Accepting Explanations Of Mysteries

[Ahab]

One might learn to love and appreciate you but it could also go the other way. Some just do not appreciate greatness.

The expression "warts and all" comes to mind.

Or the phrase, better to wonder than to speak and remove all doubt.

People who get to know me really well will eventually learn that I'm not perfect, yet.

[pogi]

Oh that. Yes I liked and still like the analogy but now you're talking like those who have only a piece or some pieces of the puzzle can't know what they have until the see the entire big picture involving everything about everything' and my point is that we can know many or even all of the details involved in each piece even though we don't see some connection to the other pieces. You don't really mean that, do ya? If you do I can see how you would be wrong about that.

 

How we perceive each piece of the puzzle is determined by how we interpret the whole.  As we are given more pieces, our perception and understanding of other pieces may change slightly.  This is the process of gaining knowledge, it will become more and more refined with more and more light.  The things that I "knew" as a child have become more and more refined.  What I know now, is not the same as what I "knew" then.  I expect this process to continue until I am one with God in all things and in all ways. 

[Ahab]

How we perceive each piece of the puzzle is determined by how we interpret the whole. As we are given more pieces, our perception and understanding of other pieces may change slightly. This is the process of gaining knowledge, it will become more and more refined with more and more light. The things that I "knew" as a child have become more and more refined. What I know now, is not the same as what I "knew" then. I expect this process to continue until I am one with God in all things and in all ways.

Maybe it depends on how big you think a piece of the puzzle is. I think more in terms of very small pieces than really big humongous pieces. The usual thought is line upon line, precept upon precept, and I think of that in terms of a very small step statement of truth to which is added another small step statement of truth. Like, what is a pogi? A boy or a girl? And what color is it? Or the color of its hair? Or does it even have any hair? And if so, how much, and how shall I know it? You're not suggesting I need to know everything about you to know anything about you, are you? That just sounds really weird.

[pogi]

Maybe it depends on how big you think a piece of the puzzle is. I think more in terms of very small pieces than really big humongous pieces. The usual thought is line upon line, precept upon precept, and I think of that in terms of a very small step statement of truth to which is added another small step statement of truth. Like, what is a pogi? A boy or a girl? And what color is it? Or the color of its hair? Or does it even have any hair? And if so, how much, and how shall I know it? You're not suggesting I need to know everything about you to know anything about you, are you? That just sounds really weird.

 

I am not saying that you can't know anything about me until you know everything about me.  I am saying that you can't know anything about me with certainty until you know everything about me and how I relate to everything else.  Only then can you judge me.  Because we can't know everything about a person, we cannot know anything with certainty, hence the command to not judge.  All we have is our interpretation of our experiences.  You assumption that I even exist is only an interpretation of your experience, which is relative.

Edited December 31, 2014 by pogi

[Ahab]

I am not saying that you can't know anything about me until you know everything about me. I am saying that you can't know anything about me with certainty until you know everything about me and how I relate to everything else. Only then can you judge me. Because we can't know everything about a person, we cannot know anything with certainty, hence the command to not judge. All we have is our interpretation of our experiences. You assumption that I even exist is only an interpretation of your experience, which is relative.

You're still painting with too broad of a brush. I don't have to know everything about you to know something about you with certainty. Like right now I know you are wrong, and have been wrong, on this issue, even though I don't know why you are saying something so weird. I don't know everything about you, but I do know this much about you, with certainty.

[pogi]

You're still painting with too broad of a brush. I don't have to know everything about you to know something about you with certainty. Like right now I know you are wrong, and have been wrong, on this issue, even though I don't know why you are saying something so weird. I don't know everything about you, but I do know this much about you, with certainty.

 

What part am I wrong about? 

 

My experience is like yours - small pieces...like one pixel on a screen of a possible infinite pixels.  Your perception of the pixel's color, shape, and size is entirely relative and will evolve and change when seen in the context of the other pixels.  Even it's hue will appear to change when placed next to other colors, as your understanding deepens (a real phenomenon).  You may also find that as you remove the filters of your culture, beliefs, etc. the color changes entirely (or at least your perception of it).  Even though you have a pixel of light, your perception of that light, and what it is trying to show you is entirely relative to your position, context, filters etc.  The only way to know with certainty what that pixel is and what it is trying to show you, is to remove all filters (impossible in mortality), and see it in it's full context in relation to all other variables (also impossible in mortality). 

Edited December 31, 2014 by pogi

[Ahab]

What part am I wrong about?

My experience is like yours - small pieces...like one pixel on a screen of a possible infinite pixels. Your perception of the pixel's color, shape, and size is entirely relative and will evolve and change when seen in the context of the other pixels. Even it's hue will appear to change when placed next to other colors, as your understanding deepens (a real phenomenon). You may also find that as you remove the filters of your culture, beliefs, etc. the color changes entirely (or at least your perception of it). Even though you have a pixel of light, your perception of that light, and what it is trying to show you is entirely relative to your position, context, filters etc. The only way to know with certainty what that pixel is and what it is trying to show you, is to remove all filters (impossible in mortality), and see it in it's full context in relation to all other variables (also impossible in mortality).

Just realize you can know each pixel in detail, with certainty, whether the pixel is isolated or with other pixels. Like an elephants skin in each particular area, or a part of the trunk or tail or whatever, before seeing the whole elephant or even just a main body part. The details don't change just because you are seeing more details. Each part of the whole is what it is even if it appears differently in different contexts.

[mfbukowski]

What part am I wrong about? 

 

My experience is like yours - small pieces...like one pixel on a screen of a possible infinite pixels.  Your perception of the pixel's color, shape, and size is entirely relative and will evolve and change when seen in the context of the other pixels.  Even it's hue will appear to change when placed next to other colors, as your understanding deepens (a real phenomenon).  You may also find that as you remove the filters of your culture, beliefs, etc. the color changes entirely (or at least your perception of it).  Even though you have a pixel of light, your perception of that light, and what it is trying to show you is entirely relative to your position, context, filters etc.  The only way to know with certainty what that pixel is and what it is trying to show you, is to remove all filters (impossible in mortality), and see it in it's full context in relation to all other variables (also impossible in mortality). 

Dang, dude.

I wish I could write like that.

[Ahab]

Dang, dude.

I wish I could write like that.

You nearabouts do.

I wish you would write more like me.

[pogi]

Just realize you can know each pixel in detail, with certainty, whether the pixel is isolated or with other pixels. Like an elephants skin in each particular area, or a part of the trunk or tail or whatever, before seeing the whole elephant or even just a main body part. The details don't change just because you are seeing more details. Each part of the whole is what it is even if it appears differently in different contexts.

 

How does one go about "just realizing"?  How does one remove the filters of mortality through which all light passes? 

You accuse me of painting with too broad a brush then use the trunk of an elephant as an analogy?  Talk about a broad brush!  It is my experience that we receive information on much smaller level, a cellular level, or perhaps even on the level of organelles of the cell, or even smaller, on the anatomic level.  Without seeing the context of the atoms, organelles, cells, organs, organ systems, and how they relate, there is no way that you are going to have any clue of what a single atom, or cell really is or what it is a part of, or its function as part of something much much bigger.  Matter, composed of atoms, is mostly just empty space.  That is what our knowledge is like - mostly empty space.  Occasionally we bump into an electron or something and think that we have made a huge and mammoth size discovery of truth, when really it is the tiniest part of a mammoth.  We may even eventually perceive that electron in the context of a single cell, and our minds are blown.  Context is everything!  We would probably conclude that the cell is a living organism unto itself, and so we call it "elephant".  How ignorant we really are!  We are blinded by our lack of context and filters.

[Ahab]

How does one go about "just realizing"? How does one remove the filters of mortality through which all light passes?

Yeah, it wasn't very descriptive about how you would fix the problem I saw in what you were getting wrong or not thinking about but if you could do that it would fix the problem.

You accuse me of painting with too broad a brush then use the trunk of an elephant as an analogy? Talk about a broad brush! It is my experience that we receive information on much smaller level, a cellular level, or perhaps even on the level of organelles of the cell, or even smaller, on the anatomic level. Without seeing the context of the atoms, organelles, cells, organs, organ systems, and how they relate, there is no way that you are going to have any clue of what a single atom, or cell really is or what it is a part of, or its function as part of something much much bigger. Matter, composed of atoms, is mostly just empty space. That is what our knowledge is like - mostly empty space. Occasionally we bump into an electron or something and think that we have made a huge and mammoth size discovery of truth, when really it is the tiniest part of a mammoth. We may even eventually perceive that electron in the context of a single cell, and our minds are blown. Context is everything! We would probably conclude that the cell is a living organism unto itself, and so we call it "elephant". How ignorant we really are! We are blinded by our lack of context and filters.

I was talking about how you can start with a very small thing while getting to know what it is before you move on. Not that adding more knowledge of other things can't do you some good until you understand every aspect of what you are studying, but to see that there is a lot you can know and know about just by knowing something about whatever it is you are studying or analyzing. You had been saying that you can't know anything with certainty until you know everything. Now you don't seem to be saying that anymore.

If you can't see a whole elephant and only see a part of one, then get to know that part until you know with certainty whatever you have seen or studied while getting to know that part. You can know at least something about it, with certainty, before you go on to other parts of that elephant, or anything else.

[pogi]

Yeah, it wasn't very descriptive about how you would fix the problem I saw in what you were getting wrong or not thinking about but if you could do that it would fix the problem.

 

If I could do what?  Please enighten me.  Am I not praying right?  Is my communion with God less profound then yours?  My experience with God is as real to me as anything that I "know".  So what am I missing here?

 

Yeah, it wasn't very descriptive about how you would fix the problem I saw in what you were getting wrong or not thinking about but if you could do that it would fix the problem.

I was talking about how you can start with a very small thing while getting to know what it is before you move on. Not that adding more knowledge of other things can't do you some good until you understand every aspect of what you are studying, but to see that there is a lot you can know and know about just by knowing something about whatever it is you are studying or analyzing. You had been saying that you can't know anything with certainty until you know everything. Now you don't seem to be saying that anymore.

If you can't see a whole elephant and only see a part of one, then get to know that part until you know with certainty whatever you have seen or studied while getting to know that part. You can know at least something about it, with certainty, before you go on to other parts of that elephant, or anything else.

 

You can't know what something is with certainty without the full context.  We are infinately lacking in context.  Even then, your experience of that thing is simply that - "your experience", it is not "that thing".  Your experience of that thing necessarily passess through the filters of mortality which results in a judgement or interpretation of the data based on your perception, which is infinately lacking.

[Ahab]

If I could do what? Please enighten me. Am I not praying right? Is my communion with God less profound then yours? My experience with God is as real to me as anything that I "know". So what am I missing here?

You can't know what something is with certainty without the full context. We are infinately lacking in context. Even then, your experience of that thing is simply that - "your experience", it is not "that thing". Your experience of that thing necessarily passess through the filters of mortality which results in a judgement or interpretation of the data based on your perception, which is infinately lacking.

We don't agree. Oh well. At least I shared something with you.

[mfbukowski]

You can't know what something is with certainty without the full context.  We are infinately lacking in context.  Even then, your experience of that thing is simply that - "your experience", it is not "that thing".  Your experience of that thing necessarily passess through the filters of mortality which results in a judgement or interpretation of the data based on your perception, which is infinately lacking.

I agree with everything..... except the last 4 words. 

 

How could you know that your "perception is infinitely lacking"?

 

All you have is your perceptions, to judge anything!

[pogi]

I agree with everything..... except the last 4 words. 

 

How could you know that your "perception is infinitely lacking"?

 

All you have is your perceptions, to judge anything!

 

Right, everything that I say should be considered my interpretation of the data and not as a declaration of certainty.  That statement is based on the evidence that I trust to be accurate, and my interpretation of it.  I consider the limits of human experience, where most of our "knowledge" is based on the experience and word of others - trust, where all experience passes through the filters of mortality and is limited by space and time of which God is not limited (or so I trust).  When I think of the atonement alone, I feel infinitely lacking. 

 

I think of my experience with the variables in this earth alone and feel that my experience is almost infinitely lacking.  I cannot see the inside, outside, upside and downside of all variables from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the macro surface of all things in and on the earth.  I cannot comprehend the intelligence that all matter possesses according to scripture.  I cannot comprehend the spiritual makeup of the physical world.  When I think of how this earth is part of a much much larger galaxy,  I feel even smaller, let alone the universe, let alone a possible multiverse.  I look up into space and realize that I cannot even know the present state of the heavens.  What I see is ancient light from history.  What is really there right now?  Who knows!  I think of the creations of God - worlds without number filled with inhabitants and all forms of life and intelligence!  God is not limited by space, time, sin, mortal filters of culture, false beliefs, etc. etc.  All things are before his face in perfect clarity.   I am simply comparing my lack of certainty with God's certain omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, which has inspired many a prophet to comment on God's "infinite" wisdom and knowledge.  Given the assertion that my knowledge is limited and uncertain and God's is unlimited and certain, I feel that my perspective truly is "infinitely lacking."   

 

P.S.  Thanks for your complement in post 108, that means a lot!

Edited January 1, 2015 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

Right, everything that I say should be considered my interpretation of the data and not as a declaration of certainty.  That statement is based on the evidence that I trust to be accurate, and my interpretation of it.  I consider the limits of human experience, where most of our "knowledge" is based on the experience and word of others - trust, where all experience passes through the filters of mortality and is limited by space and time of which God is not limited (or so I trust).  When I think of the atonement alone, I feel infinitely lacking. 

 

I think of my experience with the variables in this earth alone and feel that my experience is almost infinitely lacking.  I cannot see the inside, outside, upside and downside of all variables from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the macro surface of all things in and on the earth.  I cannot comprehend the intelligence that all matter possesses according to scripture.  I cannot comprehend the spiritual makeup of the physical world.  When I think of how this earth is part of a much much larger galaxy,  I feel even smaller, let alone the universe, let alone a possible multiverse.  I look up into space and realize that I cannot even know the present state of the heavens.  What I see is ancient light from history.  What is really there right now?  Who knows!  I think of the creations of God - worlds without number filled with inhabitants and all forms of life and intelligence!  God is not limited by space, time, sin, mortal filters of culture, false beliefs, etc. etc.  All things are before his face in perfect clarity.   I am simply comparing my lack of certainty with God's certain omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, which has inspired many a prophet to comment on God's "infinite" wisdom and knowledge.  Given the assertion that my knowledge is limited and uncertain and God's is unlimited and certain, I feel that my perspective truly is "infinitely lacking."   

 

P.S.  Thanks for your complement in post 108, that means a lot!

Or you could take another view of all this- because of course you don't know what you don't know, and all the rest is conjecture.

 

So really you DON'T KNOW that you don't know all those things you SAY you don't know.

[pogi]

So really you DON'T KNOW that you don't know all those things you SAY you don't know.

 

Now you're just messin' with me    That just hurts my brain - I could always add one more "I don't know" on to the line (I don't know that I don't know that I don't know) for infinity     So I like to keep some semblance of sanity in my simple mind and say simply that "I don't know"...if I do however, I don't know it.

Edited January 1, 2015 by pogi

[Ahab]

Now you're just messin' with me That just hurts my brain - I could always add one more "I don't know" on to the line (I don't know that I don't know that I don't know) for infinity So I like to keep some semblance of sanity in my simple mind and say simply that "I don't know"...if I do however, I don't know it.

Now that I agree with. You are getting to know some things and you already know some things with certainty and you just don't know that you know some things with certainty because of your mistaken notion that you need to know everything about everything first before you can know anything with certainty.

So we kinda agree after all, even though you don't know that yet with certainty.

[mfbukowski]

Now you're just messin' with me    That just hurts my brain - I could always add one more "I don't know" on to the line (I don't know that I don't know that I don't know) for infinity     So I like to keep some semblance of sanity in my simple mind and say simply that "I don't know"...if I do however, I don't know it.

All I am saying is this:

 

 I cannot see the inside, outside, upside and downside of all variables from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the macro surface of all things in and on the earth.  I cannot comprehend the intelligence that all matter possesses according to scripture.  I cannot comprehend the spiritual makeup of the physical world.  When I think of how this earth is part of a much much larger galaxy,  I feel even smaller, let alone the universe, let alone a possible multiverse.  I look up into space and realize that I cannot even know the present state of the heavens.  What I see is ancient light from history.  What is really there right now?  Who knows!

I think it is important to realize that it isn't that you "don't know" these "things" because in fact NO ONE knows them.

 

It is important to realize that these are BELIEFS you have accepted for yourself about the nature of the "outside world"- these are really all parts of a world you have ORGANIZED mentally for yourself which you- and no one else for that matter HAS EVER ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED.

 

Yes, we have readings from instruments which we interpret as meaning that there are "subatomic particles" but our experience in this case is limited to reading a meter and getting back interpreted data- in other words- a theory - about how the world "IS" that in fact we have mentally constructed.

 

So all of these are strings and tape and houses of cards we all accept because the data SEEMS to "support" these houses of sand.

So yes I agree with you asking

 

What is really there right now?  Who knows!

 

because yes, nobody "really knows".  BUT TO ME WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS NOT THAT WE DON'T KNOW BUT THAT WE WILL NEVER KNOW and all we can hope for is a constructed world we humans have constructed socially all throwing our own little bits of experience into a pot of human "knowledge" and we can never hope to get "outside" of this mutually constructed world!  IN FACT WE CANNOT EVEN KNOW THERE IS AN "OUTSIDE".

 

So that might be exactly what you meant- or not,

 

i wasn't sure. 

 

The importance of all this is to give up worrying about what is or might be "out there" since it is unknowable, and to realize that all we have is a constructed reality which we have tacked together out of our own, and others - experience.

 

At that point we stop worrying about whether or not belief in God, say, is "real" or "rational" because we realize that all we know is our experience.

 

That means that because we experience God in our hearts, he is just as "real" as subatomic particles which we experience in a meter, and that no one has ever seen.

 

THAT is the importance of knowing what we really don't know.  We give up worrying about it.  It is irrelevant to our lives- so why argue about it?

Edited January 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

...

THAT is the importance of knowing what we really don't know. We give up worrying about it. It is irrelevant to our lives- so why argue about it?

He was saying that he doesn't know anything with certainty because he thinks he needs to know everything about everything before he can know anything with certainty. So while, yes, it is of some importance to know what we really don't know, it is also important to know something with certainty, and if he can't do that then he can't even be certain that he doesn't know everything, because that would mean he would know with certainty that he didn't know anything.

THAT is why I was arguing, or rather what I would prefer to call discussing, that issue with him. He does know something with certainty even though he doesn't know everything about everything; yet.

[pogi]

So that might be exactly what you meant- or not,

 

Yes, I don't disagree with anything you said above this point.

 

The importance of all this is to give up worrying about what is or might be "out there" since it is unknowable

 

 

I agree, we shouldn't worry, but we should also be curious and seek after understanding and further enlightenment line upon line.  I don't like the word "unknowable" as it does not fit in the construct of my personal beliefs.  Nothing is unknowable because all things are known by God, and we being endowed with the same attributes of God as his offspring, are capable of knowing.  It is a process of continual enlightenment (removing the filters one at a time and adding new light) until we can perceive of all light in all of its aspects without filter or distortion as we become a God. 

 

It is irrelevant to our lives- so why argue about it?

 

 

Because all things are knowable, it is not irrelevant.  The more we seek, ponder, pray, and discuss, the more clarity we receive, removing old beliefs and forming new beliefs until those beliefs become certain knowledge some day.  If we don't do the work, we don't get the reward.  If we call it irrelevant, there is no motivation to seek out what the scriptures promise is there.  

Edited January 1, 2015 by pogi

[Ahab]

I don't like the word "unknowable" as it does not fit in the construct of my personal beliefs. Nothing is unknowable because all things are known by God, and we being endowed with the same attributes of God as his offspring, are capable of knowing. It is a process of continual enlightenment (removing the filters one at a time and adding new light) until we can perceive of all light in all of its aspects without filter or distortion as we become a God.

I like part of what you said here but I think I may have a different understanding of the word knowledge than you do. I believe God shares or at least tries to share his knowledge with all of us, to give us knowledge of something that is good or true for example, and that when we accept that knowledge from him, by accepting or believing what he tells us to give us that knowledge for example, we are then gaining that knowledge even though we don't know everything about everything or even everything about that one issue, yet. And I believe we can also reject that knowledge from God, either at the moment he tells us something or later even if we accepted it before we rejected it.

[pogi]

He does know something with certainty even though he doesn't know everything about everything; yet.

 

I'm sorry brother, we are just not connecting on this.  I am wearing way to many filters and way to limited in perspective and context (the limits of which are hinted at in scripture as infinite) to know anything with certainty...yet.  I still rely on faith.  Without a perfect clarity, there is no certainty. 

[Ahab]

I'm sorry brother, we are just not connecting on this. I am wearing way to many filters and way to limited in perspective and context (the limits of which are hinted at in scripture as infinite) to know anything with certainty...yet. I still rely on faith. Without a perfect clarity, there is no certainty.

What is your name, or one of your names? Are you certain?

Come on, now. You do know some things with certainty.

[pogi]

I believe God shares or at least tries to share his knowledge with all of us, to give us knowledge of something that is good or true for example, and that when we accept that knowledge from him, by accepting or believing what he tells us to give us that knowledge for example, we are then gaining that knowledge even though we don't know everything about everything or even everything about that one issue, yet. And I believe we can also reject that knowledge from God, either at the moment he tells us something or later even if we accepted it before we rejected it.

 

Have you ever kept a prayer journal Ahab?  If not you should try it.  You will learn a lot about yourself and how we progress in the process of enlightenment.  If you would give yourself to daily prayer and meditation, seeking after the will of God, then write down what you receive, you will see how that knowledge evolves over time.  You will receive light from God which is like a puzzle piece or pixel. You then interpret what that puzzle piece means and write down that interpretation.  God then gives you another piece of the puzzle or pixel which causes the last pice to appear bigger, smaller, more yellow, red, square, or round, etc.  While the light has not changed, your understanding of it has in this new context and new perspective of new light (precept upon precept).  It is like how the Book of Mormon modifies our understanding of the Bible from other Christians.  New lines modify our understanding of previous lines (line upon line).  I have three journals that I read through and can see the process of enlightenment in plain black and white.  I have not yet hit the limits of my modified understanding of previous "knowledge" so I hesitate to say that I know anything with certainty. This is how the process happens with me, I suspect it is the same for all of us, but we don't take the time to write it down and analyze it. 

Edited January 1, 2015 by pogi