On The Deflationary Theory

[mfbukowski]

extremely late to the discussion - my apologies

 

i think it's more fair to say that language is a tool designed to deal with what are able to perceive.  perception delivery method - eyes, ears, taste, emotional response, spectroscopy, voltmeters, geiger counters, etc...

 

i don't think that what we are seeing is less real vs more real.  i just think there's the infinite repository of stuff we can perceive.  each perception tool tells us something and we deem it useful or not useful.  "the forest for the trees" comes to mind here..

Yes that's it exactly. Good to see you!

[mfbukowski]

Language also makes everything public and generic. It wraps up ideas in white plastic and labels them "Brand x generic perception red r1475"

Gone is the exact tone of the wall color at sunset, with the blue couch reflecting purple tones on the left corner blending to soft violet and even some magenta. Gone is the contrast with the gold candle stick and the white mantle and the mood or nostalga of the moment.

It's just "red". Three letters " corresponding" to what?

[ERayR]

Language also makes everything public and generic. It wraps up ideas in white plastic and labels them "Brand x generic perception red r1475"

Gone is the exact tone of the wall color at sunset, with the blue couch reflecting purple tones on the left corner blending to soft violet and even some magenta. Gone is the contrast with the gold candle stick and the white mantle and the mood or nostalga of the moment.

It's just "red". Three letters " corresponding" to what?

 

Is that red you see the same one I see?

[mfbukowski]

Is that red you see the same one I see?

Exactly.

And why does that not concern us? Because we all know is irrelevant too discuss because language can't handle it.

Yet we also think that language can "correspond" to every other private perception! Evey single perception we have is subjective and we assume language can handle and represent our personal realities for those but not this one!

How do I know your red is not my green?

We say that is irrelevant, yet all we discuss is private realities, the way each of us sees the world without being able to get to the other persons reality yet we postulate one reality outside us that is the same for all.

[mfbukowski]

Mars said

language is a tool designed to deal with what are able to perceive

That works even for spiritual matters. We have a spiritual experience, how do we explain it? According to our religious beliefs

[Ahab]

Exactly.

And why does that not concern us? Because we all know is irrelevant too discuss because language can't handle it.

Yet we also think that language can "correspond" to every other private perception! Evey single perception we have is subjective and we assume language can handle and represent our personal realities for those but not this one!

How do I know your red is not my green?

We say that is irrelevant, yet all we discuss is private realities, the way each of us sees the world without being able to get to the other persons reality yet we postulate one reality outside us that is the same for all.

I'm still trying to comprehend this philosophy you're presenting, while pretty sure I understand parts of it, and now I'm thinking that it is geared mainly to handle subjective perceptions. Like if someone says something is not true or they just dismiss an idea because they don't accept it as part of their reality they're mainly just showing their own subjective perspective. Nevermind the fact that other people know the truth on an issue from having experienced it. Language won't convey that experience to someone else. It's just words to someone who hasn't experienced that truth.

So then what? How can language help to convey truth to others? Can we do anything to "arouse their faculties"? Can language help to do that, do you think?

[Mars]

i have listened to this podcast episode probably half a dozen times.  i can't get enough of it.  and i find it to be a propos:

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91725-words/

[Ahab]

i have listened to this podcast episode probably half a dozen times. i can't get enough of it. and i find it to be a propos:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91725-words/

They use words, right? Can you summarize those words in some other words to give me the gist of the main message?

Videos. Why do people use videos so much these days? Whatever happened to using old fashioned words? I'd rather see text without a video. Do I really need to change my ways?

[mfbukowski]

I'm still trying to comprehend this philosophy you're presenting, while pretty sure I understand parts of it, and now I'm thinking that it is geared mainly to handle subjective perceptions. Like if someone says something is not true or they just dismiss an idea because they don't accept it as part of their reality they're mainly just showing their own subjective perspective. Nevermind the fact that other people know the truth on an issue from having experienced it. Language won't convey that experience to someone else. It's just words to someone who hasn't experienced that truth.

So then what? How can language help to convey truth to others? Can we do anything to "arouse their faculties"? Can language help to do that, do you think?

Yessir you got it.

 

We all live in subjective worlds but there is no doubt that Mr Ahab is out there, an intelligence like me that allows me to communicate with him through this stupid medium called language that is pretty inadequate for anything truly important.

 

Yes we can write a manual on how to get to the moon, equations that work to make things go, recipes for roast beef and discussion on how to loose weight, who to vote for, but that is all in the public realm

 

We stink at being spiritual or knowing how to communicate that stuff.  You got what's in your head and I have what's in mine and often never the twain shall meet.

 

So what's "real" to you because you have experienced it may not be "real" to me because I have not, or when I went through the "same thing" I was 40 years older and more experienced or 40 years younger and more excitable, etc etc etc.

 

No two people have the exact same life histories and experiences.  Maybe you had 14 kids in your family, maybe I am an only child.  I was born in a huge city with no  money, you were rich and lived on a farm.  All of that colors our experiences and our own worlds

 

Yet we know there are others out there "just like us" or not really just like us.  To not know that would be to be what we call "psychotic".

 

And all we have to talk about it is grunts or squiggles on a page.  Yes they are highly refined grunts and highly symbolic squiggles but in the final analysis they do not "correspond" to the nuanced experiences and detailed interpretations of those experiences "in our heads".  (or hearts? )

 

So we talk til we are blue in the face in this thread, we take philosophy classes by the score, we read books and think about it and finally through all that we get a glimmer of maybe what the other guy REALLY means.

 

I think that is what is happening here!   So yes, after umpteen tries language can get through a glimmer of a message!  But it takes paragraphs and books and volumes and study to really get into someone else's head.

 

On a personal level it is much easier.  Non verbal communication participates in the experience.  You say something to your wife, and you get "that look" and immediately you know exactly what she is thinking!     No correspondence- it's direct participation in her experience, and suddenly you really again see the problems of language "But I didn't mean it that way..."    

 

So all we can do is point.  Look!  Over here!   This Book of Mormon thing is great!  You gotta try this!  They need to eat the fruit for themselves and feel it inside.  THEN you have something to talk about!!

[mfbukowski]

i have listened to this podcast episode probably half a dozen times.  i can't get enough of it.  and i find it to be a propos:

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91725-words/

Thanks

I consider that a very valuable endorsement and will listen as soon as I can.

[Mars]

They use words, right? Can you summarize those words in some other words to give me the gist of the main message?

Videos. Why do people use videos so much these days? Whatever happened to using old fashioned words? I'd rather see text without a video. Do I really need to change my ways?

 

i don't know you well enough to understand your tone - not that you're being mean or anything.  i just can't tell if you're being facetious. 

 

the video is neato - but not necessary.

 

the podcast talks about how humans interact with the world around them using words.  3 little stories that all deal with the same theme are told.  the first is the one i care most about, the other two i don't remember in great detail - certainly not sufficient to give you the gist of the main message.

 

the story is about a deaf/mute man who had never interacted with anyone using sign language who slowly comes to understand what sign language is.  when his sign language teacher asks him how he communicated before sign language - he literally could not explain it to her.  it entailed such a drastically different form of communication that he no longer thought using those processes any longer and he couldn't explain himself on those terms.  the moral of the story seems to be that the relationship between what we are able to perceive and what we are able to describe is bi-directional.  our words enrich and enable understanding.

 

radiolab's style is not for everyone - they are kinda old-timey with sound effects and music.  i eat it up, though.  it's a really really well done and professional show - i recommend giving at least this episode a good listen.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Mars

[Spammer]

Yessir you got it.

 

We all live in subjective worlds but there is no doubt that Mr Ahab is out there, an intelligence like me that allows me to communicate with him through this stupid medium called language that is pretty inadequate for anything truly important.

 

Yes we can write a manual on how to get to the moon, equations that work to make things go, recipes for roast beef and discussion on how to loose weight, who to vote for, but that is all in the public realm

 

We stink at being spiritual or knowing how to communicate that stuff.  You got what's in your head and I have what's in mine and often never the twain shall meet.

 

So what's "real" to you because you have experienced it may not be "real" to me because I have not, or when I went through the "same thing" I was 40 years older and more experienced or 40 years younger and more excitable, etc etc etc.

 

No two people have the exact same life histories and experiences.  Maybe you had 14 kids in your family, maybe I am an only child.  I was born in a huge city with no  money, you were rich and lived on a farm.  All of that colors our experiences and our own worlds

 

Yet we know there are others out there "just like us" or not really just like us.  To not know that would be to be what we call "psychotic".

 

And all we have to talk about it is grunts or squiggles on a page.  Yes they are highly refined grunts and highly symbolic squiggles but in the final analysis they do not "correspond" to the nuanced experiences and detailed interpretations of those experiences "in our heads".  (or hearts? )

 

So we talk til we are blue in the face in this thread, we take philosophy classes by the score, we read books and think about it and finally through all that we get a glimmer of maybe what the other guy REALLY means.

 

I think that is what is happening here!   So yes, after umpteen tries language can get through a glimmer of a message!  But it takes paragraphs and books and volumes and study to really get into someone else's head.

 

On a personal level it is much easier.  Non verbal communication participates in the experience.  You say something to your wife, and you get "that look" and immediately you know exactly what she is thinking!     No correspondence- it's direct participation in her experience, and suddenly you really again see the problems of language "But I didn't mean it that way..."    

 

So all we can do is point.  Look!  Over here!   This Book of Mormon thing is great!  You gotta try this!  They need to eat the fruit for themselves and feel it inside.  THEN you have something to talk about!!

 

I agree with everything you've said here.  I would only add that by implication there's no valid way for someone with a different experience to evaluate the experience of someone who tried the Book of Mormon thing and found it to bear no fruit or bitter fruit. Comparing subjective experiences gets us nowhere and brings us no closer to determining which of the two experiences more closely corresponds to "reality".  In such cases, each of the clashing subjectivities is equally true and neither has any grounds to refute the utility and truthiness of the other's experience.  There's no way either can get outside of their personal spiritual perceptions and experiences to check whether they really do correspond to whatever is 'out there'.  This completely transforms the missionary endeavor.  No longer is it "we have the Truth".  Now it's "we have a truth that works great for me.  Give it a try and see if it works for you.  If not, coolio.  Have a nice day"   

Edited July 9, 2015 by Spammer

[tagriffy]

They use words, right? Can you summarize those words in some other words to give me the gist of the main message?

Videos. Why do people use videos so much these days? Whatever happened to using old fashioned words? I'd rather see text without a video. Do I really need to change my ways?

 

I prefer texts to the spoken word myself. I can study and analyze a text, set aside emotion, burn through irrelevancies, and focus on what's being said. I can take my time with a text and keep going over it until I've understood it as thoroughly as possible. You can't do that with the spoken word. The spoken word is created ex nihilo and dissolved back into nothingness in the same instant. And your response has to be just as instantaneous because there simply is no time to think.

[Mars]

I agree with everything you've said here.  I would only add that by implication there's no valid way for someone with a different experience to evaluate the experience of someone who tried the Book of Mormon thing and found it to bear no fruit or bitter fruit. Comparing subjective experiences gets us nowhere and brings us no closer to determining which of the two experiences is more closely corresponds to "reality".  In such cases, each of the clashing subjectivities is equally true and neither has any grounds to refute the utility and truthiness of the other's experience.  This completely transforms the missionary endeavor.  No longer is it "we have the Truth".  Now it's "we have a truth that works great for me.  Give it a try and see if it works for you.  If not, coolio.  Have a nice day"   

 

i'm ok with that.  it's really the only way to have spiritual workings in our lives while respecting our agency.  we will each have to make the choice for ourselves whether or not our spiritual experiences are 'the effects of a frenzied mind' or something more real.

[ERayR]

I prefer texts to the spoken word myself. I can study and analyze a text, set aside emotion, burn through irrelevancies, and focus on what's being said. I can take my time with a text and keep going over it until I've understood it as thoroughly as possible. You can't do that with the spoken word. The spoken word is created ex nihilo and dissolved back into nothingness in the same instant. And your response has to be just as instantaneous because there simply is no time to think.

 

All within the framework of your own perspective.  I would argue that your emotions play a part in your interpretation of textual material and your pov determines what you consider as irrelevancies.

Edited July 9, 2015 by ERayR

[Ahab]

There's no way either can get outside of their personal spiritual perceptions and experiences to check whether they really do correspond to whatever is 'out there'. This completely transforms the missionary endeavor. No longer is it "we have the Truth". Now it's "I have a truth that works great for me. Give it a try and see if it works for you. If not, coolio. Have a nice day"

Missionary endeavors in our Church are pretty much that way already, although not necessarily with a "coolio" at the end. They share their message with anyone who is willing to listen and if the listener doesn't want to listen anymore they move on pretty qiickly to find others who are willing to listen.

The idea is that we know what is true based on our own experiences, including getting our own personal revelations from God, and we mainly just want to help other people learn what we know.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with everything you've said here.  I would only add that by implication there's no valid way for someone with a different experience to evaluate the experience of someone who tried the Book of Mormon thing and found it to bear no fruit or bitter fruit. Comparing subjective experiences gets us nowhere and brings us no closer to determining which of the two experiences more closely corresponds to "reality".  In such cases, each of the clashing subjectivities is equally true and neither has any grounds to refute the utility and truthiness of the other's experience.  There's no way either can get outside of their personal spiritual perceptions and experiences to check whether they really do correspond to whatever is 'out there'.  This completely transforms the missionary endeavor.  No longer is it "we have the Truth".  Now it's "we have a truth that works great for me.  Give it a try and see if it works for you.  If not, coolio.  Have a nice day"   

Yes and no.

 

Our job is to get the word out.  If you agree with the message, as you say you do, we are the only church which preaches that we all must have a testimony of the gospel in order to join the church.

 

You have put it crudely, but essentially that is exactly what we have been doing for 150 years.   Pray about it and see what happens.  If the answer is no, it is no.

 

Surprise surprise- not everyone joins the church.  No changes at all are necessary

Edited July 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

i don't know you well enough to understand your tone - not that you're being mean or anything. i just can't tell if you're being facetious.

the video is neato - but not necessary.

the podcast talks about how humans interact with the world around them using words. 3 little stories that all deal with the same theme are told. the first is the one i care most about, the other two i don't remember in great detail - certainly not sufficient to give you the gist of the main message.

the story is about a deaf/mute man who had never interacted with anyone using sign language who slowly comes to understand what sign language is. when his sign language teacher asks him how he communicated before sign language - he literally could not explain it to her. it entailed such a drastically different form of communication that he no longer thought using those processes any longer and he couldn't explain himself on those terms. the moral of the story seems to be that the relationship between what we are able to perceive and what we are able to describe is bi-directional. our words enrich and enable understanding.

radiolab's style is not for everyone - they are kinda old-timey with sound effects and music. i eat it up, though. it's a really really well done and professional show - i recommend giving at least this episode a good listen.

I'm usually seriously minded while maintaining a sense of humor. Not what I would call facetious because that word conveys the idea of someone who is "only joking".

Thank you for doing such a good job of conveying your message which was influenced by the message you saw and read, as well as heard.

I don't usually watch videos with sound while I'm viewing this message board because I don't want to broadcast any sound from the device I use, and yes there are some underlying reasons for that. I sometimes make exceptions but I'd much rather just see text without hearing anything from this board.

And yes I still manage to have both enjoyable and educational experiences from this board. Imagine that.

[Spammer]

Yes and no.

 

Our job is to get the word out.  If you agree with the message, as you say you do, we are the only church which preaches that we all must have a testimony of the gospel in order to join the church.

 

You have put it crudely, but essentially that is exactly what we have been doing for 150 years.   Pray about it and see what happens.  If the answer is no, it is no.

 

Surprise surprise- not everyone joins the church.  No changes at all are necessary

 

I think yours is the minority view in the church.  The implication is that any effort to assess the degree of correspondence of person's experience with reality in reference to our own is precluded.  Who am I to judge whether someone's experience is less true than my own?  I can't even determine whether my own spiritual experiences have any correspondence with reality.  Thus, any attempt to say that someone "did something wrong" when they put Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 to the test and didn't gain a testimony has to be tossed onto the garbage heap.  This inevitably leads to a more humble, less judgmental approach, imo.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

I prefer texts to the spoken word myself. I can study and analyze a text, set aside emotion, burn through irrelevancies, and focus on what's being said. I can take my time with a text and keep going over it until I've understood it as thoroughly as possible. You can't do that with the spoken word. The spoken word is created ex nihilo and dissolved back into nothingness in the same instant. And your response has to be just as instantaneous because there simply is no time to think.

I agree totally.  You can fast forward to get to the meat or back up to re-read and analyze phrase by phrase as needed.

[mfbukowski]

I think yours is the minority view in the church.  The implication is that any effort to assess the degree of correspondence of person's experience with reality in reference to our own is precluded.  Who am I to judge whether someone's experience is less true than my own?  I can't even determine whether my own spiritual experiences have any correspondence with reality.  Thus, any attempt to say that someone "did something wrong" when they put Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 to the test and didn't gain a testimony has to be tossed onto the garbage heap.  This inevitably leads to a more humble, less judgmental approach, imo.

Well it appears to be the majority view here.

 

Perhaps the problem is that you think your experiences SHOULD "correlate with reality", and that you do not take them at face value.   Do you worry about if your experience of anything else, like the color "red" correlates with "reality"?   How would you even measure that or know if it does or not??

 

You might want to think about that.  Perhaps your own words and thought habits are confusing you.

 

Talk to actual missionaries about the process of being a missionary - I will assure you they understand this well.

 

Because you did not get a "yes" to Moroni's promise does not mean you did "something wrong".  God leads us on the best path for us individually.  There is probably something in your thought processes which draw you to the Orthodox church, and that is where you need to be.

 

I find it very revealing that you left a Pragmatic church for a more traditional view- as I recall you were a Mormon and are now Orthodox- and how your views are more correlated with "correspondence" than ours, or perhaps I am totally wrong.   It happened one other time in 1994 as I recall. 

 

I don't doubt for a moment that if I was living as an atheist in a Muslim country that God could give me a "Moroni experience" to join Islam because it is a strong theistic faith and perhaps the closest thing to the "truth" available where I lived.

 

We need good strong believers of all faiths to save theism as a viable way of life and should not be quibbling about doctrine.

 

On the other side, I am a Pragmatist and believe that Pragmatism is undeniably "true".  It just matches my world view perfectly and it just so happens that Mormonism is the most Pragmatist religion of any anywhere.

 

Of course I am convinced that I am right and that eventually everyone will see the "truth"- that these beliefs work the best of any available anywhere to provide what mankind needs.   To me that is what the "only true and living church" means.   To me, it is the only path that provides absolutely all we need to establish a belief system for everyone to achieve the optimum lifestyle for humans.

 

I think that eventually everyone will see that, regardless of the path they are on now.   No one has beliefs they think are "wrong", and I am no different than anyone else.  All faiths are good, some are better, and I am convinced mine is the best- that indeed is why I chose it, but you get to decide for yourself what works for you.

 

That's all we ask, regardless of what you think we think.

[mfbukowski]

i'm ok with that.  it's really the only way to have spiritual workings in our lives while respecting our agency.  we will each have to make the choice for ourselves whether or not our spiritual experiences are 'the effects of a frenzied mind' or something more real.

See dangya.  4 rep points and counting.

 

You always say this stuff better than I do.    (taking notes.....)

[mfbukowski]

i have listened to this podcast episode probably half a dozen times.  i can't get enough of it.  and i find it to be a propos:

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91725-words/

Brilliant stuff- thanks!

 

I don't know how you can hear this and conclude that there is "reality" separate from language.  Language IS "reality" as we know it.  It does not "correspond" to reality - it IS reality AS WE KNOW IT

 

Putting it another way, without language this becomes an alien world.  It forms the categories of our perceptions, it forms logic.  Logic is not out there somewhere it is in here- and is socially constructed through language.

 

God organized all that he organized through the Word. 

 

John 1

Christ as the personification of the Word- the Logos, the Message, the Truth and indeed life itself.  No Word, no life as we know it, no light of intelligence as we know it.

 

John 1 King James Version (KJV)

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.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Giving names organizes "things" from matter "unorganized"- Genesis 1:5

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the "first day."

 Punctuation added

Edited July 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Mars]

i'm glad you enjoyed it.  it's formed a very vital part of my testimony.

[Mars]

I think yours is the minority view in the church.  The implication is that any effort to assess the degree of correspondence of person's experience with reality in reference to our own is precluded.  Who am I to judge whether someone's experience is less true than my own?  I can't even determine whether my own spiritual experiences have any correspondence with reality.  Thus, any attempt to say that someone "did something wrong" when they put Moroni's Promise and Alma 32 to the test and didn't gain a testimony has to be tossed onto the garbage heap.  This inevitably leads to a more humble, less judgmental approach, imo.

 

yeah people who do that need to get off their high horse.  me of yesteryear, included.

 

it doesn't invalidate moroni's promise.  it doesn't mean they did something wrong, either.

 

God will, on His own time and in His infinite wisdom, pour out light when necessary and sought after.  i fully believe answers will come, but they'll come when God thinks it's right.  that may not be when you get done reading the book of mormon and pray about it. 

 

on a personal note, i really think we're living out the parable of the talents.  we each have our talents and the point is to go and do something with them.  some get more, some get fewer.  but we all got at least one and if we manage to do something other than go bury it, i think we'll be ok.  (not that any of this is to say eat, drink, and be merry.  i equate a talent in the parable with a whispering of the Spirit, or a communication of provident instruction; some idea or concept that we accept as valid and true, and 'valid and true' in whatever terms make the most sense to us.  we are to incorporate and live by it.  it's how the light of Christ acts in all our hearts.  it puts all of God's children on the same plane, allows sin to only be in effect when we act contrary to this conscience, and permits us to grow at the rate we choose to grow.)