Has anyone looked into the agreed to definition of "edify"?

If one does not look into such spiritual matter as LOGOS (thoughts in word) is this spiritually un -intelligent, or un-wise?

No wonder church inner Circes are not very edifying to those outside that can't see the power of emotional intellect as spiritual components of mental outcasts ... stray thoughts ...

Thus the whole underlying conception drifts by us ... as lesser in value that competion to be a bull higher on the pole ... you can see it going!

Let the roasting begin from the underlying heat that mol loch didn't see coming ... from a people from who the spirit of cultivating that land was eliminated as beating the land became more fervant as getting the best on nature ... spiritially destructive misbehaviour if you ask me about that wee bit of rational departure ... that 'd be irrational action when you see it from threshold position ... once called dagon ... and you know how poweful people feel about the fringe groups that admire parts from both the intelligent and emotional sides as the desire to know ... or just plain philosophy.

I was also taught in church that philosophy was bad ... interfered with rigid faith allowing change to everything of mental conservation (fixation). later I learned about philosophy as love of wisdom ... and thus I became distasteful to the pious and was disallwed to say anything sensible to there tastes ... leading to mythogic expression ... it is far reaching ... I moven on into even more alien things that I couldn't dercribe to those without appropriate LOGOS ... the spirit of word ...

Isn't that self-edifying if you note that S(elf) is a lrger integral existence than you can imaginae from 'ere & now ... thus allowing some by pas in of presence grip ... of fears of things beyond ... mythical chimeri things that may be just reflection coming back atcha ... well represented in the Cyrillic "khe" as an anagram ... cloes analogies?

Are analogies chaos to those taught not to study  myth and myrrh d'ere ...