Words And Categories: What We Will Be Adding to the New Greek Language

So far we have considered only what words and word-parts we will end up deleting from the traditional Hellenistic Greek in order to create the ideal Hellenistic tongue, one shaped self-consciously by the light of nature.  Now we must ask the question, “What must we add to render this tongue [progressively, step-by-step] more ideal”?

To begin our ideal vocabulary, we will engage the following exercises, and make use of their results:

  1.   Make a list of adjectives, verb forms (participles count as a “verbal” too remember), and nouns we would associate with the describing aright the ideal and the real, or describing the light of nature.  Or again, “What words would you need to use in order to describe something that is perfect (ideal)”?
  2. Make a similar list describing human design, the design of the stars, and the design of the animals.  List the words we need to describe the parts, purposes and functions of the most essential parts of nature.
  3. Make a list of the traits and actions of our Beloved Creator (“Plastaes” in Greek), and describe these in the best words one can find for the task.
  4. Find the ten best synonyms (use your thesaurus here) for each of the above words we might want to use to originate our new Greek vocabulary — add the best 5 of these.
  5. Make a list of the propositions you hold to be true about God and the light of nature (from the above explorations) and work out what these truths imply when arranged in various sets of propositions together.  Find the best words that describe the results of this logical “articulation” (meaning here, extensions of logic), and create a Greek (dynamic) equivalent for these words and the “concluding ideas” they would describe.
  6. Kantian transcendental categories and their essential elements.  And now for a brief introduction to ideas ordinarily sorted into the “epistemology” mailbox.     This may sound a bit tricky, but we can walk through it easily enough.  Dr. Kant became somewhat famous in philosophical circles for doing a kind of unique study involving self-inspection — to find out what the &*^% is going on when one actually studies and knows the world around us. He studied “the knowing process” as he himself experienced it, and broke down the categories in which one must think in order to make sense of the world about us.  The “pre-logical” categories, he dubbed “transcendental categories,” and listed them as “quantities” (2 +2 = 4), qualities (like ethics — just people v. unjust), modalities (things that are necessary, or else possible, or else impossible, or else contingent upon prior conditions, etc), and relations (like space and time — spatial relations = “ten feet away from me”).    Thus, we will want to make a full use of the thesaurus to describe with many synonyms the words needed to study these foundations of knowledge, since these form an essential part of what we mean by “the light of nature” — namely, the whole set of propositional, categorical and linguistic necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience [construct knowledge].   In short, we need the Stoicheia (the most basic elements) in order to have gnosis (knowledge).

Now, IMHO Dr, Kant was breathtakingly brilliant — a Plato’s Plato.  The history of western thought after 1803 is but a footnote to Kant, and after 1962, a marginally-unscientific postscript to Kuhn.  Still, Dr. Kant did not write the final page on the theory of transcendentals.  Here, I shall propose a notion, which for lack of a better designation, I shall presently name, “Second Order Transcendentals.”   These would follow as implicates from propositions (or sets of them) — sometimes called “propositional” (as opposed to merely categorical) “transcendentals.”  These — when they really are transcendental — can be shown to have 2 traits: 1.  they prove logically, or pre-logically, necessary in order to have knowledge AND 2.  Any rejection of such a proposition (or set) necessarily implies its own denial — philosophers call these propositions, “Self-referentially absurd.”  In other words, they cannot pass their own test.  These are then, sometimes rightly said to exhibit “properly basic beliefs.”

Many truths exist which might properly derive about the Kantian categories, and the cosmic and life situation that would be necessary in order for these to obtain, which one might show forth as a set of propositions, together with their necessary implicates and presuppositions, as an interwoven matrix, we should call the Pre-Kantian Worldview.  Here, the prefix “pre” renders as “prelogical.”  This interwoven matrix that Sophic Creationists might name the “Sophikon,” both renders knowledge possible, and necessarily presupposes a personal notion of Wisdom.  This should have been obvious, but only persons can prove wise.  No one (save the poets) speak of wise trees or rocks or rivers.  Wisdom and knowledge, discretion and discernment belong to the world of persons.  Plato missed this form, the form of the Wise (which subsumes the form of the personal).

Likewise, Justice needs a Judge.  Love needs a lover and a beloved — and here the poets favor me madly anon! (Say on thou silver surfer!) — Charity needs a giver, as knowledge requireth both a teacher and a student in order to live on.

In case the reader might have lost the upshot of the matter — for my many words thus far (yikes) — I have just described the light of nature in terms of Kantian, pre-Kantian and post-Kantian transcendentals.  These transcendentals, the whole set of categorical and propositional transcendentals, and all their implicates, forms the light of nature, which shows forth the Blessed and Beloved Creator and His unfathomable wisdom, in all his unsearchable handiwork (ktisis).  Since “light” has the limitation of rendering knowledge available to the eyes only, and since we have 5 senses, not merely eyes, the “appeal of all nature” to ALL 5 senses should receive its own name. I favor “the Sophikon.”  Some have called this “General Revelation.”  We sometimes use the term, the “Divine Testimony” to name it, though we regard it a silent testimony, like that of the industrious ants, who bid us to labor well, by a silent (and yet a quite telling) example.

This expands the notion of a transcendental to something entirely missing from Kant’s outlook — the “worldview,” or in ye olde tongue of the Academy, the Weltanschauung.  I would argue that the Pre-Kantian outlook necessarily includes a Personal notion of Wisdom and Knowledge, though I would hasten to add that this Wisdom has very little to do with any Bible or Book published in the name of the Divine Testimony.  It carries a system of both dynamic and static metaphors, ones that appeal to all 5 senses.  I believe that God has been talking to us all along,  but only in a kind of “Linear A,” which we have not learned to access as yet,  due to our immaturity in the study of wisdom.

Will he speak to us in the future in our language?  Probably.  It appears very likely to me that as the human race advances in science, linguistics, history and technology, etc., that we will eventually crack the code on linear A, and then learn how to “hear God.”  This will begin a new era of real conversation with the All-Wise Monarch.  What marvels the future holds the present can no wise tell.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s