Reasonable Leap into Light: Dan Peterson's Fair Conference Presentation

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

(Weird formatting issues resolved. Sorry for the wasted space. It's weird that we can't delete posts, yo.) 

My suggestion is that it might be complicated by using an unusual font.  If I stick with the default it seems to work better.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/11/2015 at 0:25 AM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

But the one is so much more interesting than the other. 

Well now you have made an argument that is a tad hard to refute. 

Philosophy more interesting than sex.  An interesting idea! 

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally for those who are seriously looking for a totally secular and philosophical justification for the gospel as we Mormons believe it, here it is

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_speculative_philosophy/v013/13.2paulsen.html

The implications of this article are vast- if you take it back in time for example and look at the antecedent philosophies and sources for William James you will notice that much of his stuff comes straight out of Kant. I have something coming out soon on that.

If you take the philosophies that James has influenced forward, you will find that between James and Kant, many many philosophical ideas on both sides of the Atlantic are attributable to Kant and German philosophers.  James Faulconer is a Heideggerian - where does that come from?  Kant and the boys.

That means that most of contemporary philosophy is totally on "our side" if we only interpret it that way.

This article could prove to be the basis for a whole new theology for Mormons if we would just let it be.   We need to spend less time arguing with Evangelicals and trying to be part of their "club" and more time creating out own Restorationist understanding of these matters.

Paulsen totally gets it.  I got to shake his hand at the conference- what a privilege!  He is quite old and frail now, but I hope he is with us another hundred years or so at least!

Edited December 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

On December 11, 2015 at 1:05 AM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

 It's weird that we can't delete posts, yo.) 

I think that is to prevent people from going in and screwing up conversations when people have responded to their posts by deleting them because they are having a snit.

It will also happen less by accident if one doesn't have the option.  Having been a moderator (not on this board) who accidentally deleted a few people's posts and wasn't able to recover them, I know it can easily happen.

It doesn't stop people from going in and deleting content from their posts, but it takes more work.  And when that has happened on rare occasions, mods have locked them out of their own account.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Calm

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Quote

Well now you have made an argument that is a tad hard to refute.  

Hey, if Σοφία = Lady Wisdom = Ruach Ha-Kodesh = Chokhmah = Spirit/breath = She Who Treads On The Sea = Asherah = Queen/Priestess = Tree Of Life = Archetypal Initiate in the Temple Hieros Gamos ...

 

... then let's not make a false dichotomy here! Methinks a Platonic Phileo friendship with the particular Sophia in your life, while perfectly well and good, would not be as deep and long-lasting as if you were just as committed to doing your best to be a Perfect [Teleios] Eros for her, an Adam to her Eve, a Shiva-linga to her Shakti-yoni (an, uh, Obelisk to her Vesica Piscis?), the both of you making a nice Anāhata:

✡    

Poor Xanthippe; Socrates was probably a terrible husband. In conclusion: loving your partner is far more important than talking about her Ideal Form with Plato and the gang.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Hey, if Σοφία = Lady Wisdom = Ruach Ha-Kodesh = Chokhmah = Spirit/breath = She Who Treads On The Sea = Asherah = Queen/Priestess = Tree Of Life = Archetypal Initiate in the Temple Hieros Gamos ...

 

... then let's not make a false dichotomy here! Methinks a Platonic Phileo friendship with the particular Sophia in your life, while perfectly well and good, would not be as deep and long-lasting as if you were just as committed to doing your best to be a Perfect [Teleios] Eros for her, an Adam to her Eve, a Shiva-linga to her Shakti-yoni (an, uh, Obelisk to her Vesica Piscis?), the both of you making a nice Anāhata:

✡    

Poor Xanthippe; Socrates was probably a terrible husband. In conclusion: loving your partner is far more important than talking about her Ideal Form with Plato and the gang.

Hey watch your language there dude. 

The only reason you get away with that is that no one knows what you are talking about. 

I have probably 40 years more experience than you in these matters and if you think old guys have nothing to say about that.... 

It's not about "partners" and "doing your best" it's about the Unification of Polar Opposites and yin and yang becoming one and a total spiritual unity of the spheres in a cosmic whole. It's about creating worlds in a new being through the unity of opposites.  It's about civilization itself and what makes us human, a microcosm of the creation of Adam and Eve itself.  It is about BEING Adam and Eve and all that implies. 

It's not about looking in a mirror as an infant does and exalting the fantasies about one's self.  I am keeping this cryptic somewhat but you I know will get it.  It's never about Narcissus but about the unity of opposites. Yes it's the unity of physical and spiritual too.  But what is a lingam without a yoni?  Pure physicality.  No unity of spheres. No creation, just Narcissus. 

And yes it is about Sophia.  It is always about Sophia, as in philos-Sophia.

You know I love you dude. 

I just want this:

Quote

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions

The only visions I see lately in this regard from the young men are visions of Narcissus.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I went to art school before changing over to do history, and I've always loved all the various ways that different cultures have represented the union of "opposites" in art - the Alchemical Marriage, As Above So Below, all that stuff. 

But from a historical perspective, I think most of that symbolism originated in societies with a presumption of heterosexuality. I personally see tremendous beauty in art from that perspective, but then - as a heterosexual male influenced to a great degree by just such a culture - I would. I hate to sound like a bit of Social Justice Tumblr spam (well, no, not really), but I think that if you look at the morphology of our bodies and how they develop, we have to recognize that one's biological sex is a continuum, not a binary at all. And if that's the case, then the elaborate metaphysical constructs we've layered onto a presumption of a monolithic heterosexual binary start losing their status as a unique authority. Since all the binary stuff is mostly poetic metaphor, I don't see why those who appreciate it shouldn't incorporate it into their own lives, but I think it's inconsistent to see it as universal.  

Mormonism, in this sense, while unique in some ways, is still ultimately from the same source as western esotericism and hermeticism in general. Nothing wrong with that; I think it's awesome, actually. But because that view of masculine and feminine seen as binary polar opposites is so pervasive, I think it can be difficult for people to see beyond. I believe I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think such nonprocreative couples are based on narcissism (couldn't it be just as "narcissistic" to be entranced by the idea of fulfilling a role as one of the opposite poles in a binary opposition?), any more than I think infertile heterosexual couples are, or union which doesn't lead to conception is. It doesn't have to be all about one thing; I think there are many kinds of creation, and a childless or infertile or homosexual or polygamous couple can be just as creatively fecund, if in different ways.

(And don't worry, my crippling insecurities shield me from staring into pools too long. ) 

Edited December 14, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I went to art school before changing over to do history, and I've always loved all the various ways that different cultures have represented the union of "opposites" in art - the Alchemical Marriage, As Above So Below, all that stuff. 

But from a historical perspective, I think most of that symbolism originated in societies with a presumption of heterosexuality. I personally see tremendous beauty in art from that perspective, but then - as a heterosexual male influenced to a great degree by just such a culture - I would. I hate to sound like a bit of Social Justice Tumblr spam (well, no, not really), but I think that if you look at the morphology of our bodies and how they develop, we have to recognize that one's biological sex is a continuum, not a binary at all. And if that's the case, then the elaborate metaphysical constructs we've layered onto a presumption of a monolithic heterosexual binary start losing their status as a unique authority. Since all the binary stuff is mostly poetic metaphor, I don't see why those who appreciate it shouldn't incorporate it into their own lives, but I think it's inconsistent to see it as universal.  

Mormonism, in this sense, while unique in some ways, is still ultimately from the same source as western esotericism and hermeticism in general. Nothing wrong with that; I think it's awesome, actually. But because that view of masculine and feminine seen as binary polar opposites is so pervasive, I think it can be difficult for people to see beyond. I believe I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think such nonprocreative couples are based on narcissism (couldn't it be just as "narcissistic" to be entranced by the idea of fulfilling a role as one of the opposite poles in a binary opposition?), any more than I think infertile heterosexual couples are, or union which doesn't lead to conception is. It doesn't have to be all about one thing; I think there are many kinds of creation, and a childless or infertile or homosexual or polygamous couple can be just as creatively fecund, if in different ways.

(And don't worry, my crippling insecurities shield me from staring into pools too long. ) 

Yes I worked on a Master's in Art History while I was in the gallery business in a previous incarnation but doing business with artists is..... difficult.

Why do you suppose all previous cultures found homosexuality immoral?   Have you thought that one through?

It's an interesting argument I suppose, that because during our development a fetus can be male or female depending on hormonal factors etc which I do not pretend to understand fully, therefore homosexual behavior is morally desirable.  Interesting because I do not see the connection or how that argument works.  Maybe you could enlighten me?

And without getting too explicit, let me say that I survived the '60's just barely and am aware of the "continuum" of sexuality.  

But I make a distinction between what "is" and what "ought to be".  I think morals are to raise us from our animal selves to become a spiritual self.  I see the construction of an "ideal behavior" to be important in reaching these ideals.

I also do not think that because at certain stages an embryo looks like a frog, that is not a justification for mature adults to act like frogs.  That is not to say that frogs are more homosexual or less than other species, but it had a witty ring to it so I thought I would leave it in.  It makes the point that morphology is irrelevant to morality.

I define moral behavior to be those behaviors which, if generalized to all humanity, would allow humanity to survive in the best possible and most civilized manner possible.

I do not think it desirable for the survival of humanity to generalize homosexual behavior to all humanity for obvious reasons.  Yes I know that one can make fertilized eggs in the lab.  I may sound stupid but I am not completely stupid, just a little stupid.

I also think that the teleology of humanity- our purpose- is essential in a spiritual sense.  I do not see how homosexual behavior fits into the teleology of mankind.  On the contrary I see it as carnal behavior which should be morally discouraged.   I do not see benefits to humanity in promoting homosexual behavior.

It is odd to me that one cites the "continuum" of sexual behavior in favor of homosexuality when such an argument can be used just as well against it.   If we are all a little bisexual, then we all have a choice to some degree how to manifest our sexuality.  That argument cuts both ways.

I could not care less what gay people or anyone else does in their bedrooms.  It is none of anybody's business until a crime is committed.  But I do not find it morally acceptable.  Should gay people be allowed to marry?  I am against it, but again that is up to the legal system to decide, and it has.
But spiritually I see it as against the teleological purpose of humanity and not morally praiseworthy.

Quote

But because that view of masculine and feminine seen as binary polar opposites is so pervasive, I think it can be difficult for people to see beyond. I believe I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think such nonprocreative couples are based on narcissism (couldn't it be just as "narcissistic" to be entranced by the idea of fulfilling a role as one of the opposite poles in a binary opposition?), any more than I think infertile heterosexual couples are, or union which doesn't lead to conception is. It doesn't have to be all about one thing; I think there are many kinds of creation, and a childless or infertile or homosexual or polygamous couple can be just as creatively fecund, if in different ways.

 

I don't see that actually procreating has much to do with the morality of it at all  I am not saying that infertile couples have a moral duty to procreate, or anyone for that matter has a moral duty to do so.

Why do you think the "view of masculine and feminine seen as binary polar opposites" is "pervasive"?  Is it because people are mean-spirited?

Why do you think that that view evolved?  Could it be that society has seen that to be a necessary belief for the good of humanity?  Why might they think that?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Not all previous cultures found homosexuality immoral. On the traditional marriage side, I think David Blankenhorn (though he has since become a supporter of gay marriage) gave one of the better defenses of the right of children to have married male and female parents who contributed to their genetic makeup in The Future Of Marriage. However, I also think that Chris Ryan and Cacilda Jetha's Sex At Dawn shows pretty convincingly that the concern with virginity, monogamy, paternity certainty, and a presumption of heterosexuality rather than pansexual expression was a product of the agricultural revolution and the rise of private property. Believe me, I have been thinking about these issues as deeply as I can ever since my parents divorced when I was five. There are good points on both sides of the aisle, but ultimately I think Ryan and Jetha account more convincingly for the data. 

I wasn't actually talking solely about the fetal stage of development, I was also talking about adult intersex individuals. I make a distinction between "is" and "ought" as well (it's perfectly "natural" to stone people, but short of immediate self-defense I don't think we ought to), but I think we create a false dichotomy when we split our "animal" and "spiritual" nature. (For instance, animal = animale = being which breathes = anima = breath/air; spirit = spiritus = breath of life - so why can't we be spiritual animals?) I strongly disagree with rhetoric that declares that our animal and spiritual natures are engaged in a war in which one side must prevail. 

I think morphology is relevant to morality; our theology is profoundly embodied, and I think we should try to understand all the ways people experience embodiment. As far as behaviors go, I think it's going a little too far to say that we can generalize to all humanity. Individual circumstance and embodiment has some effect. This isn't relativism, this is concern for individual experience. 

I think there's an inconsistency in your view that a) invitro fertilization is available, procreation is not a moral duty, and infertile couples don't have a duty to procreate, while b) it is wrong for homosexuals or transgendered individuals to have non-procreative sexual relationships and/or take advantage of invitro fertilization. The only difference I can see between the two is the morphology of the individuals. We could just as easily say that heterosexual behavior which doesn't lead to procreation doesn't fit into the "teleology" of humanity because it is merely "carnal" (as if the [embodied] "carnality" is inherently wrong in the first place!).

I don't see that I'm "promoting" homosexual behavior per se, only allowing a space for it to exist without being persecuted. There are, even as we speak, places where open homosexuality or open intersex presentation can earn you a violent, religiously-motivated murder. I think that's a far greater concern than a hypothetical teleology. 

I think people might misunderstand the genetic argument. It is not that there is no free will aspect to it; in that sense, homosexual behavior is indeed a "choice" in the same way that, as a heterosexual, it would be physically possible (though tremendously difficult) for me to have a homosexual relationship against my inborn inclinations. But, seeing as I have no desire or reason to do so, why should I? The same goes in reverse: I think it is physically possible for homosexuals to perform heterosexual acts, though it would be tremendously difficult to go against their inborn inclinations. What I'm not seeing is a good reason they should, given that procreation is not a duty and invitro or adoption exists. Just as it would be unfair to pressure heterosexuals into homosexual relationships by teaching that such are the only socially-sanctioned type of romantic relationship, so too homosexuals shouldn't be pressured into heterosexual relationships by social norms. The point is, I did not wake up one day and "decide" to be heterosexual, and so I have no reason to make the physically-possible (but personally not-interested) choice to act otherwise. 

I don't think the view of masculine and feminine as binary polar opposites is pervasive because people are mean-spirited. I think society has definitely thought such a belief was necessary, but I don't understand why, given the above. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

 We could just as easily say that heterosexual behavior which doesn't lead to procreation doesn't fit into the "teleology" of humanity because it is merely "carnal" (as if the [embodied] "carnality" is inherently wrong in the first place!....

The same goes in reverse: I think it is physically possible for homosexuals to perform heterosexual acts, though it would be tremendously difficult to go against their inborn inclinations. What I'm not seeing is a good reason they should, given that procreation is not a duty and invitro or adoption exists. Just as it would be unfair to pressure heterosexuals into homosexual relationships by teaching that such are the only socially-sanctioned type of romantic relationship, so too homosexuals shouldn't be pressured into heterosexual relationships by social norms.....

I don't think the view of masculine and feminine as binary polar opposites is pervasive because people are mean-spirited. I think society has definitely thought such a belief was necessary, but I don't understand why, given the above. 

Well so far we have not progressed too far- I am not sure we need to try to progress but I am open to it if you want to discuss it further

3 paragraphs, 3 points:

1) Honestly I cannot imagine anyone saying that one of the "purposes" of humanity- however defined, and I do have definitions, is NOT reproduction.  I find that statement impossible to comprehend frankly.  No reproduction, no humanity, and problem solved I guess.  A purpose of humanity is to exterminate itself?  That's just a tad hard to swallow and I would not find the extermination of humanity a "moral behavior".   I am funny that way

2) All kind of things which require moral behavior are "tremendously difficult" including monogamy, or for that matter, resisting any sexual temptation.

But I have found that it is good to do hard things to be moral.  In my experience, it causes one's spirituality to go through the roof.  Self-discipline is amazing in that regard.  Even things like losing a hundred pounds or so, which is not considered necessarily morally praiseworthy can have a similar effect, but knowing that you are doing it for God just makes it explode.  That is called "The Law of Sacrifice".  Works like nothing else I have tried.  Recovery from addictions is a nice alternative.   Ask anyone in a 12 step program about doing it without God, and pick any addiction you care to. I have managed to pull off all 3 of those so far and found them tremendously uplifting- by the Grace of God, one can do the impossible.

So because it is difficult to be moral, is not a sufficient reason to be immoral in my book.

3) I would encourage you to explore why society has thought that a belief that masculine and feminine was necessary.  Even societies which have tolerated homosexual behavior as "extra curricular" activity, I think you will find that that view prevailed.  I think that "view" is as old as sexual reproduction itself, and it is necessary for us to see it that way for the race to survive.  It is older than language, it is as old as the birds and the bees.  Well at least the birds    Ask a couple.  They think the same way.  As a birdbrain, I am an expert.

Incidentally since I recovered from Marxism, I have no problem with the agricultural revolution or private property.     I actually think they were advances.

Hunting and gathering is just not my thing, and I like a nice house to live in.  Mortgages are a pain but eventually like all pain, they disappear.

Edited December 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think you are reading things into my post that are simply not there.

I never even implied that a purpose of humanity was to abandon reproduction and "exterminate itself" (?!?!?!). I don't even see how it's possible to get from my post to there. If homosexuals are no longer viciously murdered, heterosexuals will suddenly stop reproducing? I'm completely baffled by what you're trying to say. I think because of your stated method of applying moral absolutes universally, you're making a blanket statement out of a limited application; that is, either society is entirely heterosexual ( = good), or it is entirely homosexual, leading to the extinction of the species ( = bad). Why not just have a world culture in which both are accepted as ways of expressing love? Is there really such a high number of closeted homosexuals that species extinction is likely if they all come out? I never said that some things which are tremendously difficult aren't worth doing, but I don't think it's worth doing something that is tremendously difficult if no one can give a coherent reason why it is worth doing. Of course being moral is better than being immoral, even if it's difficult. I never said otherwise. My point is that you have yet to show why homosexuality is immoral in the first place. I mean, you could just as easily say that I should repress my heterosexuality and marry someone of the same gender, because that would teach me to transcend the carnal animalistic urge and be exalted to a spiritual level of pure love. Finally, for the record, I have done my best to explore why society has thought that gender roles should be set up this way, and I never said I had a problem with agriculture or private property. 

Sigh. I'm just having a bad night. I have no idea what anyone is saying. I'm a terrible communicator and people are confusing aliens. 

Everyone should just love who they want to love. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/12/2015 at 11:52 AM, mfbukowski said:

...................................................

It's not about "partners" and "doing your best" it's about the Unification of Polar Opposites and yin and yang becoming one and a total spiritual unity of the spheres in a cosmic whole. It's about creating worlds in a new being through the unity of opposites.  It's about civilization itself and what makes us human, a microcosm o the creation of Adam and Eve itself.  It is about BEING Adam and Eve and all that implies. 

..........................................................   

Om mani padme hum.  "The Jewel in the Lotus, Amen."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umj-GxniJi8 .

[3DOP]

20 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I think you are reading things into my post that are simply not there.

I never even implied that a purpose of humanity was to abandon reproduction and "exterminate itself" (?!?!?!). I don't even see how it's possible to get from my post to there. If homosexuals are no longer viciously murdered, heterosexuals will suddenly stop reproducing? I'm completely baffled by what you're trying to say. I think because of your stated method of applying moral absolutes universally, you're making a blanket statement out of a limited application; that is, either society is entirely heterosexual ( = good), or it is entirely homosexual, leading to the extinction of the species ( = bad). Why not just have a world culture in which both are accepted as ways of expressing love? Is there really such a high number of closeted homosexuals that species extinction is likely if they all come out? I never said that some things which are tremendously difficult aren't worth doing, but I don't think it's worth doing something that is tremendously difficult if no one can give a coherent reason why it is worth doing. Of course being moral is better than being immoral, even if it's difficult. I never said otherwise. My point is that you have yet to show why homosexuality is immoral in the first place. I mean, you could just as easily say that I should repress my heterosexuality and marry someone of the same gender, because that would teach me to transcend the carnal animalistic urge and be exalted to a spiritual level of pure love. Finally, for the record, I have done my best to explore why society has thought that gender roles should be set up this way, and I never said I had a problem with agriculture or private property. 

Sigh. I'm just having a bad night. I have no idea what anyone is saying. I'm a terrible communicator and people are confusing aliens. 

Everyone should just love who they want to love. 

Love those you already love? What virtue in loving those you WANT to love? No. No. No. Love the one you're with? No. I like Stephen Stills. But he is nowhere close to Christ. Love our enemies, says Jesus. Its easy to love those you want to love. No problem there. Love those you don't like? That is the problem. Yeah...I love everybody at church. Big deal. I agree with them. Its not too hard to love those with whom you agree. May I love those with whom I disagree.

Edited December 16, 2015 by 3DOP
It was a comma that should have been a period. Wha My edit is all messed up. I am editjng the dit. Good night. Deliver me pleaSE FROM ALL THSE PTOBLEMS OF TRYING TO BE Pe rFeCT. wHy DO I eDIT. ??? wHY DO i EDIthe big deal? Now I should edit my edit. t.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I was talking specifically about Eros love there, not Agape. I can't imagine being with someone who didn't actually want to love me, but felt it was some sort of duty to God. 

[3DOP]

8 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I was talking specifically about Eros love there, not Agape. I can't imagine being with someone who didn't actually want to love me, but felt it was some sort of duty to God. 

Goodness sake ancient astronaut, I wouldn't expect you to have Eros with one who didn't have Eros with you. Anyway...sorry for the rough night. Me too.

My dear wife is gone (temporarily, but it seems like a looooong time). Our oldest daughter had our fifth grandchild the other day and she claims my wife, her mother, to be more necessary for her than me. So young people, even our own children, don't always appreciate what us old 'uns deal with. Its okay. We get some pretty great consolations too! Like grandbabies! Heh. You worry about finding those who love you? What about loving those who irritate you? I get home after work today and my sister-in-law peed the bed again. May I say I was non-plussed? I call my good wife about how to care for her old sister who lives with us. What do you do? 1) Find the rubber gloves. 2) Smell the bed things 3) Other instructions based on the intensity of the smell.

My dear good wife does this all the time. She is my hero, not for Eros, but Agape.

Anyway Jeremy Orbe-Smith...God love and keep you and may His face shine upon you. I am the old guy in the picture. My son is on another continent. You won't be seeing him in Portland anytime soon. But if you see a graybeard  truck driver across the river on your side loading a trailer and you think it could be that guy from MMDB...it is!!! Say hello. I'll try to do the same if I see you standing there. 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Sounds like a plan. Congratulations on the granddaughter.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Om mani padme hum.  "The Jewel in the Lotus, Amen."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umj-GxniJi8 .

It's all about the Bass, about the Bass. 

Dang them guys get down.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/15/2015 at 9:09 PM, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I think you are reading things into my post that are simply not there.

I never even implied that a purpose of humanity was to abandon reproduction and "exterminate itself" (?!?!?!). I don't even see how it's possible to get from my post to there. If homosexuals are no longer viciously murdered, heterosexuals will suddenly stop reproducing? I'm completely baffled by what you're trying to say. I think because of your stated method of applying moral absolutes universally, you're making a blanket statement out of a limited application; that is, either society is entirely heterosexual ( = good), or it is entirely homosexual, leading to the extinction of the species ( = bad). Why not just have a world culture in which both are accepted as ways of expressing love? Is there really such a high number of closeted homosexuals that species extinction is likely if they all come out? I never said that some things which are tremendously difficult aren't worth doing, but I don't think it's worth doing something that is tremendously difficult if no one can give a coherent reason why it is worth doing. Of course being moral is better than being immoral, even if it's difficult. I never said otherwise. My point is that you have yet to show why homosexuality is immoral in the first place. I mean, you could just as easily say that I should repress my heterosexuality and marry someone of the same gender, because that would teach me to transcend the carnal animalistic urge and be exalted to a spiritual level of pure love. Finally, for the record, I have done my best to explore why society has thought that gender roles should be set up this way, and I never said I had a problem with agriculture or private property. 

Sigh. I'm just having a bad night. I have no idea what anyone is saying. I'm a terrible communicator and people are confusing aliens. 

Everyone should just love who they want to love. 

No communication whatsoever.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

*bumping* because I feel like the original topic of the thread didn't get much comment, and dangit I wrong a lot on it

Edit: I intended to write "wrote", not "wrong", but this is much more amusing. Freudian slip confessing the error of my ways? har 

Edited December 27, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Here's another talk DCP gave that covers similar territory, but with much better organization: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6UuPri1XDo

It is, alas, full of all the same holes. I just don't understand - why are we trying to appropriate arguments being used to defend the post-great-apostasy concept of God? The whole point of the Restoration was that these arguments simply don't work - they are a mass of confusion. We're trying to mingle our scriptures with the philosophies of men like Plantinga and Flew (The Later Years) and Alister McGrath? Oy. 

The supposed cosmological fine-tuning is beside the point and gets things exactly backwards, because it presumes intentionality and creation when that is what the question is. We can't just shrug away the ho-hum "of course" response that life as we know it would obviously be different if all the molecules and forces and measurements we can make of the environment were even a squidge of a squintillionth off, because the whole point of many LDS scriptures, for instance in the D&C, is that there do exist 'brute facts' that were never created. Coeternal intelligences, eternal matter. If there is an infinite universe of uncreated material and uncreated minds, then exactly none of these arguments used to defend an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God's ex nihilo creation have any relevance whatsoever, because they cannot be transferred between nonequivalent God-concepts, and we don't even need them to in the first place, even if we wanted them to, which we shouldn't. If it is impossible for these things to exist without fine-tuning by a deity, then even God cannot exist, because there would have been nothing to fine-tune the fine-tuner; if it is possible for something to exist without 'fine-tuning', then the necessity and relevance of the fine-tuning argument becomes meaningless.   

Our measurements are names that our human minds use to quantify a preexisting environment composed of immeasurable particles. It's a language. We can mentally probe deeper and deeper and expand outward and outward, and the 'fine-tuning' will appear to become ever-more complex with our own expansion of self-constructed knowledge because we name more and more particles and describe more intricate relationships, but that has nothing to do with whether the interrelated complexity we have named was itself the result of one single intelligence planning it that way. 

Instead, there is an uncreated interstellar ecosystem composed of a multiplicity of coexisting awarenesses that effect each other's environment in different ways. The point of LDS scripture is that God is not the ultimate cause of all this, that He was not God from all eternity, that He dwelt on an earth just like Christ and the rest of us do, that He is even part of a species. In which case, what created the earth God dwelt upon? What created God's body? What created the other intelligences and awarenesses that God found Himself dwelling in the midst of? Is there any reason evolution couldn't have selected for a "God" organism sometime in the billions of years the uncreated universe has existed? 

The way I understand it, the LDS God is a Demiurge among Demiurges, not the incoherent creator of all space and time. He is Hephaestus, not the One Ground Of All Being. He might shape shamayim and raqiya and eretz out of preexisting material, but the shaping must be done by the same principles as an architect or metallurgist or gardener; they don't create the materials or the metal or the evolved plants and animals from nothing, they organize these things for the benefit of other intelligences. This is the apotheosis of humanism and the potential of us cuddly little mammals.   

Here, have some Hitch as a corrective: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0Q0o5une8Y&feature=youtu.be

Edited December 28, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

P. S. Did the ability to embed videos go away during the board update? I can't quite figure out how to manage it, if not. Those little linkies are so much less enticing than a video embedded in the post itself. Kind of a bummer. 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Our measurements are names that our human minds use to quantify a preexisting environment composed of immeasurable particles. It's a language. We can mentally probe deeper and deeper and expand outward and outward, and the 'fine-tuning' will appear to become ever-more complex with our own expansion of self-constructed knowledge because we name more and more particles and describe more intricate relationships, but that has nothing to do with whether the interrelated complexity we have named was itself the result of one single intelligence planning it that way. 

Instead, there is an uncreated interstellar ecosystem composed of a multiplicity of coexisting awarenesses that effect each other's environment in different ways. The point of LDS scripture is that God is not the ultimate cause of all this, that He was not God from all eternity, that He dwelt on an earth just like Christ and the rest of us do, that He is even part of a species. In which case, what created the earth God dwelt upon? What created God's body? What created the other intelligences and awarenesses that God found Himself dwelling in the midst of? Is there any reason evolution couldn't have selected for a "God" organism sometime in the billions of years the uncreated universe has existed? 

Good stuff but I have some suggestions.  I hope you don't mind. My last post to you was saying that there was "no communication" between us and I would like to rectify that.

I like to quote a bit of the context first and then zoom in to the point I would like to make. I am not sure if I am acting as an editor here or if this will be constructive to the way you are thinking about it

First quoted paragraph- great stuff until the last clause of the last sentence.

Quote

but that has nothing to do with whether the interrelated complexity we have named was itself the result of one single intelligence planning it that way. 

This assumes there IS something "real" beyond what we have named the "true nature" of which is knowable.  I would disagree with that, and I know you would agree with me on that.  It is hard to learn to think that everything we can know is socially defined, and very easy to slip back into Cartesian ways of seeing the world.  I would say that you are mixing two contexts here- one a scientific view, which is well described up to the word "itself" where it becomes a religious statement justifiable only by revelation.

Or at least that is my interpretation- you may mean it to be a bridge to the religious context of the next paragraph. But which context you are in is not clear.  IF what you are saying is that "My interpretation of LDS scripture leads me to believe the useful metaphor that there is an uncreated interstellar ecosystem....  In that case we are communicating.

So that's why I am confused.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Well, I'm perpetually confused, too. So we're in the same boat?

I ... don't quite understand what you're getting at. I do think there is something underlying our metaphorical nomenclature - that is, there is a big round glowing white strange thing which appears to travel above my head when I'm outside during certain hours, and I can name that underlying experience "sun" and thereby distinguish it from "moon". That name isn't the "true nature" of the sun, but it's useful within the context of my human community to just say "sun" rather than "big round glowing white strange thing" all the time (there is a progressive micro<--->macro scale of naming, depending on the context). In the same way, we can mentally divide up the sun into smaller parts, and call those parts hydrogen and helium and oxygen, etc, and we can further divide those into protons and whatever, and on and on down, but the "complexity" which results from our ever-more intricate naming/dividing has nothing to do with whether the underlying referent whose aspects we are naming in increasingly-complex ways was "designed". But there is still something external to us - something "real" - that we're interacting with and applying labels to. That underlying "thing" was what I was referring to with the word "itself". The way I see it, there is a vast external environment full of infinite complexities, and we can name as much of that complexity as we are capable of perceiving - but it still exists whether we name it or not. DNA existed before we could see it through an electron microscope and name it. Once we can see it (or at least perceive its effects), we can name it and divide it into even smaller parts, but the resulting perception of "complexity" (referring to both our linguistic nomenclature and the complicated underlying referent) doesn't have anything to do with whether that underlying "thing" we have named was somehow a result of design and purposive causation. In the video, DCP takes, essentially, the creationist stance regarding complexity, as if complexity itself is evidence of design. Which seems to me to be a misstep. Fine-tuning as an argument for the existence of (the post-apostasy understanding of) God disappears, because we already believe in a plurality of uncreated entities. The perceived improbability of our existence is not an argument either way for the existence of a designer. 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Maybe this will help: 

The way I see it, science = scire = scindere = PIE root skei, meaning "split/divide". Same root as ship, schism, sh!t, nice (ne-scire), shield, shelter, all on the notion of 'dividing'. The heuristic metaphor is to "know" something deeper by dividing it into constituent elements. 

Complexity = com-plectere = PIE root plek = "plait". Same root as em-ploy, ply, dis-play, per-plex, ap-ply, re-plica, ex-plicit, all on the notion of folding or unfolding. The metaphor is one of weaving a complicated fabric out of many strands.  

Religion = re-ligio = PIE root leig, meaning "to bind". Same root as rely, ligament, lictor, ligature, liable, league, ob-lige, ally, etc., all on the notion of binding. Another sort of fabric or rope metaphor. 

So I don't see that science or religion are opposed when speaking of complexity, just that neither can prove that a "God" exists. Science is useful when dividing and analyzing and breaking things into smaller pieces; religion is an artifact of embodied human communities "binding" individuals into a larger "whole". They're both, in a sense, linguistic formulations, but the underlying referent is still there (hopefully, anyway, in the case of some nice God with the power to resurrect people), regardless of the metaphorical comparative nature of how we describe it. 

Edited December 28, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[mfbukowski]

Well I make no distinction between things and appearances.  I do not accept correspondence or that language "represents" anything we can know.  Language does not represent- it creates.  That is what I was talking about in the other thread about Wittgenstein and Klimt.

Bad:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

Good:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

All you can know is the "big yellow ball" not what it is in "itself".  "yellow ball"="sun" Nothing more nothing less.

I object to statements that purport to know anything other than appearances, and metaphorical models.

All we can know is human experience, nothing "behind" it.  What you see is what there is.  What you feel in your heart is just as "real" as what you see, it's just subjective to me, but unknowable to you.

I also don't think that etymology is a worthwhile pursuit in trying to do anything but analyze how words evolved.  It does not help us with what "really is", it just gives us a history of culture, and deciding that you can know a distant culture is basically presentism.  It teaches the evolution of what we imagine the meaning might have been- but because we are no longer in that culture, it is automatically misleading.  It is like studying phrenology to decide why someone is crazy.  Nice that people used to think that way- if they did- but not horribly relevant to now.

Unfortunately all we can know is "linguistic formulations" but to even say that implies that there could be something else.  Especially when we are talking as we are now, there IS nothing but language.  No "mirror of nature" in language- we cannot communicate anything with language beyond language.

We all wear language colored glasses and cannot take them off.  We all have human brains and cannot remove them to get to what "really is" beyond what the human brain says it is.  "Yellow ball" is as good a description- within its function- as a description in quantum mechanics of every aspect of what the sun "is"- one is just more detailed than the other and is usable in a different context.  One might be a perfect description for a child, and the other for a college class, but neither describe more adequately what "the sun really is."

We still have some work to do to speak the same language.