is there a God? An answer...part 1

[Dunamis]

Ucc,

“First of all, the passage you cite need not be interpreted as a treatise against reason, even when it pertains to religious matters. In fact, I’ve never heard it interpreted that way.”

But there are in Paul’s epistles several passages that are against rationality, at least in its philosophical manifestation of the “wise” [sophron] and the “debater” [suzetes], very probably in reference to Greek thinkers.

“For it is written, “I will destroy the wisedom of the wise, and thwart the cleverness of the clever.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” Cor. I 1.17-29

“Knowledge [gnosis] will disappear” Cor. I.13.8

“He who thinks he knows something [egnokenai ti], does not yet know as he ought to know”. Cor. I.8.2

In fact Paul places his discourse rather clearly between that of Judaic Legalism and Hellenic rationality. Paul speaks “without the wisdom of language” [ouk en sophiai logou].

“you don’t really have any other tools in your toolbox. If rationality is inadequate, irrationality can only be worse.”

And what are the grounds of this “rationality”? Rationality cannot ground itself. I am not in favor of intentionally opaque speaking, as if in its very obscurity it is automatically communicating a greater truth, but one must also mark out the limits of rationality itself, and pursue the manner in which rationality presents itself as meaningful. Irrationality is not “worse”, but in fact at times necessary for the growth in the internal coherence of a system of thinking.

Dunamis

[Uccisore]

But there are in Paul’s epistles several passages that are against rationality, at least in its philosophical manifestation of the “wise” [sophron] and the “debater” [suzetes], very probably in reference to Greek thinkers.

I agree with this kind of sentiment as long as it's [i]directed[/i] at something specific: Paul cannot be arguing against human rationality in it's purest form, because he goes on to try to [i]explain[/i] things, and explanation is rationality. Either he missed that rather obvious contradiction, or else he's addressing some particular of Hellenistic rationality- the sophistry, some underlying assumptions, things like that.  No doubt there are aspects of Christianity and God that are beyond human understanding, and require a letting go of what seems to be the case. 

And what are the grounds of this “rationality”? Rationality cannot ground itself.

This is true. Depending on what it is that's being thought about, rationality can be supported by memory, perception, probably some other faculties as well. I would argue that in philosophy, when we deal with intangible things like God and ethics and whatnot, those other falculties have limited application, but yes they are there.  But there's a difference between saying "Reason is one of several faculties that support each other" and saying "To reason (like a human) is to err," which is the impression I got from Nick_A.  To any situation in which it seems reason can be applied, it is right to apply it. 

I am not in favor of intentionally opaque speaking, as if in its very obscurity it is automatically communicating a greater truth,

  That is a big part of the problem I have with this.  Another aspect is to put human rationality up as an obstacle created a very pat way out of any critical examination- anything that contradicts one's own views can be claimed as a false fruit of 'human reason'.  Someone who takes this attitude may think they are appealing to something 'higher than reason', but what they are really appealing to is their own intuition and personal taste, and labeling other ideas as 'false reason' because other people's tastes differ. At the very least, rationality is the medium we have to use once we start [i]communicating[/i].

[Nick_A]

Uccisore

But there’s a difference between saying “Reason is one of several faculties that support each other” and saying “To reason (like a human) is to err,” which is the impression I got from Nick_A.

This is where we disagree. I’ve said many times that the power of reason is necessary and should be complimentary with emotion and sensation. Our problem is our lack of balance creating inner psychological conditions where we ask reason to provide what it cannot do by itself.

To any situation in which it seems reason can be applied, it is right to apply it.

To apply it and rely upon it in isolation to everything else is to err in the context of higher knowledge. Reason by itself when adding up your bills is fine. It is inadequate by itself in contemplating the existence of God.

The following is from the link on the “Sense of the Cosmos” thread. It is from part eight “Against the Literal Mind” Prof. Needleman explains my beliefs far better than I ever could:

At first point the comparison of the universe to a teaching can begin to help us. To be literal-minded about what is sacred means, first of all, to trust one’s first impressions, one’s first mental associations. The presumption in this is enormous. When I take things literally I am presuming to be so in contact with myself, so whole in my power of response that I can instantly receive what is being communicated. My subsequent thought may become quite intricate and sophisticated, as it often becomes among scientists and biblical scholars, but the fact remains that all my complex and ingenious interpretations are resting on one merely split second of very partial receptivity. Have I ever directly observed the way thought influences perception and the way emotional associations influence thought? Can I discriminate between the deeper and more shallow reception of an idea or an impression? If I do not know myself in this direct way then I do not know the instrument by which data from the world are received by men, and then what can I possibly know about the universe? Certainly this is part of the reason why meditation (or contemplation) understood as the work of directly studying one’s mind and feelings, was never separated from the study of nature in the ancient traditions.

There is nothing “mystical” about this. The literal mind is a mind out of contact with the whole human organism, a partial mind which trusts itself in its isolation from the very functions which make possible a fuller receptivity to reality. Quite as though I were in a laboratory equipped with numerous refined instruments, but chose instead to examine everything with a cheep pocket glass.

The literal mind is both wrongly active and wrongly passive, both violent and servile. By using the former word, I wish to say that it is a hasty mind, compelled by fear or craving to affirm its own habits and associations. Such a mind, which believes things are as the appear to it, is an aspect of what is known as the ego in the traditional teachings. This ego is constantly hunting for ways to affirm itself; to persuade the man that he is the ego.

A man may be the slave of the literal mind and yet be what the world calls a “poet.” But such a poet still weaves his symbols and interpretations around the perceptions of the literal mind. The sustained perception of objective meaning is, I believe, a very much rarer thing than we suppose. It requires a constant access to clear emotional intelligence, whereas much of what we call poetry is the imposition of subjective feelings upon a literal-minded perception of the world. Thus, both the universe and sacred writing are twisted by “interpretation,” whether literal or so called “metaphoric.” So I hope the reader will not take what I am saying about the literal mind of modern science to be an endorsement of the “poetic” approach to reality.

[Dunamis]

Ucc.,

I agree with this kind of sentiment as long as it’s directed at something specific

If you mean historically specific I do agree with this

Paul cannot be arguing against human rationality in it’s purest form,

Rationality does not exist in its purest form –however you imagine it-, but only in its historically specific manifestations. If there was a pure form, Paul would call this faith.

because he goes on to try to explain things, and explanation is rationality.

He does not explain things rationally, if by rationally you mean by making distinctions which are used to argue against other distinctions. Paul is arguing not through “rhetorical superiority” [huperokhe logou], which in the end is what “rationality” is. (The “suzetes” he claims to surpass are literally “co-questioners”, those that do what we are doing, questioning through debate). He is appealing to an irrational faith-certainty [pistis] and hope-expectation [elpis] and love [agape] which is universalizing, erasing distinctions, both the cultural distinctions of Jewish and Greek ethnicity, and the linguistic distinctions of Jewish Law and Greek philosophy, “the letter is death, the spirit life”.

Either he missed that rather obvious contradiction, or else he’s addressing some particular of Hellenistic rationality- the sophistry, some underlying assumptions, things like that.

To use language is not necessarily to be using rationality (as you narrowly appear to find it). Such narrow Rationality seems to require a propositional stance towards language, wherein states are objectivities being objectively described. Paul is arguing for a subjectivity of faith, and subjectivities extend beyond the limits of propositional description.

No doubt there are aspects of Christianity and God that are beyond human understanding, and require a letting go of what seems to be the case.

Paul is arguing for a universalized subjectivity that transcends categorization. It is not just a letting go, but an irrational embrace of the “truth” of the resurrection.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win the Jews; to those under the law, I became as one under the law – though not being myself under the law – that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law – not being without law towards God but under the law of Christ – that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men. Cor. I 9.19-22

The effacement of the difference, the very difference that is central to propositional rationality, is central to Paul’s militaristic campaign for subjectivities. As I said, I do not appreciate obscure talk just to make things sound spiritual, something some people retreat into. Paul is ever focused upon the moment at hand, the situation found within the church he is writing to at that moment in time, and the subjective consequences of conversion.

Depending on what it is that’s being thought about, rationality can be supported by memory, perception, probably some other faculties as well.

Rationality is always supported, in fact grounded in somatic states, and the emotional realm of feelings that organize those states. “Lexis” is always at first a “soma”. It begins and ends with the body.

“To reason (like a human) is to err,” which is the impression I got from Nick_A.

To reason is to describe, and there are many ways to describe. Reason can be a very effective one. I agree, by my taste Nick does retreat into the banal ineffable rather quickly. It is one thing to read the sages, but another to talk like them. The efficacy of such talk is not in the talk talked but the life lived really. There is a strange kind of earthly pragmatism to Paul’s unearthly understanding, a kind of activism that marks it not so much as a retreat. Each thing seems to be engaged at the level of its existence, only somehow to be effectively resolved in a higher order.

At the very least, rationality is the medium we have to use once we start communicating.

As I have expressed in other threads, rationality is the (somatic) experience of coherence, so in this way the consonant pairs of somatic experience are central to “communicating”. As long as we understand that the grounding of the rational is somatic, then the experience of communication becomes richer. Its just not abstractions passing in the ether to floating minds, but bodily states mirroring each other in some proximity, assembled into languaged forms. Perhaps in some way the rationality you seem to refer to may be more like the ladder we kick away after we have reached “understanding”, but your not really allowed to kick it away before you get there. I think we are on the same page on this.

Dunamis

[Uccisore]

If you mean historically specific I do agree with this

   What I mean is, 'Human reason will lead us astray' is far to general to be true. "Human reason" must refer to something more particular, such as "The prevailing wisdom of the day" or "common sense" or 'this or that particular philosophical model'.  I think it's tempting to refer to any of the above as 'reason' in general, especially when one is advocating a minority viewpoint.  I can't imagine Paul meant that no amount of thinking will ever make matters of faith more clear. I think it's clear that Paul believed (and I agree) that many matters of the Christian faith will seem like foolishness from the position of 'common sense'.  All this talk of people coming back from the dead and what not.  The fact of things like that being true certain makes fools of the wise folks of the time who would hold such things to be impossible. 

He does not explain things rationally, if by rationally you mean by making distinctions which are used to argue against other distinctions. Paul is arguing not through “rhetorical superiority” [huperokhe logou], which in the end is what “rationality” is.

As always, I have a lot to learn from you. It seems to me that any expression that is a ‘putting forward’ of an idea that the audience is supposed to believe must be making a distinction against some other position which is to be rejected, even if the other position is only implied. What do you say?

To use language is not necessarily to be using rationality (as you narrowly appear to find it).

Sure, I agree with this insofar as there are things like singing and poetry, and other sorts of communication that exist other than to express truths.

Rationality is always supported, in fact grounded in somatic states, and the emotional realm of feelings that organize those states.

What do you mean by ‘supported’ here? I think many would argue that we aren’t aware of our somatic states, so I’ll assume you don’t mean ‘supported’ in the sense of ‘internally justified’. It looks like most of the rest of what you say revolves around this idea, so I’ll wait before saying anything further.

[Dunamis]

Ucc.

I can’t imagine Paul meant that no amount of thinking will ever make matters of faith more clear.

It depends what you mean by thinking. What do you imagine that Paul means by “not to (argue) judgments of debate” [me eis diakriseis dialogismon] Romans 14.1? The Greek word for judgment, diakriseis literally means the “discernment of differences”, which is the heart of what “pure” rationality is supposedly about. What do you suppose it means to say that “knowledge [gnosis] will be made useless [katargethesetai]" Cor. I 13.10 I think fundamental to Paul is reaching a faith that cannot be reached either by the fulfillment (obedience) to the Law, the path of Judaism so conceived, nor by ratiocination, a wisdom before cosmic order, the path of Greek philosophy so conceived. I am unsure if any amount of thinking will get you to the place that Paul is attempting to take you. He is preaching an eruption, a break in the diachrony of the soul.

“For Christ sent me to baptize and evangelize, not with the wisdom [sophia] of speech [logou], lest the cross of Christ be made empty.” Cor. I 1.17

The “amount of thinking”, the sophia of language, actually in Paul “empties” the Cross.

It seems to me that any expression that is a ‘putting forward’ of an idea that the audience is supposed to believe must be making a distinction against some other position which is to be rejected, even if the other position is only implied. What do you say?

If the idea you are putting forward is the idea of absolving distinctions through a universalizing subjectivity, then I would say no, you are not drawing a distinction so as to argue with other distinctions. Most definitely you can describe Paul’s act as a distinction, but the description of his proposed subjectivity is only that, a description – and not reducible to that. The audience is not expected to believe it because of his argumentations, his reasons, his proof, but only because of his declaration. This is exactly the problem that Paul faced, the literal problem he faced, as he tried to proselytize to the Hellenic world. The Jews wanted him to provide legal justifications (or signs) for the messiah status of Christ, and in large he was unsuccessful among established Jews. Some Hellens wanted him to provide reasoned argumentation to convince them as well, and here he did fair well either –notice no church was established in Athens. Paul was armed only with the anomaly of the Resurrection. What he was preaching was a subjectivity, a radical break in history, both with cultural forms of legal distinction, and with reasoned and theoretical justification. Paul provides no reasons, but he does describe conditions. He is juxtaposing a new subjectivity to other subjectivities, particularly those under the Law. It was a revolution. Only later in Christianity was Christ connected with the Greek Logos, particularly with the prologue of the Gospel of John.

What do you mean by ‘supported’ here? I think many would argue that we aren’t aware of our somatic states, so I’ll assume you don’t mean ‘supported’ in the sense of ‘internally justified’.

We are not consciously aware of all our bodily states, but we greatly underestimate the power of the awareness that we do have. Feelings for instance are basically thoughts of theme about the body being in a particular state. If you imagine your girlfriend, your mother, your boss instantaneously the body itself is imagined, and often altered, to be in a particular state, a state that is far more elemental than any propositional descriptions we may make of it. Semi-conscious self-monitoring bodymaps are integral to human experience. The same is the case for reasoned argumentation which also is an experience. In the end what grounds ratiocination is the bodily experiences, the somatic states that accompany those thoughts. As Spinoza suggests, “All ideas are ideas about the body”. Rational argumentation is both internally justified in that the terms and concepts interrelate and support each other, but more so in that those mental states are somatically experienced –that is fundamentally and emotionally experienced- as stable.

Dunamis

[vortical]

@peesaw

GOD is existence, what all things share. GOD is what defines existence. God is everywhere, in all things. Just because you may no bet aware of the subtle connections which weave the fabric of being, doesnt mean that they are not there. These connections are the pantheon of powers through which GOD relegates all things. Angels or gods if you will, subtle thought forms/reasons/iteligences that integrate the network of existence.

Seing God is a choice, You have to look for GOD in everything, because thats where GOD is. Within us all, even those who choose not to see.

I saw “god” in the coulds when I was drunk in a parking lot with a homeless man. It was a nice moment when things seemed to be coming together.

[Nick_A]

Dunamis

He is appealing to an irrational faith-certainty [pistis] and hope-expectation [elpis] and love [agape] which is universalizing, erasing distinctions, both the cultural distinctions of Jewish and Greek ethnicity, and the linguistic distinctions of Jewish Law and Greek philosophy, “the letter is death, the spirit life”.

He is affirming the purpose of the Crucifixion: 1 Cor 1

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

You describe faith as irrational but don’t detail what kind of faith. For example, for me faith of consciousness is freedom while faith of emotion is slavery. I believe Paul is referring to faith of consciousness. I don’t know what you mean by faith. Stop retreating into banal obscurity.

Paul is arguing for a universalized subjectivity that transcends categorization. It is not just a letting go, but an irrational embrace of the “truth” of the resurrection.

There is nothing irrational about it.

There are two kinds of reason: inductive and deductive. Paul had the conscious experience of himself from the perspective of Jesus. He could reason deductively from this experience and from this perspective the Resurrection is completely rational.

Rationality is always supported, in fact grounded in somatic states, and the emotional realm of feelings that organize those states. “Lexis” is always at first a “soma”. It begins and ends with the body.

This is why our rationality is so limited. .We are not grounded in bodily states. Instead we live in emotional dreams or identified with a task. In both cases our rationality is based on only a small amount of what we are capable of.

Yoga for example tries to establish a connection between mind and body. This cannot help but aid to broaden our our rationality increasing our perspective.

Each thing seems to be engaged at the level of its existence, only somehow to be effectively resolved in a higher order.

This is natural for the conscious perception Paul became gifted with… It reconciles duality at a higher level.

As long as we understand that the grounding of the rational is somatic, then the experience of communication becomes richer.

This is true for sleeping humanity. But if the goal is awakening which is an aim of Christianity, relevant communication becomes possible when people are in similar states of “presence”.

[Dunamis]

Nick,

This is true for sleeping humanity.

It’s nice to be conversing with one of the awakened ones. I’ll be sure to take notes, (you too Uccisore, take notes).

Unfortunately, it seems to me that you have projected a little too much Krishnamurti onto Paul of Tarsus -granted yourself a touch of enlightenment- and are not paying attention to what he actually was saying in the context of when he said it.

Dunamis

[Nick_A]

Dunamis

It’s nice to be conversing with one of the awakened ones. I’ll be sure to take notes, (you too Uccisore, take notes).

I’ve been forunate to have an experience which allowed me to get an inkling of what men like Paul and Meister Eckhart have become aware of. Such experiences last for a short time and for a while after, sleep becomes deeper than before from trying to conceptualize.

I would be the last to say that I am one of the awakened ones. I’ve only smelled the coffee and had a taste.

[Dunamis]

Nick,

“I would be the last to say that I am one of the awakened ones.”

Perhaps it is doctrinal humility that prevents you from admitting it (how can an awakened one ever admit he is awakened). But two of us, Ucc. and I, directly perceive this air about your assertions -one of the awakened-, plus the curious “deductive reasoning”, as you call it, by which you present opinion unassailable by reason of any kind, other than that deduced from your “sniff and sip” glimpse of the Truth. If you smelled the coffee and had a sip, I suppose you didn’t notice that it might have been decaff.

Dunamis

[Uccisore]

BTW, Dunamis, I didn’t abandon the thread, It’s just bedtime here.

[Nick_A]

Dunamis

What can I tell you, I’m weird. I find real understanding in the following excerpt on deductive reason.

In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world, however, we do come up against a very real difficulty, which must be faced. This difficulty is connected with the problem of reconciling different ‘methods of knowing’.

Man has two ways of studying the universe. The first is by induction: he examines phenomena, classifies them, and attempts to infer laws and principles from them. This is the method generally used by science. The second is by deduction: having perceived or had revealed or discovered certain general laws and principles, he attempts to deduce the application of these laws in various studies and in life. This is the method generally used by religions… The first method begins with ‘facts’ and attempts to reach ‘laws’. The second method begins with ‘laws’ and attempts to reach ‘facts’.

These two methods belong to the working of different human functions. The first is the method of the ordinary logical mind, which is permanently available to us. the second derives from a potential function in man, which is ordinarily inactive for lack of nervous energy of sufficient intensity, and which we may call higher mental function This function on rare occasions of its operation, reveals to man laws in action, he sees the whole phenomenal world as the product of laws.

All true formulations of universal laws derive recently or remotely from the working of this higher function, somewhere and in some man. At the same time, for the application and understanding of the laws revealed in the long stretches of time and culture when such revelation is not available, man has to rely on the ordinary logical mind."

For one reason or another this inactive function can temporarily become active and one experiences real awe and humility.

There is this apparent eternal debate as to faith vs. works. If people could understand what meister Eckhart says in the following, then there wouldn’t be a debate. But it is not understood and cannot be without self knowledge from a higher perspective. It is verified through deductive reason. How else can one become open to appreciate their nothingness in the light of reality But this is the freedom Christianity offers and my interest in it. Mass egotism could never accept such ideas so it is no wonder to me why it is said that the world hates it.

(Quotations from Meister Eckhart)

(God) is not so much concerned with our works as with the spirit with which we perform them all and that we should love him in all things. They for whom God is not enough are greedy. The reward for all your works should be that they are known to God and that you seek God in them. Let this alwyas be enough for you. The more purely and simply you seek him, the more effectively all your works will atone for your sins. (p. 27)

When we find ourselves under pressure or constraint, it will be apparent that we are more worked than working, and so that we may learn to enter into a relationship of cooperation with our God. It is not that we should abandon, neglect or deny our inner self, but we should learn to work precisely in it, with in and from it in such a way that interiority turns into effective action and effective action leads back to interiority and we become used to acting without any compulsion. For we should concentrate on this inner prompting, and act from it, whether through reading or prayer or – if it is fitting – some form of external activity. Though if the external activity destroys the internal one, we should give priority to the latter. But if both are united as one, then that is best for cooperating with God. (p. 45)

In so far as it is something external that prompts you to act, to that extent your works are dead, and even if it is God who prompts you to act from outside, then such works too are dead. If your works are to be living works, then God must spur you to action from within, from your innermost part, if they really are to be alive. For that is where you own life is, and that is the sole place where you are truly alive. (p. 146)

The just person seeks nothing through their works, for those whose works are aimed at a particular end or who act with a particular Why in view, are servants and hirelings. If you with to be formed and transformed into justice then, do not intend anything particular by your works and do not embrace any particular Why, neither in time nor in eternity, neither reward nor blessedness, neither this nor that; such works in truth are dead. Indeed, even if you make God your goal, all the works you perform for his sake will be dead, and you will only spoil those works which are genuinely good. Not only will you spoil your good works, but you will also commit sins, for your will be behaving like a gardener who is supposed to plant a garden, but who pulls out all the trees instead and then demands his wages. That is how you will spoil your good works. And so, if you wish to live and wish your works to live too, then you must be dead to all things and be reduced to nothing. It is a property of creatures to make one thing from another, but it is a property of God to make something from nothing. And so if God is to make something of you or in you, then you must first yourself become nothingness. Enter your own inner ground therefore and act from there, and all your works shall be living works. That is why ‘the wise man’ says that ‘the just person lives in eternity’ since it is because they are just that such a person acts, and all their works are living works. (p. 145)

There has always been a psychology associated with this and probably under names similar to the significance of “Acornology.”

[Dunamis]

Nick,

“In our attempt to reconcile the inner and outer world”

If God is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere, there is no “inner” and “outer” world. There is no turning inward or turning outward.

Dunamis

[Nick_A]

Dunamis

What do you think Socrates meant by this quotation?

May the outward and inward man be at one.
–Socrates

What is the meaning of inside and outside as expressed in the Gospel of Thomas?

(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, “These infants being suckled are like those who enter the kingdom.”
They said to him, “Shall we then, as children, enter the kingdom?”
Jesus said to them, “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom.”

Everything may be within God and God within everything but this by definition does not suggest that we don’t have an inner life that interacts with external life even though both are within the Absolute.

[Dunamis]

Nick,

“an inner life that interacts with external life”

Only the sleepers see things this way.

Dunamis

p.s. The Gospel of Thomas isn’t in my view a gospel at all, but gnostic-like sayings having very little to do with the life of Christ.

[Nick_A]

Yes, this is so obvious that anyone can see it.

We’re going to have to go out drinking. If not that, then we’ll have to have a dual an hour after dawn. I cannot survive a dual at dawn because I cannot shoot straight before my morning coffee.

But right now, whatever the future may bring, I’m going to bed. Don’t even think of coming out with a sleep joke. Hopefully all this will make more sense in the morning.

[Uccisore]

As I read through 1 Corinthians 1, the first major theme I’m noticing is that Paul is writing to people that are in danger of revering (or even deifying) him.

1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1Cr 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

So it looks like he's addressing people who are replacing the revelation of Christ with their own theories and ideas on how things should be. That's how I see his reference to "emptying the Cross".  Paul isn't preaching from his own wisdom, if he were, there would be no point to the Cross. Christianity isn't a gift people gave to each other by figuring stuff out, in other words. 
Paul is in a situation where he is ministering to Jews and Greek.  The Jews want a miraculous sign of some sort, which he cannot provide.  The Greeks find the idea of a man rising from the dead with a message like Jesus's to be foolish. So, the reality of the crucifixion is all Paul has. 
But aren't we in the position of the Greeks, when we talk about a lot of theological matters? The existence of God, perhaps, cannot be decided by reason alone- that seems clear to me.  But there are manners of genuine conflict within all churches, and it seems reason is the tool for sorting them out. We can't expect a miracle to occur to explain every little conflicting notion that comes into our heads. 
  Who are today's Greeks? I would submit that they are most any non-Christian, and a good many Christians when they experience a crisis of faith. Certainly, a Christian who believes and goes to church all the time doesn't need rational discourse to tell them there is a God, that part of Paul's message is clear. 

Dunamis

The audience is not expected to believe it because of his argumentations, his reasons, his proof, but only because of his declaration.

 His audience in 1 Corinthians [i]already[/i] believes. I don't think we know much about the style he used to preach to the unbelievers, except for the passage about the Tribute to the Unknown God. 

Only later in Christianity was Christ connected with the Greek Logos, particularly with the prologue of the Gospel of John.

I think that once all the people who met Christ personally were dead, we had no choice but to 'connect Christ with the Logos' in an attempt to make sense of the event and to understand him.  

Do you have any reading you can suggest about the relation between experience and somatic states?

And I agree with you about the Gospel of Thomas. As far as I can tell, it was written around the 2nd Century or so, and I’m not interested in the religious thoughts of forgers from that period.

[Nick_A]

Uccisore

The existence of God, perhaps, cannot be decided by reason alone- that seems clear to me. But there are manners of genuine conflict within all churches, and it seems reason is the tool for sorting them out. We can’t expect a miracle to occur to explain every little conflicting notion that comes into our heads.

Actually it is presence before reason. In the state of presence, reason will reflect the greater truth. In the words of Father Sylvan:

We must occupy the body of the old Christianity, the mortal body of the immortal truth. Criticism is not the point. Presence is the point, awareness of the gap separating the ideas and the actual situation. Moments of such presence are not enough, not nearly enough. In fact, such moments when one confronts the separation between what ought to be and what is are in themselves a great danger because if one does not value these moments rightly, the impulse to correct things takes over and one immediately and unconsciously loses contact with the helping force of the Holy Spirit…

One must be in the right inner state to test the spirits as John advises in 1 John 4:

1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

As far as the Gospel of Thomas, dating it is not so easy.

cresourcei.org/thomas.html

There are various opinions about the date of the writing. The manuscript itself dates to about the fourth century AD. However, some scholars place the actual date of composition of Thomas somewhere between AD 70 and 150, which would make it nearly contemporary with the canonical Gospels. In this case, the sayings of Jesus could be from the same tradition that was used to compile the Gospels. Because of the close relationship between the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) many New Testament scholars have posited some common sources for the materials that are shared among the gospels (see The Synoptic Problem). If accurate, this suggests that there was a Jesus tradition in either oral or written form, or perhaps both, that circulated among followers of Jesus before the Gospels were actually written in the last half of the first century

[Dunamis]

Ucc.

So it looks like he’s addressing people who are replacing the revelation of Christ with their own theories and ideas on how things should be. That’s how I see his reference to “emptying the Cross”.

How is “replacing the revelation of Christ with their own theories and ideas” not commensurate with the “any amount of thinking” you imagine that would clarify faith?

But there are manners of genuine conflict within all churches, and it seems reason is the tool for sorting them out.

Actually not. If following Paul, it is reason and the distinctions that reason creates that produces “genuine conflict”. Again and again he crusades against ecumenical divisions, whether they be questions of circumcision, or works, or dietary differences. All of these are resolved not by reason for Paul, but dis-solved by Love.

Who are today’s Greeks?

We are all the Greeks to the extent that we attempt to grasp and guarantee “faith” through analytical support; and we are all Jews to the degree that we live and understand morality by the Law. The philosopher and the scribe are tendencies in all of us.

His audience in 1 Corinthians already believes.

I do not believe I was referring to the church at Corinth, but to the audience of the Hellenize world in general. I am drawing the distinction of the Greek and the Jew from Paul’s writing and extrapolating a generality to his project. He is forging a middle ground between the reasoned account and the legal account. Secondly, I think for Paul the process of perseverance and belief is a continual one, a reinvestment moment by moment, and not a defined moment in time. Telling is his advice to those who already believe:

“And therefore since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our afflictions, because we know that affliction works to bring forth perseverance; perseverance proof, and proof, hope; and hope does not disappoint.” Romans 5:2-5

Having believed, there is no rationalization, no reasoned confirmation, other than the proof [dokime, proof by testing] that leads to expectation. Faith is a perpetual striving, an overcoming, as if a revolution made permanent. The endurance creates the proof of its own “truth”. Only the expansion, the universalization of the Love itself keeps faith from its own circularity.

Do you have any reading you can suggest about the relation between experience and somatic states?

I take the generality of this thought from Spinoza, who attempted to overcome the imposed duality of the flesh and spirit. His writings are at first blush rather sterile, but once you master the themes it becomes extremely rich. His Ethics is his masterwork. But there is a very good book written by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, Looking for Spinoza, in which Spinoza’s concept that all ideas are ideas of the body is explored from the perspective of recent neurological discovery. Damasio maps out a general explanation of human feeling and their grounding in the hierarchies of experience of bodily states, from the most primitive to the most abstract. He uses Spinoza as a jumping off point for the most part. It is in easy prose and only a bit repetitive. I am following Damasio’s lead on this, married to my own study of Spinoza which has gone in other directions.

And I agree with you about the Gospel of Thomas. As far as I can tell, it was written around the 2nd Century or so, and I’m not interested in the religious thoughts of forgers from that period.

I actually am interested in thoughts from that period, Valentinus et al. I find them rather fruitful, but I don’t really appreciate the recent trend to attribute to them the idea that they are the “true” gospel, the undiscovered core of the spirituality of Christ. For me, they reflect more the evolution of Christian thought at that particular time in history, and that historical/spiritual truth, a small part of the heritage of an enormous plentitude of thinking.

Dunamis