Wayment & Givens interview

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Well obviously the most common interpretation of hearing voices that no one else can hear is that one is experiencing auditory hallucinations. Based on that interpretations one can come up with varying takeaways (not all of them ending with seeking medical help).

If you interpret the voices as coming from somewhere outside your own head, one can certainly interpret that very differently too. For example if a devout Mormon heard a voice telling them the church wasn't true, they might interpret that as a trick from the devil. If you hear a voice say, "you are loved" you will attribute that to different sources depending on your religious background.

What about "your daughter has diabetes" and lo and behold she did.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

"A subjective view of what constitutes consistency is more likely to be an illusion than an evidence of actual consistency"

Oh my. Sigh

An illusion? Really? As compared to what other subjective view, and how could we know that?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I can imagine what evidence might look like.  There could be contemporary accounts from the Romans about the burial of Jesus, and perhaps accounts from the soldiers that were guarding the tomb.  There could be other accounts as well by actual eye witnesses, instead of what we have today (gospel narratives written 2-3 generations after the death of Jesus, written for particular narrative theological purposes).  

I'm not discounting the importance of the idea of resurrection in the tradition, just the specific claim for a literal historical resurrection event, rather than viewing the concept of resurrection in some other sense.  

Religions in the affluent Western world are dwindling in relevance at a rapid pace.  Whether a more fundamentalist approach to religion is good for society as a whole is a more important question to me than if Mormonism or a particular denominational branch of religion can retain membership numbers in a declining membership environment.  The health of the broader society is of greater importance in my book, and I would argue that the more rigid literalist approach has certain negative ramifications for society, one being the polarization of our nation by dogmatic views that are increasingly hostile to collaboration and engagement with differing perspectives.  In fairness I see some similar problems on the left of the spectrum with their dogmatism as well, and I find myself increasingly at odds with people on both extremes of these divides.  

 

I am more worried about whether it is true or not. Judging beliefs based on what is good for society seems a slippery slope to me to believing anything as long as that belief is viewed as healthy.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Happens all the time, from both internal and external sources. Many ways to interpret it. Not trying to poo-poo the way you interpreted it, just saying it's not so black and white.

All the time. I see.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"A subjective view of what constitutes consistency is more likely to be an illusion than an evidence of actual consistency"

Oh my. Sigh

An illusion? Really? As compared to what other subjective view, and how could we know that?

Its really more of an comment directed at all subjective views.  

How precise is your average human when it comes to subjective observations about whether something is consistent?  Especially when compared to a carefully controlled scientific testing and we know how challenging it can be to get the testing parameters setup in a way to produce a confident result.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am more worried about whether it is true or not. Judging beliefs based on what is good for society seems a slippery slope to me to believing anything as long as that belief is viewed as healthy.

True as a metaphorical archetype or true as literal factual history?  There are different types of truth.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its really more of an comment directed at all subjective views.  

How precise is your average human when it comes to subjective observations about whether something is consistent?  Especially when compared to a carefully controlled scientific testing and we know how challenging it can be to get the testing parameters setup in a way to produce a confident result.  

You still don't see that science is only a collection of subjective experiences, on which the subjects agree.

Edited January 19, 2019 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You still don't see that science is only a collection of subjective experiences, in which the subjects agree.

Using careful controls, testing parameters, peer review and duplication to try and eliminate error.  We can have much greater  confidence in the methodology and the proven results show statistical levels of accuracy far exceeding an individual subjective testimony that never even attempted anything from a methodology perspective even remotely similar.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

True as a metaphorical archetype or true as literal factual history?  There are different types of truth.  

The latter. While I love metaphor and archetype a metaphorical salvation with a metaphorical resurrection leading to metaphorical happiness is something I would only metaphorically live the gospel for. By that I mean I would sleep in on Sundays, think good thoughts about my ministering families, and put my tithing and fast offering money into the mortgage.

Edited January 19, 2019 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The latter. While I love metaphor and archetype a metaphorical salvation with a metaphorical resurrection leading to metaphorical happiness is something I would only metaphorically live the gospel for. By that I mean I would sleep in on Sundays, think good thoughts about my ministering families, and put my tithing and fast offering money into the mortgage.

In my earlier life I couldn’t have imagined that these concepts could have any significant value as metaphor.  I’ve changed a lot since then.  Keep doing what works best for you but one size doesn’t fit everyone.  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

In my earlier life I couldn’t have imagined that these concepts could have any significant value as metaphor.  I’ve changed a lot since then.  Keep doing what works best for you but one size doesn’t fit everyone.  

They might have value as metaphor. I know much of the fiction and myth I enjoy can still does inspire me. But I do not believe the faith necessary for exaltation can come from a belief in metaphor. It comes from the conviction that I will stand in the literal embrace of Gods one day and be redeemed and made whole.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Using careful controls, testing parameters, peer review and duplication to try and eliminate error.  We can have much greater  confidence in the methodology and the proven results show statistical levels of accuracy far exceeding an individual subjective testimony that never even attempted anything from a methodology perspective even remotely similar.  

All of which are man-made and therefore socially constructed. 

Still Rorty stuff- exactly what he says in my siggy.

 

Quote

   Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5

But it seems you think you can know something outside of your perceptions and about the "real world"

Not possible.

You can't get outside of collective human consciousness to find out about the "world" and you still use terms like "eliminate error" which seem to pretend to be able to do so.

If all you are saying is that the proposition does not cohere with collective human experience, that would work but it is not usually what most people think of as "accurate"

[CV75]

Last night I was channel surfing and caught an old movie, “Three Amigos” with Steve Martin. I watched a scene that I once thought hilarious, and some 35+ years later find only so-so. Not speaking to the storyline’s historicity (the Mexican Revolution) but to comparing my experience to its presentation then and now, I certainly have changed so as not to think it is quite so funny. I think my life choices along the way must have something to do with that. Maybe another day I might it funnier than last night, perhaps if I watch it with family and friends. I never felt it necessary to analyze the humor.

Yet, in taking the sacrament for decades, I can say I have changed over the years to think it is a more sacred experience than when I first joined the Church, no matter who I’m with and irrespective of its basis in a historic atonement and resurrection. The presentation hasn’t changed, so I think my appreciation is a matter of choice in what I’ve done with life’s experiences along the way. Perhaps, as with the comedy, I suppose I might find it more sacred when partaking of it with others in some future scenario. I have taken time to analyze the solemnity over the years.

Tradition has it that the Lord’s Resurrection was an historical event, a tradition not everyone shares. Tradition led to testimony, a witness not everyone accepts or shares either. Hearing or being brought up in the tradition, and hearing and receiving the witness, and accepting or making these one’s own renders the Resurrection historical to those who believe and spiritually know. I think the Church rests her case that the Resurrection is historical on tradition, scripture, and the multiple witnesses of Joseph Smith, and to continue to be “true and living” for generations now and across the globe, rests her case on these things being spiritually confirmed to his successors and the individual saints to one degree or another.

Individuals choose or decide whether and at what point they will revisit their traditions, scriptures and the witnesses (their own and others’) in light of alternative evidences, primary sources, modern science, politics, etc. In this sense they determine what is non-negotiable and what has been proven to be real (historic, actual, authentic, spiritually verifiable, etc.) to their personal satisfaction.

My first exposure to the Resurrection were movie stills my father got from the premiere of “The Greatest Story Ever Told” and while these fascinated me, as a seven-year-old I focused on the “story.” I knew what stories were. I was raised on Aesop’s Fables and Just So Stories. I always took the gospel to be a story, and as my father explained, Jesus to be a great teacher of it whose way of life lives on through His believers. Around the same time, we went to the New York World’s Fair where, some 14 years later (after joining the Church and on a mission) I realized I first saw “Man’s Search For Happiness” for the first time, and was equally as impressed with it at the time as with my father’s movie stills. Which “story” did I reevaluate as a more mature person, and why did it win out?

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They might have value as metaphor. I know much of the fiction and myth I enjoy can still does inspire me. But I do not believe the faith necessary for exaltation can come from a belief in metaphor. It comes from the conviction that I will stand in the literal embrace of Gods one day and be redeemed and made whole.

I appreciate the honest sharing, thanks.  For me these days I don’t have belief in an afterlife, so I like to look at exaltation language through a lens of transformation instead.  Similar to how you might describe the born again scriptural symbolism, I see exaltation in that way.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All of which are man-made and therefore socially constructed.  

A wonderful system with a track record of results.  It’s an incredibly superior system to relying on the average Joe ‘s personal witness.  I’m sure you wouldn’t trust your medical health or finances to Joe Schome and his claims of consistency.  

This is what I meant by saying that someone who claims his experiences over his lifetime are consistent is more likely an illusion than fact.  Our memories are frequently erroneous and we deceive ourselves more often than not.  The Dunning Kruger effect is a good example of how the people with the most confidence about their abilities are often the most self deceived about their knowledge.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Last night I was channel surfing and caught an old movie, “Three Amigos” with Steve Martin. I watched a scene that I once thought hilarious, and some 35+ years later find only so-so. Not speaking to the storyline’s historicity (the Mexican Revolution) but to comparing my experience to its presentation then and now, I certainly have changed so as not to think it is quite so funny. I think my life choices along the way must have something to do with that. Maybe another day I might it funnier than last night, perhaps if I watch it with family and friends. I never felt it necessary to analyze the humor.

Yet, in taking the sacrament for decades, I can say I have changed over the years to think it is a more sacred experience than when I first joined the Church, no matter who I’m with and irrespective of its basis in a historic atonement and resurrection. The presentation hasn’t changed, so I think my appreciation is a matter of choice in what I’ve done with life’s experiences along the way. Perhaps, as with the comedy, I suppose I might find it more sacred when partaking of it with others in some future scenario. I have taken time to analyze the solemnity over the years.

Tradition has it that the Lord’s Resurrection was an historical event, a tradition not everyone shares. Tradition led to testimony, a witness not everyone accepts or shares either. Hearing or being brought up in the tradition, and hearing and receiving the witness, and accepting or making these one’s own renders the Resurrection historical to those who believe and spiritually know. I think the Church rests her case that the Resurrection is historical on tradition, scripture, and the multiple witnesses of Joseph Smith, and to continue to be “true and living” for generations now and across the globe, rests her case on these things being spiritually confirmed to his successors and the individual saints to one degree or another.

Individuals choose or decide whether and at what point they will revisit their traditions, scriptures and the witnesses (their own and others’) in light of alternative evidences, primary sources, modern science, politics, etc. In this sense they determine what is non-negotiable and what has been proven to be real (historic, actual, authentic, spiritually verifiable, etc.) to their personal satisfaction.

My first exposure to the Resurrection were movie stills my father got from the premiere of “The Greatest Story Ever Told” and while these fascinated me, as a seven-year-old I focused on the “story.” I knew what stories were. I was raised on Aesop’s Fables and Just So Stories. I always took the gospel to be a story, and as my father explained, Jesus to be a great teacher of it whose way of life lives on through His believers. Around the same time, we went to the New York World’s Fair where, some 14 years later (after joining the Church and on a mission) I realized I first saw “Man’s Search For Happiness” for the first time, and was equally as impressed with it at the time as with my father’s movie stills. Which “story” did I reevaluate as a more mature person, and why did it win out?

Great post but really a religious experience in Flushing, Queens NY?   Is that possible? 

I used to ride the 7 train past that site daily on the way to grad school at CUNY

 

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Great post but really a religious experience in Flushing, Queens NY?   Is that possible? 

I used to ride the 7 train past that site daily on the way to grad school at CUNY

It was not so much a spiritual experience until I became a more mature person  ...

But then again, I did remember it, along with the Joseph Smith pamphlets I pilfered from my father's overcoat pocket; he eventually joined the Church in his eighties, finally revealing all that preparation to be the spiritual experience it was meant to be all along. Providence in action!

Our 8th floor apartment (Stuyvesant Town) overlooked the FDR Drive / East River and we watched the dinosaurs for Dinoland being shipped by barge... with Chiller Theater's "Godzilla" still fresh in my mind 😲!!! A year or so later we bought a weekend "country home" near the artist, who became family friends (his kids my older siblings' ages)... Happenstance in action!

https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/tag/dinosaurs-on-a-barge-hudson-river/

That was a couple of years before The Greatest Story Ever Told and the World's Fair.

Edited January 20, 2019 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It was not so much a spiritual experience until I became a more mature person  ...

But then again, I did remember it, along with the Joseph Smith pamphlets I pilfered from my father's overcoat pocket; he eventually joined the Church in his eighties, finally revealing all that preparation to be the spiritual experience it was meant to be all along. Providence in action!

Our 8th floor apartment (Stuyvesant Town) overlooked the FDR Drive / East River and we watched the dinosaurs for Dinoland being shipped by barge... with Chiller Theater's "Godzilla" still fresh in my mind 😲!!! A year or so later we bought a weekend "country home" near the artist, who became family friends (his kids my older siblings' ages)... Happenstance in action!

https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/tag/dinosaurs-on-a-barge-hudson-river/

That was a couple of years before The Greatest Story Ever Told and the World's Fair.

Fabulous!  I can't think of anything more exciting for a boy than to see dinosaurs on a barge rolling past his house down the river!

I have always thought it was weird to choose a dinosaur as a mascot for an oil company- I remember those Sinclair ads.  "Hey Guys!  Buy more oil and burn the remains of millions of my ancestors!  Won't that be great?"

Here in LA we have a small chain of restaurants called "La Chiva Loca" (The Crazy Goat) who's specialty is goat meat tacos.  Their logo?  A happy dancing little goat, of course.!!  Just a tad macabre .... 

Look at the top of the sign on the restaurant.  Couldn't find a better picture.

Edited January 20, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fabulous!  I can't think of anything more exciting for a boy than to see dinosaurs on a barge rolling past his house down the river!

I have always thought it was weird to choose a dinosaur as a mascot for an oil company- I remember those Sinclair ads.  "Hey Guys!  Buy more oil and burn the remains of millions of my ancestors!  Won't that be great?"

Here in LA we have a small chain of restaurants called "La Chiva Loca" (The Crazy Goat) who's specialty is goat meat tacos.  Their logo?  A happy dancing little goat, of course.!!  Just a tad macabre .... 

Look at the top of the sign on the restaurant.  Couldn't find a better picture.

Yikes!

[The Nehor]

On 1/19/2019 at 2:30 PM, hope_for_things said:

I appreciate the honest sharing, thanks.  For me these days I don’t have belief in an afterlife, so I like to look at exaltation language through a lens of transformation instead.  Similar to how you might describe the born again scriptural symbolism, I see exaltation in that way.  

The whole growing old and dying some day takes the romance out of ideas of earthly exaltation for me.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The whole growing old and dying some day takes the romance out of ideas of earthly exaltation for me.

Yes, I can see the appeal of the romantic afterlife.  Similar to romantic love stories in the movies and literature, I enjoy the arts very much.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I can see the appeal of the romantic afterlife.  Similar to romantic love stories in the movies and literature, I enjoy the arts very much.  

There is a desire or collection of desires in every human that have no fulfillment on Earth even in the best and happiest of circumstances. Either those desires are doomed to never be fulfilled and left as a sweet longing for the impossible or it is all real and, like all desires, there is a way and place to fulfill them. I believe the latter. No, that is not strong enough. I am convinced of the latter.

Edited January 21, 2019 by The Nehor

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There is a desire or collection of desires in every human that have no fulfillment on Earth even in the best and happiest of circumstances. Either those desires are doomed to never be fulfilled and left as a sweet longing for the impossible or it is all real and, like all desires, there is a way and place to fulfill them. I believe the latter. No, that is not strong enough. I am convinced of the latter.

I believe unfulfilled desires are just part of the human experience.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe unfulfilled desires are just part of the human experience.

As a hedonist I reject this as ludicrous.  

[Gray]

On 1/18/2019 at 8:06 PM, Calm said:

What about "your daughter has diabetes" and lo and behold she did.

That could certainly be interpreted as your own inner voice. Diabetes has symptoms, one can subconsciously start to note them until they start to bubble up into your consciousness. Or it could be interpreted as coincidence.

Again, not saying one interpretation is best, just pointing out that these experiences can be interpreted in many ways.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Gray