"C.A. Cook" <coreycook12@email.msn.com> wrote:
> 6=Let's expand this a bit. Lucifer, the impulse to question
> authority (and accept the results) will bring you to greater
> understanding.
Actually, I was mostly referring to lucifer as the bringer of light since
that is the literal translation of the word (latin lux meaning light, and
fer, meaning bring, bear or carry). The most annoying thing about dealing
with lucifer is that the supposed source of the myth (the bible) in fact
says next to nothing about him... however, I did manage to find references
to him in the First Book of Adam and Eve -- where, in fact, lucifer was
cast out of heaven since he refused to worship HUMANS (which was God's
command). Lucifer maintained that since he was created first, the humans
should worship him -- ironically, this seems to be the general consensus
now. Certainly, however, the traditional Christian mythology is that
lucifer was cast out of heaven for questioning God.
As to the question of greater understanding, I postpone that until later.
> What do you mean? What's wrong with 7?
My problem has to do with the last bit -- "the unknown will yield to the
ingenious mind." I think it's a little early to say that all that is
unknown will yield. I would contend that many things are simply unknowable
-- the truth about what *happened* (history) is a good example.
> We don't know that for sure yet. As far as we know,
> the universe might be self-contradictory.
Really? If there is one thing that my engineering education has taught me,
it's that no scientist takes that view point seriously. I find it
*inconceivable* that true isosemantic semantic statements about objective
reality could be contradictory. (that is, the idea is so basic to my "box"
that I'm not aware of any thought which exists outside of it -- as opposed
to most of the others, where at least there negation is conceivable, if not
likely). Perhaps you have an example in mind?
As to greater understanding, my purpose here is to *define* the boxes in
which I think; to reveal the walls, so that when I confront them, I know
that here is something I take as an *axiom*. As my math professor said,
nothing can be proven (finally), but much can be reduced to a small set of
axioms.
I seek those axioms.
A good one is the assumption of objectivity -- that there exists a world
independent of myself, and that it is, in essence, knowable.
ERiC