Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content Count

    29,709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mfbukowski

  1. No, in fact it makes an abomination of LDS doctrine The whole point of temple worship is to allow those who did not progress here to do so, with more information at their disposal. Waking up alive after dying has got to be a great motivation for repentance
  2. Great stuff! The kingdom of God is within, and not of this world! And all we know verbally about the world is The Word. That's why everything was created by The Word. And then came Babel! Pure spiritual communication was lost- ie: direct non verbal experience and then language was "confounded" and here we are with confounded language messing everything up!
  3. Well thanks I think. But I have taken a covenant of obedience and I value that highly. Nevertheless I do not feel it holds me back at all, but is a source of strength. At least it gives me a LITTLE humility.
  4. That is the key to it all- and what is debated. I can't believe that some don't just instantly SEE that, but it has been a huge source of confusion in philosophy. In fact this is where, in my opinion, Rorty gets it totally wrong and this is the major flaw in his philosophy and why he finally ends up being an atheist and collectivist. There are no individuals, just robots. And I will say this as well, though it is a technical point. The Ironist - one who overcomes their lingusitic programming and becomes a "strong poet" - is a contradiction because on must be both contingent and non-contingent at the same time. Contradiction. That's for the Rorty fans out there as if one will ever read it. If there is room for non-verbal communication through direct experience, then the Spirit can exist. The experience before the story is the vehicle of personal revelation, to me. Crucial! If there is no room for non-verbal communication through direct experience, there can be no spiritual experience. That's what I think anyway.
  5. So if you are uncertain about uncertainty, you might be open to certainty. Interesting.
  6. And true Monotheism. The person I know is Logos.
  7. Good. Then I am on the perfect Mormon road- creating a world from matter unorganized and following the spirit. Sort of. Honestly. THAT is what it is to be LDS.
  8. I don't have much time at the moment, but I will try. The paradigms one seeks in science INCLUDE in the requirement that the experience generated can be replicated, and predict other experiences and the ones you listed. Those MUST be in the paradigm for it to work for its purpose. Just like a hammer has to have a handle, and a head that has a certain shape to it, the "best" hammer for the job must have certain characteristics. Have you ever gone into a good tool store and seen all the different types of hammers there are? I was positively dumbfounded! Yet each one is the best for the job for which it was designed. What is the paradigm for the best butter? Yes- butter! I wanted to get as far away from hammers as I could. What recipe gives the best tasting butter? In both cases, one has a definition in mind of what is "best" based on the purpose of the product. Hammers have to fit where they need to fit, have shapes they need to have to hammer whatever it is they are used for. The paradigm for the best butter is entirely different. Again there are all kinds of butters as well, each the best for some purpose or other. None of the best paradigms for types of butters have the characteristics of what is needed for hammers. No best butters have handles, nor heads, or precisely machined parts. On the other hand I am sure all the best butters must be spreadable, have certain fat content, etc. What are the characteristics for the best paradigm for finding peace and meaning in your life? Do the experiences have to be replicable? No- that is important in science but in finding your meaning in life it can come in one flash! It depends on your personal needs! If you are a fearful person, what will bring you peace is security. Perhaps you should become a monk. If you are brave, perhaps you won't feel peace unless you are helping others- like perhaps being a police officer or fireman, or in the military. For some it is a good explanation of God and the afterlife that brings them peace and security. Since neither of those is based empirically- we cannot see God or the afterlife by definition- then the requirements of being empirically correct becomes irrelevant! Hope that helps, we can get into it more later if you like.
  9. Wow great discussion- I had no ideas others did the same thing. I love it!!
  10. I see arguments as flow charts and diagrams and look for literal "holes" in the chart- which are holes in the argument, or dead ends where the writer may not have seen them. When I see the hole I then have to go back and find the words that define the error. I see a theory as a kind of woven cloth and sometimes I can see the hole in the cloth before I find the words that are contradictory and create the "hole"
  11. Agree! What I find interesting is that what William James calls "experience" is a verbal, recollected account of something that happened to you. So that already makes it an interpretation. On the other hand there is what I call "reality" which is what is happening WHILE it is happening. So driving through the mountains you go up over a rise and suddenly you are awe struck by gorgeous awe-inspiring vista of a valley, perhaps overlooking a town, green valley, snow on the mountains, puffy clouds- and taking it in it is a pre-verbal reaction- perhaps all you can say at that moment is "Wow". Why is something like that "awe-inspiring"? What is it inside us that says "Wow" or counts such an event as "beautiful"? What does that moment have in common with looking at a "beautiful" painting, or house, or human being, or a beautiful symphony? Yet we use the same word for all these experiences when we verbalize them. At first we are just "smitten" and then we characterize the experience. This becomes an important philosophical point. I think the difference between "raw experience" or as Rorty called them - "raw feels" is important because many suggest that our minds are programmed by language- this idea is that of "the contingency of language". In fact Rorty did not believe that raw feels existed. That means that within us, we are all programmed by language and are a bit like cultural robots. Perhaps your way of putting it would be that it is "ALL shared" But I disagree with that- and agree with you that it is NOT all shared at all. Each of us has our own unique interpretation and characterization of what is happening around us. But that first impression as it is happening before the words come- to me, is "raw reality". Yes it is created by our senses, but it is the only reality we can feel for that reason. So when people try to differentiate between "what we saw" and "what really happened" there can BE no such differentiation! This became a big deal to the existentialists because essentially- believing that all our reactions are shared means we are all hopeless robots, God is dead, and even "Man" is dead because there are no real humans with agency. We are not subjects, we are programmed completely by society. https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/michel-foucault-on-the-death-of-man So by my logic, in order to have agency then we need to NOT be completely programmed by language- and that moment of non-linguistic raw experience as it is happening- coming up the hill and seeing the view and literally "having no words to describe it" becomes CRUCIAL eventually in this idea of agency! And just to finish this idea out- a woman named Chantal Bax, who I have mentioned before, has come up with a book which essentially says exactly what you say here- this is your way of saying it, not hers: For a bit more on her book see here: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/subjectivity-after-wittgenstein-9781441127327/
  12. They are certainly "real experiences" just like pain from an amputated limb is "real pain"! Dreams are real experiences and can change our lives! So what's the difference?
  13. Just watch the video. The whole point is the relationship between hallucinations and "reality" and how it can be hard to define one from the other. Why not watch it?? Why speculate what it says? Just watch the dang thing!
  14. Clark Goble , who hangs out here as well, was kind enough to ask me to post on Times and Seasons this little article that seems relevant. What is the difference between a vision and a hallucination and seeing anything "real"? There is a neuroscientist mentioned in the article who says we "hallucinate reality" ! We do not see what is "real" if what is "real" is what physicists say reality is- quarks and subatomic particles, but what we actually see are light waves bouncing off of---- what? Compounds and elements? What IS reality and why do we see what we see as "real"? https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/index.html
  15. Well since I love Perry, and those books, I am sure glad I don't belong to any organizations which fit your description, especially not my church! I embraced uncertainty 50 years ago in my Buddhist phase, good stuff! I still meditate daily, mindfully now So are you still uncertain about your present course?
  16. My great grandmother was like that as well, my mom somewhat, and I have had premonitions that are very spooky.. I once woke up in the night in a panic and had to call my (then) girlfriend who was on a road trip. The car she was riding in had just had an accident- no serious injuries but car was totaled. I have also had dreams.... and a few religious experiences which have changed my life significantly The reason we do not talk about such things is that they will be scoffed upon, we say because they are "sacred" but only sacred because they are very personal and not for public consumption. They are sacred in the same way I think that one's intimate relationship with one's spouse is "sacred"- they are just deeply deeply personal things that should not be bandied about.
  17. I came across an excellent account of some of these issues in- of all places- the online Encyclopedia Britannica It is extremely well written and is probably the best quick summary I have ever seen of the nature of religious experience as described by William James- who is after all the source of much of Pragmatism. Rorty and Dewey both were HIGHLY influenced by James- and Kuhn and Polanyi as well. Polanyi was a well known disciple of Pragmatism on his own. Because I now know you are now pretty well versed in these matters, I want to show you I am not making this stuff up- this is not JUST Weirdo Bukowski's Matrix. I will underline a portion below- This is first from Wikipedia, then we will get to the James article. Since you know who Kuhn is and his impact, hopefully this will help you put it all together to understand what I have actually been studying and thinking about for like 50 years. Yes I am that old! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#Polanyi–Kuhn_debate And now for James. Of course James was not making this stuff up either- it evolved through Hume and Kant's discussions first in the 16 and 17 hundreds, went through Hegel and yes, Marx and Engels, and then evolving through Peirce and then to James, then modified by Dewey and Rorty. I have never related the history before because I think that is of secondary importance to the ideas. But it has its place. The point is, I ain't makin it up. In this article's context, your view would be the "classical conception". I will highlight some points here as well https://www.britannica.com/topic/religious-experience#ref421288 And so then this notion that "truth" is a property of sentences evolves- the view expressed in the Rorty quote in my siggy. That's why its there. Anything anyone thinks must be communicated in text - or math = text, PERIOD. If we are talking there are only words, not chunks of the world and therefore it is all peer review, religious or otherwise. So DUDE you ain't fightin' wit just me, you fightin' wit all them guys too!!
  18. As a long time temple worker, I have heard many many such stories, and I believe them. Some recent ones were related to us in our preparation meeting for temple workers last week, by one of the temple presidency - the experiences happened a week before. It is common place for people to come and tell the temple presidency when they have had such experiences. I am sure sometimes people make them up, but there are so many it is hard to think they are all made up. And why go to the temple president with a made up story? I have known one member of the presidency for 30 years, been to his house, know his family, worked with him in the ward etc and trust him totally But this is what a famous philosopher said about such phenomena. I know you are interested in this sort of thing- this is a little technical, but I will post it anyway. There was a very famous and influential philosopher named William James who had these opinions. There is an excellent summary of William James' view of religious experience in the Encyclopedia Britannica and how such experiences are fully "real". I am going to post it in one other thread as well today. It starts our speaking about regular daily "experience"- just walking around, observing events that you remember etc, perhaps an "experience" might be recounting a story or conversation you had recently. Were such events "just in your head" or were they "real"? This is the way James would answer the question: https://www.britannica.com/topic/religious-experience#ref421288
  19. Vots vitch choo? You now a Canadian or sumptin? I never wear a mac in the pouring rain... very strange!
  20. In a physical sense? I am not sure what this means frankly! First of all Jesus would beat him up and tell him to get out of his house. But then of course we bring in the influence of the adversary all by ourselves. He might not be there but we are as his messengers. Romans 7:
  21. The dedication prayers are often published, I don't know, perhaps all are
×
×
  • Create New...