Logoi and Co-creators

[Ali Quadir]

It seems that our paths have not crossed in a while, but it is wonderful to speak with you again.

The pleasure is mine my friend. It's wonderful that you attempted to describe the logos in this topic while at the same time I was struggling with conceptualizing it properly.

If by "conceptualizing", you mean expressing using your 3D mind (or "visualizing"), I quite agree.

I wasn't thinking about visualizing perse, I'm not sure my visual subsystems are capable of even representing this principle in it's totality I meant quite literally expressing it in words that would properly convey my more intuitive touchy feely understanding of the Logos. And get people in touch with the same understanding. I apparently have no problem expressing agreeance or disagreeance with parts of the description. But there's only so many times people are going to accept "Nope that's not it either." before they're going to ask "What is it then?"

So as with most things esoteric, I tend to use metaphors to attempt to visualize aspects of it, the more such metaphors are used, the more complete is the resulting 3D picture (understanding that even a perfect 3-dimensional picture of a n-dimensional object is far less "accurate" than a perfect 2-dimensional picture of a 3-dimensional object). Still, I find that metaphors are useful, and if we employ them liberally and even allow them to be contradictory, then we may begin to make some headway. You seem to have a nice start at a list below.

I hope so. The problem is my metaphors are always just touching a fragment and don't do justice to what I think is important to realize. Perhaps together a more complete description can be "refined"...

The problem with 3d images of n dimensional objects is that they're essentially just analogues. And if you grasp the underlying concepts they can be quite useful but if you do not they can be misleading. Distance between concepts becomes unclear in lower dimensional representations of higher dimensional models.

Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist. But it just seemed wiser for me to keep the poverbial trap shut at least until I have something remotely sensible to say about it

I would like to add some notions of the logos...
Logos never exists separately but always in relation to.
Logos is not an entity though entities can be seen as logos.
Logos is different if you look at it from another angle.
Intelligent infinity is a way of viewing the logos.

Logos is like consciousness but from the outside in, not the inside out.

Let me try now, pulling some from various works and/or my own demented mind to humbly add to your list.

Logos is a holographic instance of the one creator, each infinitesimal sub-particle of which entirely contains the whole.

Yes.

Logos is a hierarchy of existence in which each sub-logos is allowed full expression of itself within the framework established by its immediately superior logos.

Yes.

Logos is a method of allowing existence of sub-logoi to enable the One Infinite Creator to experience himself through the perception of separateness.

Yes. But... Why? I have difficulty accepting that reality is created at the whim of an infinite being. I have a hunch there is a deeper requirement other than a fancy.

Logos is a space/time and time/space present representation of the sum total of all experiences experienced by the subject sub-logos and its further co-created sub-logoi.

Yes. At most levels. But I understand at some point time and space are created by some hierarchy of the logos. Time and space are creation and not creator.

Logos is a set of rules, condensed from previous Logoi, that define the means by which the One Creator will experience himself at time/space and space/time present.

Yes. And this is one example like your second description where words fail to convey true meaning. The implications of your statement are enormous. It has tremendous meaning in the area of why we at times seem to feel without control of our situation. A "lower" hierarchy of the logos cannot go against what was decided in previous "higher up" hierarchies. Yet at the same time the complete logos is here, now. To change what seems beyond our control we must ascend above what is outside our control, and influence the matter from the level that dictates it.

But I'm not sure anyone unfamiliar with the subject could recognize that from the words. There's enough there to turn any man into a mystic if the meaning would not remain hidden..

This is apparent in a situation like if you have a problem with authority. You can at that level attempt to remove the influence of authority. But you won't fully succeed and it will have strong consequences. Because you cannot cancel it out at that level. Yet when you start to understand the deeper implications of authority and master the authority structure not as a STS mechanism that is constrictive but as an STO mechanism that allows the world and society to function.

From this perspective authority becomes much easier to deal with both when exerting it and recognizing it. Essentially you rose above it and eliminated it's negative influence from your life. With the same understanding you could eliminate it's positive influences but why would you?

And that's just one spoonful from the bag of treasures.

Logos is One.

Yes.

Logos is Infinity.

Yes.

I have the feeling that if we know exactly what the logos is there will not be any questions left.

I agree, especially as trying to know exactly what Logos is, is comparable to, yet infinitely more complicated than, trying to know exactly what a tesseract is while living in 3-space.

Is this in any way beneficial, or have I totally missed the mark?

It sounds like you're on the mark

I have a biggie for you. One I get stuck on frequently. If we summarize the above. Then we can loosely say "First there was nothing. Which then exploded." I can't find the reason. Why would this situation be preferable to the unbroken undifferentiated infinite? All that is now was known in that infinite. Another biggie. Why I am I me and not you? If we are one, then why am I me and not you? Because I identified with me. Sure but why is that? Because the experience of me karmically bound me. Sure but why is that? And so on. The primordial reason, the root cause is probably the same answer to why the infinite oneness became manifold.

For your entertainment: Bonus points if you can work a '42' in there They say the writer for this clip, Douglas Adams, was an atheist. But he is so often close to life that I almost start to see him as an initiated priest

Btw this is what happens if one innocently tries to figure out what a tesseract is. Thanks. My visual cortex is now sulking in a corner and feeling inadequate.