face of the earth) is that when translating, there's the pattern of placing concept over content. That's because of how language foundationally patterns the mind. So native first-language English thinkers/speakers quickly conceptualize entire contexts rather than carefully considering the content of each contributing semantic and all surrounding minutiae of grammar.

We now have centuries of lowering of context for all languages; and lowering the context of language inevitably results in lowering the context of culture, because all thought becomes transformed in its fundamental format of patterning. So concept gradually and unerringly becomes more precedental than content, and concept begins to determine and produce its own content.

Language is nothing if not elastic, changing to fit the need of the users over time. Greek is a good example. I don't think that is a bad thing in and of itself but I have noted what appears to be a race to the bottom as it concerns depth and breadth of meaning as English is now becoming something written with thumbs and though I know said thumbs are what is supposed to separate us from the animals I fear they are being used to abbreviate English to the point it is quickly becoming little more than an idiot's Esperanto for many if not most. Yes, language is a reflection of culture but, as you point out, it can also be used to shape culture. As Albert Pike suggested in his tome, Morals and Dogma, “we must control the alphabet.” The radio, TV and internet were not even a figment of anyone's imagination at that point but, being a polyglot, he understood the implications of being able to influence culture via control of its lexicon. In the words of Cormac McCarthy, “it's not the one thing, it's the dismal tide.” I've written quite a bit for public consumption over the last decade and, in so doing, I have deliberately sprinkled therein words that are being abandoned in the hope of preserving them for yet a little while. My efforts were usually met with complaints that I was “losing my audience.” I fear they were lost well before any of my efforts.

When one considers the true applicable definitions of Rhema and Logos, then one can possibly begin to see this problem. But extreme low context languages are as brutal of masters as are extreme high context languages. So life and death are often resigned to the characters on a page and their results in the mind for both thought and belief.

Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about; the subject matter; the CONTENT; the (underlying) SUBSTANCE of all thought and expression.

Logos is all functionalities of rational reason and wisdom for intelligent expression, including all ponderance, comprehension, and apprehension of...Rhema.

There must be content and there must be concept; and the context of language is what internally processes and conveys both. Low context language emphasizes logos as the initiating and primary functionality; whereas high context language emphasizes rhema as the underlying foundation FOR initiating all primary functionality.

Low context English is rampant concept over content, with logos producing its own rhema in a voluminous and prodigious manner from such patterning of the mind.

We're not to be ignorant of Satan's devices. Devices is noema. Noema is concepts of the mind.

Language is the foundational means of patterning and programming hearts and minds and lives. We believe based upon what rhema we hear and hearken to; and that belief determines all we think, choose, feel, want, say, do, and ARE.

Whatever rhema substance is heard brings a substance of faith to determine our own substance as our underlying foundational reality of existence.

Lowering the high context of languages, and inherently low context languages themselves, are the primary tool of the enemy to replace God's Rhema with our own logos.

Our eternal hypostasis is at stake. This is no menial matter.

While hastening to agree with your assertions concerning the deleterious effect of the dilution of the English language I would pull up short of suggesting the situation endangers any given person's opportunity to avail themselves of the potential benefits of Jesus' sacrifice. Though we are told we know nothing now as we should we are also assured that the Holy Spirit is ever ready to translate as it concerns our perceptual and linguistic shortcomings. I would suggest that intent is everything despite the non-biblical canard that suggests that the road to hell is paved with such.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thanks to fzappa for reposting the above after the data loss. And here's a repost of Arsenios' response to my same lost post. I'll respond later to both.

PPS
This points dramatically to the necessity for appropriate priorities in translation from donor to receptor languages. The emphasis should never be upon the receptor language conforming the donor language to the receptor. Extreme care must be taken to retain content rather than promote concept.

And this is exaggerated when dealing with a great distinction in context levels for any languages involved. Going from higher context languages to lower context languages means a change in the patterning of thought; and it's almost impossible for someone to police their own inherent language-determined patterns of thought.

So the result in English (as nearly the lowest context language ever on the face of the earth) is that when translating, there's the pattern of placing concept over content. That's because of how language foundationally patterns the mind. So native first-language English thinkers/speakers quickly conceptualize entire contexts rather than carefully considering the content of each contributing semantic and all surrounding minutiae of grammar.

We now have centuries of lowering of context for all languages; and lowering the context of language inevitably results in lowering the context of culture, because all thought becomes transformed in its fundamental format of patterning. So concept gradually and unerringly becomes more precedental than content, and concept begins to determine and produce its own content.

I think you are describing concrete thinking vs abstract thinking... Where the concept "red" refers to and actually does mean each and every red object ever, to whatever degree of redness that is existing in them. This would be concrete thinking...

The conceptual thinker abstracts the meaning of red and separates it from the 'substances' that ARE red, and then mentally holds it. Such abstract thinkers thereby LOWER what you call the CONTEXT of language... Because context INCLUDES ALL the instances of the occurrence of 'red' in every object that IS red. And the object possessing the color red is the substance, the hypostasis, of the attribute 'red'... So that in order to speak intelligently about red in a high context language, one must discuss ALL its instantiations in reality - Which would mean omniscience, but at least in all relevant CATEGORIES of instantiations or hypostases, or substances, all meaning the same thing... The *THAT* which IS red... Whatever this *THAT* might be...

So that when I go into what I described as "cockpit overload" in the training of student pilots while I am reading your explanations and am getting conceptually buried in what amounts for me to be a foreign language of triviata piled high with a huge scooper, and I beg you to slow down and take things one step at a time, you are HEARING from me a demand to turn yourself into a LOW CONTEXT LINGUIST...

Am I getting this right?

PPS
When one considers the true applicable definitions of Rhema and Logos, then one can possibly begin to see this problem. But extreme low context languages are as brutal of masters as are extreme high context languages. *So life and death are often resigned to the characters on a page and their results in the mind for both thought and belief.*

Scholars tend to be extreme high contexters, and texters extremely low... But I flat out do not understand what I colored and bolded above. Are you saying that when life and death become mere categories of mind that real thinking become dead in low context thinkers?

PPS
*Rhema is the _thing_* thought and spoken about;

This would make rhema an object outside thought and speech.

Greek makes it the speech itself with attendant meanings - eg A SAYING or an ADAGE... Here is Liddel and Scott:

RHEMA - from ERO to speak, tell, proclaim
That which is said or spoken
a word, saying or expression
a phrase

Also:
the thing spoken of
a thing

You seem to have taken the secondary meaning and made it the primary, in your high context approach, where the word spoken means (all) the objects to which it refers...

PPS
the subject matter; the CONTENT; the (underlying) SUBSTANCE of all thought and expression.

So are you saying that the hypostasis of thoughts and their expression is the objects from which they are formed?

PPS
Logos is all functionalities of rational reason and wisdom for intelligent expression, including all ponderance, comprehension, and apprehension of...Rhema.

This is slippery, when the primary meaning of rhema is words, the primary meaning of logos is thought, and the primary meaning of hypostasis is an object. You are scrambling them together into an omelet that comprises a new language...

PPS
There must be content and there must be concept;

OK, and the concept has conceptual content according to knowledge, unless you mean that the content of the concept is the objects to which it refers...

PPS
and the context of language is what internally processes and conveys both.

OK - And context comprises the content of one's concepts, and is a function of knowledge [and experience]...

PPS
Low context language emphasizes logos as the initiating and primary functionality; whereas high context language emphasizes rhema as the underlying foundation FOR initiating all primary functionality.

Rationalism vs empiricism...

PPS
Low context English is rampant concept over content, with logos producing its own rhema in a voluminous and prodigious manner from such patterning of the mind.

In ordinary language, thinking produces words and sayings, but you are saying that the objects are produced by the thought, and that the objects produced are thereby false... Thoughts are often false, so who can disagree...

PPS
We're not to be ignorant of Satan's devices. Devices is noema. Noema is concepts of the mind.

There are concepts, and there are thoughts about those concepts... So I am getting lost in the mush again... Noesis can be in the body and in the mind, and in this regard Paul wrote that the body has its own mind of the flesh... By which most are led around by their nose...

PPS
Language is the foundational means of patterning and programming hearts and minds and lives. We believe based upon what rhema we hear and hearken to;

And now you shift from rhema being objects to rhema being spoken words... And at this point, the shape-shifting of your explanation puts me to sleep... You have just re-invented your own language and it has a different content from that which you previously established...

PPS
and that belief determines all we think, choose, feel, want, say, do, and ARE.

So our hypostasis is being determined by our belief? I thought hypostasis determined ousia?

PPS
Whatever rhema substance is heard brings a substance of faith to determine our own substance as our underlying foundational reality of existence.

I thik you are trying to work backwards to Hebrews 11:1... Where pistis is the hypostsis of anticipation...

PPS
Lowering the high context of languages, and inherently low context languages themselves, are the primary tool of the enemy to replace God's Rhema with our own logos.

So is raising it...

PPS
Our eternal hypostasis is at stake. This is no menial matter.

It is the ousia of that hypostasis that is at stake.

Arsenios

 

[StanJ]

One of the more interesting posts I've read since I started fishing these waters in '03.

Can you put this into a common vernacular and actually MAKE a point?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Can you put this into a common vernacular and actually MAKE a point?

In your absence, this has been a sporadic topic of conversation between fzappa and myself. His post is cogent and concise, if a bit difficult to process without some foundational understanding of linguistics relative to their structural level of context.

The point he was making is relevant to that background, and is difficult to comprehend as a cold read with no introduction to the subject. It's regarding high-content versus low-context languages.

Fzappa is quite insightful and broadly knowledgable. Worth the time to profit from his perspectives.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Quote:
PPS
Our eternal hypostasis is at stake. This is no menial matter.

It is the ousia of that hypostasis that is at stake.

Arsenios

Seems to me if the ouisa is the wealth, not a noun, as I've clearly shown prior, then.......

Arsenios is wrong.

Part of my Ouisa is my patience, a part of being.


Luke 21:19 KJV


19 In your patience possess ye your souls.


So then in our ouisa, possess we our hypostasis.


Now then, what Paul is saying in this next verse, is that it is alright to lose some ouisa because our hypostasis will still be saved.




1 Corinthians 3:15 KJV


15 If any man's work shall be burned , he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

One of the more interesting posts I've read since I started fishing these waters in '03. Many salient points most of which are likely worthy of their own thread. I fear it is nigh unto impossible for those attempting to translate the Bible to be completely divorced from their beliefs concerning what it says despite the best of intentions. I prefer to use Bullinger's take on the King James as he makes extensive use of the Masoretes notes as well as being pretty faithful in noting what is and is not in the original texts but even he couldn't resist a trip down Dispy lane when it came to Revelation. It lay with each individual to satisfy themselves that they have ferreted out the meaning of what they have read to their own satisfaction. Some of us are more quickly satisfied than others and some are satisfied to rely entirely upon the scholastic efforts of others. Pre-chewed food, as it were.

The problem is how language fundamentally patterns both the subconsicous and conscious; beginning gestationally with the formation of the lower limbic system and proceeding into the early years of gradual physiological and neurological development for the upper limbic system, right and left hemispheres, cerebellum, and frontal lobes.

Once the pre-logical foundation has been developmentally laid, the operational logic and post-operational logic follow the same core patterns. By the time someone has full cognitive development, they've already had substantial neurological programming of patterns to their entire processes of subcognition and cognition. This physiology determines one's internal psyche and pneumatic functionalities as well.

So language is the tool to "flip the script" as Satan plies his devices through language. The concepts of the mind that drive all content rather than having our minds' concepts drawn by the content that is God's creative work in us. It facilitates the Edenic lie, "Ye shall be as gods." Man's logos creates its own alternate underlying reality of existence rather than being conformed to that of the Son as the Incarnate Logos.

Subtle. Just like a serpent.

Language is nothing if not elastic, changing to fit the need of the users over time. Greek is a good example. I don't think that is a bad thing in and of itself but I have noted what appears to be a race to the bottom as it concerns depth and breadth of meaning as English is now becoming something written with thumbs and though I know said thumbs are what is supposed to separate us from the animals I fear they are being used to abbreviate English to the point it is quickly becoming little more than an idiot's Esperanto for many if not most. Yes, language is a reflection of culture but, as you point out, it can also be used to shape culture. As Albert Pike suggested in his tome, Morals and Dogma, “we must control the alphabet.” The radio, TV and internet were not even a figment of anyone's imagination at that point but, being a polyglot, he understood the implications of being able to influence culture via control of its lexicon. In the words of Cormac McCarthy, “it's not the one thing, it's the dismal tide.” I've written quite a bit for public consumption over the last decade and, in so doing, I have deliberately sprinkled therein words that are being abandoned in the hope of preserving them for yet a little while. My efforts were usually met with complaints that I was “losing my audience.” I fear they were lost well before any of my efforts.

Yes. Reinforcing my concerns.

While hastening to agree with your assertions concerning the deleterious effect of the dilution of the English language I would pull up short of suggesting the situation endangers any given person's opportunity to avail themselves of the potential benefits of Jesus' sacrifice. Though we are told we know nothing now as we should we are also assured that the Holy Spirit is ever ready to translate as it concerns our perceptual and linguistic shortcomings. I would suggest that intent is everything despite the non-biblical canard that suggests that the road to hell is paved with such.

It can't ultimately thwart God's sovereignty, but many/most are living well below any appropriate understanding of these effects on them.

 

[JosephR]

The problem is how language fundamentally patterns both the subconsicous and conscious; beginning gestationally with the formation of the lower limbic system and proceeding into the early years of gradual physiological and neurological development for the upper limbic system, right and left hemispheres, cerebellum, and frontal lobes.

Once the pre-logical foundation has been developmentally laid, the operational logic and post-operational logic follow the same core patterns. By the time someone has full cognitive development, they've already had substantial neurological programming of patterns to their entire processes of subcognition and cognition. This physiology determines one's internal psyche and pneumatic functionalities as well.

So language is the tool to "flip the script" as Satan plies his devices through language. The concepts of the mind that drive all content rather than having our minds' concepts drawn by the content that is God's creative work in us. It facilitates the Edenic lie, "Ye shall be as gods." Man's logos creates its own alternate underlying reality of existence rather than being conformed to that of the Son as the Incarnate Logos.

Subtle. Just like a serpent.



Yes. Reinforcing my concerns.



It can't ultimately thwart God's sovereignty, but many/most are living well below any appropriate understanding of these effects on them.

the programming is strong indeed..as I know..but the power of the Programmer,, our Lord is greater ..thanks for sharing all you learned with us, I dont think you get told enough..

 

[StanJ]

In your absence, this has been a sporadic topic of conversation between fzappa and myself. His post is cogent and concise, if a bit difficult to process without some foundational understanding of linguistics relative to their structural level of context.

The point he was making is relevant to that background, and is difficult to comprehend as a cold read with no introduction to the subject. It's regarding high-content versus low-context languages.

Fzappa is quite insightful and broadly knowledgable. Worth the time to profit from his perspectives.

That's nice, but I was asking him/her.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It can't ultimately thwart God's sovereignty, but many/most are living well below any appropriate understanding of these effects on them.

Which is why many merely equate immortality with eternal life.

While immortality is to be alive forever, eternal life is another matter altogether.

 

[StanJ]

Which is why many merely equate immortality with eternal life.

While immortality is to be alive forever, eternal life is another matter altogether.

So do you think the Bible teaches immortality or eternal life?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So do you think the Bible teaches immortality or eternal life?

I believe Jesus gives me eternal life.


John 10:10 KJV


10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal , and to kill , and to destroy : I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I think you are describing concrete thinking vs abstract thinking...

No.

Where the concept "red" refers to and actually does mean each and every red object ever, to whatever degree of redness that is existing in them. This would be concrete thinking...

Concrete and abstract are not what I'm referring to.

The conceptual thinker abstracts the meaning of red and separates it from the 'substances' that ARE red, and then mentally holds it. Such abstract thinkers thereby LOWER what you call the CONTEXT of language...

No.

Because context INCLUDES ALL the instances of the occurrence of 'red' in every object that IS red. And the object possessing the color red is the substance, the hypostasis, of the attribute 'red'... So that in order to speak intelligently about red in a high context language, one must discuss ALL its instantiations in reality -

Not what I'm referring to at all. I hope this doesn't turn into anpther of many assigned caricatures.

Which would mean omniscience, but at least in all relevant CATEGORIES of instantiations or hypostases, or substances, all meaning the same thing... The *THAT* which IS red... Whatever this *THAT* might be...

No. Interesting tangent, but... no.

So that when I go into what I described as "cockpit overload" in the training of student pilots while I am reading your explanations and am getting conceptually buried in what amounts for me to be a foreign language of triviata piled high with a huge scooper, and I beg you to slow down and take things one step at a time, you are HEARING from me a demand to turn yourself into a LOW CONTEXT LINGUIST...

Am I getting this right?

Doubtful, but I don't really even know how to answer this, as it's not really applicable to that to which I was referring.

Scholars tend to be extreme high contexters, and texters extremely low... But I flat out do not understand what I colored and bolded above. Are you saying that when life and death become mere categories of mind that real thinking become dead in low context thinkers?

No. I'm speaking of the life of the Spirit versus the death of the letter.

This would make rhema an object outside thought and speech.

Um... No. Logos is inclusive of thought. Contrast to laleo/lalia. The Logos is thinking of the subject matter; the content; the substance. There is no intelligent thinking or speaking without content as substance. No Logos without Rhema, the thing spoken about. And of course that will be words as saying.

Greek makes it the speech itself with attendant meanings - eg A SAYING or an ADAGE... Here is Liddel and Scott:

Right, as opposed to bringing forth intelligent speech, it also refers to "sayings". The sayings are be spoken about. Remembrance or recitation, not production of thought as speech. "Old McDonald Had a Farm" is an example of rhema as an adage. It's a saying that is being spoken about.

RHEMA - from ERO to speak, tell, proclaim
That which is said or spoken
a word, saying or expression
a phrase

Also:
the thing spoken of
a thing

You seem to have taken the secondary meaning and made it the primary, in your high context approach, where the word spoken means (all) the objects to which it refers...

There's no such thing as primary and secondary meaning; only that meaning which is applicable within the overall range of meaning.

Case in point would be St. Basil's usage of "secondary" meanings for both hypostasis and ousia as synonyms to masterfully reconcile the regional disparities in definition and usage pre-Constantinople.

You can't validly employ this egregious limitation without accounting for every "non-primary" meaning for ANY definition. Now your Trinity formulaic is fallacious by your own faulty standard.

And you've once again applied yet another presumed caricature upon what I've said. In no way am I approaching this as you infer, but it may take 20 posts now to attempt to get you off of that. Sigh.

So are you saying that the hypostasis of thoughts and their expression is the objects from which they are formed?

No.

This is slippery,

What's slippery is trying to converse with you about this you've pre-supposed and aren't my position or prespective at all. High-context doesn't mean what you're presuming it means, and I'm not referring to your assumed definition.

when the primary meaning of rhema is words,

Total fallacy.

the primary meaning of logos is thought,

Uh-oh... The primary meaning is thought. Not vocalization. And NOT AN INDIVIDUATED HYPOSTASIS, THE SON.

Now you've destroyed your Trinity formulaic and inferential presumptions that the Logos is an allegedly individuated hypostasis of three.

Why do you not see this? It's a ridiculous inequity.

and the primary meaning of hypostasis is an object. You are scrambling them together into an omelet that comprises a new language...

No, you've just swerved into another ditch of parody for whatever I say, and then exhibit a series of gross inequities.

What, pray tell, are "secondary" definitions for if they can't be used? Such assigned primarity is subjective, and is more related to quantity of occurance by various meanings rather than sequential preeminence of meaning.

OK, and the concept has conceptual content according to knowledge, unless you mean that the content of the concept is the objects to which it refers...

We're not even talking about the same things.

OK - And context comprises the content of one's concepts, and is a function of knowledge [and experience]...

Not really. Maybe that's close. I don't even know because we're not addressing the same things.

Rationalism vs empiricism...

Emphatically NO!

In ordinary language, thinking produces words and sayings, but you are saying that the objects are produced by the thought,

NO....NO....NO. I don't understand your penchant for constant presumptive assignment of all I say and mean.

and that the objects produced are thereby false... Thoughts are often false, so who can disagree...

Sigh.

There are concepts, and there are thoughts about those concepts... So I am getting lost in the mush again...

You get lost because you preload some parody of what I say and then develop an entire complex rebuttal that doesn't have anything much to do with anything I've presented. It's rampant inference, just like multiple hypostases.

Noesis can be in the body and in the mind, and in this regard Paul wrote that the body has its own mind of the flesh... By which most are led around by their nose...

Mmkay.

And now you shift from rhema being objects to rhema being spoken words...

No. Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.

And at this point, the shape-shifting of your explanation puts me to sleep... You have just re-invented your own language and it has a different content from that which you previously established...

You headed off down your own burrow without any assistance from me. I'm just sitting here.

So our hypostasis is being determined by our belief?

Yes.

I thought hypostasis determined ousia?

It does.

You don't understand internal anthropological functionality, and have replaced it with your own assumptions. Then you get confused when I don't share your skewed foundation.

The ousia is not the body. But you won't be convinced otherwise.

I thik you are trying to work backwards to Hebrews 11:1... Where pistis is the hypostsis of anticipation...

Are you talking about the "person" of anticipation? Hypostasis is "person" to you... remember?

So is raising it...

We're not ever referring to the same things.

It is the ousia of that hypostasis that is at stake.

Arsenios

Yeah... The wealth of our everlasting spiritual life.

 

[StanJ]

I believe Jesus gives me eternal life.
John 10:10 (KJV)

Indeed, but not what I asked based on your post I addressed.

What was the reason you said what you said?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

That's nice, but I was asking him/her.

Whatever. And he wasn't conversing with you.

I was politely suggesting you catch up on the thread instead of rudely demanding answers to redress a topic.

:first:

 

[StanJ]

Whatever. And he wasn't conversing with you.
I was politely suggesting you catch up on the thread instead of rudely demanding answers to redress a topic.

It's a PUBLIC forum PPS, and I see your superciliousness hasn't changed much. I have no need to CATCH up, just to get a reply to my queries.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

the programming is strong indeed..as I know..but the power of the Programmer,, our Lord is greater ..

Indeed. Greater is He that is in me...

thanks for sharing all you learned with us, I dont think you get told enough..

Very humbling and unexpectedly gracious. Thank you for the edification.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It's a PUBLIC forum PPS, and I see your superciliousness hasn't changed much. I have no need to CATCH up, just to get a reply to my queries.

:doh::dizzy:

I was just having a productive conversation with some rational and pleasant people, and then...

And you're as narcissistically self-assured, entitled, and rude as ever.

My comment was neutral and informational. And there's always google instead of demanding others alleviate your ignorance and impatience.