Logic of Jesus
Positive and negative directions.
Logic of Jesus Jesus considers the purpose of our activity in the world. He says that the purpose of our activity should come from beyond the world, rather than from the world itself. His logic has us reject the purpose of the truth of the world, and take up the purpose of the truth of the heart. We go beyond the world by having good will, or the good heart lives through us from beyond the world. And so slack increases. In each case, his logic expresses the complexity of giving and not giving the slack, with the simplest being to "get along", and the subtlest being to "satisfy". In each case, there is an underlying division of everything, and a perspective within it that may either have slack from beyond, or not: 2some=>fate, 3some=>take-a-stand, 4some=>whether, 5some=>present.
Each of the latter offer a "unity" and assume there is "bad".
Knowledge is what is understood. We can go from lesser understanding to lesser knowledge, as with save. Or from lesser knowledge to lesser understanding, as with blame.
Spirit is the unity of representations. Properties are the representations of structure. Nature is the unity of representations of structure.
Consider: how does take care of relate to caring, believing, obeying, etc. How does take a stand relate to take a stand, follow through, reflect, etc.
Peace = good will. Bad will is without peace.
Wisdom = what do I truly want? Error is without asking what I truly want.
Eternal life = be perfect. Loss is without being perfect.
Looking back and seeing that which was not there. God wishing and not wishing.
Bad will, error, loss may be understood to have intent: Evil, sin, death. This is Milton's trinity of evil.
I should relate these to choices of the heart and the world (as in general structure - perhaps the counterquestions?) And I should add Jesus' antitheses.
Aš renkuosi vietoj kad mums derėtų
I want to apply knowledge to remake our world, and engage it rather than just rise above it. I look for inspiration to Christ's Sermon on the Mount where I think he distinguishes between the logic of "I choose" and "we should".
Kokia prasmė viso šio žinojimo? Keturi netroškimai yra savaime vertingi, mums leidžia:
I value such knowledge. I find it useful. But it is knowledge that elevates our thinking so that we can live above this world. So it doesn't really connect much with any attachment we have to this world. It frees the spirit, but not the soul.
I think the point of life is to do things in this world, to inject our spirit here and remake this world we have entered into. It's very good that we can rise above this world, but the point is to engage it.
So I thought about Christ, who I choose to follow. What attracts me most about Christ is that he says how to directly take on the issues of this world. "Love God", "Love your neighbor as yourself", and in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) he punches out a platform of very practical ways to engage this life. I don't see much conscious effort by people to apply this, but we could do it. This is a kind of knowledge that I think is useful in this world, and engages it, and remakes it.
Šešios Jėzaus antitezės
Jesus makes six statements that are known as "antitheses" because he says, "You have heard it said... but I tell you..." For example, you have heard "an eye for an eye" but Jesus says "turn the other cheek". A couple of years ago, I tried to figure out his logic for these statements. In this one, I think he's saying that rather than account (an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth), we should satisfy (turning the cheek, walking the extra mile, giving away our coat).
I went back over these logics, and I think they relate to the ways we express our will. In the case above, relying on others is a way of expressing our will, and there is something holy about that. Yet stealing is wrong to the extent that it forces us to rely on others. There is also something useless about prescribing that we rely on others, something futile about insisting that we should. That is what accounting is all about: you should rely on others as to what belongs to you, and what does not. Instead, he seems to say, why don't just satisfy them? Just give everything away, and choose to rely on others.
In each case, I think it says that instead of prescribing us to express our will, we should rather simply choose to express our will. For example, we can express our will by believing. Lying forces people to believe. Convincing tells them they should believe. Instead, why not just choose to believe: take a stand.
This is important to me here because it suggests ways that knowledge can be used practically to remake this world.
I wrote about my interest to integrate raw initiative and to create a system to fit together our work so that we could support and encourage each other effortlessly.
I want such a system to be based on our choice to express our own will, rather than what we think people should do. I find it very hard to eliminate "should" from my thinking!