Philosophies of Men

[volgadon]

12 hours ago, salgare said:

Nothing worth discussion here I guess ... and I still have no clue as to your joke??.  I noted Brent Metcalfe's OP doing nothing but pointing to an article was immediately locked.

I guess "The Who" is the important thing around here:

 

 

The Who will always be important to me. Still, my joke is in the italicised portion of the album title. I used it, because the album art is a clever joke about crass commercialization.

[salgare]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks!

I am curious where you got that interpretation

I can see it from a couple places right in the abstract for example:

"With the right interpretation, philosophies deemed “secular” or “godless” can be seen as helpful and even providentially provided by the Lord to help provide a philosophical grounding for a testimony instead of destroying it."

It seemed to me that you drifted from a review of the book to presenting your philosophies in most of the article.  I guess I would need to read the book to understand the punch line of the books Title.  I'm still confused by all the lost but won.

"The story tells us that Jacob held fast to the angel and would not allow him to escape, leaving the angel no alternative but to dislocate Jacob’s hip. Jacob/Israel had lost the fight, yet Jacob still would not release the angel, insisting that the Lord give him a blessing. The angel ultimately agreed and gave him his blessing. So in the long run, Israel “prevailed” through surrender to God and an unwavering commitment to do what was necessary to receive God’s blessings. By any objective measure, he limped away from the battle a defeated man, yet God pronounced that Jacob, now “Israel,” had prevailed by his persistence and ultimate surrender to God’s will."

This is why I asked this question:

I've bandied about the term "Nuanced Mormonism" that I'm heard elsewhere.  I know that labels are often disliked, but  they also tend to be as a picture telling a 1000 words to use them in the right context; Orthodox Mormon, New Order Mormon, Nuanced (Orthoprax?) Mormon (New for short).  Is there a term you would prefer I use in this context?  Based on this review I assume its fair for me to put that label on Givens?

More directly; Would Givens agree with your pragmatistic view of the gospel?  Without knowing how closely Givens would share your philosophies I based my interpretation on the final sentence of the abstract along with where you quote him.

"Givens is fully aware of the importance of this spirit of humanism for the Restoration and mentions it several times. Here are two especially relevant quotes:"

I believe this gave me justification for the "extremes of old school Mormon Orthodoxy to Humanism."  It seems to me that Givens apologetics (and yours?)  is to present some orthoprox middle ground in an attempt to overcome the problematic issues injected into history, scripture, teachings by the philosophies of men.

I believe that for old school and BRM generations this is going to be a hard pill to swallow, in other words their individual struggle with an angel as this New Mormonism evolves.

 

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, salgare said:

I can see it from a couple places right in the abstract for example:

"With the right interpretation, philosophies deemed “secular” or “godless” can be seen as helpful and even providentially provided by the Lord to help provide a philosophical grounding for a testimony instead of destroying it."

Good questions, I can see how they might be confusing.

The key there is to understand that there are many ways to understand any sentence.  The key to that sentence is "WITH THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION.......CAN BE SEEN AS".  What that is saying is that there are many ways of understanding philosophy

Suppose you have played chess with the same guy many times.  You get to know his game.  You understand how his mind works regarding chess.  You see the weaknesses in his strategy.  You see the holes in the game.  Suppose you said to someone "I see his strategy as actually helping me because I know what he is going to do.  He is so predictable that his best strategy actually helps my game. Are you saying you should play the way he plays?  No, you are saying that you should use his vulnerabilities to your advantage.

And if the whole world thinks he has the best game in town, and you can exploit that, would that help your case?

What I am saying is that the very best arguments that they can throw at us can be turned around to be a strength for our "game" or argument.  If that's the best they've got, we have them beat!  I mentioned that on the Daniel Peterson Beauty etc. thread.  One very famous atheist says that he "hopes" there is not God.  The very best argument he can use is that it takes faith to NOT believe in God!  So in a case like that one can actually USE his own argument IN FAVOR of there being a God who can only be known by faith!  If an atheist cannot prove there is no God - there might be one.  We can use that same argument to say we hope there IS a God- and that is called "hope for things unseen"

That is exactly the way I use Rorty as well.  Most of his arguments in relativisim show that truth is contextual.  We have a scripture which says that truth always is "within its sphere".   So if truth is always within its sphere, that means that truth is contextual.  Contextual truth means that our truth is as good as atheist truth.  That argument for contextual truth- which in fact President Kimball makes as well, and section 93 says"  30 All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."   So both Rorty and President Kimball both think that there truth is contextual.

Quote

It seemed to me that you drifted from a review of the book to presenting your philosophies in most of the article.

Yes of course.  Guilty as charged.  It is a "review essay" the objective of which is present a review with new insights.  I don't know if I did that, but that was the objective.  Otherwise it would have been 2 pages.

Quote

 

  I guess I would need to read the book to understand the punch line of the books Title.  I'm still confused by all the lost but won.

"The story tells us that Jacob held fast to the angel and would not allow him to escape, leaving the angel no alternative but to dislocate Jacob’s hip. Jacob/Israel had lost the fight, yet Jacob still would not release the angel, insisting that the Lord give him a blessing. The angel ultimately agreed and gave him his blessing. So in the long run, Israel “prevailed” through surrender to God and an unwavering commitment to do what was necessary to receive God’s blessings. By any objective measure, he limped away from the battle a defeated man, yet God pronounced that Jacob, now “Israel,” had prevailed by his persistence and ultimate surrender to God’s will."

 

OK - "objectively" from a scientific, atheistic perspective here, what happened?  Two men wrestled.

One guy, Jacob, pinned the other guy.  He didn't only pin him, he held him down all night long and the other guy couldn't move.  Finally the other guy dislocated Jacob's hip. said some words, and Jacob limped away, probably crippled for life or at least limping for life.  Who was the winner?  Not Jacob!!  He was lame for the rest of his life by an objective standard, and the other guy gets away totally unharmed.
But the "other guy" was at least an angel and arguably the Lord himself!  What Jacob really wanted was the Lord's blessing.  The whole wrestling match was about the Lord testing Jacob to see how committed Jacob was to the Lord and receiving his blessing.  It was a test!  Jacob passed!   So NOW who is the winner?  Jacob won eternal blessings despite  his injury, which symbolizes the trials we all have to go through in this life to receive the Lord's blessings.  So Jacob was the winner after all.

Quote

 

This is why I asked this question:

I've bandied about the term "Nuanced Mormonism" that I'm heard elsewhere.  I know that labels are often disliked, but  they also tend to be as a picture telling a 1000 words to use them in the right context; Orthodox Mormon, New Order Mormon, Nuanced (Orthoprax?) Mormon (New for short).  Is there a term you would prefer I use in this context?  Based on this review I assume its fair for me to put that label on Givens?

 

Heck no.  There is no need for any of that nonsense.  We are Mormons and we get flexibility in what we believe- the only test we have is a temple recommend interview.  We need to be unified, not divided by silly names.  The Lord's church is one.  Did you read in the article about Joseph not wanting to be "trammeled" by doctrine?

Quote

 

More directly; Would Givens agree with your pragmatistic view of the gospel?  Without knowing how closely Givens would share your philosophies I based my interpretation on the final sentence of the abstract along with where you quote him.

"Givens is fully aware of the importance of this spirit of humanism for the Restoration and mentions it several times. Here are two especially relevant quotes:"

 

Of course I would never speak for him.  Read the book and and you decide what you think.  I would love to hear his impressions on the Kant stuff.
 

Quote

 

I believe this gave me justification for the "extremes of old school Mormon Orthodoxy to Humanism."  It seems to me that Givens apologetics (and yours?)  is to present some orthoprox middle ground in an attempt to overcome the problematic issues injected into history, scripture, teachings by the philosophies of men.

I believe that for old school and BRM generations this is going to be a hard pill to swallow, in other words their individual struggle with an angel as this New Mormonism evolves.

 

 If there IS no "orthodoxy" there can be no "old school Mormon Orthodoxy".  The point is that a secular world view that desires humanity to become it's best parallels a religious view with the same aim.  The struggle is with how Mormons can resolve the parallels intellectually,  and thereby convert secularists to a new paradigm for the secularists, and I think I see a way.

Edited January 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/11/2016 at 8:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

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

OK - "objectively" from a scientific, atheistic perspective here, what happened?  Two men wrestled.

One guy, Jacob, pinned the other guy.  He didn't only pin him, he held him down all night long and the other guy couldn't move.  Finally the other guy dislocated Jacob's hip. said some words, and Jacob limped away, probably crippled for life or at least limping for life.  Who was the winner?  Not Jacob!!  He was lame for the rest of his life by an objective standard, and the other guy gets away totally unharmed.
But the "other guy" was at least an angel and arguably the Lord himself!  What Jacob really wanted was the Lord's blessing.  The whole wrestling match was about the Lord testing Jacob to see how committed Jacob was to the Lord and receiving his blessing.  It was a test!  Jacob passed!   So NOW who is the winner?  Jacob won eternal blessings despite  his injury, which symbolizes the trials we all have to go through in this life to receive the Lord's blessings.  So Jacob was the winner after all.

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

Note that in Gen 32:24, Nibley saw the ritual embrace of the endowment (Nibley Message of JSP 434; cf. Alma 8:10), which Pres Benson likewise described in Enos as follows:

Quote

Enos testified: “I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God before I received a remission of my sins.”  He clarified that wrestle with God for us.  Note the fervor in his petition: “My soul hungered…I kneeled down before my maker…I cried unto him in mighty prayer and supplication for mine own soul…all day long did I cry unto him.” (Enos 1:4)
Then Enos testified: “there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed…wherefore, my guilt was swept away.” (Enos 1:5,6)  When he inquired of the Lord how this had been accomplished, the Lord answered him: “Because of thy faith in Christ…thy faith hath made thee whole.”  (Enos 1:8)  Enos was spiritually healed.  Through his mighty supplication to God, he experienced what the faithful of any dispensation can, do, and must experience if they are to see God and be filled with His Spirit.

 Ensign, First Presidency Message, September 1990)

[SamIam]

On 1/10/2016 at 9:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

I didn't start it

And I would love to respond to any posts that say anything more than how absolutely wonderful-looking I am.   Even though of course that is totally true regardless of the definition. 

I thought you looked taller in your Avatar.

[salgare]

On 1/11/2016 at 8:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

OK - "objectively" from a scientific, atheistic perspective here, what happened?  Two men wrestled.

One guy, Jacob, pinned the other guy.  He didn't only pin him, he held him down all night long and the other guy couldn't move.  Finally the other guy dislocated Jacob's hip. said some words, and Jacob limped away, probably crippled for life or at least limping for life.  Who was the winner?  Not Jacob!!  He was lame for the rest of his life by an objective standard, and the other guy gets away totally unharmed.
But the "other guy" was at least an angel and arguably the Lord himself!  What Jacob really wanted was the Lord's blessing.  The whole wrestling match was about the Lord testing Jacob to see how committed Jacob was to the Lord and receiving his blessing.  It was a test!  Jacob passed!   So NOW who is the winner?  Jacob won eternal blessings despite  his injury, which symbolizes the trials we all have to go through in this life to receive the Lord's blessings.  So Jacob was the winner after all.

I need the inverse word of "objectively" in Mark's language.  For now I'll use computer language and call that "virtual" (verses objectively/physical/real)

In some ways, I suppose the BoM was my downfall for the various stories just like this.  Of course Mark has gone to an extreme with this objective view when of course the struggle was virtual.  And yet looking back, in my mind the virtual aspect was ... sure it's in my mind, its in prayer, an emotional and spiritual struggle.  And yet I assumed there were objective parts of this, for example it happened in one physical night, and there was indeed a physical angel.  Now It seems pretty obvious there is a conflict here between this virtual/objective mix.  I can now see my night covered years and the struggle has been much more than a prayer.  And yet all these years later ... I still lone for that damn objective angel.

Edited January 27, 2016 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

I need the inverse word of "objectively" in Mark's language.  For now I'll use computer language and call that "virtual" (verses objectively/physical/real)

In some ways, I suppose the BoM was my downfall for the various stories just like this.  Of course Mark has gone to an extreme with this objective view when of course the struggle was virtual.  And yet looking back, in my mind the virtual aspect was ... sure it's in my mind, its in prayer, an emotional and spiritual struggle.  And yet I assumed there were objective parts of this, for example it happened in one physical night, and there was indeed a physical angel.  Now It seems pretty obvious there is a conflict here between this virtual/objective mix.  I can now see my night covered years and the struggle has been much more than a prayer.  And yet all these years later ... I still lone for that damn objective angel.

Objective means that it can be observed by others as well as yourself.  If only you can feel it, it is "subjective", or at least that is how I use the terms.

So to me that means that you want an angel you can take a picture of and write a scientific article about after weighing him and analyzing his dna.

Not likely.  Experiencing angels tends to be subjective.

Both subjective experiences and objective experiences are equally "real".

If you have a pain in your toe and only you feel it, is it "real"?  Heck yeah.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Note that in Gen 32:24, Nibley saw the ritual embrace of the endowment (Nibley Message of JSP 434; cf. Alma 8:10), which Pres Benson likewise described in Enos as follows:

 

 

Nice!  Thanks

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Objective means that it can be observed by others as well as yourself.  If only you can feel it, it is "subjective", or at least that is how I use the terms.

Your definitions could probably use some (more) tweaking, otherwise it seems to me that everything could be observed/ experienced both subjectively and objectively. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by mfbukowski
duplicate

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Your definitions could probably use some (more) tweaking, otherwise it seems to me that everything could be observed/ experienced both subjectively and objectively. 

 

 

What kind of "thing" did you have in mind?

Chairs?  Niagara Falls?

The Holy Spirit?

Sherlock Holmes?

Pain in your toe?

Angels?

Love?

I think your objection could use some tweaking

[volgadon]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:23 PM, mfbukowski said:

 

OK - "objectively" from a scientific, atheistic perspective here, what happened?  Two men wrestled.

One guy, Jacob, pinned the other guy.  He didn't only pin him, he held him down all night long and the other guy couldn't move.  Finally the other guy dislocated Jacob's hip. said some words, and Jacob limped away, probably crippled for life or at least limping for life.  Who was the winner?  Not Jacob!!  He was lame for the rest of his life by an objective standard, and the other guy gets away totally unharmed.
But the "other guy" was at least an angel and arguably the Lord himself!  What Jacob really wanted was the Lord's blessing.  The whole wrestling match was about the Lord testing Jacob to see how committed Jacob was to the Lord and receiving his blessing.  It was a test!  Jacob passed!   So NOW who is the winner?  Jacob won eternal blessings despite  his injury, which symbolizes the trials we all have to go through in this life to receive the Lord's blessings.  So Jacob was the winner after all.

 

 

This is the kind of interpretation that would not be amiss at a Hasidic rebbe's Sabbath discourse.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, volgadon said:

This is the kind of interpretation that would not be amiss at a Hasidic rebbe's Sabbath discourse.

Wow! thanks!

I was keeping it informal

[salgare]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Objective means that it can be observed by others as well as yourself.  If only you can feel it, it is "subjective", or at least that is how I use the terms.

I think I hate philosophy.  So objective and subjective basically have normal meanings, it would seem.  Until you look at the statement "there is no objective truth" which is counter intuitive to normal definitions which typically indicate that objective views tend to be closer to the truth (reality) than subjective views.  I believe it was beastie that was bringing out this concept, which confused me on this aspect, where in your theory there was a "collection of data" (implied objective) which influenced your prioritization of methodologies.  I believe her point was this broke the golden rule, there is no objective truth. And of course this does not even take into account the platinum rule of there is no external truth.

I reflected on volgadon's reminding me of the noahide laws along with humanistic concepts of, what shall I say ... more instinctive normal human morality (knowledge? truth?) where the likes of these public/global pools of subjective truth (conflict with global warning sign) are pure in healthy individuals.  If objective collections of data, scoped within given cultural contexts exist which influence subjective decisions, then I can see where the idea that objective views tend to be closer to reality can quickly fall apart, take a cult culture for example.  

You stated that objective and subjective view are both "real" but this must mean that real and true are not synonymous (like the Lafferty killings which I believe Runtu brought up).

It seems there are some contradictory things going on here, very confusing.

as to volgadon's statement, My wife and I went to a Hasidic service once, after the more ritual services upstairs they they retired to the basement and a full on meal where the rebbe explained the concept of the reading, and yes that brought back that memory of ya, he's right on about that.  

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, salgare said:

I think I hate philosophy.  So objective and subjective basically have normal meanings, it would seem.  Until you look at the statement "there is no objective truth" which is counter intuitive to normal definitions which typically indicate that objective views tend to be closer to the truth (reality) than subjective views.  I believe it was beastie that was bringing out this concept, which confused me on this aspect, where in your theory there was a "collection of data" (implied objective) which influenced your prioritization of methodologies.  I believe her point was this broke the golden rule, there is no objective truth. And of course this does not even take into account the platinum rule of there is no external truth.

I reflected on volgadon's reminding me of the noahide laws along with humanistic concepts of, what shall I say ... more instinctive normal human morality (knowledge? truth?) where the likes of these public/global pools of subjective truth (conflict with global warning sign) are pure in healthy individuals.  If objective collections of data, scoped within given cultural contexts exist which influence subjective decisions, then I can see where the idea that objective views tend to be closer to reality can quickly fall apart, take a cult culture for example.  

You stated that objective and subjective view are both "real" but this must mean that real and true are not synonymous (like the Lafferty killings which I believe Runtu brought up).

It seems there are some contradictory things going on here, very confusing.

as to volgadon's statement, My wife and I went to a Hasidic service once, after the more ritual services upstairs they they retired to the basement and a full on meal where the rebbe explained the concept of the reading, and yes that brought back that memory of ya, he's right on about that.  

You are starting to get this- good questions

FOR ME, Truth has nothing to do with "reality" because we cannot ever establish a link between a statement and "reality".

Only statements- linguistic statements- words- propositions, sentences - can be true or false, which means that they say something useful for somebody.

The statements of physics - equations- are useful because when we use them we get to send rockets to outer space, and blow up things.  The statements of religion are "true" when they give us comfort and give us meaning and a logical model of why we exist and describe our feelings in prayer when we feel loved by an invisible being. They are theories of what God must be like to give us those feelings, and we find them useful in our lives.  The truths of plumbing are true because the water goes where we want it to, efficiently. They are "pragmatic".  Truth "works" for a given purpose.  It is contextual.

But when we say something like "the car is red" - when we say that that sentence "corresponds to reality" that can never be shown to be "true". 

The problem is that one cannot get "outside" the PERCEPTION that "the car is red" to CONFIRM any "reality" beyond the perception.

We are stuck in our perceptions of what a car is- a linguistic name for a thing we drive around in- and the linguistic statement of "red"- an experience we all know but cannot define.

How do you define "red" to a blind man?  How do you describe it to a person who has never experienced it?

What "red" - the word- describes - the "reality" of the word "red" CANNOT BE PUT INTO WORDS.  What is it "really"??  We might say it is reflected light of a certain frequency hitting the retina of our eye and being translated by our brains into an experience, but does that describe the EXPERIENCE?  Not at all.

And guess what?  That description itself is only a description of our own science telling us scientific explanations of what happens to "create" the experience of "red" and still does not CAPTURE the experience.

We can never get outside of our human constructions to see what "read really is"!!  It is as if we are wearing permanent filters over our eyes and all the senses which only give us the information we humans are capable of perceiving.

We cannot see what science tells us exists- infrared light.  Yes we can invent things which extend our senses and we "say" we can "see" it - but not really.  We cannot see cosmic rays- which are also part of the light spectrum.  We cannot hear above or below certain frequencies.

But even these words are just that- words like "frequencies" which describe human scientific language and are essentially "made up" to describe "what works"

So we don't have a clue what "reality" really IS!  All we have is our human perceptions of it.   

So literally  FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES perception IS reality.  We cannot discuss anything "beyond" our perceptions of "reality" so there is no need to even think of anything "beyond" language and perception.

It is a mystery world beyond perception and beyond anything we know.  Literally anything beyond words and perceptions is useless fantasy.

Back to the Rorty video.  THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN REALITY AND APPEARANCES.

What you see is what you get.  Words do not "correspond" to "reality"- there is no link.  Perceptions do not "correspond" to reality- there is no link possible.

Perceptions ARE reality for all we can know.

That means when you think God speaks to your heart- that is YOUR PERCEPTION and YOUR REALITY.  

It is beyond argument.  Nothing to be said about it.  That pain in your amputated leg is just as real to you as it would be if your leg was still there.

Now suppose we are sitting in a restaurant and you see a pink elephant dancing along the restaurant counter.  Real as can be.  What would you do?

You probably would turn to me and say "Did you see that??"

Why would you do that?

To get "objective verification" that someone else also saw it.  THAT is "objective".  Two people saw it.

"In the eyes of two or three witnesses....."

Now we have something to talk about.  We have had an experience we can put into language and discuss.  "Did you see the elephant's purse? - Heck yeah! A pink elephant with a purple purse!!!  Are you kidding me??  Where did he go?  - Around the corner over there- Let's go see if we can follow him!!"

Now we have "reality"- or at least "something".

Two people saw it.  But if the whole restaurant gets up and starts running after it- we have an "unexplained phenomena"- perhaps on the level of a UFO

And so it goes.

So to summarize- all reality is essentially created by human perception.  We organize matter unorganized by our perceptions and create the world around us.  See why I am LDS?

We have private experiences which to us are as real as anything.  Indisputable.  We might doubt our own experiences- and then we can verify them with someone else.

But if the experiences are private, and repeated, and consistent, and others describe something like the same experiences we are having, we have what we scientifically call "testimony meeting".  There is no disputation possible WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY.  THIS IS reality- within this community of those who have seen the pink elephant.

Hope that helps, if it does maybe I will use it elsewhere.  Test run!

Edited January 27, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So now this is the logical process I went through when I heard of Mormonism

So "Joseph saw God".  Linguistic statement.

Does it "correspond to reality"?  No more or less than any other statement like "the car is red".  What does that even mean?

Joseph is presumably describing an experience he had in his personal reality.  Is he lying?

No way to know.  Irrelevant anyway because there is no way to know.

Is the theory that Joseph saw God possible and reasonable?  William James finds religious experience to be a valid and "rational" way to answer religious questions.

Does it cohere with his other statrements about the nature of God?  To me, clearly it does.  He describes a pragmatic world in Alma 32 which says that spiritual knowledge comes pragmatically- by trying the principles of the belief and seeing if it bears truth.

Because Joseph wrote that, it appears that he is a proto-pragmatist.  He also says that a human God organizes reality through the "Word"- the messenger- Christ.  To me, when I heard that, it was straight Rorty.  Social constructivism.  All of reality is constructed by words. Jesus is the symbolic Word.  Makes symbolic sense.

Plus because humans create reality, humans can be seen as gods.  Did we invent God or did God invent us?

Neither and both.  If God is our father, We ARE humans so to say one created the other is meaningless.  It is who/what we are.

This is humanism of the highest order.  We are to strive to become the best possible humans and bring human culture with us.  It appears that the belief is that this can make us gods.  Well metaphorically at least of course.  Amazing to contemplate.

Now we have this crazy book with golden plates.  Wacko.  What is the need for this story?  Some kind of test?  "Believe the wacko story and you get into the kingdom?"  I suppose tests like that are ok.

What does the book say?  Ask God if it is true?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Is it possible?  Never conceived of that.  William James says yes it is possible.  Religious experiences work to enable finding the right religious path. Of course it would be true in a religious context, like the host is the body of Christ.  Transformation of ordinary reality into sacred reality.  So I guess that could work.

So James is saying what this book says?  How could that be?  I can get a confirmation??

I prayed earnestly and received my answer. I was ready and no intellectual issues were holding me back

Edited January 27, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What kind of "thing" did you have in mind?

Chairs?  Niagara Falls?

The Holy Spirit?

Sherlock Holmes?

Pain in your toe?

Angels?

Love?

I think your objection could use some tweaking

Every thing.

If the thing that makes some thing objective is the fact/interpretation that it can be observed/ experienced by everybody, and if the thing that makes some thing subjective is the fact/interpretion that it can be observed/experienced by an individual person, then it seems to me that everything... as in every thing... can be observed/ experienced by both anybody and everybody. 

What you observe/experience as love,  for example,  is also what every other person observes/ experiences as love... because that is what love is as long as it is truly love. 

 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Every thing.

If the thing that makes some thing objective is the fact/interpretation that it can be observed/ experienced by everybody, and if the thing that makes some thing subjective is the fact/interpretion that it can be observed/experienced by an individual person, then it seems to me that everything... as in every thing... can be observed/ experienced by both anybody and everybody. 

What you observe/experience as love,  for example,  is also what every other person observes/ experiences as love... because that is what love is as long as it is truly love. 

 

We were ok up until the last sentence.

There is no way to know if anything is "truly" anything in that context because all we have is our experiences and no way to get to "reality"- on that theory of truth.

You cannot get outside of the appearances to get to reality to compare reality to the experiences.

All we have is what we see and feel, both in our hearts and with our fingers.  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We were ok up until the last sentence.

There is no way to know if anything is "truly" anything in that context because all we have is our experiences and no way to get to "reality"- on that theory of truth.

You cannot get outside of the appearances to get to reality to compare reality to the experiences.

All we have is what we see and feel, both in our hearts and with our fingers.  

Love is love,  but love is not what love is not.

That idea needs to be squeezed in there somewhere, in what I was saying before,  otherwise it's like comparing apples to oranges when in truth apples are truly not oranges even though someone might think they are.

[salgare]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 ... Perceptions ARE reality for all we can know ...

Hope that helps, if it does maybe I will use it elsewhere.  Test run!

I started to respond here on a break from work, but quickly realized I need more time to study this out.

You noted "Back to the Rorty video." a couple times.  Did I miss a link to a video somewhere?

And volgadon were you the noisiest kid in class? end-sarcasm ... please feed me some of your thoughts as well.

back at you later ... and thanks!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Love is love,  but love is not what love is not.

That idea needs to be squeezed in there somewhere, in what I was saying before,  otherwise it's like comparing apples to oranges when in truth apples are truly not oranges even though someone might think they are.

The experience of an apple is nothing like the experience of an orange.  Anyone who confuses that has mental problems or a neurological disorder or does not know the language

[salgare]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The experience of an apple is nothing like the experience of an orange.  Anyone who confuses that has mental problems or a neurological disorder or does not know the language

The chemo brain damaged me.  It's left me with Phantosmia or olfactory hallucinations.  It is constant and is an unpleasant sweet/chemical smell which no one by me can smell.  Crazy part is that it's me that I smell (strong on hands).  So yea, Mark has his painful toe, I smell things that are not there.

Edited January 27, 2016 by salgare

[Ahab]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The experience of an apple is nothing like the experience of an orange.  Anyone who confuses that has mental problems or a neurological disorder or does not know the language

Lots of people confuse one thing with another due to misunderstandings and what not. Love with infatuation or lust.  Good with evil.  God with Satan. It happens all the time on this planet and not just to people who don't know which words they should use.

[mfbukowski]

Another thread reminded me of this piece by John Sorenson, a totally brilliant Mormon scholar of great renown.

This says what I have been trying to say for 40 years and says it in a Mormon context.  So much for the idea of "orthodoxy" or the idea that perhaps I am "off" or "not Mormon" in my ideas

Good to know that Sorenson would copy my ideas. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, salgare said:

The chemo brain damaged me.  It's left me with Phantosmia or olfactory hallucinations.  It is constant and is an unpleasant sweet/chemical smell which no one by me can smell.  Crazy part is that it's me that I smell (strong on hands).  So yea, Mark has his painful toe, I smell things that are not there.

Sounds to me like it is super-smell and not a "hallucination" at all.

I am SO glad I cannot smell myself sometimes.