Originally Posted by John Smithwick
Emily I think "Logos" was the wrong word I was seeking. I was trying to find an European equivalent to the following:
I'm sure we did have a word but the Christinsanitians (and probably even polytheists prior) eventually stomped it out. To their credit, I imagine it would be difficult summoning armies of armchair philosophers following "the Tao" to a battlefield (at least for an imperial offensive war).
While I agree there is no objective evidence
of there being 'Something' beyond material reality, a type of Gaia or Cosmic Consciousness, I'd be lying if I didn't admit I've had uncanny experiences (subjective evidence) that I've been able to clearly discern was more than odd coincidence. I think people like Carl Jung
, Alan Watts
, Eckhart Tolle
, Ken Wilber
, and Tom Campbell
describe It better than I, but I don't recommend anyone get into their shit, as you're not really going to gain much, especially financially. It adds up to a bunch of modern spiritual woohoo in the end, and I hate the idea of me being (or advocating on behalf of) "one of those people"
lol. I probably won't have time to keep babbling about this stuff. That's probably why they created the 'bible' back in the day (to create 'biblers' instead of 'babblers'
Richard Carrier used to be a Taoist, so it's interesting you bring that up--there are some good truths in Taoism, but it is flawed.
He (Carrier) jokingly brings up in many of his speaking engagements what a 'throwing them off' moment it was when Christians attempted to start a conversation about 'the lord', and would ask him what he believed in, and he'd say he was a Taoist. They'd be confused, so he would explain Taoism as being a belief where, so long as you were in good with the Tao, you were doing well. You can't control life, but must go with the ebbs and flows. Harmony of opposites. The Xtians would have trouble figuring out how to proceed, since he did not give them a god to attack as inferior to theirs, lol.
Carrier goes into more detail re its flaws in 'Sense and Goodness without God', would take a lot to relay here, but he was a pretty sincere Taoist for a long time. Likely because 'harmony of opposites' is actually a true, observable part of nature.
As you mention, the uncanny experiences--yes, I've had same, as have a good many people. It was one of those 'hooks' that made me, for a long time, keep employing my 'Type I error' thinking, and returning to the idea there must be something to this god thing. 'Agenticity' is hard to escape, especially when you are unaware that it is the cause of the strong pull people have to make those connections where perhaps there are none--or it's a very natural occurrence that we have just had happen to us, but we just don't understand-with our limitations-what occurred. So we make it 'god' or 'supernatural'.
Gravity would be such--it certainly exists, and it has an explanation--but if we didn't know what it was called, and hadn't been made aware, through the work of Newton and others, of what it is....we might make it out to be just about anything. An invisible 'hand' that takes the stuff we toss into the air and slams it back down to the ground again, lol.
Nothing wrong with babbling if you are thinking about it. To me it is downright sinful not to think about it..the Vedic texts are exactly that, really--religion based on people wondering if this concept of 'something outside of myself' is valid or not. A combo of that question and trying to understand nature, and how to operate optimally in the world. They got a lot wrong, but got a lot right, too. They have a very 'agnostic' tone throughout.