Divine Logic 101

Western Civilization as a whole is antithetical to divine logic.
Every civilization stands on a unique intellectual heritage, a range of assumptions about reality. Gather together all the various ancient civilizations which have ever stood, and they would range broadly in their differences regarding assumptions about reality. Yet in the widest spread of their differences, they are all much closer together as a whole than any of them are to Western Civilization.
It’s not as if there is no overlap, no common ground by which we can find similar traits here and there between Western and other civilizations. Most of the others would understand elements of the West without difficulty, but the West seems utterly incapable of grasping much from any of the others. The West stands uniquely stupid and truculent toward all others, with a singular arrogance not found in any other place in human history. Yes, we can find arrogance in other cultures and civilizations, but it’s much easier to condemn it from within those cultures than condemning it in the West from a Western stance. And outsiders need not apply.
This arrogance is the very foundation of what we now call the West. So fundamental it is, almost all Westerners deny this arrogance exists, an arrogance which is painfully obvious to all other civilizations in the world. Swaggering is a virtue in the West; humility is virtually incomprehensible. Lip service we have aplenty, but even in our lip service to humility we arrogantly dismiss vast areas included in the concept. There is a sense in which you have to divorce yourself from the West to practice any humility.
It’s a particular struggle for those spiritually reborn. Their minds are typically still stuck in the West while their spirits cannot possibly be comfortable there. The West itself has no categories for dealing with genuinely spiritual matters; the epistemology of the West denies the existence of the Spirit Realm. This is why mainstream Christians are so uniformly un-Christlike in too many ways. There is a sense in which the West is wholly responsible for the Crucifixion in the first place. His execution came as a collusion between Rome and the Hellenized Jews alienated from their ancient Hebrew intellectual assumptions. Christ’s call to return to the ancient ways was a threat to the system.
God created an intellectual foundation, building a nation around it, as the single most suitable means for revelation. Only an arrogant Western mind can reject the difference between Western and Ancient Hebrew mentality. Only an arrogant Western mind insists the Western is the best and only proper way to look at reality, and indeed, attempts to force the Hebrew revelation to serve its peculiarities. The simple attempt to explain the difference is a major task, but I’ll try.
The West is deeply in love with stasis, while Hebrew loves life.
Consider Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, his attempt to explain the nature of reality. Most people will suffer some measure of delusion, but in theory at least, reality is within the grasp of human reason. Within a consensus of those who share this fundamental assumption, we as humans can establish a basis for discovering the nature of reality, and every part of it. This whole thing assumes reality — ultimate truth — is abstract and static. Our grasp of it may drift in and out of accuracy, but the nature of reality itself is immutable. Human knowledge of reality consists of those knowing those elements of everything and anything which are in the nature of the thing, the core of its being. We examine the doing of the elements of our world so we can use our reason to discern the being of things. We list its characteristics such that the terms do not have any fungible meanings. The issue is defining things, a word which implies establishing the boundaries, of knowing when something we see is not characteristic of the idea, but perhaps only of this particular instance of that idea.
The ultimate character of an idea is what all the instances share when they die, when they lose their living character, their uniqueness.
This is directly opposed to Hebrew assumptions about reality. That is, Hebrew thought assumes you cannot possibly know the essence of anything, nor should you care too much about that. You can know whatever it is necessary for you to interact with it, but whatever Plato meant by the idea of “reality” refers to something Hebrew minds considered inherently fungible. Indeed, they would say a Westerner deceives himself in believing he sees a static reality reflected in certain experiences of the world, only because the Westerner filters out anything indicating the contrary.
Westerners grasp how it is the nature of living things to change, to be a moving target. When it comes to humans, the complexity means a vast lore of scientific understanding is required to begin addressing human nature. While it is typically not a conscious assumption, Westerners assume it is possible to eventually discover the last variable of human nature, at least in theory. Hebrew minds dismiss the importance of even trying. That is, whatever you really need to know about humans for the sake of optimal functioning in this world, most of it is already revealed from Heaven.
Need I point out yet again Aristotle consciously rejected all revelation as having any relevance in human knowledge?
Here’s an example. Westerners understand allegory. That’s using symbols to explain something so that it’s easier to memorize and understand. The symbols are always equal to something else. In Western literature, symbols are fairly static. They may drift over time, but the whole thing can be traced and the meaning of any given allegory is always fairly precise.
Parables make no sense at all to Westerners. Hebrew symbolism makes each symbol a living thing. Every symbol is as complex as any human.
As Westerners we should have no trouble understanding how each of us may well have a character, an essence of our individual nature and personality. Something about us defines what we are as persons. While everyone we encounter can know something about us, our character is in their minds limited to what they have seen of us. Most people see only a glimpse of one or two facets. A precious few see more facets and more of each facet. Yet, even we seldom really know our own character, in that somewhere tomorrow we will encounter something which will reveal an aspect we didn’t know about ourselves. Something will elicit a response we don’t expect, because it’s an experience we didn’t already have. Complicating things further is how we are each a moving target, and today’s response will not be the same tomorrow, even if all things we can perceive are exactly the same.
In Hebrew literature, parabolic symbols are just like that. They live, and take different roles in different contexts. A seed plays one role in this parable, but symbolizes something different in another parable. Even if we can fully explain the meaning from parable to parable, the whole intent of parables is to allow each person hearing it to receive something different, something unique.
This drives Westerners mad. Reality isn’t supposed to be like that. We should be able, in theory at least, to come to a consensus about what a thing is and what it means, and not have to worry about it being something else in another context.
To the Hebrew mind, that sort of thing is arrogance, a petulant demand reality conform to some arbitrary definition. It’s as if the Western mind demands control, even ownership, over things it cannot possibly grasp.
Western logic asserts anything we can’t theoretically grasp does not exist. Divine Logic denies anything we experience on this plane, anything our minds can possibly understand, even in theory, is of any great importance. The Bible is written from Hebrew logic, which strives to mimic Divine Logic.