Knowing, Believing, And Doubts- Richard Bushman

[mfbukowski]

Brainburn, I can assure you, mfb probably respects your more for questioning his point of view. To agree with people is very easy. To ask questions, genuine ones, is much harder. =)

In any case... to be accurate... postmodern (language-based) pragmatists don't see objective reality at all. Or at least, they think that even if it exists, it's a pointless conversation because there is no way to overcome the communication barrier. They think there is no way to show such exists. That doesn't mean that we look at our spiritual sense as less accurate than our physical ones, of course... in fact, I would say it is more accurate. But you can't show objectivity because of the limits of reality that we have.

In any case, I'm Mormon before I'm pragmatic. However, like most, I'm willing to negotiate a little if it doesn't really harm much. This is one of those things; I don't need to believe in an objective reality to be a Mormon; I simply need to have faith in the spirit.

Perfectly agree except for your apparent tacit definition of "objective reality".

For me that only applies to scientific knowledge of reality.- Chemistry etc. Objective reality can only be demonstrated by repeating experiences by many people.

Many people by definition do not get the same personal revelation- that is why revelations are "subjective reality" while the experiences all can share are "objective reality"

Yet both subjective experience and objective experience are just as "real".

[TAO]

Perfectly agree except for your apparent tacit definition of "objective reality".

For me that only applies to scientific knowledge of reality.- Chemistry etc. Objective reality can only be demonstrated by repeating experiences by many people.

Many people by definition do not get the same personal revelation- that is why revelations are "subjective reality" while the experiences all can share are "objective reality"

Yet both subjective experience and objective experience are just as "real".

Ah, that's where you and I would disagree. I think even scientific knowledge is partially relative, in a sense. Then again, I think of skepticism alot.

Edited November 16, 2012 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

Objective experience to me is inter-subjective experience. Many people can test the experience, so we call it "objective"

"Subjective" experience is what I only can experience- like pain in my toe, the experience of deciding to type this, or God speaking to me. But both subjective experience and objective experience are EXPERIENCE and part of the whole of human experience for all of us, and human experience as a whole makes up what we call "reality".

I don't know how to make it more clear

And now I must say, like good old Forrest Gump, that's about all I have to say about that.

[mfbukowski]

Ah, that's where you and I would disagree. I think even scientific knowledge is partially relative, in a sense. Then again, I think of skepticism alot.

What do you mean by relative and what does that have to do with anything?

Of course it is relative- what is not? If it is in language it is relative to a context. You cannot say one word which is not "relative"! I am giving you a hard time because you know better!

[TAO]

What do you mean by relative and what does that have to do with anything?

By relative I mean that people can disagree with the concept and be perfectly logical.

Of course it is relative- what is not? If it is in language it is relative to a context. You cannot say one word which is not "relative"! I am giving you a hard time because you know better!

Naturally. But this is singnificant for me; I don't think inter-subjectivity creates a 'more valid' form of reasoning. In other words, I think that a regular subjective experience is just as valuable as a inter-subjective one.

[mfbukowski]

What I'm really trying to get at is this: are you a Pragmatist/anit-realist first and Mormon second or the other way around? Do you derive what you accept about Mormonism entirely from what your pragmatism accepts? Or does some part of Mormonism come before any pragmatic evaluation, at all?

Don't get hung up on the labels of "realist" or anti-realist. They are labels- who cares?

The question is: What is "real" in our lives? My answer is subjective experience and objective experience.

You know what is happening in your body and how you make decisions and what is "real" to you. You have certainty about those experiences. When your toe hurts you "know". When you decide to get in your car and go somewhere, you "know" where you are going and what you are doing. If I asked you what you were doing would you doubt that you were driving your car? Of course not? BECAUSE YOU HAVE SUBJECTIVE CERTAINTY OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

We could all come and see you and verify that indeed that was you and indeed you were driving your car- a red mustang with a certain license plate number and see your license and verify that that person driving was YOU. That would be our "objective" verified knowledge that yes, on this date at this time you were driving your car at this place.

But your decision to drive, and what YOU personally were experiencing- seeing a red light, moving your leg to the brake etc- would be your SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. Do you have any doubt that you were driving, saw the red light, moved your leg and stopped the car? Of course not! You have absolute certainty of your subjective experience of those things, and suppose we saw you do them- therefore we have both subjective AND objective verification- "knowldge" that indeed that is what happened that day. Maybe we even took pictures etc.

But we did NOT know that at that moment you were hungry and had a pain in your muscles from work you had done the previous day. We do not know that you were thinking about your girlfriend and what you were going to do after work. Only you "know" that, but you know it SUBJECTIVELY and it is just as "real" as anything you can know about anything. ARE YOU CERTAIN YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT THAT? of course! Could you be mistaken that you were thinking about that? Of course not! No more than I am certain now that I am typing this. I know it absolutely without doubt. Yet it is totally subjective. You don't know at this moment what I am typing now- you will have evidence of it in a few minutes or days when you read this. After I post it, it will become "objective" that Bukowski typed these words on a certain date and time.

But for now it is totally subjective- NO ONE but me knows. And I could change my mind right now and erase it all and no one would ever know my subjective experience of typing this.

Can you see the difference?

Revelation is like me typing this. God could speak to me right now and I would have no doubt that it was coming from God. That is the nature of revelation.

But the problem is that if I told you that God spoke to me- as opposed to telling you that I typed this- the problem is that you COULD verify that I typed this, but you could not verify that God spoke to me. I CAN KNOW BOTH BECAUSE IT IS HAPPENING TO ME SUBJECTIVELY the question is what evidence you have that any of these events happened.

You do have objective evidence of my subjective experience of typing this but you cannot have objective evidence of my subjective experience of hearing God's voice. YET BOTH ARE "REAL" and to me both are equally real.

Both could change my life. If this was an important life-changing document that I posted, it could change my life drastically. If God really was speaking to me it could change my life drastically. Both of those subjective experiences could be life changing and just as "real" to me as anything which has ever happened in my life.

So I hope all this has communicated something about what I mean by "subjective" and "objective" and I hope somebody gets something out of it.

The point is that revelation is as real as anything gets- and in some ways perhaps more "real". But the problem is that revelation happens "in here" where no one else can see/feel/hear it but me, and so it is not what I call "objective". But that has nothing to do with how "real" it is or the effect it has on my life.

[mfbukowski]

By relative I mean that people can disagree with the concept and be perfectly logical.

Naturally. But this is singnificant for me; I don't think inter-subjectivity creates a 'more valid' form of reasoning. In other words, I think that a regular subjective experience is just as valuable as a inter-subjective one.

Yes, ok then we agree. Semantic confusion that's all

[brainburn]

You still haven't told me what you mean by "objective" and honestly I don't think you are getting this.

You will not change my mind- I am hard wired to think this way after doing so and studying it for 40 years. My entire being and way of existing is tied into this view. I could not be a Mormon without thinking this way.

I honestly do not want to be unkind, but I simply do not have the time right now in my life to try to discuss it much with you. Perhaps others could help you see it- Tao might be a good choice, and now I think Brade gets it as well though he does not necessarily agree with the position- he seems to have a good intellectual grasp of it.

If you start a thread I will respond, but I don't know that a direct dialogue with you would be productive because it seems you don't really want to understand it this way. I am just being honest-

Revelation is true reality as all we can call real is our experience. Revelation is as real as my fingers typing this on the keyboard because both are human experience and my personal experience. I do not CALL that "objective" however, for me, that word refers only to scientific knowledge based on experience which is verifiable by many people

What I call "objective knowledge" is synonymous with "scientific knowledge". I am sorry but science will never verify the existence of God as science is presently constituted because it specifically has elected to NOT investigate human subjective experience.

Perhaps I am using the language in a peculiar way, perhaps you are, but your persistent refusal to define your terms makes it impossible to communicate.

Why exactly do you think I'm not understanding?

I'm feeling very misunderstood right now becaues I already understand your pragmatic point of view and pretty much agree with you on every point you raise. I want to constantly tell you "I KNOW! I KNOW! But I'm not talking about that interpretation of objective or revelation, etc.... I want to know what you think specifically about this interpretation".

But you constantly return "I don't use those interpretations" and only explain the interpretations you do use. You don't need to. What I'm looking for is what you have so far refused to give, direct response to whether you accept or reject the ideas I raised. It baffles me that you continue to think I'm not getting your responses when I'm trying to ask different questions. Am I making sense now? I'm not trying to disprove pragmatism or show that it's wrong or anything like that. What I'm interested in is how deep pragmatism goes in your mind and what you reject along the way. I'm trying to be clear about your view on what you reject, not for you to explain to me why you reject it.

I understand your definition of objective, but I also defined my own use of objective with a very easy to understand definition. Plus, "mormon model of objective reality" is very clear. Let me explain what I've been talking about before you give up. What I've be trying to get through to you is not about which view is right. It's not about whether "pragmatism is the only possible view which makes revelation equivalent to scientific knowledge". I understand that's how you prefer to use the term, but that's not the meaning I want to talk about. When I ask what you think about these alternate meanings, it seems your only response is to not address them because you don't use them. They can still be addressed. Please try and help me out by applying your thoughts to my points instead of just dismissing them and offering your own. What I'm trying to tell you is that I'm curious as to which views you accept or reject, so I listed them in questions. Because you didn't really respond directly I can't be absolutely sure, but it seems to be me that you mean to say you do not accept direct revelations of the Mormon model of objective reality as "true" in any non-pragmatic sense. The point I want to be clear on is whether this statement is accurate.

When you say, "Pragmatism is the only possible view which makes revelation equivalent to scientific knowledge": do you mean to say that any interpretation of revelation which isn't about "what works" is less than equal to scientific knowledge?

Also, regarding these questions:

Are you a Pragmatist/anit-realist first and Mormon second or the other way around? Do you derive what you accept about Mormonism entirely from what your pragmatism accepts? Or does some part of Mormonism come before any pragmatic evaluation, at all?

Is it safe to then presume you are pragmatism first and Mormon second? But most importantly, is this with no exceptions?

Edited November 16, 2012 by brainburn

[mfbukowski]

Why exactly do you think I'm not understanding?

I'm feeling very misunderstood right now becaues I already understand your pragmatic point of view and pretty much agree with you on every point you raise. I want to constantly tell you "I KNOW! I KNOW! But I'm not talking about that interpretation of objective or revelation, etc.... I want to know what you think specifically about this interpretation".

But you constantly return "I don't use those interpretations" and only explain the interpretations you do use. You don't need to. What I'm looking for is what you have so far refused to give, direct response to whether you accept or reject the ideas I raised. It baffles me that you continue to think I'm not getting your responses when I'm trying to ask different questions. Am I making sense now? I'm not trying to disprove pragmatism or show that it's wrong or anything like that. What I'm interested in is how deep pragmatism goes in your mind and what you reject along the way. I'm trying to be clear about your view on what you reject, not for you to explain to me why you reject it.

I understand your definition of objective, but I also defined my own use of objective with a very easy to understand definition. Plus, "mormon model of objective reality" is very clear. Let me explain what I've been talking about before you give up. What I've be trying to get through to you is not about which view is right. It's not about whether "pragmatism is the only possible view which makes revelation equivalent to scientific knowledge". I understand that's how you prefer to use the term, but that's not the meaning I want to talk about. When I ask what you think about these alternate meanings, it seems your only response is to not address them because you don't use them. They can still be addressed. Please try and help me out by applying your thoughts to my points instead of just dismissing them and offering your own. What I'm trying to tell you is that I'm curious as to which views you accept or reject, so I listed them in questions. Because you didn't really respond directly I can't be absolutely sure, but it seems to be me that you mean to say you do not accept direct revelations of the Mormon model of objective reality as "true" in any non-pragmatic sense. The point I want to be clear on is whether this statement is accurate.

When you say, "Pragmatism is the only possible view which makes revelation equivalent to scientific knowledge": do you mean to say that any interpretation of revelation which isn't about "what works" is less than equal to scientific knowledge?

Also, regarding these questions:

Is it safe to then presume you are pragmatism first and Mormon second? But most importantly, is this with no exceptions?

I don't know what you are talking about.

For me there is only one model of truth and that is Pragmatism. All others in my opinion have been proven unable to deal with the questions I raise and are flawed models.

If you want me to tell you why I believe your model is flawed you will have to give me a better description of your argument. Your questions sound to me like you are asking me, using a Ptolemaic conception of the universe, to explain Quantum Mechanics.

You cannot explain Quantum Mechanics using gears and motors and rotating spheres to do so.

I don't know what "this interpretation" is because you do not define your terms. What interpretation is "this interpretation"?

What I'm interested in is how deep pragmatism goes in your mind and what you reject along the way. I'm trying to be clear about your view on what you reject, not for you to explain to me why you reject it.

I reject none of it at least as far as I understand it. What is there to reject?

I understand your definition of objective, but I also defined my own use of objective with a very easy to understand definition. Plus, "mormon model of objective reality" is very clear.

Not to me. I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

If anyone wants to translate, feel free. I don't want this guy to go away feeling I have avoided anything, but honestly I don't have a clue what he is talking about.

Mormons are not philosophers- they are trained in fact to avoid philosophical terms because they fear them. Historically the "philosophies of men" have been boogie-men to Mormons, because Mormons are not trained in philosophy. Yet every word out of a Mormon mouth IS a "philosophy of men" recognized or not. All of this talk of "objective reality" and "ontological reality" is nothing more than obsolete Neoplatonic philosophy which I reject.

My whole mission is to try to change that in some small measure and get people thinking about it. If there is a "Mormon view of objective reality" it is Neoplatonism which is philosophically outmoded and I would love to see these views changed because in fact I think such views are ultimately incompatible with Mormonism. Every anti-Mormon out there is an expert at using outmoded Neoplatonic philosophy to put down Mormons and Mormons have no ammunition to fight back because they study the same kind of philosophy. It's like shooting noodles at each other out of pop-guns at 50 paces and no one gets anywhere.

I am picking up the challenge that Mc Murrin saw so clearly but he took the ball in the wrong direction. He was a Pragmatist but ended up taking the ball into the enemy end zone instead of where it should have been taken.

Edit: I am a Mormon first and always because God told me that Mormonism was true- but I could not nor would I have been converted to Mormonism had I not been a Pragmatist before I was Mormon. I wear permanently implanted Pragmatist eyeglasses- I see everything as a Pragmatist would. To echo lady Gaga, I was born this way, and in my opinion, I was also born Mormon even though I converted at age 30, after doing graduate work in Philosophy, because to me there is no difference between Mormonism and Pragmatism. You can't be one and not be the other as long as you think things through enough.

Edited November 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Brade]

I am a Mormon first and always because God told me that Mormonism was true

Let me run this through the pragmatranslator

I am a Mormon first and always because I had an experience as of a powerful divine being telling me that Mormonism [would be[?]] profoundly useful to me.

Is my pragmatranslator working or does it need calibration?

Edited November 16, 2012 by Brade

[CV75]

If anyone wants to translate, feel free.

In post #195, I suggested the LDS faith allows for both views, where the pragmatist view is necessary for moving us past the “carnal mind”, which works in opposition to the inherent light or knowledge that we’ve always possessed (this inherent knowledge being dependent on God, the Source of the light that “shineth in darkness,” and therefore objective). Pragmatism explains the rediscovery of something that was already known but is hidden behind the “veil.” In this way knowledge that we already possess (and so is subjective) but lost access to serves as the object (since it is as if it is independent of us) of our re-access in mortality.

[mfbukowski]

Let me run this through the pragmatranslator

Is my pragmatranslator working or does it need calibration?

Fair enough. A little adjustment.

Instead of

I am a Mormon first and always because I had an experience as of a powerful divine being telling me that Mormonism [would be[?]] profoundly useful to me.

I would put it:

"I am a Mormon first and always because I had an experience of a powerful divine being telling me that Mormonism was the correct path that He (for lack of a more precise pronoun- "It" wouldn't do it) wanted me to pursue and that is where I absolutely had to 'be'"

And don't tell anyone -- but he continues to tell me the same thing! He doesn't have to say it quite as loudly any more because I listen better now, but he knew that I really needed him to yell the first couple of times.

[mfbukowski]

In post #195, I suggested the LDS faith allows for both views, where the pragmatist view is necessary for moving us past the “carnal mind”, which works in opposition to the inherent light or knowledge that we’ve always possessed (this inherent knowledge being dependent on God, the Source of the light that “shineth in darkness,” and therefore objective). Pragmatism explains the rediscovery of something that was already known but is hidden behind the “veil.” In this way knowledge that we already possess (and so is subjective) but lost access to serves as the object (since it is as if it is independent of us) of our re-access in mortality.

My translation:

"I suggested the LDS faith allows for both views, where the pragmatist view is necessary for moving us past the “carnal mind”, which works in opposition to the inherent light or knowledge that we’ve always possessed because it is insists that only scientific realities are "real" (this inherent knowledge being dependent on God, the Source of the light that “shineth in darkness,” and therefore as revelation to individuals, it is subjective). Pragmatism also, because it allows that subjective knowledge is valid and "real", explains the rediscovery of something that was already known but is hidden behind the “veil.” In this way knowledge that we already possess (and so is subjective) but lost access to serves as the object (since it is as if it is independent of us) of our re-access in mortality. gives us access to what God wants us to experience in this life to give our lives direction"

I think I now understand the problem. Everyone wants knowledge of God to be called "objective" because that term somehow makes knowledge of God more "real" than the shadows we see here on earth.

That view is pure Platonic "Allegory of the Cave" stuff which views that we live among shadows and illusions and that "reality" is somehow only available if we see things as God sees them.

I totally disagree with that. We cannot see things the way God sees them (here) because we are not God.

Maybe someday we will grow from our embryo stage to be gods ourselves and then perhaps we will see as God sees now.

But for now, all we can know about is what we as humans experience and God speaks to our hearts in a subjective and noon-scientific way.

For me, "scientific" is a synonym for "objective" and "subjective" refers to revelation. Maybe that is the problem.

[mfbukowski]

I get most of my understanding of objective and subjective from Nagel.

For those who want a great scholarly summary of that- you will find it here: https://files.nyu.edu/jrs477/public/Realism%208.pdf

[CV75]

My translation:

"I suggested the LDS faith allows for both views, where the pragmatist view is necessary for moving us past the “carnal mind”, which works in opposition to the inherent light or knowledge that we’ve always possessed because it is insists that only scientific realities are "real" (this inherent knowledge being dependent on God, the Source of the light that “shineth in darkness,” and therefore as revelation to individuals, it is subjective). Pragmatism also, because it allows that subjective knowledge is valid and "real", explains the rediscovery of something that was already known but is hidden behind the “veil.” In this way knowledge that we already possess (and so is subjective) but lost access to serves as the object (since it is as if it is independent of us) of our re-access in mortality. gives us access to what God wants us to experience in this life to give our lives direction"

I think I now understand the problem. Everyone wants knowledge of God to be called "objective" because that term somehow makes knowledge of God more "real" than the shadows we see here on earth.

That view is pure Platonic "Allegory of the Cave" stuff which views that we live among shadows and illusions and that "reality" is somehow only available if we see things as God sees them.

I totally disagree with that. We cannot see things the way God sees them (here) because we are not God.

Maybe someday we will grow from our embryo stage to be gods ourselves and then perhaps we will see as God sees now.

But for now, all we can know about is what we as humans experience and God speaks to our hearts in a subjective and noon-scientific way.

For me, "scientific" is a synonym for "objective" and "subjective" refers to revelation. Maybe that is the problem.

Thank you--nice revision. I agree that the carnal mind insists that only scientific realities are real, and the pragmatist view helps us overcome that so that we can learn more from God.

It’s not that I want knowledge of God to be “objective”—I agree that all knowledge is ultimately subjective; I believe that God and being God are completely subjective, at least to Him. My attempted proposition was to label that type of knowledge that we haven’t yet attained as “objective” because it isn’t subjective (since we don’t have it, yet).

I was trying to use the word “objective" with as non-scientific a meaning as the word "subjective." Both "objective" and "subjective" describe the status of truth, the difference being “objective” truth has not yet ben revealed from our standpoint, and “subjective” truth has been. This is why we cannot change the consequences of breaking laws we don’t know--the prime example being we are all as Adam and Eve (fallen beings that are going to die) even though we may not know it.

I also agree that whether we are mortals or gods, all we can know about is what we experience, including what God speaks to our hearts in a subjective and non-scientific way.

Edited November 17, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

...Another way of expressing the above is that objective truth represents what we are ignorant or not aware of, and so by default works and acts upon us, or places us in a position to be acted upon, while subjective truth represents all that we know and can act on, by and with.

[mfbukowski]

Thank you--nice revision. I agree that the carnal mind insists that only scientific realities are real, and the pragmatist view helps us overcome that so that we can learn more from God.

It’s not that I want knowledge of God to be “objective”—I agree that all knowledge is ultimately subjective; I believe that God and being God are completely subjective, at least to Him. My attempted proposition was to label that type of knowledge that we haven’t yet attained as “objective” because it isn’t subjective (since we don’t have it, yet).

I was trying to use the word “objective" with as non-scientific a meaning as the word "subjective." Both "objective" and "subjective" describe the status of truth, the difference being “objective” truth has not yet ben revealed from our standpoint, and “subjective” truth has been. This is why we cannot change the consequences of breaking laws we don’t know--the prime example being we are all as Adam and Eve (fallen beings that are going to die) even though we may not know it.

I also agree that whether we are mortals or gods, all we can know about is what we experience, including what God speaks to our hearts in a subjective and non-scientific way.

Here's a thought. You are speaking as if "objective truth has not been revealed yet".

For me, unknown "objective" truth has not been organized yet. Remember science is objective truth. So in a real sense unknown scientific... stuff... (we cannot call them things, or objects or facts or truths because they have not yet been organized) don't exist or at least it makes no sense to speak of them as if they do exist.

Tell me about the next unknown species- does it "exist"? In a sense it does i suppose- I am not a solipsist and it knows where it is and what it is- but WE don't. For us, we have no classification for it. Is it a butterfly or a fish? A tree or a whale? We don't know. We have no way of organizing it or giving it a name. We don't know how big it is. how much it weighs or where it will be found. In a very real sense it doesn't "exist" at least from our frame of reference! There is not a single thing you can say about what has not yet been discovered. There are no facts about it. There are no truths about it because truth is a property of a sentence and there are no sentences one can say about what has not been discovered.

This is where I believe that we as mini-gods parallel God in helping him "organize" what we call "matter unorganized". When we come up with a new scientific theory- like say Quantum Mechanics, we are taking raw data (matter unorganized) which does not cohere with known (at the time) principles of science. There is anomalous data that doesnt fit the present theory. The data is not organized.

So now a new theory which incorporates the previous theory must be created/interpreted/ described- or in the Mormon parlance, "organized".

So already we are, as humans, helping God to organize matter unorganized through the power of his Word- just like in John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

² The same was in the beginning with God.

³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So why is Christ called "the Word"? Because he is the messenger- he who brings us the gospel- the message of "good news".

And you cannot have a message and express it without language. Our understanding of everything is based on language- it is what structures our experience- or for me- structures what is called "real". Language- the Word- literally creates/organizes reality from matter unorganized.

This is really the central insight of Mormonism as I see it and why Pragmatism/Constructivism is, to me, inseparable from Mormonism. Mormonism says that Man (a human God) organizes reality through the power of the Word- his Son, the Messenger of the Gospel.

Pragmatism/Constructivism says that man organizes reality through language.

THAT is why I see both philosophies as inseparable. One fulfills the other. They are complementary. One presents the philosophical side, the other presents the spiritual side. They are two sides of the same coin - two understandings of the same "reality".

So "how deep does Pragmatism go?" All the way. It's Pragmatism "all the way down" No turtles- just pragmatists!

[mfbukowski]

...Another way of expressing the above is that objective truth represents what we are ignorant or not aware of, and so by default works and acts upon us, or places us in a position to be acted upon, while subjective truth represents all that we know and can act on, by and with.

We agree on this but I would put it a little differently. For me, seeing ourselves as Act-ors - one who acts as opposed to being acted upon, presumes freedom. And we do that subjectively. Seeing ourselves as determined by outside forces ignores our personal subjective experience of freedom.

Regardless of whether or not some outside omniscient being could predict perfectly the "causes" of our actions and therefore see our actions as "determined" we subjectively know that we can make choices.

We don't doubt for a second that one can read or skip this post- respond or not respond, watch TV or read a book instead of following stupid bukowski on line.

With every line read, we make a decision as to whether or not to read the next line or skip the the end or next post. We have no doubt that we have that choice.

So we as Act-ors have agency, and unless we are compelled in some way, we are not acted upon. Even under compulsion we can choose how to react to that compulsion.

So for me, as for you, objective forces- objective because we have no control of them- objective because they are controlled by other parties or nature itself- can compel us to do things and apparently lose our freedom.

But subjectively we always have a choice to Act, even if that is only in choosing our attitude.

[brainburn]

mfbukowski,

Is God comparable to how you view a new species?

Is the plan of salvation?

[TAO]

Is God comparable to how you view a new species?

No. Differnet yes, having more power, yes, but of the same species.

[CV75]

Here's a thought. You are speaking as if "objective truth has not been revealed yet".

For me, unknown "objective" truth has not been organized yet. Remember science is objective truth. So in a real sense unknown scientific... stuff... (we cannot call them things, or objects or facts or truths because they have not yet been organized) don't exist or at least it makes no sense to speak of them as if they do exist.

***

This is really the central insight of Mormonism as I see it and why Pragmatism/Constructivism is, to me, inseparable from Mormonism. Mormonism says that Man (a human God) organizes reality through the power of the Word- his Son, the Messenger of the Gospel.

I am defining and using the word “objective” as an antonym of “subjective,” and not in a scientific sense (as I indicated in my earlier hesitation, I am aware that I am not using philosophical terms), but in the following way(s): Where the subjective has been experienced, the objective has yet to be (but only if it is “true”—if it is not, it cannot be experienced; that said, who knows what cannot be experienced…?). Where the subjective experience is known, the objective experience is an object of faith, which once obtained is known and becomes subjective. Where we are mortal, the Object of our faith is God, He is our Standard and Judge, and the objective is for us to become like Him, and comprehend even Him. He knows things we don’t and is showing us how to discover them.

But it is all fundamentally subjective since truth and intelligence are independent and act for themselves—how could they do this if they (Truth as God and His co-eternal children; Intelligence as God and His co-eternal children) were not subjective at the most fundamental level?

I understand and agree with your position on science—that scientifically observable or theorized things that are not observed or theorized do not / cannot exist as far as we are concerned, and so we cannot rightly (scientifically) claim that they do until we observe, collect information, draw conclusions and actually discover (or as you mentioned, create) them as something new and that is actually understood and transmitted to others (that is, put into shared language of some form).

[CV75]

We agree on this but I would put it a little differently. For me, seeing ourselves as Act-ors - one who acts as opposed to being acted upon, presumes freedom. And we do that subjectively. Seeing ourselves as determined by outside forces ignores our personal subjective experience of freedom.

Regardless of whether or not some outside omniscient being could predict perfectly the "causes" of our actions and therefore see our actions as "determined" we subjectively know that we can make choices.

We don't doubt for a second that one can read or skip this post- respond or not respond, watch TV or read a book instead of following stupid bukowski on line.

With every line read, we make a decision as to whether or not to read the next line or skip the the end or next post. We have no doubt that we have that choice.

So we as Act-ors have agency, and unless we are compelled in some way, we are not acted upon. Even under compulsion we can choose how to react to that compulsion.

So for me, as for you, objective forces- objective because we have no control of them- objective because they are controlled by other parties or nature itself- can compel us to do things and apparently lose our freedom.

But subjectively we always have a choice to Act, even if that is only in choosing our attitude.

Cool--I think it goes without saying that once we misuse or abuse our agency we are no longer as strong and able Act-ors as we were previously, and have to repent before getting that former strength and power back.

[CV75]

P.S. When we refer to langage in all forms, we are referring to language using any of the senses, right?

[brainburn]

No. Differnet yes, having more power, yes, but of the same species.

Not really what I meant. I was referring to this paragraph:

Tell me about the next unknown species- does it "exist"? In a sense it does i suppose- I am not a solipsist and it knows where it is and what it is- but WE don't. For us, we have no classification for it. Is it a butterfly or a fish? A tree or a whale? We don't know. We have no way of organizing it or giving it a name. We don't know how big it is. how much it weighs or where it will be found. In a very real sense it doesn't "exist" at least from our frame of reference! There is not a single thing you can say about what has not yet been discovered. There are no facts about it. There are no truths about it because truth is a property of a sentence and there are no sentences one can say about what has not been discovered.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

Is God comparable to how you view a new species?

Is the plan of salvation?

As usual I am not sure what you mean, but I can't think of any way in which he is comparable to a new species. God is as real to me as any intelligence I have ever experienced- he is more real to me than you are. He speaks and communicates directly with my heart and I always understand him, but I have trouble understanding you almost always.

For me the Plan of Salvation is the overall plan of everything as I understand it. The POS to me uses Pragmatism as the method shown in Alma 32 to show us how to learn the truth. It is a method to discover what makes us happy and how to live the best way to make us happy.

I prefer to call it the Plan of Happiness- if you look at it that way and insert what is philosophically called a Utiltarian perspective which leads mankind to happiness, you see that there is no difference between the two. The goal of mankind is to develop as far as they can and be happy doing so. In other words, filling the measure of their creation and having joy therein.

Same thing. Humanism IS theology when God is a Man.