User talk:Hairy apes

Your edits to Logos
Thank you for experimenting with the page Logos on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Longhair 01:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Logos. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DVD+ R/W 01:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Logos, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVD+ R/W 01:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Gogo Dodo 01:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOGO's

In ancient philosophy, Logos was used by Heraclitus, one of the most eminent Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, to describe human knowledge and the inherent order in The Absolute universe, a background to the essential change which characterizes day-to-day life. Logos as the inherent rationality of the universe is also something of a precursor to the concept of the collective unconscious, described by Carl Jung, as these two fragments from Heraclitus suggest:

One must follow what is common; but, even though the Logos is common, most people live as though they possessed their own private wisdom. (Fr.2) The common is what is open to all, what can be seen and heard by all. To see is to let in with open eyes what is open to view, i.e. what is lit up and revealed to all. The dead (the completely private ones) neither see nor hear; they are closed. No light (fire) shines in them; no speech sounds in them. And yet, even they participate in the cosmos. The extinguished ones also belong to the continuum of lighting and extinguishing that is the common cosmos. The dead touch upon the living sleeping, who in turn touch upon the living waking. (Fr. 26)

By the time of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, logos was the term used to describe the faculty of human reason and the knowledge men had of the world and of each other. Plato allowed his characters to engage in the conceit of describing logos as a living being in some of his dialogues. The development of the Academy with hypomnemata brought logos closer to the literal text. Aristotle, who studied under Plato and who was much more of a practical thinker, first developed the concept of logic as a depiction of the rules of human rationality.

The Stoics understood Logos as the animating power of the universe, (as it is also presently understood today in Theosophical terms and by the Rosicrucians in their conception of the cosmos) which further influenced how this word was understood later on (in 20th century psychology, for instance).

Use in rhetoric In rhetoric, logos is one of the three modes of persuasion (the other two are pathos, emotional appeal; and ethos, the qualification of the speaker). Logos refers to logical appeal, and in fact the term logic evolves from it. Logos normally implies numbers, polls, and other mathematical or scientific data.

Logos has many advantages:

Data are hard to manipulate, meaning that it is harder to argue against a logos argument. For the same reason, it may sway cynical listeners to the speaker's opinion. Logos enhances ethos by making the speaker look prepared and knowledgeable to the audience. Logos also has many disadvantages:

Numbers may not be obvious to many listeners, so the argument may pass unheeded. Logos asks the question, "But why should I care?" because they are not as involving as emotional appeal. Logos can be downright confusing in some instances. The best way to present an argument is to combine logos with the other forms of appeal.

Use in Christianity In Christianity, the prologue of the Gospel of John calls Jesus "the Logos" (usually translated as "the Word" in English bibles such as the KJV) and played a central role in establishing the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity. (See Christology.) The opening verse in the KJV reads: "In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word [Logos] was God."

Some scholars of the Bible have suggested that John made creative use of double meaning in the word "Logos" to communicate to both Jews, who were familiar with the Wisdom tradition in Judaism, and Hellenists, especially followers of Philo. Each of these two groups had its own history associated with the concept of the Logos, and each could understand John's use of the term from one or both of those contexts. Especially for the Hellenists, however, John turns the concept of the Logos on its head when he claimed "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" (v. 14). Similarly, some translations of the Gospel of John into Chinese have used the word "Tao (道)" to translate the "Logos" in a provocative way.

Gordon Clark famously translated Logos as "Logic" in the opening verses of the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God." He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were contained in the Bible itself and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the Christian worldview.

On April 1, 2005, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who would later become Pope Benedict XVI) referred to the Christian religion as the religion of the Logos:

"From the beginning, Christianity has understood itself as the religion of the Logos, as the religion according to reason. ... It has always defined men, all men without distinction, as creatures and images of God, proclaiming for them ... the same dignity. In this connection, the Enlightenment is of Christian origin and it is no accident that it was born precisely and exclusively in the realm of the Christian faith. ... It was and is the merit of the Enlightenment to have again proposed these original values of Christianity and of having given back to reason its own voice ... Today, this should be precisely [Christianity's] philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not other than a 'sub-product', on occasion even harmful of its development — or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal. ... In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the Logos, from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational." [1]

Similar concepts Within Eastern religions there are ideas with varying degrees of similarity to the philosophical and Christian uses. Four concepts with some parallels to Logos are Tao, the Vedic notion of ṛita, the Buddhist conception of dharma, and Aum (from Hindu cosmology). However, it would be a mistake to confuse these as cognates. Rather, these are similar in that they are all iconic terms of various cultures that have had long-term effects upon that culture's collective consciousness.

In New Age mysticism, the Odic force is sometimes described as "the physical manifestation of the creative Logos."

In ancient Egyptian mythology, Hu was the deification of the word spoken to create existence. Maàt was the concept, and goddess, of divine order.

In Surat Shabda Yoga, Shabda is considered to be analogous to the Logos as representative of the supreme being in Christianity.


 * 1) _________________________________#
 * 2) ______________77_________________#
 * 3) _________$___7$$7___$____________#
 * 4) __________$77777777$_____________#
 * 5) __________7777777777__7__________#
 * 6) _________77787878777_7?7_________#
 * 7) _________77787878777_???7________#
 * 8) __________777777777__???7________#
 * 9) ____________222222___????7_______#
 * 10) _______#??72??????2???????7______#
 * 11) ____#####??7#####??????????7_____#
 * 12) ___########??7#####????????7_____#
 * 13) ___###########??7##????????7_____#
 * 14) ___##############???7##?????7____#
 * 15) ___####_########??7####_????7____#
 * 16) ___####_######??7######_????7____#
 * 17) ___###__####??7########__???7_____#
 * 18) ___???7_##??7#########__???7_____#
 * 19) ___###__??7###########__???7_____#
 * 20) ___###__?7###########___###______#
 * 21) ___???7_??##########?__####______#
 * 22) __####__??????????????_##++#_____#
 * 23) __####_???????????????__##++_____#
 * 24) __###_???????##????????___++_____#
 * 25) ______??############???___++_____#
 * 26) ______??##?#?##?#?##???___++_____#
 * 27) ______?##?#??##??#?##??_33++_33__#
 * 28) ______?##?#??##??#?##??__33333___#
 * 29) ______?????????????????_3333333__#
 * 30) ______#####______#####___33333___#
 * 31) _____88#####____#####88_33_3_33__#
 * 32) _____888####____####888__________#
 * 33) ______######____######___________#
 * 34) ______######____######___________#
 * 35) _______?????______?????___________#
 * 36) _____######_Made######___________#
 * 37) ___77777777__By_77777777_________#
 * 38) __7777777777Tom7777777777________#
 * 1) __7777777777Tom7777777777________#

From Thomas Crawford