What Is The "Truth"?

[Calm]

The difference is that you actually understand the issues here- I love your one-liners! Z just doesn't get it, and the longer his posts the more that becomes clear.

I thought they were pretty obvious myself and was rather proud of myself being able to say something so succinctly for once.

[mfbukowski]

I thought they were pretty obvious myself and was rather proud of myself being able to say something so succinctly for once.

So my posts were clear to you? Just a check on my writing- you are the kind of person I want to communicate with.

[Calm]

So my posts were clear to you? Just a check on my writing- you are the kind of person I want to communicate with.

I think so. You can generally assume if I am responding in a thread and have not asked you to clarify a comment, that I believe I am following you. You are one of the people I read AND put effort into comprehending your points and I will ask if I think I've missed something or there is something less than clear.

[mfbukowski]

I think so. You can generally assume if I am responding in a thread and have not asked you to clarify a comment, that I believe I am following you. You are one of the people I read AND put effort into comprehending your points and I will ask if I think I've missed something or there is something less than clear.

Thanks- I consider that a compliment. I have to take them anyplace I can

[Ahab]

Thanks- I consider that a compliment. I have to take them anyplace I can

Let me know when you feel you are running short of compliments and I'll be sure to give you some.

I can usually see positive traits in everyone although I can also notice their weaknesses.

[mfbukowski]

I think so. You can generally assume if I am responding in a thread and have not asked you to clarify a comment, that I believe I am following you. You are one of the people I read AND put effort into comprehending your points and I will ask if I think I've missed something or there is something less than clear.

As I think about this thread, I think about how Mormons in general think about truth and it becomes more and more clear to me that we are stuck in a paradigm - ie the correspondence theory of truth- which no longer fits the way we should be seeing the gospel.

It seems clear that few here understand that our culturally ingrained view of "what is truth" is just that- culturally created and ingrained. We are conditioned from birth to think this way primarily due to the sectarian climate in which we are raised- the Neoplatonic view of truth is alive and well in those who have not been trained to "see around" the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room and the problems with that view come into focus in discussions such as this one.

And this is true especially in theology, where we have 2000 years of the same old paradigm to fight

These kind of discussions expose that gorilla for what it is and how it confuses the entire issue.

I am thinking now more than ever that any kind of correspondence theory is not compatible with the gospel- I cannot prove that at the moment, but it just seems to me almost on an instinctive level that a god who creates ex nihilo creates a reality which is foreign to humanity- something separate and distinct and wholly "other" on a fundamental level, whereas a God who "organizes" what is already there is participating in a dramatically different process- he is in fact "creating" a human reality- he is taking the sticks and stones already in the environment and humanizing them by making a shelter, or putting stones into a wall for a human purpose. Such a process involves seeing the functions for human purposes in that which is "given"- it is an entirely different way to see the world.

THAT is the difference between an "organized" reality and an "ex nihilo" reality- it is a totally fundamental difference in paradigm which cuts across all of thought. I think we as Mormons really need to "get" that- but to make that happen would require basic and fundamental training in philosophy- or something like that- so that we can learn to see that 800 pound sectarian gorilla sitting in the middle of our culture!

Maybe something like a few dozen youtube videos would communicate that better than this kind of forum can. No one reads any more, I am convinced. Fewer and fewer actually can.

If reality is a "given" - out there - Cartesian- to which somehow magically our perceptions and language must "correspond" it already from the beginning begs the question of what that "correspondence" is and how it comes about.

But if reality is seen as something in which we participate- and as something we can and do order and organize for our needs- there is no need to come up with an explanation of how what we see and experience is supposed to magically "correspond" with what lies magically and imperceptibly "out there" in some reality outside our senses.

Seeing humankind as organizers of reality is fundamental to seeing a God who is a human, ultimately, as the organizer of the universe.

On the other side, ex nihilo creation is fundamental to seeing some magically existent "reality" beyond human perception.

It's amazing that it all comes down to theology!

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

As I think about this thread, I think about how Mormons in general think about truth and it becomes more and more clear to me that we are stuck in a paradigm - ie the correspondence theory of truth- which no longer fits the way we should be seeing the gospel.

It seems clear that few here understand that our culturally ingrained view of "what is truth" is just that- culturally created and ingrained. We are conditioned from birth to think this way primarily due to the sectarian climate in which we are raised- the Neoplatonic view of truth is alive and well in those who have not been trained to "see around" the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room and the problems with that view come into focus in discussions such as this one.

And this is true especially in theology, where we have 2000 years of the same old paradigm to fight

These kind of discussions expose that gorilla for what it is and how it confuses the entire issue.

I am thinking now more than ever that any kind of correspondence theory is not compatible with the gospel- I cannot prove that at the moment, but it just seems to me almost on an instinctive level that a god who creates ex nihilo creates a reality which is foreign to humanity- something separate and distinct and wholly "other" on a fundamental level, whereas a God who "organizes" what is already there is participating in a dramatically different process- he is in fact "creating" a human reality- he is taking the sticks and stones already in the environment and humanizing them by making a shelter, or putting stones into a wall for a human purpose. Such a process involves seeing the functions for human purposes in that which is "given"- it is an entirely different way to see the world.

THAT is the difference between an "organized" reality and an "ex nihilo" reality- it is a totally fundamental difference in paradigm which cuts across all of thought. I think we as Mormons really need to "get" that- but to make that happen would require basic and fundamental training in philosophy- or something like that- so that we can learn to see that 800 pound sectarian gorilla sitting in the middle of our culture!

Uh, hold on there, mski. There is no such thing as an "ex nihilo" reality. Somebody just made that idea up and now you are using it.

Let's get back to reality now, shall we? Tell me more about this 800 pound gorilla you see? Have you only recently started to see it? Please make yourself comfortable and tell me all about it.

Maybe something like a few dozen youtube videos would communicate that better than this kind of forum can. No one reads any more, I am convinced. Fewer and fewer actually can.

If reality is a "given" - out there - Cartesian- to which somehow magically our perceptions and language must "correspond" it already from the beginning begs the question of what that "correspondence" is and how it comes about.

But if reality is seen as something in which we participate- and as something we can and do order and organize for our needs- there is no need to come up with an explanation of how what we see and experience is supposed to magically "correspond" with what lies magically and imperceptibly "out there" in some reality outside our senses.

Seeing humankind as organizers of reality is fundamental to seeing a God who is a human, ultimately, as the organizer of the universe.

On the other side, ex nihilo creation is fundamental to seeing some magically existent "reality" beyond human perception.

It's amazing that it all comes down to theology!

How does the 800 pound gorilla you see correspond to theology? You got some more splainin to do.

[mfbukowski]

Uh, hold on there, mski. There is no such thing as an "ex nihilo" reality. Somebody just made that idea up and now you are using it.

Let's get back to reality now, shall we? Tell me more about this 800 pound gorilla you see? Have you only recently started to see it? Please make yourself comfortable and tell me all about it.

How does the 800 pound gorilla you see correspond to theology? You got some more splainin to do.

These are called "metaphors". You can find that word in almost any dictionary.

[Ahab]

These are called "metaphors". You can find that word in almost any dictionary.

Uh huh, and what do metaphors do if not "correspond" to reality?

[mfbukowski]

Uh huh, and what do metaphors do if not "correspond" to reality?

Create reality

[mfbukowski]

Uh huh, and what do metaphors do if not "correspond" to reality?

They organize experience linguistically, and thereby create the way we see reality.

I was just going to say "Create reality" but decided to give you the long version.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement6.html

That one is even longer.

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

delete

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate - I think the server is about to go kaput again

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

triplicate

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

quads- where is octomom when you need her?

Edited August 24, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Uh huh, and what do metaphors do if not "correspond" to reality?

They organize experience linguistically, and thereby create the way we see reality.

I was just going to say "Create reality" but decided to give you the long version.

Michael Polanyi tells us that the switch to a radically new scientific view

…produces disciples forming a school, the members of which are separated for the time being by a logical gap from those outside it. They think differently, speak a different language, live in a different world, … [Polanyi, 1958, p 151].

That, my dears, is the problem on this thread.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry all, for the mess- I was getting the "Forbidden" message and didn't know I was posting every time I got "Forbidden", then I tried to edit and that was a mess- oh well

Time for a vacation anyway.

[Ahab]

They organize experience linguistically, and thereby create the way we see reality.

I was just going to say "Create reality" but decided to give you the long version.

http://plato.stanfor...upplement6.html

That one is even longer.

My Mama has a way of saying things so that I can understand them.

Try saying what you're trying to say in more simple terms so that even an average child would understand you.

I think you could learn a lot from my Mama.

[Calm]

My Mama has a way of saying things so that I can understand them.

Try saying what you're trying to say in more simple terms so that even an average child would understand you.

I think you could learn a lot from my Mama.

Our language (since we use this to define our perceptions) and experience (think of this as collection of perceptions) creates the lenses through which we interact with what we believe is reality....since we only can observe our own perception as everything must go through that filter, all we know is the reality which we create.

Someone who is blind does not exist in a world of colour, for example.

Edited August 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

My Mama has a way of saying things so that I can understand them.

Try saying what you're trying to say in more simple terms so that even an average child would understand you.

I think you could learn a lot from my Mama.

Probably. The problem is not teaching it, it is unlearning what is wrong. Any child brought up in the new paradigm understand it fine. My kids understand it perfectly. I am speaking a different language than you and learning the language is too hard to teach because so many words are the same.

Did you read any of those quotes? Tell me what you think they said.

You actually have to want to learn it and not judge it before you understand it.

We humans can only know what we see and feel and how those things look and sound and feel. Because of that, and because we all speak in languages, there is no need to talk about any "reality" to which truth "corresponds" since we cannot see or feel what it supposedly "corresponds to".

Truth is about how we speak of things- not about things. Things are only what we collectively see and feel and taste and touch etc.

When we talk, all we can talk about is in language- so it makes no sense to try to talk about what language "represents" since we can't talk about it!

[mfbukowski]

Our language (since we use this to define our perceptions) and experience (think of this as collection of perceptions) creates the lenses through which we interact with what we believe is reality....since we only can observe our own perception as everything must go through that filter, all we know is the reality which we create.

Someone who is blind does not exist in a world of colour, for example.

Bingo.

[Ahab]

Probably. The problem is not teaching it, it is unlearning what is wrong. Any child brought up in the new paradigm understand it fine. My kids understand it perfectly. I am speaking a different language than you and learning the language is too hard to teach because so many words are the same.

Too hard to teach? Sounds like a challenge, to me! I'm sure I could find a way to convey the thoughts you're trying to convey to me, if I only understood what you meant.

Did you read any of those quotes? Tell me what you think they said.

Yes, and I'm not sure. They weren't very clear to me.

You actually have to want to learn it and not judge it before you understand it.

I don't understand it. Can we begin now?

We humans can only know what we see and feel and how those things look and sound and feel. Because of that, and because we all speak in languages, there is no need to talk about any "reality" to which truth "corresponds" since we cannot see or feel what it supposedly "corresponds to".

Ugh. I'm not feeling very edified by what you are saying, mski.

You keep talking but I don't understand what the heck you are saying.

Is there any hope for little ole me?

Truth is about how we speak of things- not about things.

Truth is actually about things, too, as well as how we speak of the things we talk about.

For example, when I say God is Truth (or Reality), I'm telling the truth about the things I am talking about (God and Truth), and I'm also talking about things which are true (or real).

Things are only what we collectively see and feel and taste and touch etc.

Why do you say "collectively", or what do you mean by that?

Do you mean that as long as one of us knows God is real, it's something that is known by the "collective" us?

If so, which "us" are you talking about? All of us who are of our species wherever we are in this universe?

What if one of us on some distant planet knows something about our Father than we don't know here on this planet?

Would the collective us know that was true?

All we can talk about is in language- so it makes no sense to try to talk about what language "represents" since we can't talk about it!

Seems to me that you are talking about what language represents as well as whatever else you are talking about.

[mfbukowski]

Ahab:

Does this help any? calmoriah says things, I think more clearly than I do.

Our language (since we use this to define our perceptions) and experience (think of this as collection of perceptions) creates the lenses through which we interact with what we believe is reality....since we only can observe our own perception as everything must go through that filter, all we know is the reality which we create.

Someone who is blind does not exist in a world of colour, for example.

Think of our senses like "sun glasses". From the time you were born, you were fitted with dark sun glasses, and everyone else in the world was also. You and they were also fitted with special gloves which prevented you from feeling hot and cold. We will only talk right now about two senses, but we could name some kind of "filter" for each sense.

How would your color perception change? It would cease to exist. You would only see black and white and shades of grey.

So for everyone in the world there was no longer a perception of color. There were only shades of grey- but you could discriminate some difference between those shades of grey.

Remember that old song about the moon?

"Cold hearted orb that rules the night

Removes the color from our sight

Red is grey and yellow, white

Yet we decide which is right,

And which is an illusion."

So if you are old, like me, you will understand what it was like with black and white TV- blood was black, for example. In fact I am told that in the shower scene of Psycho they used chocolate syrup for "blood".

So suppose now we have new names for all the shades of grey- what we color seers see as "blue" becomes a shade a grey we shall call "grau". Red becomes "rac" but both are shades of grey- but distinctive shades of grey.

So now we live in a world where blood is rac and the sky is grau in color, but everyone can discriminate perfectly between rac and grau.

Does it matter one whit if the sky is grau or blue for these people? Grau and blue are just arbitrary terms for what we see for the color of the sky.

We see it as blue, they see it as grau- but what is it "really"? It is an experience all unto itself- when we look up we see a blue sky, they see a grau sky.

They cannot get "beyond" or "past" the filters of their eyes- and we cannot get past our filters either. We cannot see infra red or ultraviolet light, or radio waves or anything but what our eyes tell us.

So what is the world "really" like? What is "represented" by the words blue or grau? Nothing is "represented" but perhaps the perception- the experience- of seeing the sky.

It is neither "really" blue nor grau- it is reflected light with a name for that experience that we can all agree on and communicate. You see it as blue, I see it as grau, but we both name it the same and so we can share our experiences through language.

There is no reason to worry about what it "really" is because it doesn't matter. What matters is that we can talk about the blue sky and what is true and false- "There are clouds in the sky" is either true or false and what it refers to is our perceptions of what we call the "sky"- not about some "reality" we cannot experience

So what is "real" for purposes of communication between us is the experience itself. What is "real" is the experience- not something the experience represents which we cannot see.

Science tells us things are made of atoms ultimately- but we can't see them- we see reflected light and our brains organize that reflected light into a car or a tree or a house- but what is "really there?" All we can know is what we experience.

That's about the best I can do.

[Calm]

Ahab:

Does this help any? calmoriah says things, I think more clearly than I do.

Sometimes less knowledge is helpful.

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes less knowledge is helpful.

Thanks