W W W World Wide Web
Witness Inc. Home Page
Page for Volume What is New
People whose theories of nature would place them as purposeless by-products of immemorable motion at once have genuine purpose, if they can define through their nature, and constructed powers (ex-constructor) what it is all about! In these glorious robes, they become then instruments of assessment of universal powers, possessors of integral understanding (over that which is not integral), having access to a perspective no more partial through performance of micro-process. Indeed, for them to do this, they must be limited neither by conditioning, deficiency nor distortion. Their very nature becomes super-nature, freed from mere interactive systematics: with an absolute perspective and power of conception to which absolute knowledge is conjoined, making the absolute dictates of the absolutely relative, absolutely acceptable.
This may be a description of human derangement that is not without humour; but equally, it is not without tragedy.
These 'philosophic men' (or women), freed from the merely partial and with an assumed viewpoint implying understanding illimitable, seemingly soar to the ultra-systematic and the unconditioned, from which alas they have removed all permission to exist. Using the unique powers of the God they would eject, the infinitely comprehending God, they grasp into their minds the prerogatives of His position; and without the advantage of being God, they act as God. How misplaced the hunger and how misguided the thirst which takes what it cannot digest, and thus acts as if to seize the inheritance of their creator! Desiring what they dismiss, and aspiring to what they disdain, they yet remain... but men. (Cf. antichrist predictions, pp. 330 ff. infra.)
One is reminded of Ezekiel 28:9: "Will you still say before Him who slays you, I am God ? but you will be a man, and no God, in the hand of Him who slays you."
Romans 1:18 refers to the unattractive but 'so very human' proclivity to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" despite the fact that: "what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them."
They cannot even prepare a ground for their assertions without, in all consistency, assuming the very post of the Person they will not tolerate. So deeply written in their midst is their origin that... they cannot rationally debate without assuming operationally, what they deny theoretically. The minimal epistemological requirement for any rational statement that the universe is meaningless is the infinitely comprehending, ultra-systematic, unconditioned God who, by the very nature of His existence, excludes such a statement. The very possibility of a rational statement that the universe is meaningless, thus depends on grounds which remove it.
By one more way, we have come where logic always compels us. Here, without God we are rational mutes in the very area of meaning, and as we have seen, even the endeavour to be just that is not effective, if we are to use language at all; rather collapsing function quite specific to man. (Cf. this Chapter, Section 3 and Chapter 1, pp. 1-16 supra.)
The ultimate alternative is merely self-uncreation - a performance in practice, of the passion for unrelatability to God, by not speaking at all, or thinking, so trying not to implicate oneself through language, or relevantly associated activity which, alas, also and always moves the consistently reasoning mind to God. (At that, some rush off - one has met the case, when logically there is no way! It is mere rejection of fact, because of indefensible desire, with unmitigated lust, actually departing from what in truth is seen to be unavoidable, indeed, with no just grounds for even personal rejection. Such is man!)
Yet uncreation, is it not a trifle extreme ? A refusal to function, is it not too high a price for 'freedom' ? Is death a good ransom for independence of what is really dependent, but equipped with a delightful dower of limited freedom and meaningful independence, that yet is not absolute ? Is this not a fitful frenzy of self-centred idolatry?
Let us then take one further look. Just as a mountaineer may find it easier to approach a peak from some adjoining valley, let us now ascend again to the sight of our blessed divine plateau of comprehension, plane of cognition, let us now ascend to the sight of those things by a slightly different path; and we may press a little further. Though we are concentrating here on a snapshot, an epistemological snapshot of the plight of an unbeliever, the result is instructive, and may help some.
Adding this new snapshot (is it not so very similar, but here... ? but there... ?), we will then proceed immediately in the light of the above to look further.
To ascribe, then, meaning-rating, a person needs the equivalent of a meaning meter at the ultimate level - not of course that meaning is an affair of calibration per se; but the analogy may make that point clearer for some, which needs no analogy. A standard for operation must exist, for such a performance in meaning, that is accurate, unbiased, wholly adequate.
In this case, it cannot be, for the first, subjective (unless the subject has no limits of understanding whatever, of observation, comprehension and disposition to do it - God is the name here). It cannot itself be construable as having a merely componential status; for an element of a composition is not itself an artist, an ear is not an eye, a meaningless operator (*17) is not meaningful as a truth-operator, beyond the reach of the internal dynamics of mutually limited, and conditioning fragments of the whole.
This rules out men and requires God (*18).
On every turn we are forced back there for origin or operation. Now God's purposes can be available only on application, and acceptable application at that. As we have seen, that also necessitates communication (*19) from One not subject to our psychoanalysis (and as we shall see more clearly in Chapter 4, we ourselves are not 'subject' to human psycho-analysis aptly, though it may try to probe for a purpose). The writhings (*20) of this contorted world are perfectly comprehensible (*20); in the face of that Person whose brilliant mind created justice for man, by the nature of His system specifications, and gave him truth by the divine institution of His deeds and declarations. Our misused freedoms vastly abuse His dispositions; and without being implicated in our contradiction of His deeds, He must have communicated.
Man, however, as a race, has misused that communication (*19), as he has misused his other freedoms. It is then a second order assault, detachment, departure.
It is, we find in that book, the Bible,
and read it: the beauty, the pregnancy and the hope of man's current
situation, that despite all these things, this word still extends its invitation
to know and love God. If it did not, it would be a very different matter
to write of God to man; but in this, it is a privilege, for in His power,
compassion and constructiveness in remedy for man, is a holy love which
neither descends into sin, nor condescends, but humbly comes to man, and
Creator to creature (*21), shows in the
pattern of man the wonder of God.
LET US HEAR FROM HANDEL'S MESSIAH IN ITS MUSICAL FORMAT OF PSALM 2
Detail in the area of physics in this field appears in Chapter 4, pp. 396-422W infra. The logical contraints find a highway in physics as elsewhere, and just as they find no room for avoidance of the Creator, so there they find no sop for it. Rationality has but one cry and it shouts it to the heavens, which echo, indeed augment with revelation demonstrably given to man, to replace his misty mysticisms, varying according no doubt, to such things as temperament and desire.
The scope for impious imaginings for this our race, is zero; in precise accord with its existential performance progress, which bears the same null result. The race has come from somewhere and is getting nowhere, because it will not go where it belongs.
The work of Professor Paul Davies, illustrating one school, is covered relative to our thrust in this apologetic, more specifically in *15 on p. 422A-C infra (cf. 257-270, esp. 264 supra, 396 ff., 418-419 infra). What however of the categorisation of W.R. Bird, in his The Origin of SpeciesRevisited ? Here, the 'abrupt' arrival of living forms (Bird just manages to use the term 'creation') is set in its category, irrespective of what might be the source of it... effectually, as a mere, uninterpreted, empirical datum. He distinguishes this view from that of the creator (vol. 11, pp. 191-192), but calls it "abrupt creation", nevertheless.
This approach needs only this caveat, albeit it could be no greater. Politically and perhaps psychologically (though it depends on whose psychology), perhaps indeed even legally in terms of what is 'out there' in people's ideas, and what someone might want to do about categorising them, there is such a category. It is so in just the sense that some people believe in haunted houses. There is such a category of persons.
Politically you might wish to found a party for haunted houses, or even for haunted house hunters, or to claim statistical representation for them. Morally, or immorally, in similar fashion claims might be made in terms of inroads on parliaments relating to the legalising of whoredom for example, at the systematic level. That is, such a thing as whoredom exists, some want it; pragmatic politics might wish to register this. (Pure religion of course would be averse to giving sanction in any people to such wanton degradation, just as it would be against the molestation of minors or the serfdom of industrial workers - by whatever name these things might be called.)
Thus to revert to our specific point, there are two wholly disparate questions. IS there such a view, 'abrupt creation' as defined ? one that could be categorised with other views of how things came to be ? Yes, there is. As such, however, is it rational, or could it conceivably compete, with reason ? For the reasons given in detail in Chapters 1-3 (supra) especially, and confirmed by a consideration of further elements (Ch.'s 4 and 10 infra): no, assuredly not. While it commendably yields to some more of the evidence (qua 'abrupt'), yet if it be possible, it fares yet worse than its predecessors in procedure.
In this approach, neither grounds in empirical fact, nor in logical constraint appear. Logic becomes a sport, and cause... an ember. Reason relaxes and now ? even prodigies of instantaneous design, now - at last - confessedly abrupt in appearance, are not to be susceptible to the attribution of adequate minimal grounds for this... action. Oh hallowed happenstance, the universe and its construciton is now to be a - miasmic puzzle; whilst in reality... when the mind is more composed, even a footprint demands a cause, even a sandal in a room does not come by apparitionitis! Oh illogical race, what has beguiled you!
Into such irrational follies does defeated Darwinism proceed, now void of former cover through attempting to make time the father and duration the designer, in equal defiance of reason and observation. False science has matured into nescience. The body of thought now is given the invisible 'Emperor's new clothes' - while left in fact disagreeably naked of any process, or power, device or dynamic, law or procedure, formulation or miracle, to observe or on which to act. Its ungrounded feet dangle in the void, into which is cast the denatured term 'creation', and void is the basis for its disoriented 'life'. (Cf. *42, p. 251 supra, and re Hume, especially pp. 257 ff. supra.)
Here has unreason its masterpiece: it reasons why reason should die, validates its own dismemberment and discusses its burial clothes, affixing the seal of validity to its invalidation. This comedy however is not a work of reason, but of existential implosion, where neither the irrationalities of Hume (supra) nor of Kant (Ch.'s 1,3,4,5) can help it, as each method is as self-contradictory as any other voidance of reason by reason must be.
Thus this abrupt child of thought sits in subjectivistic squalor, mocking reason, its presumed parent, and declining to use it as a son.
What then ? Liberation from logic is indeed a problem of the punctuated equilibrium clan; as it is in the purvey of the 'abrupt creation' view, provided in some social or circulatory setting. 'Laws' do not create: a creator may instal laws to exercise elements of creation. Laws attest regularities; but what absolutely creates, has no law.
Indeed, creation of intellectual novelties of various orders, animate and inanimate, with new parameters, design and imagination components is not law, but personal licence; not procedure of a formulable matrix but an arising from adequate basis, above this. Far more so is this analytical mind that thinks, this creative human spirit that wrestles, itself a product of a creative surge of absolute significance and comparable power: not at all a merely intra-systematic event, far less one repetitively construable (visible, or discernible) in its steps, or externally programmable. Creation transcends law.
In a survey of the evidence, therefore, of worlds and life and thought and spirit... it is for such reasons that no formulation has been offered to us by this 'theory' of abrupt creation, which is not a theory but a disuse. No longer do we hear, 'This is the way', or 'That'. Therefore the failure to offer any formulation for review, contemplation, consideration, or assessment... any test, for validation: this is scarcely surprising. What cannot be formulated in a system, will not be!
That is the nature of the omission. It is like a car which has everything except the power to go. Then of course, it does not. This failure applies equally to the myth of organic evolution as to that of a secular 'abrupt creation' - nothing is available for projection, no law is given for scrutiny (far less for testing). In the abrupt creation theory, moreover, it applies a fortiori. Here not merely is no indication to be found for the forces in view, as to the precise (or even imprecise for that matter) way they are construed or supposed to have operated. Now not even a (delusive) mechanism or method is proposed. This indeed is so even granted that no clue could be offered as to what 'it' would in fact do, or to the direction of the dynamic, or the process: progressive, recessive ... or other.
It deserves, this nescience, a little appreciation; so now let us ponder its scenario ...
a cause, events do flow,
without conception they will know,
plans unplanned arise and fashion,
each has its specific ration,
perpetrated and in much,
perpetuated while they last,
framed and founded, not confounded:
itself arises, life is full of such surprises,
minds are made within the matrix,
a sort of adventitious perspex, respectable and valid,
being altogether very neat, full of meaning and of meat;
for what can
come without due cause, might as well to all applause,
think and find and know and be, everything that God could be...''
oh! we forgot. It does have a name. It is normal to call it God; but this generation with its New Age would often prefer to render Him anonymous, and try at least from time to time, to remove address and power as well as name; but use it all, just the same. They also love to give reason for the defiance of reason.
Let us however proceed with our special case. There is another aspect to the reason why the absence of scientific formulation in this case of the metaphysical 'abrupt' theory is not surprising: it is this. It is much more necessary to be modest with deeds than with words! Myth entails precisely the undisciplined attribution of what is inadequate, to the consequences that are present. The myth base has here simply moved from nineteenth century meander to twentieth century miasma, from something to anything: and neither has commerce with reason.
Any divorce from the logical necessities linked to what is found, leaves the same magical irrationality. You can't just love it and leave it, not following through what reason requires, without the art of the magician replacing the world of the logician, without suicide to reason, made more impresssive in this: following the despatch of reason, it - though dead - is used to defend the practice desired. Here is indeed a quintessential case of ... It, "being dead, yet speaketh". Without God, however, decidedly distinct and emphatically present, death is so very decisive. It is more than enervating!
A sociological survey might dignify such views, or such approaches, by acknowledging their existence; a fallen State might attend them by having them taught in a survey without comment; but rationality is their end, logic is their pall-bearer; and deception (perhaps self-deception) by this self-destructive assumption is as unwise in this format as in that.
What is required remains as clear before former militant materialism, as before any new-look gnostic or agnostic nebulosity, post, prior or now. This applies whether such logical necessities are ignored directly, or given a meaningless tag setting, and ignored indirectly (if more discreetly!); whether logic is abused processively only, or in principle. In each case, the approach is equally delusive: dysfunctional fantasy is now replaced by noetic nescience, the one as the other, in the face of the clamour of reality. The language and the centuries change, but not the delusion.
Our general and special coverage of any such debasement of reason, any such suicide of intellect, any such casuistry, any such self-contradiction may be applied; but there is no necessity to proceed so far. After all, one and all contestants who avail themselves of this hatch are hatcheted by the same considerations, disembowelled by their own rapiers, whether broader in the newer case, or more pointed as before.
Reason has only contempt for what abuses it; and self-contradiction strictly in whatever form, provides for one's opponents, no need for contradiction. Suicide exempts from murder (though it is a costly method!). The contender is dead already, by his own ... in this case, irrational and errant hand. All this was shown at length; and it applies in brief.
Logic demands the Creator; He is called for and may not be dismissed, though a man or indeed the race should be!
It is pure mercy that in the many modish infatuations which strutting or simpering man has displayed, the Creator has not as yet dismissed the heavens and the earth (II Peter 3:7-10); though in His time, He will do so (II Peter 3:10-13). What destroys itself, unrepentant, will at length, even in the mercies of God, be destroyed. (See Chapters 1-2, supra, and 10 infra.)
*18 THE METHOD IS THIS.
Logic has its own validity, laws and
principles. These work in our ordinary lives and as shown earlier, and are not subject
to rejection by reason, for that assumes them. By logic we show
that God is, is Almighty, may be known, and by Him only is truth to be
known. By logic, we also show that those who reject that proposition are
involved in irresolvable antinomies, are in an irrational and self-contradictory
position, and can make no logical affirmation concerning the truth. Since
we do not reject it, we are not so involved and our rational demonstration
is unrestricted. It is in fact also confirmed and attested, as in ordinary
processes or reasoning, by total and absolute verification. Moreover this
is shown to be multi-dimensional, rollicking, and exuberant with the self-attesting
dynamics of reality. The independent power to prevail, in attested ways,
of both the identified word of God and the God of this word, in ordered
experience and in history, provides an unlimited flush of a fortiori demonstration.
(Cf. pp. 36, 265,
supra, 934-936, and 437-445,
Reason and Revelation
Except it's used aright.
When used - and not abused -
(Not Mulched Infinity)
Divinity with words -
(Not intellectual surds)
That cause considerable
But abide and override.
That Biblical Revelation
addressed to any nation,
puts in focus
But Jesus Christ
who by word and Spirit leads,
like water to its source,
back on its rushing course
those who wash in Him
and come . . .
to life in, by,
*19 IDENTIFIABLE COMMUNICATION . . . REMEDY : THE GOSPEL
It may be useful to prompt the mind on this topic of communication and remedy from the Almighty, as developed in some detail in Chs. 1, 2 and elsewhere. (Cf. pp. 28-36, 43-48, 81-87, 89-91, 127, 580, 592 ff., 1186B; and Index - 'Remedy'.)
It is shown in Chapter 1 et al., that
there must be, of logical necessity, a remedy for the situation man makes
and finds - on the part of God. It is useless to argue that man is dead,
or God is dead, or both are dead, or that nothing matters. That is to deny
the conditions of discourse, and simply sidestep the issues made. The mobile
character of mankind does not remove his deadly operational functionality
and facility. It is in vain to imagine that man does not live, move, operate,
torture, contrive, create, construct AND deviate, caricature truth with
gusto on millions of occasions, often on purpose, fraudulently crush justice
in demeaning death, destroying reality and living in squalid and often
sordid substitutes for the dignity and profundity which life may provide.
This action, multiplied amidst mankind, constitutes a perpetual thrust against the God of creation. It is moment by moment, idea by idea, perverted practice against truth by its fellow, polluted squirming of mind, moral and spirit by its mate, fiery thrust against God Himself and against His creatures by its companion, as against His principles, name, character and people: while history itself is frequently distorted, truth lies fallen, equity is slain, lies rage and ravage, and the world watches, misleading and misled. (Refer : Psalm 50:17-23; also Jeremiah 7:8-15, 23:14-30.)
Some may worship the dead, but in terms of the living God, as demonstrated, this is distortion of Himself and/or His creation by His still living creation: like berserk moral mongols, or devastating inert moguls, run amok. As has been demonstrated at the outset, this DEMANDS a GOD who is not there; or divine response (either remedy for, or removal of - man). We established the presence of God, so we came for this continuing world to the latter: divine response incorporating remedy. It is a case of WAR on God at the most basic level; of being contrary to what we saw at the minimum God is and must be; of misrepresentation not only of God but of man in philosophies, various spurious religions - labelling and libelling man, God and the divine remedy itself. Either God is negated or remedy is affirmed. Since God has power, the remedy is found: identified as the Bible. (Cf. pp. 44-60, 422S-T, 644, 973A; Chs. 5-6, 8.)
The logical consistency of these divine
affairs, in a world for the time being permitted to continue (II
Peter 3:9), is in the most marked contrast to the enduring hilarity of
contrary philosophy: not so much meanly, as necessarily exposed by successive
generations of the disillusioned. The communication of God however
needs neither extenuation nor alteration. It simply stands from each standpoint.
Refer pp. 384-385, 873,
999-1002C infra; Index - Remedy;
One may say: This all starts with man. It does not however do so. It starts with God and proceeds from God. By GOD, man exists, and comes to be, created by fiat. By GOD, man is given a mind, and it functions. This mind finds the Bible, the word of God. This instructs that mind; it may not believe it, but it still instructs. The seed is sown; the wind has swept, whether the trees bend little or much.
Contact has been made, reality displayed, words have been deployed. One has seen the result. Moreover nature itself teaches man, and the form of his own mind instructs him. As he uses it, so it leads him; and as it requires, as we have shown, so if he follows, he finds the key, the word of God, which was sitting there.
It is reason or treason. He follows what he is given, clearly, necessarily, irrefutably to the word of God, which is there; or he baulks, reconstructs his mind, though it will not work so, indulges in absurd philosophies, theories which belie themselves, contradict themselves, experiences anguish, falls and fails or becomes cynical; but the truth is the same.
Man follows the realities of his mind and comes to the word of God, or he resists them and comes to an end of himself either through violence to the body, to the mind or to the spirit, either sooner or later. This does not work. It was not meant to do so; it was constructed to be right. Man was made upright, as that same word of God says; but he has found out many inventions.
If then the question be this: how can man start except in himself ? the answer is: If he be blind, then so it seems, but he is instituted and constituted and when he acts as made, within its design specifications of thought and logic, he finds the word of God; just as nature itself teaches him of God, though that vision be dimmed or distorted, at times more, sometimes less, always by sin, so that God is not known. Further, God having spoken, as reason requires, and evidence attests, man is not at all constructing from himself, but following the construction given not only to the world, but also to himself.
If logic be valid, then God's word is discovered. If logic be not valid, then to show this, reason must be used; and that is impossible for any valid result, if it be simply assumed invalid from the start.
But one may say: Granted if reason be valid, the word of God is true and is the Bible; and that it be shown invalid is impossible. What however if it be merely assumed invalid; may this not be an option ? The very assumption however, employs the specifications of form, meaning, logic, correlation of word, reality and concept, of consequence: if reason were invalid, man would be unmade. He could not even speak or formulate the hypothesis. But he does! In deeds he destroys the 'assumption', even if in words he would deny it. Man is so made. There is no escape. (Cf. pp. 200, 229, 251, 263, 285, 299 ff., 306, 314-316D supra, 349E-353, 420-423, 424 ff., 620-622 infra.)
b) THOUGHT AND ITS INTEGRITY:
The Inlet of Truth is the Expulsion of Confusion.
The Human Brain, Human Thought and the Realm of Human Pain. (Cf. pp. 422E ff., and 429 ff. infra)... In the light of the above, let us analyse these things.
One has heard of a transmitter. A radio used to have valves which would light up, with thin filaments inside. Did they create the waves they received ? It had a complex circuitry. Did this create the impulses it transmitted ? There is complexity (and design) to transmit, and complexity and design to receive.
Neither of these is - nor could it be - the studio performer. Each plays its part in coding and decoding the performance.
So it is with the human brain. One hears profound obtuseness, as learned men debate, consider what is this mystery of original thought and ideas, relative to the human brain. It is as if some are at least tempted to have this circuitry, this cybernetic apparatus appear as the producer of the thought, validity, virtue, ideas, dreams and imaginations within and for man.
Small wonder the 'mystery' is never resolved; the impasse is never removed. A circuit is no more capable of producing freedom (q.v.), than is the Statue of Liberty capable of producing liberty. The circuitry of compulsion is not the maker of mind, but rather its slave, servant, transmitter.
Just as a typewriter expresses, not only by coded symbols called letters, but by a (relatively) complex system, the impacts which create the letters on the page, so the brain interprets through its design that profound reality, human life. And that ? It can engender ideas, be guilty, be brazen, be coarse... be angelic. It has ways of its own. Human vitality has the brain serve as special interpreter, not performer. (Cf. pp. 348-350 infra.)
We are doing it all the time: finding ways of impacting codes into apparatus so that we may then receive them again in comprehensible form, at the other end. We would never imagine a TV made the studio, or a computer constructed the thought of the programmer who first conceived, then coded words relating to that thought, into the already conceived and code-carrying unit, the computer. Hardware and software are included as recipients, but not creators of intelligibility. How it could ever be conceived for one moment that such machinery made the machinations it conveyed, that such systems of objects created the thoughts they transmitted, would be an all but insoluble problem, were it not for one thing.
And that ? It is this. The human spirit is as capable of being rebellious as is a fish of swimming. It is a natural habitat in this, that its very freedom, to be real, must admit of misuse of design capacities, as surely as does an ungoverned sports car allow reckless speeding.
It is perhaps not too much to say that we are surrounded in a complex net of devices, from sensors to nerves to brain, within us, from radios, to computers, to atomic bombs outside us, always interpreting thought, and in our cases made by it. As for ourselves, our own 'hardware' ?
We assuredly have not made this; nor can we, however freely we may move about bits of pre-existing genetic structure. It differs from our own products in being incomparably more complex, more miniaturised and having content of surpassingly greater dimensions. In human life, the moral, the aesthetic and the visionary have their place. Nothing merely happening has or can have freedom or morals or aesthetics. All these things depend on a standard, whether expressible in code or not, and a liberty in the use of it, to excel or to defile. (Cf. Ch. 5 infra.) With such equipment, only then meaningfully, we design. Our results - our own products - demand such a cause for their functionality and structural integrity. (Cf. Ch. 5 infra.) For us, captive symbols (words, codes) merely convey the results of liberated thought. There is no contradiction in that. What is not impassively controlled sends what it does, transmits it, through what is controlled.
Without such control, it could not send it. With nothing but such constraints, there would be nothing to send. Vitality employs and deploys material complexity and engendered codes to display itself, its fruits, products.
Nor are we in general - nor our brains in particular, less than our products. On the contrary, we as mini-creators are far more. We as shown attest a creative designer-of-creativity: whose power transcends, surpasses and distances our own, while giving it meaning as derivative, and structuring it, where appropriate, through the use of captive symbols, codes. (Cf. pp. 137-141, 211, 252A-G, 292-315A supra.) We both deploy codes in our mental capacities and incorporate them in our physical equipment, simultaneously designer and designed.
What we code and transmit from our (relatively) free spirits by machinery, methods in motion, is via the ectype of an archetype made by the Spirit of God. And that ? it is mankind, the design that reproduces itself. Able to use standards, it may violate or adorn them, because not only is man's own equipment created for just such a purpose; but the very spirit within him is created. It is the expression of thought divine, design divine, possessed of this quite remarkable addition: this design is designed to be free, though of necessity in the presence of its Maker. When it rejoices in Him, it possesses liberty; when it is at war with God, it is in disruption with itself, showing this sooner or later, interpreting itself into hell, or receiving God in reality.
It is well for the human race that God provided a redeemer, Jesus Christ, to salvage spirits. Reductionism is the irrational, voluntary, multiple sclerosis of tortured minds. Its antinomies which we repeatedly show, are merely its more obvious pangs.
Returning from such torment of error, we again observe the coherent majesty of the truth, free from the self-contradictory imbroglios of impassioned minds.
The simplicity is statuesque: we both incorporate in one phase, and deploy in another, of our beings, code and signal, symbols with significance, themselves the products of imagination, vitality and purpose. The very constraints and impassivity of the symbols are one assured means of expressing our vitality without distortion or intrusion. Our expressiveness depends on our codes and symbols, speech or other, not having expressiveness per se, but merely consequential power, as designed, to forward securely what is to be expressed. We are neither self-contradictory nor divine, but designed by divinity, to whom we - mind, body and spirit - are answerable, using there also, if we will, the codes we incorporate and the codes we design.
*21 The term 'creature' contains the concept of living. Living in terms of terrestrial life ? That has life... What is this sort of life ? Earthly life is the integral activation of prepared equipment that may be in concert with designed actors or agents. These with their accorded equipment are in an ascending scale. This issues at its height in the capacity for communion with God, the Creator of all. As He has spoken IN His terrestrial creation in DNA, the ONE language being used, so too He has equally spoken TO the highest agent among His terrestrial creatures, to man as a race: in both cases with messages at once distinctive, impressed, assured, in operation and complete. (Cf. pp. 121-122, 210, 144-145, 315A, 316C-G, 332E-G supra.)