Jump to content
cdowis

Another Crazy Thread From Cdowis

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not really.  Some paradigms are better than others for the purpose of making us the best humans we can become etc- you pick the purpose.

I think the notion of trying to be like God is about the best paradigm humans can have to make them better humans by imitating Christ  I suppose others might disagree with that if they have other goals.  Since God is defined as being perfect one would think that being a perfect human would be a perfect paradigm.

And that is precisely what the Mormon paradigm for what God is is a perfected, literal human.

I am not here to please most Mormons- I am here to hone paradigms and find the best for me. 

While it certainly makes sense that some paradigms are better than others, we’ve agreed that this sphere of religious truth is squarely relative and subjective, so you can’t also claim that Mormonism is objectively better than other paradigms.  

You like the theology around trying to become like God.  Some other person likes  the idea of infinite reincarnations.  I like Michelangelo’s David, another person likes a work by Jackson Pollock.  It’s all subjective, no theology is measurably better than another.  Who’s to say.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

While it certainly makes sense that some paradigms are better than others, we’ve agreed that this sphere of religious truth is squarely relative and subjective, so you can’t also claim that Mormonism is objectively better than other paradigms.  

You like the theology around trying to become like God.  Some other person likes  the idea of infinite reincarnations.  I like Michelangelo’s David, another person likes a work by Jackson Pollock.  It’s all subjective, no theology is measurably better than another.  Who’s to say.  

As usual I never said that.

Show me exactly where I said it was "objectively better"?

The whole notion is absurd. 

"Objectively better" is actually a contradiction in terms.  Better by definition is in the eye of the beholder

Yet contextually there is wide spread agreement about what is "good" in general terms.  Most people do not endorse murdering people for fun.  But if there was such a community, the larger community would enforce their own values using force.

That's why there are wars.  Disagreement about what is "better"

That alone proves there is no "objective better"

This world is made of Republicans and Communists, pacifists and freedom fighters and one man's patriot is another man's terrorist.

Please do not invent things I never said and them attribute them to me.  There are others here who do the same thing due to inability to read clearly

"Better"?  yes of course that is my opinon which coheres with that of many many people.  "Objectively better" ?  Self contradictory

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Some paradigms are better than others for the purpose of making us the best humans we can become etc- you pick the purpose.

 

On what ground are you asserting some paradigms are better? Better for you personally? Ok, that’s great.  But that’s just a personal preference. I like pumpkin pie, my wife doesn’t. She thinks apple pie is better. That’s the only sense of ‘better’ deflationary theory says we can work with. Whether one paradigm is better in an objective sense? That requires comparing against an objective standard (the objectively ‘best’, a ‘best’ that isn’t paradigm-bound) that’s accessible to our perception and experience. There isn’t one. So, your perception that the LDS paradigm is ‘better’ is on the level of preferring a particular flavor of ice cream.  Is that how you see it? The LDS paradigm is better than others only for you?

[Were having the same conversation on the other thread. Hope_for is making the same general point I am when I discuss the need for a God-appointed arbiter (turns out, if deflationary theory is ‘true’ and  He appointed one, we can never really know who/what it is).]

Edited by Spammer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As usual I never said that.

Show me exactly where I said it was "objectively better"?

The whole notion is absurd. 

"Objectively better" is actually a contradiction in terms.  Better by definition is in the eye of the beholder

Yet contextually there is wide spread agreement about what is "good" in general terms.  Most people do not endorse murdering people for fun.  But if there was such a community, the larger community would enforce their own values using force.

That's why there are wars.  Disagreement about what is "better"

That alone proves there is no "objective better"

This world is made of Republicans and Communists, pacifists and freedom fighters and one man's patriot is another man's terrorist.

Please do not invent things I never said and them attribute them to me.  There are others here who do the same thing due to inability to read clearly

"Better"?  yes of course that is my opinon which coheres with that of many many people.  "Objectively better" ?  Self contradictory

Thanks for clarifying, so let me explain where I thought your statements sounded like they were crossing over into making an objective claim.  When you said this: 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not really.  Some paradigms are better than others for the purpose of making us the best humans we can become etc- you pick the purpose.

I think the notion of trying to be like God is about the best paradigm humans can have to make them better humans by imitating Christ  I suppose others might disagree with that if they have other goals.  Since God is defined as being perfect one would think that being a perfect human would be a perfect paradigm.

This section sounds to me like you're making some claims that are venturing into more objective claims.  

In fairness at the end of your post you also said this: 

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And that is precisely what the Mormon paradigm for what God is is a perfected, literal human.

I am not here to please most Mormons- I am here to hone paradigms and find the best for me. 

This is where the statements look confusing to me.  When you say "I am here to hone paradigms and find the best for me", does that statement qualify all the above statements about paradigms, when you say some paradigms are better than others and this particular one is "about the best paradigm humans can have".  Because those statements don't sound like opinion statements and sound more like you're applying to these ideas others as well and therefore should require some objective evidence to support.  

So I appreciate the clarification, and I think this is an illustration of how sometimes there can be misunderstandings with wording.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly I think this way of thinking is extremely rare.  It requires a new definition of regular terms like the term historicity now has two meanings, there is the commonly accepted scholarly historicity and now there is a newly defined personal subjective religious experience historicity.  I didn’t even know we needed a new term before this recent discussion because I had no idea that this concept even existed.  

As i said, it is typically not very conscious or verbalized, but if you asked a fellow ward member if he could pray to know the names of missing Chinese Emperors, he would probably chuckle or look at you like you had two heads, depending on how well you know each other. Or if you asked him which of the two is a history book, or mainly a history book, The Book of Mormon or "Una Breve Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias", he he could only answer according to his personal, subjective experience, but would most likely identify the latter. He will likely not articulate that he is answering from his personal subjective religious experience of historicity, but he will likely say that because he knows the book is what it says it is, the history it does contain is accurate. People seem to sense the spheres of operation. Personally I've heard the terms folk, religious, ethno-, secular, official (and other qualifiers describing the type of) history forever, within and outside of conversations about the Church. Much of language is not written or spoken, but felt and conveyed through other means and symbols, some very "innate" or "organic."

I think the consideration of "personal subjective religious experience historicity" is intended to be more of help to you in dealing with those who believe the Book of Mormon to contain some elements of history than it is to be of help to them in dealing with the question of praying about its historicity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for clarifying, so let me explain where I thought your statements sounded like they were crossing over into making an objective claim.  When you said this: 

This section sounds to me like you're making some claims that are venturing into more objective claims.  

In fairness at the end of your post you also said this: 

This is where the statements look confusing to me.  When you say "I am here to hone paradigms and find the best for me", does that statement qualify all the above statements about paradigms, when you say some paradigms are better than others and this particular one is "about the best paradigm humans can have".  Because those statements don't sound like opinion statements and sound more like you're applying to these ideas others as well and therefore should require some objective evidence to support.  

So I appreciate the clarification, and I think this is an illustration of how sometimes there can be misunderstandings with wording.  

 

YAY! You now understand why words are so important and why philosophy is about analyzing words because we only have those to communicate.

You use the term "objective" I think to mean and assert something about the way the world is while I mean that it is something which I take the community of speakers to take as "true" while understanding that truth is undefinable.

Every statement I make automatically carries with it that as OR the assumption of the community I represent while making the statement.  I will make different statements in different communities and I suppose that is part of the problem.  If I am talking to someone who understands philosophy I will speak philosophese as I do with Clark and USU on occasions - but in those cases I assume that no one else will read or understand the comment anyway.   Sorry but that is the frank truth. ;)

Paradigms are never "true" in your sense of true- corresponding "objectively" to the world- they are theories about what seems to work for us until they are changed.

Every statement is provisional and based on one perspective - the speaker's perspective.

So everytime I say words like "best" I am saying that whatever is described by the word "best" is the provisional paradigm of the speaker that the speaker finds to have the most utility for the purpose at hand.  It is using a hammer to hit a nail instead of using a pipe wrench, which is a possibility. I have used a pipe wrench to drive a nail when no hammer was available, it was not easy but the nail got into where I wanted it.  Using a pipe wrench is not the best paradigm but it works.  In a world with no hammers it would suffice just fine.

But of course as always that is only my opinion and should be recognized as such.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As i said, it is typically not very conscious or verbalized, but if you asked a fellow ward member if he could pray to know the names of missing Chinese Emperors, he would probably chuckle or look at you like you had two heads, depending on how well you know each other. Or if you asked him which of the two is a history book, or mainly a history book, The Book of Mormon or "Una Breve Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias", he he could only answer according to his personal, subjective experience, but would most likely identify the latter. He will likely not articulate that he is answering from his personal subjective religious experience of historicity, but he will likely say that because he knows the book is what it says it is, the history it does contain is accurate. People seem to sense the spheres of operation. Personally I've heard the terms folk, religious, ethno-, secular, official (and other qualifiers describing the type of) history forever, within and outside of conversations about the Church. Much of language is not written or spoken, but felt and conveyed through other means and symbols, some very "innate" or "organic."

I think the consideration of "personal subjective religious experience historicity" is intended to be more of help to you in dealing with those who believe the Book of Mormon to contain some elements of history than it is to be of help to them in dealing with the question of praying about its historicity.

😁

I ain't the only one!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

😁

I ain't the only one!

It also puts us all on the same playing field when dealing with problems such as those brought up in the OP. Once you point out that personal, subjective experience is all there is and all we have --"your own included!" -- argument ("here's how you see it, stupid!") is replaced with invitation ("here's how I see it, friend!") and the world is a better place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As i said, it is typically not very conscious or verbalized, but if you asked a fellow ward member if he could pray to know the names of missing Chinese Emperors, he would probably chuckle or look at you like you had two heads, depending on how well you know each other. Or if you asked him which of the two is a history book, or mainly a history book, The Book of Mormon or "Una Breve Relación de la Destrucción de las Indias", he he could only answer according to his personal, subjective experience, but would most likely identify the latter. He will likely not articulate that he is answering from his personal subjective religious experience of historicity, but he will likely say that because he knows the book is what it says it is, the history it does contain is accurate. People seem to sense the spheres of operation. Personally I've heard the terms folk, religious, ethno-, secular, official (and other qualifiers describing the type of) history forever, within and outside of conversations about the Church. Much of language is not written or spoken, but felt and conveyed through other means and symbols, some very "innate" or "organic."

I think the consideration of "personal subjective religious experience historicity" is intended to be more of help to you in dealing with those who believe the Book of Mormon to contain some elements of history than it is to be of help to them in dealing with the question of praying about its historicity.

I mostly agree with you about this, but I think the reasons these members are thinking in their mind are different from what you've articulated here.  I think the reason people think they can get an answer about the historicity of the BoM from God, is because they believe God cares enough about this important question and therefore will break with typical decorum and give that person an answer to the type of question God might not answer in another context like to answer questions on a history test or a quiz show.  

I think your average orthodox member believes that God absolutely has the power to answer any history questions or questions of any nature, scientific or otherwise.  They just believe that God is only willing to answer questions that are of upmost import, and according to their religious paradigm knowing the BoM is truly historical is a question that rises to the level of God getting involved.  Not only that, in Moroni's promise they have God essentially communicating through an authorized prophet that he will give an answer about the BoM.  Also thinking of the James 1:5 story with Joseph, these are the kinds of questions God answers with absolute clarity, questions in a religious context.  And not only questions of a religious nature, but objective questions as long as they cross the barrier into having an important religious component to them.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

It also puts us all on the same playing field when dealing with problems such as those brought up in the OP. Once you point out that personal, subjective experience is all there is and all we have --"your own included!" -- argument ("here's how you see it, stupid!") is replaced with invitation ("here's how I see it, friend!") and the world is a better place.

Personal subjective experience is not all there is in life.  Science and scholarship is a different and extremely important kind of knowledge and process that has yielded incalculable value to society.  I continue to feel the need to push back on attempts to conflate these things together.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I mostly agree with you about this, but I think the reasons these members are thinking in their mind are different from what you've articulated here.  I think the reason people think they can get an answer about the historicity of the BoM from God, is because they believe God cares enough about this important question and therefore will break with typical decorum and give that person an answer to the type of question God might not answer in another context like to answer questions on a history test or a quiz show.  

I think your average orthodox member believes that God absolutely has the power to answer any history questions or questions of any nature, scientific or otherwise.  They just believe that God is only willing to answer questions that are of upmost import, and according to their religious paradigm knowing the BoM is truly historical is a question that rises to the level of God getting involved.  Not only that, in Moroni's promise they have God essentially communicating through an authorized prophet that he will give an answer about the BoM.  Also thinking of the James 1:5 story with Joseph, these are the kinds of questions God answers with absolute clarity, questions in a religious context.  And not only questions of a religious nature, but objective questions as long as they cross the barrier into having an important religious component to them.  

I’ve never known anyone to say they got an answer, or want an answer, about the historicity of the Book of Mormon from God / through prayer. However, I think your description in the 2nd paragraph covers pretty much what I’ve been describing as to how most members of the Church operate.

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Personal subjective experience is not all there is in life.  Science and scholarship is a different and extremely important kind of knowledge and process that has yielded incalculable value to society.  I continue to feel the need to push back on attempts to conflate these things together.  

Science and scholarship are carried out exclusively by people having personal experiences through the discipline of science and scholarship. It is all they have, and they use their preferred tools accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Science and scholarship are carried out exclusively by people having personal experiences through the discipline of science and scholarship. It is all they have, and they use their preferred tools accordingly.

Sort of, except that the scientific method is structured in way to get as close to objective observations as possible and to minimize bias.  Religious knowledge is built on a foundation of confirmation bias.  Can you imagine if science operated the way religions do?  We'd have thousands of different answers to basic questions about what two plus two equals.  Just like we have Voodoo, Hinduism, Mormonism or Scientology, all of which in a religious way of knowing truth are essentially equally valid.  I believe the scientific method in a broad sense gets us closer to truth than anything else humans have ever conceived of. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It also puts us all on the same playing field when dealing with problems such as those brought up in the OP. Once you point out that personal, subjective experience is all there is and all we have --"your own included!" -- argument ("here's how you see it, stupid!") is replaced with invitation ("here's how I see it, friend!") and the world is a better place.

Thanks for the suggestion

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sort of, except that the scientific method is structured in way to get as close to objective observations as possible and to minimize bias.  Religious knowledge is built on a foundation of confirmation bias.  Can you imagine if science operated the way religions do?  We'd have thousands of different answers to basic questions about what two plus two equals.  Just like we have Voodoo, Hinduism, Mormonism or Scientology, all of which in a religious way of knowing truth are essentially equally valid.  I believe the scientific method in a broad sense gets us closer to truth than anything else humans have ever conceived of. 

That’s very nice, and no matter how one is sold over the other, fundamentally each is filtered through a subjective personal (and since you added "biased," biased) experience. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Personal subjective experience is not all there is in life.  Science and scholarship is a different and extremely important kind of knowledge and process that has yielded incalculable value to society.  I continue to feel the need to push back on attempts to conflate these things together.  

 

There is no such conflation.  No one ever said to ignore science and scholarship.  Honestly I don't know where you get these ideas that we should give up on science and go back to leaches and the ether and phlogiston.  Of course these were objective science in their day as well ;)  I don't know how you think science discovers "reality" with a history like it has.  

I suggest you come up with an argument that will support your position philosophically and get it published and it will become the new paradigm

The problem is I have seen to such argument yet from you or anyone else.  :)

Seriously.  I think perhaps it still has not been communicated to you properly if you still don't see it.  I am trying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That’s very nice, and no matter how one is sold over the other, fundamentally each is filtered through a subjective personal (and since you added "biased," biased) experience. Enjoy!

He presents a good example of confirmation bias doesn't he?  ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I mostly agree with you about this, but I think the reasons these members are thinking in their mind are different from what you've articulated here.  I think the reason people think they can get an answer about the historicity of the BoM from God, is because they believe God cares enough about this important question and therefore will break with typical decorum and give that person an answer to the type of question God might not answer in another context like to answer questions on a history test or a quiz show.  

I think your average orthodox member believes that God absolutely has the power to answer any history questions or questions of any nature, scientific or otherwise.  They just believe that God is only willing to answer questions that are of upmost import, and according to their religious paradigm knowing the BoM is truly historical is a question that rises to the level of God getting involved.  Not only that, in Moroni's promise they have God essentially communicating through an authorized prophet that he will give an answer about the BoM.  Also thinking of the James 1:5 story with Joseph, these are the kinds of questions God answers with absolute clarity, questions in a religious context.  And not only questions of a religious nature, but objective questions as long as they cross the barrier into having an important religious component to them.  

 

Where's you objective evidence for what you think most people believe and that we should believe as most people if you are right? ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Spammer said:

 

On what ground are you asserting some paradigms are better? Better for you personally? Ok, that’s great.  But that’s just a personal preference. I like pumpkin pie, my wife doesn’t. She thinks apple pie is better. That’s the only sense of ‘better’ deflationary theory says we can work with. Whether one paradigm is better in an objective sense? That requires comparing against an objective standard (the objectively ‘best’, a ‘best’ that isn’t paradigm-bound) that’s accessible to our perception and experience. There isn’t one. So, your perception that the LDS paradigm is ‘better’ is on the level of preferring a particular flavor of ice cream.  Is that how you see it? The LDS paradigm is better than others only for you?

[Were having the same conversation on the other thread. Hope_for is making the same general point I am when I discuss the need for a God-appointed arbiter (turns out, if deflationary theory is ‘true’ and  He appointed one, we can never really know who/what it is).]

Preferences for ice cream are not "paradigms"

Paradigms are statements verified within a community as being "true"

I am simply saying that I think there is no religion which would not affirm that being the best human we can become is a good idea, and gives us an example of that in action who himself is a human being and belongs to a community of human beings who have achieved the same status.   The community aspect is key- no human wants to be alone without a community of like beings.

Show me a few counter examples if you like.  Honestly this is not "matrix" stuff- this is generally accepted philosophy today.

And of course you have failed to show the grounds for accepting a "true arbiter" who's word we should accept above what God tells us personally.

It's the same kind of problem and you don't see that.   At some point it's all up to you to decide.

How did you know that Orthodoxy was better than Catholicism or Mormonism?

Who was your arbiter in making that decision?   Who told you to do it?  A natural person or God ie: yourself??

If a natural person what qualities did he have that impressed you enough to choose that person as an arbiter of what God says is best for you?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for the suggestion

Ha-ha, I thought it was something you said awhile back!

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ha-ha, I thought it was something you said awhile back!

If it was I need to repeat it every 5 minutes or so!  ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

That’s very nice, and no matter how one is sold over the other, fundamentally each is filtered through a subjective personal (and since you added "biased," biased) experience. Enjoy!

True, but one has a track record of performance for delivering results that absolutely crushes the other.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no such conflation.  No one ever said to ignore science and scholarship.  Honestly I don't know where you get these ideas that we should give up on science and go back to leaches and the ether and phlogiston.  Of course these were objective science in their day as well ;)  I don't know how you think science discovers "reality" with a history like it has.  

I suggest you come up with an argument that will support your position philosophically and get it published and it will become the new paradigm

The problem is I have seen to such argument yet from you or anyone else.  :)

Seriously.  I think perhaps it still has not been communicated to you properly if you still don't see it.  I am trying.

My argument about science is a pragmatic cost/benefit evaluation of things.  I get this kind of thinking from my business and finance background.  I’m often confused that you seem to agree with me on certain aspects of these discussions but then when I think you’re going to continue to agree, your comments often tends to surprise me and seem to flip in an unexpected direction.  

Oh well, we’re understanding each other better overall, little bits at a time.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Where's you objective evidence for what you think most people believe and that we should believe as most people if you are right? ;)

These are just my anecdotal observations of course, I haven’t conducted any surveys.  

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Spammer said:

 

On what ground are you asserting some paradigms are better? Better for you personally? Ok, that’s great.  But that’s just a personal preference. I like pumpkin pie, my wife doesn’t. She thinks apple pie is better. That’s the only sense of ‘better’ deflationary theory says we can work with. Whether one paradigm is better in an objective sense? That requires comparing against an objective standard (the objectively ‘best’, a ‘best’ that isn’t paradigm-bound) that’s accessible to our perception and experience. There isn’t one. So, your perception that the LDS paradigm is ‘better’ is on the level of preferring a particular flavor of ice cream.  Is that how you see it? The LDS paradigm is better than others only for you?

[Were having the same conversation on the other thread. Hope_for is making the same general point I am when I discuss the need for a God-appointed arbiter (turns out, if deflationary theory is ‘true’ and  He appointed one, we can never really know who/what it is).]

Hi, thanks for the comments, I missed your post earlier.  What other thread are you referring to, I’ll have to check it out.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

True, but one has a track record of performance for delivering results that absolutely crushes the other.  

Now that's a wonderful example of biased rhetoric which turns around and abuses the concept you said you agree with.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

My argument about science is a pragmatic cost/benefit evaluation of things.  I get this kind of thinking from my business and finance background.  I’m often confused that you seem to agree with me on certain aspects of these discussions but then when I think you’re going to continue to agree, your comments often tends to surprise me and seem to flip in an unexpected direction.   

As demonstrated in our latest exchange above, you are the one "flipping" direction. I would suggest this is an emotional reaction to facing the problems posed by your personally subjective bias and rhetoric. You seem to believe in spheres of truth but cannot manage them. One key to managing them is realizing they needn't be reconciled at all, but simply used where they are best suited. At some point there well could be a unifying or overarching sphere of truth for them, but first some dexterity with them individually must be mastered.

For example, the Book of Mormon is not designed to lead to wealth or scientific discovery, but the spiritual power gained by abiding its precepts may facilitate such (it so much as says this in several places). Business and science are not designed to lead to spiritual enlightenment, but they can facilitate an environment where someone can hear the word with attention and open mindedness. It all depends on the individual's treatment of these things according to his personal, subjective experience.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×