To "define" is to "establish authoritatively" (from Old French "defenir," "to finish, to conclude").
("Define" has the same root meaning as "finish": Latin "de," "complete," and "finis," "boundary, end.")
"Be" continues to import the same Old English "beon" and "bion" understanding/meaning, derived from their Proto-Germanic root "biju-", "I am, I will be" (cf "I Am Who I Am" of Moses' teaching). The notion or import of "being" as "continuity" continues back to the Proto-IndoEuropean root "bheue-", "to grow, to be growing."
Therefore, as innumerable ontologists have dis-covered, to "put God in a box" or the "I Am" of Being in a "concluded, boundaried" definition is literally a contradiction of terms. The most a godless existentialist may achieve vis a vis defining "existing" is the experience of meaningless or relatively meaningless Kantian 5-sense data flow, a "blooming confusion" as William James described our wonderful natural world.
The point of an individual's "defining" of the infinite is her acceptance, assimilation, re-cognition of, that which is Being: Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Spirit, Soul. Inasmuch as the soul puts on her new self of Being in Being, she is becoming a permanent individualized Atom of the Being which is God--infinite Life, Love, Truth, Energy. Such knowing is soul-realization, rather than simply an accounting of atomic energy processes: the soul "looks along with the Light," rather than simply "at the light," as C. S. Lewis so clearly explained in his two-page essay "Meditation in a Tool Shed" https://www.calvin.edu/~pribeiro/DCM-Lewis-2009/Lewis/meditation-in-a-toolshed.pdf
Semi-related: "Nihilism: The Root of the Revolutionof the Modern Age" by Eugene Rose (brief, ~ 100 pages).
· 11 months ago