Joining The Dots - Day 4

My name is William Haines, and this little workshop is called 'Joining the Dots'. I realise I made a bit of a jump yesterday, going all the way from Plato into the 20th century, discussing fascism and communism. That might have been a bit of a shock for some of you, so I thought I should go back a bit and connect a few more dots. What is the state? This is Max Weber, a great German sociologist and one of the founders of sociology. He said the state is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. So, let's go back and look at the Greeks and Plato, and how those ideas influenced a lot of things. After the Greeks, of course, came the Romans. The Romans didn't have much philosophy of their own, but they inherited, to the best of their ability, a lot of Greek philosophy, culture, and art. When we look at Roman religion, we see it was a state religion, which Christians traditionally call pagan. The substance of the Roman state religion lay in ritual rather than individual belief. It didn't really have any particular set of beliefs or vital interests in truths or spiritual moral guidance. It was a collective rather than a personal form of worship, and the rituals consisted of festivals and offerings, often food or wine.

In this picture at the bottom, you can see one of the armed priestesses making an offering and animal sacrifices. These rituals had to be carried out regularly and correctly to retain the favour of the gods towards the state, a household, or an individual. People also had their own household gods, with statues representing their local deities. The importance of this Roman state religion was that it was primarily a cult of political and state significance. Religion itself had never been a problem of truth. They were just interested in gaining the blessing and support of the gods for Rome, so that when they went to war, the gods would be on their side and they would be victorious. That was the only point of it. People had to participate in these rituals whether they liked it or not, as it emphasised their loyalty to the Roman state and the Roman Emperor. In that sense, you could say that religion existed to give the Roman state, the Roman Emperor, and Roman authority legitimacy and justify what they did.

As polytheistic, with many gods, there was very little or no spiritual content. As a result, those interested in spirituality began to drift away. While participating in the state religion, they would also join mystery cults, seeking higher levels of spirituality and morality. Many would often attend the synagogue and sometimes convert to Judaism. Later on, many of them would convert to Christianity when it emerged. From the time of Augustus, who was Emperor at the turn of the millennium, emperors would assume the title of Pontifex Maximus, becoming known as chief priests or the son of God, and later regarded as gods themselves. This was similar to the pharaohs in Egypt, who were also worshipped as divine. The Abrahamic view, which we discussed yesterday, emphasised that every single human being is a son or daughter of God, created in the image of God. This presents a very flat structure, while the pagan view was hierarchical, like a pyramid. In this theocratic state, the state came to be regarded as God, along with the Emperor, and the state was seen as the highest form of human community.

As a citizen of the state, your loyalty lay with the state and the worship of the state. There was nothing higher than the state; it was like God, with nothing higher in value or power. The religion and the gods existed to serve the state, which was also a source of law and people's identity as citizens. The long-lasting image of Rome as the Eternal City has dominated Europe for more than 2,000 years. If we look at pre-Christian Rome and then at Rome after it became Christian, we can see how the pagan theocratic state became Christianised. There was a synthesis between Christianity and the pagan Roman state religion. Constantine was an emperor who became a Christian and wanted Christianity to be the state religion of the Roman Empire. He thought it would unite the whole Empire better than the traditional Roman religion. He said he would make plain to them what kind of worship should be offered to God, and what higher duty he had as Emperor than to destroy error and repress rash indiscretions, causing all to offer to Almighty God the true religion.

He saw himself as having a vision of destroying error, meaning destroying heretics—anyone who didn't believe what they were supposed to believe, which was the Nicene Creed. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea, where the Nicene Creed was created, and everyone had to sign up to it. Otherwise, they would be treated as heretics and expelled from the Empire. His successor, Theodosius, declared Christianity to be the required faith in 380, meaning the church was no longer just a community of believers; it became a community of those obliged to believe. Before this, people joined the church because they wanted to, because they believed in Jesus and had a personal encounter with Him. After Theodosius declared Christianity the official religion, people had to go to church whether they liked it or not. They didn't go because of personal transformation but because they realised they had to, or they would get into trouble.

If they wanted to be promoted within their careers, especially within the state, they would be expected to go to church and meet the right people. The church changed as people brought their own pagan ideas into it. They didn't go through personal renewal and regeneration before attending church. The whole character of Christianity started to change. From a principal point of view, it's interesting because there was no longer any foundation to receive the Messiah within the Roman Empire. If the Messiah came along with different ideas from the Nicene Creed, He would be declared a heretic and either put to death or expelled from the Empire. This is why, in the Divine Principle, it says God's providence moved from the Roman Empire to the Germanic tribes. Essentially, it was a synthesis of Christianity and the pagan Roman religion, where the state was seen as the only community established by God, embracing the whole life of man. One was a citizen of the state, which just so happened to be a Christian state.

The visible representative of God within it, who performed His will and dispensed His blessings, was the Emperor. This created a synthesis of the head of the church and the head of the state. The Emperor was obliged to be concerned with both the religious and material well-being of his subjects. His power was not only from God but was also divine in its own right. The only distinction between this pattern and pagan theocracy was that the Empire, by the choice of its Emperor, had found its true God and true religion. Christianity taught that Christ had left His authority to forgive, heal, sanctify, and teach to the priests. Therefore, they must be surrounded by the state, which would honour them, as their prayers and sacraments depended on the prosperity of the Empire. This is why the Roman Catholic Church is called the Roman Catholic Church; it is essentially Roman, having inherited the Roman theocracy and the pattern of Roman religion, which is fundamentally pagan.

The state is invested with unlimited authority, having absolute power over the individual and the ability to exact from him the sacrifice of his personal interests and even his life. This absolute authority of the state was noticeable in the late Empire, just as it was under the kings much earlier on. This alone can saddle a man for life with the duties of a counsellor, which is really expensive and involves various political matters, even against one's own wishes. This makes possible the kind of state socialism we encounter after completion, similar to what you'd find in a communist country. Ultimately, man was seen as nothing but a product of the laws of the state. This is how they viewed things: man is a product of the state, a citizen of the state, and nothing a government was incapable of doing in the art of forming man. Social engineering on a vast scale was the task of the legislature, the people who make the laws, to bring about social harmony and discover means of placing men under the necessity of being virtuous.

The justification for the state controlling every aspect of every person's life is rooted in this pagan state. However, the Church eventually came to challenge this. Alexander Schmemann, a historian of the Russian Orthodox Church, noted that Christianity never denied the benefits of the state. The state is useful; you need someone to make the roads, dig the sewers, and manage health control. That is the purpose of the state—to do these menial activities. Christianity acknowledges the value of the state, but the meaning of the Church's appearance in the world as a community and a visible organism reveals the limitations of the state. The state claimed to be the only community, but the Church asserted that it is a community, a living being—the body of Christ. The Church revealed that there are only two absolute, eternal, sacred values: God and man, not the state and man. Everything else, including the state, is limited by its very nature, belonging wholly to this world. The enlightenment of the state means primarily its recognition of its own limitations, its idea of limited government and limited power, and its refusal to regard itself as the absolute value. This is contrary to what I was discussing towards the end yesterday regarding fascism and communism. It was for this enlightenment that Christians suffered and died in the era of persecutions.

They rejected the right of the state to subject the whole of man to itself. That is why Christians refused to bow down and worship the Emperor; they refused to make offerings and sacrifices to the Emperor because they would not recognise the Emperor as God. They would only worship God, the invisible Creator of the heavens and the earth. This tradition of worshipping one God was inherited from Abraham, which I discussed yesterday. Christianity emphasised that worshipping God is paramount, and the state is not higher than God. The state is necessary but limited; it does not possess absolute authority.

However, there was a long clash for many centuries between the church and the state in European history. The church claimed absolute authority during the medieval period, with the Popes asserting the power to appoint and dismiss kings, claiming that no one was higher than the Pope. This led to a prolonged conflict between church and state, the echoes of which can still be seen in some European countries today. For instance, there are ongoing debates about whether the state has the authority to prosecute priests for wrongdoing, as the church historically maintained that they were under church law.

In the medieval world, the primary concept was not the state but the law. This law was not created by politicians or kings; it was part of an eternal order to be discovered through the study of custom and precedent. It was made by God and applied equally to both king and peasant. Today, remnants of this understanding can be seen in what we call English common law, which is based on customs and traditions that reflect the way of life of the people. For example, in England, everyone stands in a queue at a bus stop or while shopping. This is not a law but a custom, and people become annoyed with those who jump the queue.

The law derives its authority from these customs and traditions, which ultimately reflect the people's way of life. If people are living a Christian way of life, then the law exists to protect that way of life and prevent violations. In the old understanding of the medieval world, kings and governments did not have the authority to make laws; laws were made by the people based on their way of life. However, a revolutionary idea emerged during this period: the notion that valid law could be created by an actual will rather than simply discovered. This modern theory of the state began to take shape.

In the 13th or 14th century, some scholars rediscovered Justinian's code, which stated that whatever the ruler decided was the law. Kings began to adopt this idea, wanting to be the ones who made and created laws. This reimagined the Roman pagan state and law, leading to the belief that kings and parliaments could create and change laws. Consequently, the lawmaking state became the source of legitimacy for all other forms of social organisation, becoming a locus of sovereignty. In some countries, if you want to establish a chess club or a church, you must obtain permission from local state officials, as you need the relevant stamps on your paperwork to have the authority to set up your organisation.

This shift in authority has had profound implications. Nowadays, we see the state and governments changing marriage laws, raising questions about whether the state has the authority to do so. Modern people generally accept that the state can change any laws, which is a shocking idea for Muslims and many Christians. This concept stems from the reemergence of the Roman state, which I discussed yesterday. We can observe how the Roman myth and religion existed to support the status quo and legitimise Roman authority.

Now, let us examine the alternative myth that I mentioned yesterday, which originates from Abraham. I shared the story of Adam and Eve and the values embedded in that narrative. Abraham's discovery of God, including the story of smashing idols, is significant. You might think I am making this up, but you can find references to these stories in the Quran. For instance, there is a depiction of Abraham being protected from the fire when Nimrod threw him in. Instead of being burned, the flames blossomed into flowers and fruit, leading him to Haran.

When we consider the Abrahamic view of God, it is interesting to compare it with the Greek view. When Moses encountered God on Mount Sinai, he asked for God's name. God responded with the ineffable name, which Jews never pronounce, referring to Himself as 'the Lord' or 'Hashem.' This name is translated in English as 'I am who I am.' Rabbi Jonathan Sacks suggests a better translation might be 'I will be where and how I will be,' indicating that God is an absolute free being. This contrasts with the Greek philosophical view of God as being itself, timeless and unchanging, which reflects a certain social hierarchy.

In Greek society, the Golden Age is always viewed as a thing of the past, looking back to the glories of Rome. This idea haunts European society, as evidenced by the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established the foundation of the European Union. The present is often explained through the lens of the past, suggesting a deterministic view where the future is closed. In contrast, the Hebrew understanding is different. When God introduces Himself to Moses, He does not say, 'I am the creator of the universe,' but rather, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' This introduction signifies a personal relationship with God, who is actively involved in history, unlike the unmoved mover of Greek philosophy.

In the biblical narrative, God is known not through His essence but through His acts in history. The Bible recounts how God has impacted people's lives, presenting a future that is open and shaped by the choices we make. This understanding of freedom and the potential to create a future stems from Abraham's different interpretation of the name Yahweh. The nuances of language play a significant role in shaping our understanding of these concepts. As I mentioned yesterday, the origin of the stories of creation and Adam and Eve can be traced back to Mesopotamia, where scholars have identified similarities with Mesopotamian mythology. Abraham's story is rooted in this region, which is now part of modern-day Iraq, situated between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

The early history of these biblical stories exhibits both deep continuities and striking points of discontinuity with their Mesopotamian antecedents. The Gilgamesh epic, for example, is one of the oldest pieces of literature in the world, dating back over 4,000 years. It contains stories that parallel the biblical accounts, such as the flood narrative, where the gods regret creating humans and decide to drown them. This polytheistic perspective contrasts sharply with the monotheistic view of the Abrahamic tradition. The biblical narrators adapted these Mesopotamian stories to express Israelite theology, resulting in a unique understanding of God and humanity.

The story of Prometheus illustrates a significant theme in mythology. Prometheus, a Titan, defies the will of the gods by bringing fire to humanity, feeling pity for their plight of consuming uncooked food. As a consequence, he is punished and chained to Mount Olympus, where an eagle eats his liver daily. This narrative connects to ancient texts, such as a cuneiform tablet discovered in Iraq in 1919, which dates back around 4,000 years. This tablet, deciphered only recently, provides instructions on how a certain artefact should look, showcasing the continuity of storytelling through the ages.

In contrast to polytheistic myths, the Bible presents a monotheistic view with a singular, sovereign God. The Genesis account begins with the declaration of God's sovereignty, where God speaks and creation unfolds. Abraham's unique contribution to this narrative stems from his personal encounters with God, leading him to understand that there is only one God who created the heavens and the earth. This relationship allows for a personal connection with the divine, a theme that is absent in many other mythological accounts.

The Genesis narrative also highlights God's absolute sovereignty over creation, where chaos is not depicted as an adversary. In the story of Noah and the flood, God expresses regret over humanity's violence, which deeply grieves Him. This portrayal of God as emotionally invested in human affairs contrasts sharply with the indifference often found in other mythologies, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. In that story, the gods are detached, whereas in the biblical account, God actively communicates with Noah, warning him of the impending flood and urging him to save his family.

Noah's efforts to warn others of the flood, as described in Jewish tradition, illustrate God's desire for humanity to heed His warnings. The Talmud recounts that Noah spent 120 years building the ark and warning people of the ecological disaster to come. Despite his efforts, he faced ridicule and disbelief, leading to the tragic outcome of the flood. This narrative reinforces the idea that God does not wish for anyone to perish, highlighting His compassion even amidst judgment.

The Genesis creation story, particularly the account of Adam and Eve, is unique in its depth and detail. Scholars suggest that the Genesis stories may have been written during the Babylonian exile, but I believe they originated from Abraham's teachings to his descendants. These stories were likely passed down orally, evolving into the written accounts we have today. Abraham's journey from Mesopotamia to Canaan marks a significant transition in the understanding of God and humanity's relationship with the divine.

Abraham's experiences led him to question the existence of God amidst the beauty and chaos of the world. He observed the splendour of creation but also the prevalence of evil and suffering. This duality prompted him to seek answers about God's role as the ruler of the universe. His inquiry reflects a common struggle: reconciling belief in a good God with the reality of human suffering. Abraham's faith was rooted in his personal relationship with God, which he was willing to risk his life for, despite the injustices he witnessed.

The story of Adam and Eve serves to explain the presence of evil in the world. Free will, granted by God, allows for the possibility of choosing wrong over right. This concept clarifies that while God did not create evil, the misuse of free will by beings like Lucifer led to the existence of evil. Abraham's dialogue with God reveals a profound truth: while God is sovereign, humanity's choices can lead to suffering. This understanding is crucial for grappling with the complexities of faith and morality in a flawed world.

Abraham's faith journey is marked by a burning desire for justice and righteousness. His encounter with God is not merely an intellectual exercise but a heartfelt dialogue that seeks to address the suffering in the world. This theme resonates with other spiritual narratives, such as that of the Buddha, who also sought to understand suffering and find a path to liberation. Both figures exemplify the quest for meaning in the face of adversity, highlighting the universal struggle to reconcile faith with the realities of human existence.

Truth was that life is suffering, and it is because of this encounter with suffering that the Buddha turned to the life of spirituality. If you think of Father, why did he pray on Easter morning and encounter Jesus? It was because of the incredible suffering the Korean people were enduring under Japanese occupation. Fathers desperately wanted to understand why the Korean people were suffering so much and how it was possible to alleviate this suffering. For me, when I was thirteen, I went on a journey to the Soviet Union, and when I realised the reality of life in communist countries, it transformed and changed my life. I felt a moral obligation to do something about it. Sometimes, I think we should not overprotect our children; it is actually beneficial for them to experience the reality of life that many people live.

Diana, the mother of William and Harry, understood this well. When they were young children living in Kensington Palace, she did not want them to think that this was how everyone lived. So, secretly at night, she would take them down to the bridges on the River Thames to meet homeless people living in cardboard boxes. This was to help them realise that while they lived in a palace, many people were in truly miserable circumstances. She wanted them to develop a sense of conscience, compassion, and the understanding that they should live a good life for the sake of others. This is an important lesson.

Now, let us consider God's call to Abraham. Abraham is regarded as the father of faith, having made a larger impact on human history than any other single individual. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all regard Abraham as the father of faith, accepting the story he told about who God is, why God created human beings, and the origin of evil. People understand this in their own particular ways, but it is clear that Abraham made a significant impact on human history, as more than half the world's population identifies as either Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. Therefore, it is crucial to understand who Abraham was, what he taught, and what motivated him in his relationship with God.

Abraham left Ur of the Chaldeans with his family, Terah, and moved to Haran. After Terah died, the Lord appeared to Abraham and said, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you.' This command emphasises that Abraham's identity does not depend on his nationality. Many people feel that their identity is tied to their nationality, whether they are English, German, Japanese, or Korean. However, God is telling Abraham to leave his country, indicating that one's identity should not be defined by the circumstances of their birth.

God also instructed Abraham to leave his kindred, suggesting that identity does not depend on social class. Unlike the Hindu myth or the feudal system, one's identity is not determined by the social class into which they are born. It does not matter if your parents were merchants, road sweepers, or kings; that does not define who you are. Furthermore, God told Abraham to leave his father's house, indicating that identity does not depend on genetic inheritance. Some may argue that their traits are due to their genes, but God is guiding Abraham on a journey to form a different sense of identity, a call to radical freedom.

This journey signifies that the future is open and not determined by the past. This contrasts sharply with the ideas prevalent in modern society, particularly Marxism, which suggests that individuals are products of social forces shaped by the ruling class's interests. Marx argued that economic determinism dictates societal structure, while God is challenging this notion. Philosophers like Spinoza and Freud, who also came from a Jewish background but became atheists, contributed to this deterministic view. Spinoza claimed that humans are shaped by instincts and biological drives, while Freud suggested that our experiences, particularly childhood traumas, define us.

God's message to Abraham is to leave behind the circumstances of his birth. For a long time, people believed that genes determined everything, but recent scientific advancements in epigenetics show that our thoughts can influence gene expression. Freud's psychoanalysis was based on Greek myths rather than biblical stories, which could have provided a more fruitful foundation. God is calling Abraham to embark on a journey, one that is linear and leads into the unknown, where the future is open. This journey reflects the essence of faith, hope, and love, as we step into the unknown, responding to what comes our way.

Many of us have experienced a calling from True Parents and from God, taking steps into the unknown. We left our countries, families, and familiar surroundings to embark on a journey into the heart of God, towards building the Kingdom of Heaven. We did not know how things would turn out, but our act of faith led us to a very different place than if we had stayed at home. I recall a friend who grew up in a small village; her life changed dramatically when she encountered the Divine Principle. She realised how small her world was and transformed into a completely different person by stepping out into the unknown.

When God met Abraham, He said, 'I am God Almighty. Walk before me and be blameless.' This statement intrigued me because it suggests that God was following Abraham, not the other way around. To be blameless means to live according to one's conscience, following the original mind and heart. By doing so, Abraham would know where to go, as God dwelled in his heart. God seeks people who take the initiative, listen to their conscience, and follow the impulses of their original nature. He desires individuals who take responsibility, moving from a state of obedience like servants to the attitude of an owner.

The difference between living in a rented house and owning one illustrates this point. If you rent a house and the roof leaks, you call the landlord. However, if you own the house, you take responsibility to fix it yourself or hire someone to do it. God wants people who have the attitude of an owner, which is reflected in the Family Pledge. We must take ownership and responsibility for God's providence. This is consistent with everything Father teaches. Obedience is a term that comes up frequently, and it is essential to understand its etymology. The English word 'obey' appeared in the late 13th century, derived from the Old French 'obéir,' which in turn comes from the Latin 'audire,' meaning 'to listen.' Originally, to obey meant to listen.

If you look up the dictionary definition of 'obey,' you will find meanings such as executing commands, yielding submission, and complying with orders. However, the original meaning emphasises listening. This highlights the importance of understanding obedience not merely as submission to authority but as an active engagement with one's conscience and heart.

To succumb, to bow, to give in, to yield, to be ruled by, to serve, to cave in to, to defer to, to take orders from, and basically just do as you're told—that's what the word 'obey' means. That's how the word functions in the English language today. So, what changed? Where did the original meaning of the word become like this? The meaning of the English word 'obediently' altered in the late 14th century, denoting bending or prostration of the body as a gesture of submission or respect. It became confused with 'obeisance,' which is derived from a base that means to bow down in front of someone. This comes from the 14th-century word 'abeshin,' which originates from the Old French 'abaisser,' meaning to diminish, make lower in value or status, humble, or belittle oneself. This change raises the question: why did it happen? We need to consider what occurred in English history.

Historically, the English were a free people, often yeoman farmers who earned their own land. If the king wanted them to join the army, he could request their service for a certain time, but they were fundamentally free. However, in 1066, a notorious event known as the Norman Conquest occurred. William the Conqueror from Normandy conquered England and essentially stole it from the English people. The Normans built many castles, which might seem romantic today, but these were fortresses constructed by an occupying power. The Normans understood that if they did not remain in their castles, they would be at risk of violence. For about two to three hundred years, the dominant language of the ruling class in England was French. The Normans imposed a feudal system where the land owned by the Anglo-Saxons was redistributed to Norman lords, creating a society where people were tied to the land and had to obey their lords. This led to a distortion of the original meaning of 'obey,' which originally meant to listen, into a command to do as one is told.

Now, let us examine the meaning of 'obey' in the Bible. Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks noted that Judaism has many commands, including the Ten Commandments and a total of 613 commands. You would think that a religion with so many commands would have a word that means 'obey,' but interestingly, the word 'obey' does not exist in Hebrew. When the State of Israel was established in 1948, they needed to create an army, and it was essential for soldiers to obey their officers. However, they lacked a word that meant 'obey,' so they had to invent one. Instead of 'obey,' the Bible uses the verb 'shama,' which means to listen, to hear, to internalise, to understand, and then to respond. There is no English word that captures the full meaning of the Hebrew word 'shamar.'

When we read the Bible, we often interpret the word 'obey' in the way it functions in contemporary English. However, we must delve deeper to understand that the Hebrew meaning is quite different. It emphasises listening to the voice of God, internalising it, understanding it, and then acting upon it. This perspective encourages us to take responsibility for our actions rather than merely following orders. Jonathan Sacks elaborates on this, stating that 'shama' means to listen, concentrate, and give the Word of God your most focused attention. We should strive to understand and engage all our faculties—intellectual and emotional—and make His will our own. The commands we receive are not arbitrary; they are for our own welfare and the benefit of all humanity.

In Judaism, faith is a form of listening to the song creation sings to its Creator and to the messages history delivers to those who strive to understand it. Moses repeatedly instructs in Deuteronomy to 'stop looking, listen.' This echoes the teachings of Buddha, who also emphasised the importance of creating silence within oneself to hear the still, small voice beneath the noise. This silence allows one to recognise that the universe is the work of the One beyond the furthest star, yet closer to us than we are to ourselves. To listen to the voice of God and to one's conscience, one must be at peace with oneself. This is why people often retreat to the desert, where silence prevails, to meditate and listen for God's voice.

The conscience is paramount; it is more important than our parents, teachers, or even the rulers of any country. God instructed Abraham to leave his father's house, highlighting that our conscience must take precedence. Abraham disobeyed Nimrod, and Moses disobeyed Pharaoh, demonstrating a mentality that prioritises listening to one's conscience above all else. When elevated to such a position, the conscience becomes an object of God's law. It requires no education about right and wrong; we must give it absolute honour and respect, just as we honour and listen to God. Our conscience sees everything, and its most elevated function is as our true parent, teacher, and owner.

The conscience guides our lives and educates us from birth. It keeps watch over our actions and is aware of every word we speak. Even before our parents or teachers, God infused our conscience with a fundamental function of guidance and supervision. However, the conscience, which should be as clear as crystal, has become clouded due to the Fall, hindering its ability to manifest its original function amid sin and spiritual sickness. This is why it is crucial for individuals to listen to their conscience. God told Abraham to be blameless before Him, indicating that if one follows their conscience, they will know what to do. Yet, many people struggle to connect with their original mind and heart, leading to confusion. This is why a spiritual life is essential; we must study the Word of God to form our conscience.

The term 'conscience' itself is often conflated with consciousness and the mind. However, biblically, the seat of the conscience is in the heart. The word 'conscience' means 'with knowledge' and 'understanding.' It is vital to act with knowledge and understanding, which is why studying is so important. Moving on to the next section, we will explore the roots of our European Western culture and civilisation, particularly focusing on Abraham and the Greek philosophers like Pythagoras and Plato. These two roots offer contrasting approaches to various issues, and we will examine the biblical approach to understanding the nature of reality, which aligns with the principles we have discussed.

This exploration leads us to ontology—the study of what can be said to exist, the categorisation of existing things, and the various modes of being. For instance, if you ask anyone, even a child, to identify a collection of items, they would likely categorise them as fruit or animals. This process of categorisation helps us make sense of reality. The Greeks sought to understand the ultimate substance of reality, categorising it into elements like fire, water, earth, and air. Pythagoras introduced the concept of numbers, while others categorised things as straight or crooked, ordered or chaotic, male or female. This categorisation is essential for understanding the nature of reality.

When considering a list of nouns, one might ask what the simplest category is. A student once suggested that everything is either a sausage or not a sausage, which was an interesting perspective. However, the most basic categorisation is whether something exists or does not exist. Everything here exists, except for unicorns, which are merely figments of the imagination. The next basic categorisation is visibility; most things are visible, but some, like ghosts and x-rays, are not. People often engage in games of categorisation, identifying items as animals, vegetables, or minerals, gradually narrowing down to specific entities. This reflects the idea that our understanding of the world is shaped by our language and categorisation.

This leads to an important philosophical question: what is the relationship between words and the world? Some nouns refer to things that do not exist, while others refer to the invisible. This relationship poses a significant challenge in philosophy. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who grappled with this issue, proposed what he called the 'picture theory.' He aimed to explain the nature of propositions—statements that can be true or false. For example, 'the cat is sitting on the mat' is a proposition that can be verified as true or false. He argued that a proposition serves as a picture of reality, similar to how notes in a musical score form a picture of music. A skilled musician can hear the music in their mind when reading the score, while someone unfamiliar with music may only see black marks on paper.

On these lines, there's a picture of reality. This is like the correspondence theory of truth, where a statement is considered true if it corresponds with the facts. For example, is there a cat sitting on the mat or not? Does that statement correspond with reality? That's one way to determine whether a statement is true or not. You could say that there's an object, a dog, and this image goes into your eyes, forming a picture of the dog inside your head and consciousness. Along with that, you associate the word 'dog', and when you string a few words together, you get a sentence: 'The dog is walking.' That's a proposition. This is his picture theory of language, explaining how language works. However, there are many words for which we cannot form a picture, and this presents a significant struggle, especially with concepts like God. How can you form a picture of God? In his 'Tractatus', he stated, 'Of that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent.' This suggests that some of the most important things, like God, cannot be discussed because there are no words that fit a picture of God. This highlights the limits of language, which is why people often use metaphors when talking about God.

Another problem with this theory, as he recognised, is that every language is a social construct. The meaning of words depends on how they function within that language. For instance, if you look at a white animal with wool on four legs, a French person would call it 'mouton', while in English, we refer to it as 'sheep'. You might think 'mouton' and 'sheep' mean the same thing, but the word 'mouton' also refers to the meat served on a plate, whereas in English, when the sheep is killed and prepared, it is called 'mutton'. This illustrates the differences in meaning across languages. Therefore, achieving a perfect translation is impossible; words mean different things in different languages. While there is some overlap, a perfect translation cannot exist. Each language acts as a prism through which we perceive the world, reflecting the social relationships between people who speak that language and the culture they belong to.

The language we use shapes the world as we see and understand it. It structures our relationships with others who speak different languages. In this sense, every language represents a unique wisdom, offering a different way of perceiving the world. If you speak more than one language fluently, you may find that you can express certain ideas in one language but struggle to find the words in another. This is simply the nature of reality. Some people believe we need a single common language, leading to attempts to create languages like Esperanto. However, the vocabulary of any constructed language is limited compared to the vast lexicon of natural languages. Thus, there is no basic correspondence between languages, and no perfect language exists except for mathematics. Mathematics seems to fit perfectly onto the world, allowing mathematicians to explore abstract concepts that later find relevance in scientific discoveries.

The idea that words and signs are arbitrary social conventions dates back to the Greeks. There is no inherent meaning between a particular word and the object it represents; rather, meaning is derived from social context. This leads to the impossibility of expressing truth in an absolute way, except through mathematics. Scientists worldwide can communicate effectively because they express their findings in the universal language of mathematics. However, since all languages are social constructs, they are inherently relative, meaning there is no absolute or perfect language. Even if a truth exists, there is no way to express it absolutely due to the limitations of language. This is simply the reality of how language relates to the world.

Wittgenstein later abandoned his first theory in the 'Tractatus' and proposed an alternative: the meaning of a word is determined by its use in language. The meanings of words are decided by their context, which is evident when reading a passage. For example, the word 'water' can be an exclamation, a command, or a request, depending on how it is used. This illustrates that the same word can have different meanings based on context. Wittgenstein rejected the idea that every word has an inherent meaning, which aligns with a Platonic view of language. He introduced the concept of 'language games', suggesting that even within the same language, different social groups may use language uniquely. When you encounter a new group, you may need to adapt your understanding of language to participate in their conversations.

This idea relates to the coherence theory of truth, where the truth of any proposition consists in its coherence with a specified set of propositions. A classical example is geometry, where basic axioms allow us to determine if a statement can be justified within a realm of other propositions. Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist, studied language and argued that it is not things but our conceptions of things that are part of our language. He suggested that words evoke concepts in our minds, with each word having two aspects: the acoustic image (how it is pronounced) and the signified (the concept itself). Each unit of language derives its value or meaning from what it is not, highlighting the importance of binary oppositions in understanding language.

Binary opposition is a fundamental concept in structuralism, which sees such distinctions as essential to all language and thought. Saussure's work influenced European philosophy and culture, establishing binary opposition as a means by which language units gain value. For instance, one cannot conceive of 'good' without understanding 'evil'. While binary oppositions are not contradictory, they are complementary, and this concept has shaped much of modern thought. However, post-structuralism emerged as a response, arguing that binary oppositions privilege one term over another. This perspective, influenced by Derrida, suggests that language is a social construct, and words have no fixed intrinsic meanings. The relationship between language and the world is not transparent or self-evident, leading to questions about how language corresponds to reality.

Post-structuralist feminists argue that language has been used to create binary constructs, such as male-female, to maintain the power of dominant groups. These binaries are seen as artificial constructs that justify oppressive societal structures. This brings us to the notion of power in language, reminiscent of Lewis Carroll's 'Alice Through the Looking Glass', where Humpty Dumpty states that a word means exactly what he chooses it to mean. This highlights the arbitrary nature of language and the struggle over who owns words and their meanings. In the context of cultural wars, the question arises: who has the power to shape language and determine its meanings?

Particular words, if they're just arbitrary, create a huge struggle. This was foreseen by someone called George Orwell, who noted the corruption of language. It's essential to address this issue, as it has significant implications for communication and understanding.

I hope we can all gain something valuable from our discussions today. There is a lot to digest, and I encourage everyone to keep reflecting on these words. It's important to engage with these ideas thoughtfully and consider their relevance in our lives.

Thank you once again for this opportunity to share and learn together. I appreciate everyone's participation and look forward to our continued exploration of these themes in future sessions.