Uncreated Intelligences?

[CV75]

I appreciate the exchange we had. When I finally get around to writing some of my thoughts down for possible publication I have a few more things to be careful about. My arguments stems from a certain basis of premises and is only valid inasmuch as one is willing to accept the premises. So, it becomes quite necessary to clearly establish what those are -- and make sure the words being used mean to the reader what the author intends to mean. Otherwise, one just reads past the argument by making irrelevant counter-arguments. As much as I think of philosophy as mostly human engendered nonsense, the field does a good job at just that -- making sure what is meant is clear so they can debate substance. Alas, most of the internet board debates I've seen are of the invalid refutation type and not truly substantive. Certainly true on this board.

Tough crowd, ain't it! But good for practice! I can empathize how difficult it is to establish the premises and contexts while having to nimbly keep others' attention on the intended conclusions.

[CV75]

My mother used to love to shop for "material". "Oh -look - there's a material store!"

To her, it was synonymous with "fabric", or "cloth".

Just pointing out that that word means a lot to a lot of people. It's just a tad ambiguous.

You mean "hand-wavy"?

By the way, No Fear, I really enjoyed hearing that term!

[CV75]

I agree with you completely, but unfortunately there is no escape- many have tried to write unambiguously, but alas, language itself has meaning only contextually, and ever reader will see those words with their own interpretation.

It may be "human engendered nonsense" but if you enter the field you will be in the same category

The problem is that if you use language, you are not speaking about "the world" because all language is metaphor, or "human engendered nonsense"

When you say "chair", fortunately, a chair does not come out of your mouth. That would be uncomfortable. So every word you write will be ambiguous, "human engendered nonsense". Unless perhaps you could have a non-human write it for you in a non-human language.

Unfortunately, that would make it hard to read.

Is that why, despite the great value to be obtained from these conversations, "by the Spirit" is ultimately the best practice in correctly communicating spiritual principles?

[mfbukowski]

Is that why, despite the great value to be obtained from these conversations, "by the Spirit" is ultimately the best practice in correctly communicating spiritual principles?

Absolutely, positively, on-the-money.

Linguistically speaking, of course. (Close enough for a linguistic description.)

I am a Kuhnian. (Actually a Pragmatist, who were Kuhnian before Kuhn was born)

No matter what model we come up with, it is still a model! Models are never the "thing" modeled.

Edited November 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

Ah, so the text part IS what I am saying, or close to it. I consider my positions close to postmodernism-

I don't think what I'm saying is quite what you are saying, because I'm not a constructivist, but rather more in the camp of Jacques Derrida, at least as to his expansive view of text. Constructivism requires that a construction of reality issues from something like the Platonic logos. Rather than logos, I prefer Derrida's radical interpretation of text, viewed as something more like writing, rather than like speech. Unlike logos, text is embodied. By focusing on text, speech can be defined in terms of text as a type of inscription (i.e., on columns of air, caused by vocal chords or loudspeakers, or on the electrical patterns of a brain). So I would disagree that reality is a social construction. Rather, reality is text, and social constructions are just one type of text within the reality genre.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think what I'm saying is quite what you are saying, because I'm not a constructivist, but rather more in the camp of Jacques Derrida, at least as to his expansive view of text. Constructivism requires that a construction of reality issues from something like the Platonic logos. Rather than logos, I prefer Derrida's radical interpretation of text, viewed as something more like writing, rather than like speech. Unlike logos, text is embodied. By focusing on text, speech can be defined in terms of text as a type of inscription (i.e., on columns of air, caused by vocal chords or loudspeakers, or on the electrical patterns of a brain). So I would disagree that reality is a social construction. Rather, reality is text, and social constructions are just one type of text within the reality genre.

Constructivism has nothing to do with logos or anything Platonic at all really, but the idea certainly implies the importance of words. I have not read Derrida much, but I have not seen anything yet that I would totally disagree with that I have seen.

http://en.wikipedia....st_epistemology

I am somewhere in there between these guys and the Anti-realists

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Anti-realism

I really like Rorty except he is totally wrong on some things, namely the contingency of the self. The self is about the only thing I think is NOT contingent; I am convinced we experience ourselves as eternal beings- which makes my view totally compatible in my opinion with LDS doctrine, and adding to that a Wittgensteinian view of language, which mentions "the unspeakable"- which I think we call "The Spirit".

Throw in a strong dash of William James and especially his Varieties of Religious Experience, and you about have it.

Edited November 18, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this, but I really didn't want to miss the chance to think about it a bit.

What I am about is "translating" metaphysical scriptural language into some thing close to what might be called "philosophy" (they are two quite different linguistic contexts, language games, or whatever you want to call them) but let's give it a shot.

The bottom line is that I really liked your ideas in this post, so I would like to kind of scramble them up into my kind of omelette, and I hope you don't mind too much

I’m typically a few hours behind everyone so I’ll respond to ideas brought up in a number of posts at once:

I don’t think that the power to choose is separate from intelligence, either. I think it is pretty clear from D&C 93:29-30 that intelligence acts for itself (otherwise it is not intelligence), which is the definition of “existence.” We know from D&C 76 that how well it acts determines the quality of that existence.

Since intelligence acts for itself, I would think that it is the self, or the definition of self. I also think that “self” is antithetical to “oneness” and needs to cleave (D&C 88:40) and gain advantage (D&C 130:18-19) in order to experience the fullness of joy—the quality and purpose of Zion (Moses 7:18) and the intent expressed in the Lord’s Intercessory Prayer.

I'm really glad you posted this because it goes to the heart of problem I have been struggling with in a philosopher named Rorty, who's philosophy I like, but I think he really goes haywire when it comes to his definition of the "self".

Rorty believes that there's a world "out there" independent from out perceptions in some sense, but we can't really ever talk about what things "really are" because all we know about the way things "really are" is what we experience. So all we have to deal with really is how we speak about what we see and experience- we can't know "what is" or speak about it in any meaningful way because we don't experience "what is" but just the way our brains assemble all that- our collective brains I really should say- and speak about it in language.

I tend to agree with that strongly. But now this is where I think he goes haywire. Because to him everything real is ultimately metaphors and linguistic constructions which we have learned culturally, he believes that the self is also. What that means is the self is just a bundle of linguistic ideas and metaphors which were put into our heads culturally, along with language, so that we are really just little language machines, little bundles of what he calls "vocabularies"- each of us is either a weak poet or a strong poet, all speaking in metaphors about what we cannot really ever know with any level of absolute certainty. Weak poets accept what vocabularies they get and don't think about things much, but "strong poets" invent their own vocabularies- they are those who in a sense create themselves and their own world views. By taking different ideas and combining them into their own world views, as many do here for example, including you, we all really inventing our own realities.

And some, who are world-class thinkers and writers help whole cultures define themselves in new ways by breaking paradigms and seeing the world in new ways- those are the real "strong poets". Don't know if you know Kuhn's philosophy of science, but Kuhn talks about these individuals- Copernicus Kepler etc, and it seems that Kuhn is fairly popular around here. But that is how Rorty sees it.

But I have always had a problem with that, because I experience my "self" as an entity which has been here eternally- that there is something which came with me before I came to this earth; I actually experience myself that way, and I am sure many others here would agree. I believed that before I joined the church- I just experienced myself as an eternal being of light- but I could not define it quite that way.

The other problem with Rorty is that because we are all just little culturally programmed bundles of language-making creatures, we cannot escape culture, so we are naturally collective creatures which are not really "individuals" in many ways, and though we can be said to have "freedom" in some abstract way, we really are just kind of automatons programmed by the culture.

So you can see where I am going with this by now I am sure. If indeed our intelligence is eternal, and if indeed we are individuals, then though we may be 99% culturally programmed, (that percentage is arbitrary to make the point that even 1% changes everything) there is still a kernel of "self-hood" which is what constitutes the "free self" which makes true choices- which I would argue is also the way we experience choice. We really do make them, and we really do think we make them, and speak as if we do make them.

So what I think is cool, is that this whole idea philosophically dovetails perfectly with your scriptural interpretation. That was why I wanted to comment on this all.

On one hand, D&C 131:7 teaches that there is no such thing as immaterial matter, and that spirit is not immaterial. Intelligence cannot be created or made (D&C 93:29), which may mean to some that it must be immaterial. But other verses in D&C 93 indicate and support how intelligence is material:

1. Truth is in a sphere where God has placed it (v. 30), indicating it is material substance. Intelligence is the light of truth, and where it emanates from a material source, must also be material.

2. Light, truth, and intelligence can be received and rejected, accumulated and taken away, cleaved to and forsaken (v. 31, 39) by material beings (man is spirit, v. 33), another material quality.

3. The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth (v.36)—light and truth are material so intelligence must be also.

4. Truth is knowledge (v. 24, 28), making knowledge material as well.

5. Jesus is one with the Father (v. 3), the Spirit of truth (v. 23), and the light of men (or that intelligence, or light of truth, which cleaves between man and God, v. 9). All of these are material interactions between intelligence and its byproducts, by virtue of the Atonement.

I have no problem with intelligence being material, in fact I think the LDS position is ultimately materialistic- including of course the notion of "spirit matter" which has not yet been defined by science.

I am no physicist, but I understand that what is called "dark matter" would perhaps be better defined as "transparent matter" because whatever it is, it does not react with light.

I am sure that whole notion fits in here somewhere but I don't know where!

[Nofear]

I have no problem with intelligence being material, in fact I think the LDS position is ultimately materialistic- including of course the notion of "spirit matter" which has not yet been defined by science.

We, of course, have the scripture about no such thing as immaterial matter (a comment Joseph Smith gave to a Methodist preacher by way of correction after listening to a sermon). Technically, I suppose the window is still open for immaterial "substances". Nonetheless, I find a lot of Mormons identify with materialism.

I am no physicist, but I understand that what is called "dark matter" would perhaps be better defined as "transparent matter" because whatever it is, it does not react with light.

I am sure that whole notion fits in here somewhere but I don't know where!

mfbukowski is correct in that the identifying feature of dark matter is that it does not interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light). Given that even transparent materials can and do interact with light, "dark" is certainly the sexier term.

Humanity has no idea what dark matter is. Some models are present but with no observational confirmation of them. The models proposed, would not be consistent with what we need spirit matter to be (e.g. none of the models of dark matter like WIMPS would be able to assemble a phenomologically complex body such as our spirit bodies are). While I am willing to allow dark matter to be something different than spirit matter, I have yet to shake the nagging feeling that there is some kind of relationship between the two.

[mfbukowski]

We, of course, have the scripture about no such thing as immaterial matter (a comment Joseph Smith gave to a Methodist preacher by way of correction after listening to a sermon). Technically, I suppose the window is still open for immaterial "substances". Nonetheless, I find a lot of Mormons identify with materialism.

mfbukowski is correct in that the identifying feature of dark matter is that it does not interact with electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light). Given that even transparent materials can and do interact with light, "dark" is certainly the sexier term.

Humanity has no idea what dark matter is. Some models are present but with no observational confirmation of them. The models proposed, would not be consistent with what we need spirit matter to be (e.g. none of the models of dark matter like WIMPS would be able to assemble a phenomologically complex body such as our spirit bodies are). While I am willing to allow dark matter to be something different than spirit matter, I have yet to shake the nagging feeling that there is some kind of relationship between the two.

It's fun to speculate about it, but I don't feel I know enough to even do that.

Certainly spirit matter is invisible, but it can be made to interact with electromagnetism because spirits apparently (an interesting word) appear.

So maybe it is "half way" between some kind of electromagnetic force and dark matter. Or something. What do I know?

Maybe that would allow enough complexity to leak into the system to make a "spirit body"?

How about some plasma like thingy of dark matter that interacts with electromagnetism?

Talk about being in the "dark"-! We might as well be talking about the "aether" in 1840 or something!

Edited November 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

I am sure that whole notion fits in here somewhere but I don't know where!

Thank you for considering my ideas and sharing your thoughts from a philosophical standpoint.

This framework, to me, shows that the “strongest poet” of all is God (“more intelligent than they all”). As co-eternal intelligence with God, we were once one “self” with Him. The world/reality “out there” was also the world/reality “in here” and thus “plainly manifest from the beginning.”

Becoming weak poets by virtue of The Fall was a voluntary, developmental step to experience opposition and cultivate strength for the next estate. Co-eternal intelligence in a fundamental estate is not as strong a poet as co-eternal intelligence in estates that define the cultures incorporating spirit and then spirit and element, and eventually these and glory. Enter the “anti-poet” to oppose, which the Strongest Poet leverages to his advantage.

The plan of salvation is God’s culture shaping us into citizens of His Kingdom to the extent we can tolerate His bringing the world “out there” to the world “in here” (i.e. the #1 benefit of the Atonement).

Waxing perhaps more metaphysical than I should, we are God's 'shed intelligence" of His “shed Self” which is another way of saying “as God once was, we are now.” As He expands in glory, more intelligence follows. In this way, we are one with Him (as He was) as well as one with Him as He is and as He will be, depending on how far we are willing to go and allow ourselves to be aware of.

A more profane (but practical for me) way of looking at it is that as we repent, we shed our old self and become a new self by adding intelligence. God does not repent, but ever increases in glory.

As far as "dark matter" goes, I think there is only existence and non-existence; that which does not act does not experience existence. So perhaps it is what could have been but isn't comprehended (D&C 88:49), or the potential that is not realized. God sees this and so is forever separating the light from the darkness.

[Cobalt-70]

Constructivism has nothing to do with logos or anything Platonic at all really, but the idea certainly implies the importance of words. I have not read Derrida much, but I have not seen anything yet that I would totally disagree with that I have seen.

...

Constructivists are influenced by Western ideas of logos dating back to Plato and even earlier. But almost every Western thinker is also similarly influenced, given that the ideas of the Greeks (especially via Christianity) have had millennia to work their way into every aspect of our academic thought. For the Constructivist, reality is constructed by the Iogos. In anti-Realism, reality is logos. In either case--as well as in objectivism or postivism, and even the writings of Rorty, to some extent--rationality is inseparably linked to the Word.

[mfbukowski]

Constructivists are influenced by Western ideas of logos dating back to Plato and even earlier. But almost every Western thinker is also similarly influenced, given that the ideas of the Greeks (especially via Christianity) have had millennia to work their way into every aspect of our academic thought. For the Constructivist, reality is constructed by the Iogos. In anti-Realism, reality is logos. In either case--as well as in objectivism or postivism, and even the writings of Rorty, to some extent--rationality is inseparably linked to the Word.

Well sure- but that is quite different from what you said before. All philosophical traditions go back to the Greeks, but clearly Pragmatism, all process thought including anti-realism and constructivism go back to Heraclitus and not Plato.

Rorty would have a good chuckle at any suggestion that he was a metaphysician who believed in "Logos"

Actually I would like to see any references you have to constructivists using the term in any way other than historically.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you for considering my ideas and sharing your thoughts from a philosophical standpoint.

Wow another great post! Thanks for sharing your views as well- I think they dovetail in interesting ways.

Enter the “anti-poet” to oppose, which the Strongest Poet leverages to his advantage.

You might want to check out my last several posts on the King Folleltte Discourse thread where I discuss Boghossian's "Fear of Knowledge" which is basically a positivist attack on relativism and constructivism, which is, oddly enough, also championed by none other than Evangelical Rob Bowman who thinks that anything like constructivism is antithetical to Mormonism when in fact what he doesn't realize is that positivism is itself antithetical to religion in general.

The entire notion that there is a conflict between science and religion is created, in my opinion, by the "Strongest Anti-Poet" and I will let you guess who that is!

But it all fits. If it's scientific, and verifiable, such an anti-poet would say, it is "true" and "real" and since God is none of those things, God becomes a "fiction".

On the other hand, for the constructivist who knows that all there is is metaphor, God is as real as anything on this earth, and spiritual experience is as real as any experience we can possibly have.

So I think you are really onto something with this "Anti-Poet" idea. Pretty exciting stuff!

I'll get to the rest of your post in a day or so. Real life intrudes!

Edit: see my Calmoriah quote below in my siggy! Highly relevant!

Edited November 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

I'm really glad you posted this because it goes to the heart of problem I have been struggling with in a philosopher named Rorty, who's philosophy I like, but I think he really goes haywire when it comes to his definition of the "self".

Rorty believes that there's a world "out there" independent from out perceptions in some sense, but we can't really ever talk about what things "really are" because all we know about the way things "really are" is what we experience. So all we have to deal with really is how we speak about what we see and experience- we can't know "what is" or speak about it in any meaningful way because we don't experience "what is" but just the way our brains assemble all that- our collective brains I really should say- and speak about it in language.

I tend to agree with that strongly. But now this is where I think he goes haywire. Because to him everything real is ultimately metaphors and linguistic constructions which we have learned culturally, he believes that the self is also. What that means is the self is just a bundle of linguistic ideas and metaphors which were put into our heads culturally, along with language, so that we are really just little language machines, little bundles of what he calls "vocabularies"- each of us is either a weak poet or a strong poet, all speaking in metaphors about what we cannot really ever know with any level of absolute certainty. Weak poets accept what vocabularies they get and don't think about things much, but "strong poets" invent their own vocabularies- they are those who in a sense create themselves and their own world views. By taking different ideas and combining them into their own world views, as many do here for example, including you, we all really inventing our own realities.

...

But I have always had a problem with that, because I experience my "self" as an entity which has been here eternally- that there is something which came with me before I came to this earth; I actually experience myself that way, and I am sure many others here would agree. I believed that before I joined the church- I just experienced myself as an eternal being of light- but I could not define it quite that way.

...

I disagree with Rorty for many reasons. Despite all his writing about the contingency of the self, and the contingency of language, his created "self," and the contingent language entertained by that "self," still issues from the logos. When he says that the self, and language are contingent, he means that they are contingent upon the logos. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it is not radical enough. It also means that classical Mormonism is no more compatible with the ideas of Rorty than it is with the ideas of Plato. I wouldn't say that the self is contingent; I would say that our "self" is an inscription upon our bodies and brains. It has no author, just lots of readers.

I think that Mormonism is most compatible with the post-feminist school of critical theory, which Rorty did not represent. Post-feminism inverts traditional Western philosophy and theology by favoring body (feminine) over mind (masculine). In Mormonism, like post-feminism, the self is an embodiment. The mind is not transcendent, but is embodied in the flesh. The self is information (intelligence) embodied in the medium of our brains, or our spirit bodies. Just as post-feminists deconstruct the patriarchal preeminence of mind over body, Mormonism speaks against the Christian supremacy of (disembodied) spirit over flesh. To Mormons, everything is flesh, even spirit, and the purpose of life is to achieve embodiment.

[mfbukowski]

I disagree with Rorty for many reasons. Despite all his writing about the contingency of the self, and the contingency of language, his created "self," and the contingent language entertained by that "self," still issues from the logos. When he says that the self, and language are contingent, he means that they are contingent upon the logos. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it is not radical enough. It also means that classical Mormonism is no more compatible with the ideas of Rorty than it is with the ideas of Plato. I wouldn't say that the self is contingent; I would say that our "self" is an inscription upon our bodies and brains. It has no author, just lots of readers.

I think that Mormonism is most compatible with the post-feminist school of critical theory, which Rorty did not represent. Post-feminism inverts traditional Western philosophy and theology by favoring body (feminine) over mind (masculine). In Mormonism, like post-feminism, the self is an embodiment. The mind is not transcendent, but is embodied in the flesh. The self is information (intelligence) embodied in the medium of our brains, or our spirit bodies. Just as post-feminists deconstruct the patriarchal preeminence of mind over body, Mormonism speaks against the Christian supremacy of (disembodied) spirit over flesh. To Mormons, everything is flesh, even spirit, and the purpose of life is to achieve embodiment.

I would like to know what you mean by "contingent on the logos". I am really not comfortable with metaphysical language games anymore, with the exception of the scriptures- I feel I have to study those and so I do, but I always find myself "translating", as I did a little on this thread. But of course they are THE source for me- as with CV pointing out those relevant scriptures on this thread, but the translation can be difficult. It's like drinking from a firehose, there is so much there, it's easy to miss all the riches available.

Of course the notion of "strong poet" is something that Rorty gets from Harold Bloom, who has said some interesting things about Mormonism, and there is currently a thread about him which I suppose I should be involved with, but really I just could not bear to read what he has said about Mormonism and how his views have changed. I think he is just under pressure to revoke any good things he has said about us, pressure probably related to the New York Times and how important it has been in his life. But who knows. The Times is becoming just another foul anti-Mormon rag of late.

But the reason I am bringing up Bloom is because Rorty started as a "philosopher" and ended up being more of a "literary critic", and I guess post-feminism is more of a literary movement, but as always the distinction between philos and criticism is getting more blurry than ever.

I guess it is due to Continental Philosophy as opposed to Anglo-American- your folks I think come more out of the continental tradition, which is anathema in most American university philosophy departments.

So it all sounds a bit too metaphysical to me I guess.

[mfbukowski]

The plan of salvation is God’s culture shaping us into citizens of His Kingdom to the extent we can tolerate His bringing the world “out there” to the world “in here” (i.e. the #1 benefit of the Atonement).

Waxing perhaps more metaphysical than I should, we are God's 'shed intelligence" of His “shed Self” which is another way of saying “as God once was, we are now.” As He expands in glory, more intelligence follows. In this way, we are one with Him (as He was) as well as one with Him as He is and as He will be, depending on how far we are willing to go and allow ourselves to be aware of.

A more profane (but practical for me) way of looking at it is that as we repent, we shed our old self and become a new self by adding intelligence. God does not repent, but ever increases in glory.

As far as "dark matter" goes, I think there is only existence and non-existence; that which does not act does not experience existence. So perhaps it is what could have been but isn't comprehended (D&C 88:49), or the potential that is not realized. God sees this and so is forever separating the light from the darkness.

Interesting ideas!

This is something I wrote several years ago in a metaphysical moment:

“LDS Transformational Theology” is my metaphysical view that “eternal progression” implies that God through the advancement of his creation, is always changing, and directing the transformation of the universe through his creations and his children.

This divinely directed transformational change causes the development of living things to “swim upstream” against entropy, and is evident in the ever more complex development of his creatures over time.

Another way of saying this, is that the history of the universe manifests God’s directing hand in moving from “matter unorganized” to the creation of “God-stuff”; one example of this process can be seen in the formation of humanity. Paul in the New Testament speaks of “bodies celestial” as the manifestation of our greatest human potential. These bodies with this mature potential were formed from matter which was once “unorganized”, and which matter is, following the resurrection, transformed into celestialized human bodies. We believe that the earth itself will one day undergo such a transformation.

In human lives, this transformation is manifest in the maxim “the natural man is an enemy to God”, representing the beginning of our spiritual journey. As we move forward on this journey, we seek to transform our lives from the carnal “state of nature” (“matter unorganized”) to a celestial state, by the grace of the transforming and healing power of Jesus Christ, “after all we can do”.

This view can be understood on many levels from a spiritual understanding of the origin of species and how the vast panorama of life relates to eschatology, to using concrete methods and techniques to enable us to transform our habits to “come unto Christ.”

This view implies that God adds to his glory through his creation, and in a real sense, by creating his creations, is in some sense re-creating himself.

This is also manifest in LDS ordinances in a symbolic way. As we become “one flesh” as members of the body of Christ and “one flesh” in the state of celestial marriage, we again participate in our father’s creative process of becoming like him physically as well as spiritually.

And for Cobalt, there's your logos!

Edited November 22, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

It's fun to speculate about it, but I don't feel I know enough to even do that.

Certainly spirit matter is invisible, but it can be made to interact with electromagnetism because spirits apparently (an interesting word) appear.

Clearly it is not its normal state for spirit matter to interact with physical light given that the spirit world, at least according to Brigham Young, is co-local with our earth. If it were, we'd see the spirit world and spirits all around us. I prefer to think that when a spirit personange becomes "visible" it is not because my physical body eyes are perceiving it, but rather that my consciousness is allowed access to the stimulation of my spirit body eyes -- which stimulation (and others) is currently being withheld by the veil. This would be consistent with accounts where some individuals in a room could perceive the spirit being while others could not. But, that is just an idea.

More intriguing to me at the moment is the close connection our spirit body has with the memories of sensory experience from the physical body acquired while under the veil. Our spirit body is allowed a very tight integration with our physical body to get the information but at the same time, spirit matter must have a very low interaction cross-section with physical matter (in part for reasons stated above). It becomes a very delicate balancing issue. But, that's a topic perhaps for a different thread at a different time.

[CV75]

You might want to check out my last several posts on the King Folleltte Discourse thread

Thank you (I had to recheck them, actually!)!

[CV75]

This is something I wrote several years ago in a metaphysical moment:

Very interesting! I am going to have to do some more thinking / re-thinking about whether we (and God) as intelligence are becoming more complex or actually more simple as we progress; whether the natural man is intelligence-wise or spiritually complex or simple--develop a few ideas I shared in earlier posts.

[CV75]

This is something I wrote several years ago in a metaphysical moment:

Getting back to you on other comments and your essay from several years ago (holiday is coming so this might be my last effort for awhile):

My working conclusion is that intelligence is material and the “self” of God. An Exalted Man is inseparably connected eternal element and Spirit of perfect intelligence recognizable as a Man. He cannot be separated into element, spirit and glory/intelligence, so He is materially simple and irreducible. Try as we might to differentiate between His many members, all are one, forever one body.

In this Exalted Man we have mercy and justice in perfection. If one were to separate one from the other, God would “cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22, 35).” Mercy and justice are the maximal expressions of intelligence as they act upon other intelligence and each other to ensure that intelligence forever acts for itself.

Intelligence forever acting for itself defines the Lord’s course as one eternal round. It is irreducible in that it is never disrupted. His “path is straight” (simple) and “the same today as yesterday, and forever” (also simple). (2 Nephi 10:19, D&C 3:2; 35:1).

We naturally follow suit. The Fall makes us materially complex; we are only “separably” connected, easily disconnected, with waxing and waning intelligence/glory. The Atonement makes us as whole as God. The natural man is complex (we can take him apart), the man of God is more like Him, simple (plain, pure).

As we become like God, being “added upon” does not entail becoming more complex but more simple because what is added is intelligence. Glory and intelligence are added to the estate and the kingdom (Abraham 3:26; D&C 43:10). Complexity is found only in the compound of perfection and imperfection, and this is removed through the perfection process.

Intelligence, or the “self” is eternally sentient; it possesses agency, and chooses and acts with that agency (otherwise there is no existence and it does not exist).

[CV75]

More intriguing to me at the moment is the close connection our spirit body has with the memories of sensory experience from the physical body acquired while under the veil.

I'll try to keep this reply in line with the topic of intelligence.

I see these "memories of sensory experience" as a spirit’s ongoing appreciation or sudden realization of his dependence on the flesh after death (D&C 138:50). Appreciation comes from proper application of sensory experience, which has added to his intelligence, and sudden realization comes from misapplied sensory experience (or the artificial dulling thereof) which reduced his intelligence. The former, having the benefit of greater intelligence, can appreciate his surroundings; the latter cannot comprehend as well and is frustrated with his surroundings. This is why it is difficult to repent of misuse of sensory experience in the spirit world (we often use the example of quitting smoking)—it is caused by the lack of intelligence as much as a lack of a body.

A spirit may not be able to remember the actual sensation of the warm sun or a hot tottie, only that it was something he remembers and now misses but can’t quite replicate in his consciousness, similar to what he experiences on the mortal side of the veil with nostalgia for his “home in heaven” or anxiety against that “empty hole” he tries to fill with sin or addictions. His level of intelligence brings him peace or misery (D&C 130:18, 19), with the attendant ability to progress as much as one can in the spirit world. He has to wait until the resurrection to have those sensations he is permitted to have in the glory he is willing to receive.

[mfbukowski]

In counseling married couples who are having problems, and in counseling youths with drug problems, I have found it is very productive to actually discuss doctrine with them rather than going into psychological mumbo jumbo.

Couples in trouble often don't understand the full impact of being "one flesh" with their spouses, and drug users don't understand that we are to get our comfort from the "Comforter" instead of outside substances which actually just make it harder to get real "Comfort".

I'm not saying that teaching them this is an instant cure, but it helps immensely. Of course there are always other issues to deal with as well, but once they understand the doctrine, everything else falls into place as far as what needs to be done for repentance.

In my own life, I have observed this principle of repentance many many times over. I am an expert at repentance because I have had to do so much of it!

First you really have to totally understand the doctrine and feel it in your spirit mind and body and then rest becomes much easier.

[CV75]

In counseling married couples who are having problems, and in counseling youths with drug problems, I have found it is very productive to actually discuss doctrine with them rather than going into psychological mumbo jumbo.

Couples in trouble often don't understand the full impact of being "one flesh" with their spouses, and drug users don't understand that we are to get our comfort from the "Comforter" instead of outside substances which actually just make it harder to get real "Comfort".

I'm not saying that teaching them this is an instant cure, but it helps immensely. Of course there are always other issues to deal with as well, but once they understand the doctrine, everything else falls into place as far as what needs to be done for repentance.

In my own life, I have observed this principle of repentance many many times over. I am an expert at repentance because I have had to do so much of it!

First you really have to totally understand the doctrine and feel it in your spirit mind and body and then rest becomes much easier.

Absolutely--isn't it often said that true doctrine, understood, will change attitudes and behavior better than understanding behavior will improve behavior... Intelligence underlies the understanding and the resultant behavior.

Edited November 23, 2011 by CV75