Baal Shem Tov And Joseph Smith

[DubaDNura]

Thanks. I always feel a twinge of guilt when I generalise.

I think I used the wrong smiley.

[volgadon]

I think I used the wrong smiley.

Obliteration, much better.

[DubaDNura]

Obliteration, much better.

"Resistance is futile."

Edited September 14, 2012 by DubaDNura

[Bill Hamblin]

Thanks. I always feel a twinge of guilt when I generalise.

All generalizations are false. Including this one.

[mfbukowski]

I always type in green on this forum. Something has to be said for that.

The shattering of the vessels is the most commonly misunderstood concept in Luria's Kabbalah. And the misunderstanding of Shviras HaKeilim (shattering of the vessels) accounts for the problems in understanding the rest of Kabbalah that I regularly run into. This explanation is based upon the 45th chapter of a book called Sharei Hayichud (The Gates of Unity) by the second leader of the Chabad Chassidic movement. He analogizes shvirah to hearing someone speak a different language, or to hearing someone speak in your language about a topic that you don't understand. Not only will you not be able to understand what you're hearing, you won't even be able to remember it, because without some kind of a context for what you're hearing, the whole message gets lost. His actual example was someone hearing the Hebrew word Vayomer, but not knowing Hebrew. The listener would remember, perhaps, the sounds vahmah, but not the word Vayomer.

The trick is to learn G-d's language through a dedication to serve him, through intense purity, and through learning the Chassidic teachings.

Given that understanding, each moment is really a world of information that, if interpreted, will reveal G-d. So what do the Kabbalists teach about a moment? Well they teach that its made up of 4 worlds. (See, here's where the above understanding affects the rest of your understanding of Kabbalah. How many people think of the 4 worlds as somehow existing in ethereal space? In reality, they aren't separate and distinct from our everyday life, at all).

Asiyah - the World of Action. This is what is actually happening. Prof. Hamblin called this an ontological reality.

Yetzirah - The World of Formation. For those interested in Sefer Yetzirah, the Book of Formation, it is usually interpreted by Kabbalists as talking predominantly about this world. This is connected with the world of emotions. In other words, its the impact that ontological reality has on us.

Briyah - The World of Creation. This is connected with logic. This is our interpretation of ontological reality.

Atzilus - The World of Emanation. This is how the ontological reality was really G-d's choice.

Finally, above all worlds, and transcending them, is the Ancient of Days (Atik Yomin) sometimes just called Kesser (the Crown), which is G-d's ultimate desire. It comes into every level, so to speak. So its relationship with Asiyah is that its how the ontological reality, the final result, fulfilled G-d's true desire.

Obviously, much of the above is very personal. One's perception of ontological reality affects his ability to see how it fits into G-d's plan. Therefore, much of the emphasis in Kabbalistic learning is to change a person's perspective. That is, to teach him the language G-d "speaks" in the allegory I brought at the beginning of this post.

Incredible post!

I believe that all the worlds are created through language and now see what volgadon has been saying that Wittgenstein is the most "Jewish" (though an agnostic raised as a Catholic) philosopher. Seeing this as I do, fortunately or unfortunately, through the lens of of Western Analytic philosophy it really helps me see that within our own worlds we are in harmony, and though the language we use doesn't seem to always line up with precision, my "sphere" I think resonates deeply with the music of yours.

I was hung up for a long time believing that the "truths" of Kabbalah could only be understood by Hebrew speakers, and of course that is probably true, but what I was missing is that what it speaks of is relevant to all language because it is speaking about the Language of God, Hebrew or not.

That insight changes everything. Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

"Resistance is futile."

So who wants to resist? I surrender!

[Bill Hamblin]

Well I wasn't going to comment on this but since volgadon did I guess I will as well

I really don't understand what you are saying at all. I really don't understand how something unknowable can have "ontological reality" especially when we are speaking of a person's opinion or teaching.

I also have trouble with the whole idea of an "onotological reality" of a vision. You mean he really saw what he says he saw- ie: he was not lying, or are you saying that what he saw was "real"?

So if he said he saw something and really saw what he said he saw and it was a hallucination, would that have ontological reality or not?

Or are you saying that what he saw was something "ontolgically real" even though no one can know if it was real or not?

As you can see, I am quite confused.

And then that last part- that most things can't be proven. Of course they can't.

But in what way is something "ontologically real" if no one knows if it happened or not and it has no consequence?

Suppose aliens landed at the North Pole on March 15th, 1864 and no one knows about it. Is such an alleged event "ontologically real?" Does the answer matter at all?

Now what if someone teaches that that happened? Is the teaching "ontologically real?"

I'm just not seeing why this has any practical importance I guess.

There is a big problem in studying the past, and that is that it doesn't exist. We can not empirically observe the past, nor objectively describe it, nor experiment on it. All we can do is extrapolate from the material and textual remains of the past.

However, our inability to empirically observe the human past does not mean there was not an ontological reality to past events. Thus:

Either the Besht said X, or the Besht did not say X, or the Besht said something similar to X, but not exactly X.

The fact that we may not be able to know for certain which of these three possibilities was ontologically real in the past does not mean it is not important, especially if we want to understand the teachings of the Besht.

Ontological reality exists regardless of whether we know it or not. (For example, the cosmos composed of millions of galaxies existed when men did not know about it. The Sun in our solar system had ontological reality before the existence of humans.)

With visions, the question of ontological reality is a bit different. Setting aside the question of a visionary lying about a vision, a visionary's vision either derives from his own internal brain chemistry (delusion/hallucination), or it derives from some external ontologically independent thing that the visionary is "seeing" or "envisioning". We call visions induced by such an external ontological reality, real or true visions.

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't mean to hit-and-run. But every now and then I lurk here, and I noticed this thread. You could say that I'm uniquely qualified to comment here, despite never having read most of the books Prof. Hamblin and others have referred to. I've learned many of the books upon which those were based, however.

One of the difficulties in ascribing any specific saying to the Baal Shem Tov was that he did not write anything. Much was written that was later ascribed to him by his students. For example, the book Toldos Yaakov Yosef, by Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polonne, is a collection of d'rashos (that is, homiletic interpretations of the Torah) that are, in many ways, not terribly earth shattering They are beautiful, but not revolutionary. Periodically, however, her quotes the Besh''t.

Kesser Shem Tov ("Crown of [a] good name") and Tzava's HaRivash (an acronym for "The Ethical Will of the Rabbi, the Baal Shem") are collections of his saying from various places. There's another book called Sefer Baal Shem Tov, which claims to be a collection of his teachings.

But the greatest method of understanding his teaching is to learn the teachings of his followers. Prof. Hamblin makes a good point that it is not entirely fair to say that the actual teachings of the Besh't are not as important as the teachings about him. But as a practical matter, the impact of the Besh't on the world was was his creation of a new movement within the Jewish religion. To the extent that that movement claims to be based upon his teachings, his teachings live on in the movements he inspired. As another practical matter, each Chassidic branch seems to view the Besh't as the forebear of their Chassidic tradition. So its no surprise that each movement tends to paint a picture of him that fits with their unique Chassidic outlook.

With that in mind, I'll tackle the Wikipedia article, which seems to be based upon the books of a certain specific Chassidic sect.

This is not a Mormon issue, but I was always a little frustrated to hear the explanation of the the Misnagdim's understanding of Kabbalah. Their understanding - according to the explanation of it offered by my Chassidic teachers - was so clearly heretical that they were obviously just fools and illiterates. Now I know that they were not fools and illiterates, so it stood to reason that either my understanding of Kabbalah was problematic (not a possibility I gave much thought to, admittedly), or that the explanation of their philosophy left something to be desired. Since then, I've learned significant parts of "their" explanation of Kabbalah. I've never seen any evidence of this idea that they believed that His emanations were distinct from Him.

Another source for the myth that the Besh''t taught the "novel concept" of "altz iz G-tt" (everything is G-d) is simple misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, of Lurianic Kabbalah. Very few of the teachings ascribed to the Besh''t were terribly novel. For example, the book that is called the foundational book of the Chabad branch of Chassidic Judaism (and, I suspect that the person who wrote the Wikipedia article was an adherent... in fact, I think I know the individual who wrote it), called Likutei Amarim (which just means, "A collection of sayings") is really just an explanation of R' Isaac Luria's teachings.

The novelty of the Besh''t was the approach to the teachings, which already existed. First of all, the Besh't brought Kabbalah front and center, and gave it a life and relevance for the laity. Second, the Besh''t integrated the understanding of the world derived from the Kabbalistic teachings into the understanding of the Talmud and Jewish law, so that one could not be fully understood without the other. Even this was really always the plan in the Lurianic teaching. Rabbi Chaim Vital, in his introduction to the foundational text Eitz Chaim ("Tree of Life"), the most comprehensive explanation of R' Isaac Luria's teaching - Luria was one of those masters who taught, instead of wrote... like the Besh''t, and like Socrates, for example - writes that people who do not learn Kabbalah see individual Jewish laws as distinct. His language was that they were like "droplets," that is, separate from the stream, and separate from one another. To the Kabbalist, the purpose of Jewish law was just to magnify G-d's name, and demonstrate his Oneness. In other words, a mature person understood G-d's Oneness, and therefore acted in a way that demonstrated it without having to be told at each junction where to go, and what to do.

In this respect, the Besh''t almost expects each person to ascribe to prophecy. The prophet understands G-d's relationship with the world, and therefore would no more violate Jewish law than he would violate the laws of gravity. If a person were to study Kabbalah, and live his life in a way of purity and kindess, he would develop the maturity necessary to have that kind of understanding. There's no book called "Being an adult, and not walking into traffic without looking before you cross." One does not have to read that sticking metal pieces into an electrical socket is dangerous once he's 24 years old, or so. Maturity cannot be learned in a book, but it takes a lifetime of reading to achieve it.

In this way, G-d really is invested in all things. For someone who diligently prays each morning, and who therefore meditates on his purpose in the world, the day does not bring a series of battles with the evil inclination (one of the names for the evil inclination, btw, is Satan). Instead, the day is a series of opportunities to do the right thing, and to magnify G-d's name.

I'm going to skip most of the quoted text, because I think I've dealt with it.

I don't understand this line, and I don't think its accurate. He fought against contempt for the world, in that the world really G-d manifesting Himself as the world. But any view of the world that disconnects it from G-d was contemptible. So viewing a woman as an object of sexual desire is absolutely contemptible. Viewing one's wife as an extension of oneself, a partner in creation, etc. was very holy. Statements like this seem to come from a Christian worldview (and, I've noticed, not a very Mormon worldview), where sex and indulgence is a necessary evil. For Jews, and particularly for Kabbalists, all of these things can be extremely holy if one has the right perspective; and make no mistake about it, one's perspective will influence one's conduct. You don't get out of having to become a better person by just claiming to be a Kabbalist.

Here's another statement that's a little off, and could afford to be tweaked.

The Talmud is still central in the Jewish cannon, amongst Chassidim. In fact, today, Chassidim are frequently accused of being too strict. But it is definitely true that one should learn the Talmud, and Jewish law, with an eye towards sanctifying G-d's name. Each mitzvah (commandment) isn't an end in itself. In fact, there truly is only one commandment. Moses first taught the Jewish people, when he stood on Mt. Sinai, "I am the Lord your G-d." In the Chassidic imagination, the Jews asked "so what does that mean for me?" Then Moses sighed and said, "for starters, it means that 'You shall have no other gods besides Me.'" And the Jews said "ok, but you're going to have to be more specific." So Moses said, "Ok guys, you'll understand this pretty soon. It really isn't a rule book. Being good is pretty simple. But if you need this broken into a bunch of little rules while you grow up and become adults, I'll help you out." And then he gave the rest of the 10 statements. After that, the Jews said "we're still going to need some help." So Moses said "its a good thing we have time, because if you guys are this dense, its going to take 613 commandments to teach you what G-d really wants out of you."

While the rabbis of his day considered the study of the Talmud as the most important religious activity, Besht laid all the stress on prayer. “All that I have achieved,” he once remarked, “I have achieved not through study, but through prayer”. Prayer, however, is not merely petitioning God to grant a request, nor even necessarily speaking to God, but rather (“cleaving”, dvekut)— the glorious feeling of ’Oneness with God Almighty’, the state of the soul wherein a man or woman gives up their consciousness of separate existence, and join their own selves to the Eternal Being of God Supreme. Such a state produces indescribable bliss, which is the foremost fruit of the true worship of God.

(wikipedia)

This isn't incorrect. It just has to be read in conjunction with the above.

But my explanation of the Besh't, above, will probably be somewhat foreign to a Chassidic Jew from a Hungarian branch - like some of my very good friends, and mentors, who are Satmar Chassidim. For them, the Besh't taught a life of simple devotion, and stringent adherence to Jewish law. Try to talk to most of them about Sefer Eitz Chaim, and they'll look at you blankly. So we each sort of 'own' the Besh''t in our own way. Its hard to pin him down.

That's right. In this regard, the Besht is like Jesus. Jesus taught things. Disciples wrote some of them down. Then, over the centuries, there were many different interpreters, each of which came to understand Jesus' message differently, forming movements, sects, denominations, etc. The same thing happened to the Besht. Thus, what we are often really talking about the understanding of the Besht had by different Ḥassidic sects, which is fine. However, that does not mean that what the Besht actually taught and meant is not important. It may not be entirely recoverable given our data, but nonetheless, it is foundational.

Another thing we need to consider is that many of the great Jewish mystics never intended their teachings to be written down. Isaac Luria apparently forbid his disciples from doing so, and only taught a few dozen people personally during his life. Many of these Jewish mystical teachings were meant to be inherently esoteric and taught only one-on-one, and never made public. The writing, printing, and popularization of many of these teachings can represent a fundamental betrayal of their originators.

[Robert F. Smith]

With visions, the question of ontological reality is a bit different. Setting aside the question of a visionary lying about a vision, a visionary's vision either derives from his own internal brain chemistry (delusion/hallucination), or it derives from some external ontologically independent thing that the visionary is "seeing" or "envisioning". We call visions induced by such an external ontological reality, real or true visions.

But knowing whether such a vision had external ontological reality cannot be addressed directly. We must adopt a variety of methods for verifying or corroborating such a claim, e.g., perhaps a personal spiritual witness (which itself may be a delusion), or scientific methods such as archeology to bring some objectivity to the matter. Apologetics frequently reaches out in such fashion to find new discoveries which back up substantive claims in Holy Writ, whether biblical or Book of Mormon. This is particularly helpful when the research has been done by non-religious experts so that their conclusions are not part of someone's personal axe to grind. One can then extrapolate from such hard core science to the visionary experiences which may lie behind it.

[mfbukowski]

Asiyah - the World of Action. This is what is actually happening. Prof. Hamblin called this an ontological reality.

Yetzirah - The World of Formation. For those interested in Sefer Yetzirah, the Book of Formation, it is usually interpreted by Kabbalists as talking predominantly about this world. This is connected with the world of emotions. In other words, its the impact that ontological reality has on us.

Briyah - The World of Creation. This is connected with logic. This is our interpretation of ontological reality.

Atzilus - The World of Emanation. This is how the ontological reality was really G-d's choice.

I hope you don't mind allowing me to put in my two cents on this

The crux of most of the philosophies I hold near and dear is based on what I would loosely call "perspectivism"- the basic notion that there are many simultaneous ways of seeing what we call "reality" which includes both what is going on with us mentally (from a subjective point of view) and what we share of the world together.

We can shift between these points of view virtually at will and sometimes involuntarily- I sometimes have posted a famous optical illusion which is a drawing which can be seen as either a drawing of a duck or a drawing of rabbit; one can see it either way, but one cannot see both at the same time.

Since I know nothing about your references, I will just take your words and your descriptions in this post and filter those words through my understanding of those words.

Action

Pragmatism teaches that truth resides only in action- that any perspective we take is taken for a purpose to be used in action. In that sense we have conceptual tools - scientific discourse is good for sending rockets to the moon etc, but has nothing to do with ethics or morals, for example. So scientific truth works for science whereas moral truth works for morality- etc- much in the same way that a hammer is the tool to use for hammering a nail, but hammers make terrible saws, and saws make terrible hammers. So for dealing with the reality which is observable by all, and taking action in it, sending rockets to the moon and building a computer, science is the tool to use- and in its sphere it can be seen as "the world of science".

Formation/ Creation

This objective world has impact on us, and we react to it emotionally at first as we form a response. My wife was stung by a bee the other evening while reading a book in the house- and of course her first response was emotional- "Get this thing off me", and then carefully removing the stinger and treating the wound. She has no allergies to bee stings so it was not a serious event, but that then led to a discussion and "formation" of a theory about how the bee got into the house in the first place.

But it all started with an emotional reaction to an event in the "real world", which required a response. In the more logical investigation to discover the cause, we eliminated some possibilities and examined others. Finally we found a small hole in a screen opposite a lamp which she was using to illuminate the book she was reading, and so we concluded that the bee had probably come in through that hole. We then created a solution- we stuck a piece of tape over the hole as a temporary fix until the screen is repaired or replaced. (Knowing me, that tape will be there for some time to come)

Emanation

I see this creation of a solution- in the most mundane possible example- as taking matter unorganized- (the hole in the screen) and imposing order over that unorganized matter. (plugging the hole with the tape)

We organize our individual worlds through our perceptions and reactions to those perceptions and build our realities around them, in many cases literally building our houses as we see fit for us (even my leaving the tape there longer than it should reflects my sloppy nature and tendency toward laziness) and the mansion we build reflects our lives.

This of course is a metaphor for how man creates reality through language- which is itself metaphorical- because things are not words. We use language to create concepts which in turn creates culture- and we have now evolved to the point where we cannot live without culture. If you leave an infant in the desert alone, it will not survive, but a baby lizard with do just fine alone. We are dependent totally on this world we have invented though words, language, and culture, and even what we call the "family" is the cornerstone of culture itself.

And in Genesis we hear of God defining things into existence- "and the day and night he called the third day" etc, and for Christians, he sent us his Word "by which all things were made"

What Bill I suppose calls "ontological reality" (though I am not sure what he means) is indeed created by words - the Word of God in a John 1 sense- and we in turn as humans, with God as our Father, create our little worlds through our words as well, as we create our little solutions, putting tape on screens of life.

Our little creations parallel his activity of turning Words into worlds. That's what we do.

Is that translated correctly?

[DubaDNura]

Another thing we need to consider is that many of the great Jewish mystics never intended their teachings to be written down. Isaac Luria apparently forbid his disciples from doing so, and only taught a few dozen people personally during his life. Many of these Jewish mystical teachings were meant to be inherently esoteric and taught only one-on-one, and never made public. The writing, printing, and popularization of many of these teachings can represent a fundamental betrayal of their originators.

Likkutei Amarim (which I referred to, above) was finally written because R' Schneur Zalman, the first Rebbe of the Chabad movement, realized his movement was too big to allow him the same kind of one-on-one time with his followers as he initially intended. He recognized that it was necessary to create a book that had the ability to teach the masses, even if they were not proficient in the fundamental texts of Kabbalah.

Edited September 14, 2012 by DubaDNura

[mfbukowski]

There is a big problem in studying the past, and that is that it doesn't exist. We can not empirically observe the past, nor objectively describe it, nor experiment on it. All we can do is extrapolate from the material and textual remains of the past.

However, our inability to empirically observe the human past does not mean there was not an ontological reality to past events. Thus:

Either the Besht said X, or the Besht did not say X, or the Besht said something similar to X, but not exactly X.

The fact that we may not be able to know for certain which of these three possibilities was ontologically real in the past does not mean it is not important, especially if we want to understand the teachings of the Besht.

Ontological reality exists regardless of whether we know it or not. (For example, the cosmos composed of millions of galaxies existed when men did not know about it. The Sun in our solar system had ontological reality before the existence of humans.)

With visions, the question of ontological reality is a bit different. Setting aside the question of a visionary lying about a vision, a visionary's vision either derives from his own internal brain chemistry (delusion/hallucination), or it derives from some external ontologically independent thing that the visionary is "seeing" or "envisioning". We call visions induced by such an external ontological reality, real or true visions.

Well I think there is a lot of assumed reductionism and physicalism in there that is unwarranted and without basis but I am not going to argue about it.

The fact that we may not be able to know for certain which of these three possibilities was ontologically real in the past does not mean it is not important, especially if we want to understand the teachings of the Besht.

I guess I am just not understanding the efficacy of crying over split milk.

I say just take what we have of his teachings and see if they work in our lives and quit worrying about which was "ontologically real" whatever that means in this context.

[Bill Hamblin]

Likkutei Amarim (which I referred to, above) was finally written because R' Schneur Zalman, the first Rebbe of the Chabad movement, realized his movement was too big to allow him the same kind of one-on-one time with his followers as he initially intended. He recognized that it was necessary to create a book that had the ability to teach the masses, even if they were not proficient in the fundamental texts of Kabbalah.

True. Such decisions depend on the master involved.

But the decision to shift from intimate, esoteric, master-disciple teaching to mass teaching fundamentally changed both the nature of Jewish mysticism, and, indeed its content.

[mfbukowski]

I'm just going to go with Rorty about "ontological reality" and that will be my last comment on that subject.

Edited September 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Bill Hamblin]

Well I think there is a lot of assumed reductionism and physicalism in there that is unwarranted and without basis but I am not going to argue about it.

I guess I am just not understanding the efficacy of crying over split milk.

I say just take what we have of his teachings and see if they work in our lives and quit worrying about which was "ontologically real" whatever that means in this context.

The belief that there is an ontological material reality does not imply that it is the only reality. It remains, however, a reality. We need to deal with it on a daily basis--like eating, sleeping, driving a car, etc.

That's what historians do. We try to understand the past (or rather the textual remains of the past) as clearly and with as much nuance and contextualization as possible. The fact that a particular individual is not interested in that historical effort does not mean its not important, any more than the fact that someone doesn't like Bach means that Bach is not a great musician. But if you want to understand what the Besht taught (as opposed to how someone may misunderstand what they think he taught) you need to historically contextualize the Besht (or any other religious teacher).

Absolute subjectivism--such as the belief that its true if it works--intellectually leads nowhere. Check out the Bergs' Kabbalah Centre for an example (http://kabbalah.com). What they talk about has almost nothing to do with historical Kabbalah besides the fact that they use some Kabbalistic words, and mention a few Kabbalists. Now the fact that it apparently "works" for some people doesn't mean it is Kabbalah.

[Bill Hamblin]

But knowing whether such a vision had external ontological reality cannot be addressed directly. We must adopt a variety of methods for verifying or corroborating such a claim, e.g., perhaps a personal spiritual witness (which itself may be a delusion), or scientific methods such as archeology to bring some objectivity to the matter. Apologetics frequently reaches out in such fashion to find new discoveries which back up substantive claims in Holy Writ, whether biblical or Book of Mormon. This is particularly helpful when the research has been done by non-religious experts so that their conclusions are not part of someone's personal axe to grind. One can then extrapolate from such hard core science to the visionary experiences which may lie behind it.

True enough. Though I don't think archaeology is objective or scientific.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm just going to go with Rorty about "ontological reality" and that will be my last comment on that subject.

I'm just going to have to disagree with Rorty.

[mfbukowski]

I'm just going to have to disagree with Rorty.

How do you get out of the trap of representation?

How do you get to an "ontological reality" which is beyond what we experience and perceive to see if what we perceive "represents" your "ontological reality"?

One would have to be able to as it were have two screens simultaneously in front of them one showing "reality as it is" and the other showing "reality as we experience it" and then say "Yep! That "corresponds" or "represents" reality as it is!"

The problem of course is that we can never get "down" to reality as it is, and are just stuck in what we see and experience. THAT is the reality we live in, drive cars in, and hopefully don't kill ourselves while doing so. That is the reality in which we make choices between intangibles and decide what church is "true" and whom to marry, as well as how to get to Salt Lake from Bountiful. We move in and out of the subjective and objective constantly- there is no distinction between the two that is hard and fast.

We all live in a world of our own perceptions- and that's why there are Presbyterians and Mormons and Republicans and Democrats, Urdu speakers, poets and physicists and yes, even historians That's why some of us kill diplomats and others mourn their passing, some who like free speech and some who think it's an abomination. If we shared the same "ontological reality" wouldn't it be plain what was real and right and wrong?

I don't think it's quite that simple.

[Bill Hamblin]

How do you get out of the trap of representation?

How do you get to an "ontological reality" which is beyond what we experience and perceive to see if what we perceive "represents" your "ontological reality"?

One would have to be able to as it were have two screens simultaneously in front of them one showing "reality as it is" and the other showing "reality as we experience it" and then say "Yep! That "corresponds" or "represents" reality as it is!"

The problem of course is that we can never get "down" to reality as it is, and are just stuck in what we see and experience. THAT is the reality we live in, drive cars in, and hopefully don't kill ourselves while doing so. That is the reality in which we make choices between intangibles and decide what church is "true" and whom to marry, as well as how to get to Salt Lake from Bountiful. We move in and out of the subjective and objective constantly- there is no distinction between the two that is hard and fast.

We all live in a world of our own perceptions- and that's why there are Presbyterians and Mormons and Republicans and Democrats, Urdu speakers, poets and physicists and yes, even historians That's why some of us kill diplomats and others mourn their passing, some who like free speech and some who think it's an abomination. If we shared the same "ontological reality" wouldn't it be plain what was real and right and wrong?

I don't think it's quite that simple.

If you drive a car into a wall that you think isn't there you will quickly discover the difference between perception and reality.

It puzzles me that merely because we see through a glass darkly that people sometimes claim there is nothing real we are looking.

[mfbukowski]

If you drive a car into a wall that you think isn't there you will quickly discover the difference between perception and reality.

It puzzles me that merely because we see through a glass darkly that people sometimes claim there is nothing real we are looking.

No one ever said that. What is real is your perception. Experience IS real.

Remember when you see the wall coming up at you, what you are seeing is still a perception, still an "appearance". If it was not you would see nothing because all that you see comes through your eyes and is organized by your mind/brain or if you want to say "spirit" that works as well. Language is imprecise but it is all we have.

As an experiment, close your eyes while driving and see how well that works. "Reality" does not come through your eyes- light does and your brain turns it into a picture- an "appearance". If reality came through your eyes, that would be quite painful. I would not want a wall coming through my eyes.

The problem is that one who adheres to Cartesian Dualism is that religious experience becomes a problem- which you see without offering a solution.

All you have to admit is that what we see is what is real, though sometimes we may be mistaken. Suddenly visions are just as "real" as scientific observation except one is seen only by the one receiving the vision and is private and the other is public or "objective"

All you have to do is admit that there is no "mirror of nature", as Rorty would put it and private experience becomes "real"- just as real as you making a decision to answer this post or not.

All choice is private experience- I cannot make choices for you or make your fingers type an answer or choose to let what you privately think is my silliness, pass unanswered. I say privately because that is your present point of view, in contrast to my present private point of view. Those points of view are subjective to each of us- if they were not you could operate on my brain and see what I am thinking. Thoughts are subjective, not objective because I cannot observe your thoughts- only perceive and try to understand your words, as this exchange proves, with varying degrees of accuracy.

We live and breathe in our private worlds seeing what we see and deciding what we decide and knowing what we know.

Our very disagreement on this point is evidence of this.

There is no problem with Joseph or anyone else having a "real" vision- there is no way to prove or show if it was a "hallucination" or not, so the very question becomes irrelevant. We judge the story on its own merit. You do this as much as I do- if you did not have a personal testimony and private "gut level" knowledge that the "gospel is true" you wouldn't be here. The story is ridiculous on its face- you want to talk about the "ontological reality" of golden plates and angels? Why? The whole question is irrelevant! As you yourself said, and I agree, we cannot prove any of it. Yet we have "evidence" for it and that evidence is our individual testimonies. Remember Faith is the "evidence" of things unseen, and felt in our hearts, subjectively.

We see what we see, we experience what we experience, and if our eyes do not perceive the see the wall coming at us at 80 mph, we will surely die.

But that "appearance" of that wall is all we have to go on, just as the appearance of God to Joseph in the grove and the subjective experience of the Holy Ghost speaking to our hearts is all we have. Are we to believe they are not "real" because they are just emotions and just "appearances"? When God himself tells us- through emotions in our "hearts" that these things are "real"?

Appearances are all we have.

We Mormons cut our own throats trying to stick to an outmoded metaphysics which says that appearances are not "real" and then we try to justify that Joseph was an exception. We adhere to Neoplatonic and Cartesian epistemology which is sectarian nonsense and ignore what Restoration metaphysics should be. Just as the ancient church incorporated Neoplatonism, we have the choice of incorporating something like a post modern approach or keep our heads in the sand, spouting 2000 year old philosophy which no one believes any more. Trying to hodge-podge together a belief in Cartesian "ontological reality" and trying to justify a belief in golden plates and angels is like stubbornly holding out for a Ptolemaic Universe while adjusting your radio telescope.

We cannot escape living in our age and as a historian you know that better than anyone. We ARE going to accept the philosophy of our age- it is inevitable. As long as we live and breathe in this culture, we will think like our culture. We may disagree with their values- and I pray to God that we will continue to do so, but we cannot escape our times. We may be a peculiar people, but we ARE people and we ARE human.

On a personal note I appreciate your willingness to engage me on this issue- you are a Big Fish and I am a minnow, and I am used to being ignored by Big Fish. You are one of the few Biggies around here who will even talk to me! Sometimes it seems that you don't have some connection to BYU around here, your opinions should not be taken seriously, and if you went to a secular university and talk about philosophy, fergetaboutit! That instantly puts you in the "philosophy mingled with scripture" department.

Unfortunately, if one thinks about scripture and interprets it (and how can we NOT?) then one is instantly doing philosophy mingled with scripture anyway.

[Bill Hamblin]

I didn't say appearances are not real. But they are a different form of reality than what I call ontological reality (or maybe phenomenological reality).

The fact that we inevitably perceive ontological reality only through our perceptions does not show that there is no ontological reality; only that we have difficultly fully perceiving ontological reality (which, presumably, God call full perceive). The old elephant and the blind men.

At any rate, it seems to me to be manifestly certain that either the Besht did or did not say X. Whatever epistemological problems may impinge on our ability to know if Besht said X or not, ontologically speaking he either did or didn't.

[Calm]

On a personal note I appreciate your willingness to engage me on this issue- you are a Big Fish and I am a minnow, and I am used to being ignored by Big Fish. You are one of the few Biggies around here who will even talk to me! Sometimes it seems that you don't have some connection to BYU around here, your opinions should not be taken seriously, and if you went to a secular university and talk about philosophy, fergetaboutit! That instantly puts you in the "philosophy mingled with scripture" department.

But I love you and hang on your every word so it makes up for all of that, right?

[mfbukowski]

But I love you and hang on your every word so it makes up for all of that, right?

Aw Shucks!

[mfbukowski]

I didn't say appearances are not real. But they are a different form of reality than what I call ontological reality (or maybe phenomenological reality).

The fact that we inevitably perceive ontological reality only through our perceptions does not show that there is no ontological reality; only that we have difficultly fully perceiving ontological reality (which, presumably, God call full perceive). The old elephant and the blind men.

At any rate, it seems to me to be manifestly certain that either the Besht did or did not say X. Whatever epistemological problems may impinge on our ability to know if Besht said X or not, ontologically speaking he either did or didn't.

Well I think we still have some conflicts here with other things said earlier, but maybe it's time to agree to disagree.

[Bill Hamblin]

Well I think we still have some conflicts here with other things said earlier, but maybe it's time to agree to disagree.

I agree.