Discordant Pathos, Established Logos

Betsy Calabaza
3 min readAug 19, 2020

It seems the world today has the worst of religion and none of the good.

We first start with the Word of God. We then consider that the Word of God is God.

The Word is an emulsifier connecting Pathos and Logos. Pathos is Logos but Logos is not Pathos. If Pathos is Logos why does it need to be emulsified together?

Pathos is distinct. As you’re reading this, you’re emulsifying Pathos and Logos into Understanding. As you build Understanding, Understanding becomes like a mirror. You see what came before Pathos and Logos was emulsified. You just see Logos.

Why do you only see Logos when you look back? Because the Pathos is the active emulsifying agent present in the building of the mirror but absent everywhere else. Pathos could considered as your distinct self. Nature as a calculator ran various scenarios and determined that for its own needs, its own Logos, the particular Pathos reading this was valid. And thus the Pathos reading this reaches this conclusion; I am valid for wherever the fuck I may be. Did humans have a choice in naming this place Earth? Do we have a choice in continuing calling it Earth?

Even though you’re made up of Logos and Pathos, Logos is neutral and blind. Some people feel like Logos is godlike and that we should suppress our Pathos in order to be blind. Being blind in this case means allowing Logos to rule over you and to regard your own Pathos as a sickness unto itself.

This turning against your own Pathos is possible but it shuts down the source for creativity from the established Logos. Rebelling against Logos, either in total disregard or only partial manipulation, is a equally valid for Logos. Logos is unaffected. Your own Pathos, however, extends itself in the rebellion and your Pathos stops merely emulsifying words but it becomes words. To emulsify words themselves with meaning, context, relationship is creativity. Embedded by the Pathos that wants to be heard. May want a conversation or interchange of words with God. How do you have a conversation with God? The words you operate with change based on the dialectic with the Word. Remember, the Word is not just Logos. It’s God’s emulsification of Logos and Pathos.

How is your word and the Word distinct enough that you can even have a conversation with the ultimate power giving you life?

For the individual, Pathos is complete context. You know that there’s a lot of happening in the universe that you have no part in and have no understanding of. If you were to have an understanding, however, you would claim it when you can account for yourself within the understanding. What does it mean for the Pathos to validate its own existence within its own context? Especially context pressurized into existence by Logos. One route is to accept its own understanding and make peace with Logos the best they can. The other route is to create understanding.

Logos always seems enticing. It seems obvious and true. It’s smooth. It’s rhythmic. It’s seducing. The only and main reason we would take the creative route of understanding and not treat Logos as dogmatic is morality. If you just can’t take being reasonable and accepting of having no outlet but to listen to the repetitive Logos over and over again, you can create discordant vibrations by inducing Pathos into over emulsifying.



Betsy Calabaza

blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce