What Is Adamic Language? Adam And Pre-Adamites

[Cobalt-70]

This allegedly "distorted" reality that we are said to apprehend as through a glass darkly implies a non-distorted underlying reality that we can never reach. As such, it remains a purely unfalsifiable assertion that such an ideal world exists. By defining reality as something that can never be truly experienced, reality itself becomes an article of faith.

Indeed it does. We conjure up the idea of this undistorted reality only to prove it is unreachable, but we are simultaneously erasing as we write.

[Calm]

This allegedly "distorted" reality that we are said to apprehend as through a glass darkly implies a non-distorted underlying reality that we can never reach. As such, it remains a purely unfalsifiable assertion that such an ideal world exists. By defining reality as something that can never be truly experienced, reality itself becomes an article of faith.

On the contrary, from the verse which yields us "through a glass darkly" is the answer to when our knowledge becomes as God's.

[Aliwe]

On the contrary, from the verse which yields us "through a glass darkly" is the answer to when our knowledge becomes as God's.

An adherent of dualism would say there is the US Civil War on one hand, and God's knowledge of that conflict on the other, and God's knowledge of the conflict is a perfect model of the war which exists in the mind of God. And by implication, man, created in the image of God, tries to do the same thing. But the war no longer exists in the memory of living men, only in the physical records and memoirs left behind by the men who lived through it, so our knowledge (our mental model) of the war is imperfect. But there's an underlying assumption here that may not be correct. It may be the case that mental models are strictly a human phenomenon, and that God's knowledge of the Civil War in encoded in the war itself.

[Benjamin McGuire]

How do you know if Antarctica or Quantum Physics or viruses or Betelgeuse or the hagfish are real? Because many people have written articles about them. And those people are typically specialized into their own "communities" of expertise.

The thing that interests me about an Adamic Language is the existence of dozens of discussions about it that were circulating at the time of Joseph Smith (from notables like Newton, Webster, Bishop Sprat, Jean Le Clerc, and so on). Following the prophecy in Zephaniah, the early LDS church believed that restoring the "pure language" was a necessary development that had to occur prior to the second coming (as did much of the contemporary restorationist movement). As the focus shifted from this perspective, what eventually became of this push was the deseret alphabet - based somewhat on Michael H. Barton's attempt published in 1832 (his encounter with the Mormons occurred in 1935, when, he attempted to join the church but was "rejected".

I think that when we discuss Adamic language we tend to remove it from this cultural context, and in doing so, we tend to include all sorts of assumptions that confuse the issue rather than provide any clarity.

Ben M.

[mfbukowski]

Sounds a little Buddhist here? Nothing truly exists because it is all transitory therefore, nothing is real.

Not really. Just constructivist, or Pragmatic a la William James

It's not that nothing is real- its more that only our experiences are real. It's kind of the other side of the coin from what you are suggesting. If you find anything real that no one has experienced, let me know.

[mfbukowski]

Not only have they written articles about them, but these articles are phrased in such a way that a third party can come in and attempt to disqualify them. Betelgeuse, for instance, was the first star after the sun to have it's apparent diameter measured, it subtends about 0.047 arcseconds. Anyone can get a telescope and try to poke a hole in that observation, maybe say it's still a point source with no visible disk. This differs from other things like, oh, the golden plates, so we can say the reality of Betelgeuse is not a matter of faith.

You are missing the point.

Theories about the nature of Betelgeuse can change and I promise they will. Accepting what you think now about Betelgeuse NOW I promise is not "correct" nor will it ever be.

But we only know about B because there are many many many people writing about their personal experiences observing B. The problem is that all the observations in the world about B do not give meaning to my life, nor do they give meaning to anyone else's life.

Why are you on this board? What motivates you? What issues do you have in your life that you are expressing? What gives meaning to your life?

I guarantee you did not make the decision to post here based on scientific observations.

[mfbukowski]

I did not say, and do not believe, that nothing is real. I said that nobody directly experiences reality. Reality is always mediated, translated, and distorted through a chain of difference and deferrals. The reality is there, but is never directly apprehended, and even if it were, there is not an indivisible "subject" that does all the apprehending.

The problem with this is that you still think there IS a reality which is "not directly apprehended". Please show me this reality.

Our direct apprehensions, to use your word, is all that reality IS. But then unfortunately we have to talk about those apprehensions and when we do so, all that becomes metaphors for that direct experience.

So mostly we talk about talking and definitions.

[mfbukowski]

No one alive today has ever seen Plato. All we really have is what someone else has said about him. Does that mean that he didn't exist?

Depends on what you mean by "Plato". It really doesn't matter if he did or didn't. Certainly his influence in literature exists. Christianity is based on it.

[mfbukowski]

Just like God, eh? No existence but in tracks of ink across pages?

Nope, he lives in our hearts. He is just as "real" as any subjective experience, like red or blue or the sound of a trumpet. Just as our minds put those experiences together out of the chaos of what enters our brains and spirits, he is just as real.

[mfbukowski]

The thing that interests me about an Adamic Language is the existence of dozens of discussions about it that were circulating at the time of Joseph Smith (from notables like Newton, Webster, Bishop Sprat, Jean Le Clerc, and so on). Following the prophecy in Zephaniah, the early LDS church believed that restoring the "pure language" was a necessary development that had to occur prior to the second coming (as did much of the contemporary restorationist movement). As the focus shifted from this perspective, what eventually became of this push was the deseret alphabet - based somewhat on Michael H. Barton's attempt published in 1832 (his encounter with the Mormons occurred in 1935, when, he attempted to join the church but was "rejected".

I think that when we discuss Adamic language we tend to remove it from this cultural context, and in doing so, we tend to include all sorts of assumptions that confuse the issue rather than provide any clarity.

Ben M.

Loved the cartoon. Definitions are everything.

Interesting stuff, but oddly enough I kind of agree that we need to restore "pure language", and that is what I hope I am working toward.

Don't know if you know much about Wittgenstein, especially his later stuff like Philosophical Investigations, but I think he was on the right track to doing just that.

And I certainly agree that context IS everything as well- context is what actually defines meanings, and so, our thoughts.

[Ron Beron]

Not really. Just constructivist, or Pragmatic a la William James

It's not that nothing is real- its more that only our experiences are real. It's kind of the other side of the coin from what you are suggesting. If you find anything real that no one has experienced, let me know.

Just to be glib how about death...well, at least no one is talking too much about it.

[mfbukowski]

Just to be glib how about death...well, at least no one is talking too much about it.

Well that's a good one!

But unfortunately I think I have it covered

That is the whole point really. I think that before Adam named "death" and before there was a linguistic concept of what we call "sin" it didn't exist either.

At least not with the human implications of either of those. Just as a tiger eating a person is not "murder" because that moral word only applies to moral beings, what we know as "death" couldn't "exist" in our terms either.

Yes, we can say that animals ate each other in a carbon cycle, but it was no more "death" than a chemical reaction is "death" for the molecules involved.

So imo, that is how Adam brought "sin" and "death" into the world

..well, at least no one is talking too much about it.

So that is indeed both the problem AND it's own solution!!

[Aliwe]

At least not with the human implications of either of those. Just as a tiger eating a person is not "murder" because that moral word only applies to moral beings, what we know as "death" couldn't "exist" in our terms either.

Jesus said of Satan, "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth." Does this mean Jesus is blaming Satan for the death of Adam, or did Satan kill someone before Adam, "in the beginning" ?

[thesometimesaint]

Aliwe:

If someone takes actions to ensure someones untimely death then that person is a murderer.

[Aliwe]

Aliwe:If someone takes actions to ensure someones untimely death then that person is a murderer.

Ah yes, but here's the rub. Satan didn't pull the trigger. He explained the true nature of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that it would open Eve's eyes, and make her like God. And that's exactly what it did. She wanted to close the distance between her and God, as any girl wants to do with her father. She made the choice and paid the price. All Satan did was allow her to make her choice fully informed consent.

[mfbukowski]

Jesus said of Satan, "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth." Does this mean Jesus is blaming Satan for the death of Adam, or did Satan kill someone before Adam, "in the beginning" ?

The story of Cain and Abel makes this point metaphorically- that was the first human experience of "murder". This is much clearer in LDS scriptures than anywhere else. Cain and Satan are in many ways one

[Aliwe]

The story of Cain and Abel makes this point metaphorically- that was the first human experience of "murder". This is much clearer in LDS scriptures than anywhere else. Cain and Satan are in many ways one

Me, I kind of sympathize with Cain. God had cursed the very soil, which caused it to grow thorny weeds. Adam had to work his buns off just to put food on the table. When his first-born son Cain was old enough he pitched in with dad and helped out in the field like a good boy. Adam's snotty second-born son, Abel, preferred to just walk around the hills with his sheep, which could not even be eaten because God did not authorize a meat diet for humanity until after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). The only thing Abel could do with his sheep was offer them to God as a burnt holocaust. So Abel became the next person (after God made Adam and Eve some fur coats) to perform the act of killing. One day Cain brought to God, in good faith, some of the fruit of the ground he had managed to grow (despite the soil being cursed) to offer in thanksgiving, but God had no respect for his offering, despite Cain being the first-born and natural heir to Adam's priestly ministry, because it didn't involve blood at all. So Cain, scratching his head and trying to figure out the rules, decided to kill his brother. Cain was not so much angry with Abel as angry with God, who seemed to favor the lazy, shiftless boy who just watched sheep over the faithful son who helped his father provide for the family.

[Cobalt-70]

Not really. Just constructivist, or Pragmatic a la William James

It's not that nothing is real- its more that only our experiences are real. It's kind of the other side of the coin from what you are suggesting. If you find anything real that no one has experienced, let me know.

See, that's where I disagree with you, from a philosophical perspective. Why is it that your experiences are more real than anything else? Your experiences are mediated by your noisy nervous system, and which part of your nervous system is the "you" that does the experiencing? I, like you, disagree with the idea that "nothing is real"--the difference is, I don't think that we can ever have direct access to the real, even through our own experiences. Reality is always mediated, and different from what we actually experience, as well as deferred in time as a result of signal delay.

[Cobalt-70]

The problem with this is that you still think there IS a reality which is "not directly apprehended". Please show me this reality.

In order to show that reality is not directly apprehended, you have to at least temporarily go with the assumption that there is a reality. But if there isn't a reality, then it even more certain that it is not directly apprehended. I am not going to show you this reality, because once you postulate its existence, it cannot be seen, nor can it be seen if you postulate its nonexistence.

[mfbukowski]

See, that's where I disagree with you, from a philosophical perspective. Why is it that your experiences are more real than anything else? Your experiences are mediated by your noisy nervous system, and which part of your nervous system is the "you" that does the experiencing? I, like you, disagree with the idea that "nothing is real"--the difference is, I don't think that we can ever have direct access to the real, even through our own experiences. Reality is always mediated, and different from what we actually experience, as well as deferred in time as a result of signal delay.

What position is that? What philosopher holds that position? The problem is obvious- how could you know about this different reality which you cannot experience?

Prove to me that it even exists. It's just silliness.

[mfbukowski]

In order to show that reality is not directly apprehended, you have to at least temporarily go with the assumption that there is a reality. But if there isn't a reality, then it even more certain that it is not directly apprehended. I am not going to show you this reality, because once you postulate its existence, it cannot be seen, nor can it be seen if you postulate its nonexistence.

This is utter nonsense. Of course there is what we call "reality"- I am not psychotic. The point is that what we call "reality" IS what we experience.

[Ron Beron]

This is utter nonsense. Of course there is what we call "reality"- I am not psychotic. The point is that what we call "reality" IS what we experience.

This reminds me of the argument presented by Lao Tzu...A man once dreamt he was a butterfly, but then he awoke. Was he a butterfly dreaming he is a man or a man dreaming he is a butterly?

[mfbukowski]

This reminds me of the argument presented by Lao Tzu...A man once dreamt he was a butterfly, but then he awoke. Was he a butterfly dreaming he is a man or a man dreaming he is a butterly?

Now to me, that is psychotic in itself if one said that seriously, all the recent Matrix type movies and tv shows notwithstanding. When you are awake, does anyone healthy really think that they might be dreaming?

If so, I would you get yourself to the nearest hospital asap!

[Cobalt-70]

What position is that? What philosopher holds that position? The problem is obvious- how could you know about this different reality which you cannot experience?

Prove to me that it even exists. It's just silliness.

My point is not that there is a reality that "exists." My point is that reality cannot be apprehended. I use the words "reality" and "be" under erasure--which means that I use the words, but in a way that they are undermined, to demonstrate my point. It is fair to say that I don't believe that "reality does not exist."

What philosopher holds that position? Probably none, because this is not philosophy. It is criticism of philosophy.

[Cobalt-70]

This is utter nonsense. Of course there is what we call "reality"- I am not psychotic. The point is that what we call "reality" IS what we experience.

And what "is" it you call "reality"? Your memories that you call "experience" are a representation of something now absent. But when were they ever present? By the time you recognized them as "experience," they were already in the past, and different from what was going through your nervous system at the time you think the experience "happened."