Guiding Thought

Love is Wholeness. The essence of Love is Peace. The essence of Wholeness is Unity. My essence is Love, therefore, my essence is Peace; my essence is Unity. Since my essence is Unity, I share Love and Peace wholly. Knowing the Unity of Whole Love and Peace with All is the essence of holiness. I choose to be aware, to understand and to Know my Whole and Holy Self, which is Love.

Reflection

I’ve been sitting here for almost an hour, trying to wrap my head around this Guiding Thought. I have not succeeded.

I want to understand it with logic, and it’s not working.

I’m not saying I don’t believe it. I’m not saying I don’t buy it. I’m not even saying that I don’t get it. I do, all these things–I believe it, I buy it, and I get it.

But it doesn’t make sense to me logically, and that bothers me. I know… since when is Love logical?

The logic that I have to offer from my hour of contemplating this Guiding Thought is this:

A first rule of logic is to set the premises. When setting the premises, the question that comes up is, “do I accept this as a premise”? When two people are arguing (in the logic-sense, not in the emotional sense), both parties must agree to accept the premises. The logic then flows from the agreed-upon premises.

Note: someone does not need to believe the premises in order to accept them for the sake of the argument. But, if you accept the premises, and the logic is solid, then you must also accept the conclusion (though you need not believe the conclusion).

Here is the Guiding Thought, as a logic puzzle.

The first four phrases are premises, that one must accept before continuing:

1. Love is Wholeness.
2. The essence of Love is Peace.
3. The essence of Wholeness is Unity.
4. My essence is Love.

Before I continue, ask yourself: Do I accept these as premises? Do I accept the idea that Love equals Wholeness? That the essence of Love equals Peace? that the essence of Wholeness equals Unity? Do I accept that my essence is Love?

I find no reason not to accept these as premises.

We then come to the first conclusion, derived from these premises:

therefore, my essence is Peace.

If you accept the premises, then you must accept (logically) this conclusion, because the essence of Love is Peace (premise 2), and your essence is Love (premise 4); by the transitive property (if a=b and b=c, then a=c), if the essence of Love is Peace and your essence is Love, then your essence is Peace.

Then comes the second conclusion

My essence is Unity.

If you accept the premises, then you must also accept this conclusion, because Love is Wholeness (premise 1) and the essence of Wholeness is Unity (premise 3), and your essence is Love (premise 4).

So far so good, but then here is where it gets sticky. The argument relies on a jump that has not been established by the premises.

Since my essence is Unity, I share Love and Peace wholly.

Even though I accept that my essence is Unity, I do not see the logic to the remaining assertions; I cannot see why that means I share Love and Peace wholly, or that Knowing the Unity of Whole Love and Peace with All is the essence of holiness.

I am not saying that I don’t believe it; I am not saying I am not willing to accept it for what it is. I am simply saying that these statements do not follow logically from the premises.

I can, however fully embrace the final sentence.

I choose to be aware, to understand and to Know my Whole and Holy Self, which is Love.

Because being aware, understanding, and Knowing are what this is all about. And the more I can do those things about my Self as Love–I’m all for that.