The Standard Works - Our Measuring Rod?

[mfbukowski]

On 4/18/2018 at 7:45 PM, clarkgoble said:

More or less authors are part of context. And context is what gives meaning to words. By determinate I mean completely determine meaning.  So knowing about authors helps, but is just one part of many. For instance you obviously have to know what is often called the corporate meaning of words. That's the typical range of meanings of the words for a given community.

But my point ultimately is that texts meaning isn't fully controlled by authorial intent. There's an easy example of this. You're writing an essay for a school assignment and you accidentally write "Napoleon won the war of 1812" instead of England. Let's assume you intended to write that England won the war against Napoleon. But what you wrote was different. You could say it was a mistake but that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. You'll get the answer marked wrong by your teacher.

Words and sentences are tools we try to do things with. We can have intents. But as with any tool, our intents don't control the consequences. Just like hammering a nail I can hit off center and bend the nail, when using words they can often do things beyond what I want.

Exactly. So there are two ways to look at this. One is the way Mark favors where all there is is subjectivity. The other is that over time if we continue in inquiry reality tends to knock sense in us. Maybe we, as finite flawed individuals will never fully know. But typically we tend to get better. (Not always - of course sometimes we get worse)

While I wouldn't use the term "objectivity" due to the amount of philosophical baggage it carries, there's something close enough to count. Consider an infinity community of inquirers given an infinite amount of time inquiring about questions. What they converge on as agreement is true for all practical matters. While we might call that a regulative notion, it gives the idea that reality acts on inquirers and that it's agreement with this idealized if not actual community that is what we mean by truth. But again in the short term we're all cut off from it.

Sigh. Incorrect about my position.

And how is anyone supposed to know what your ideal infinite Community would think about anything?

That's why they called w i t t g e n s t e i n an ordinary language philosopher. He wants to know how real people communicate in a real context. If it's inconsistent it's inconsistent but it's real communication.

We use the word true all the time without ever thinking about an deal community

Edited April 20, 2018 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

On 4/18/2018 at 8:45 PM, clarkgoble said:

Exactly. So there are two ways to look at this. One is the way Mark favors where all there is is subjectivity. The other is that over time if we continue in inquiry reality tends to knock sense in us. Maybe we, as finite flawed individuals will never fully know. But typically we tend to get better. (Not always - of course sometimes we get worse)

While I wouldn't use the term "objectivity" due to the amount of philosophical baggage it carries, there's something close enough to count. Consider an infinity community of inquirers given an infinite amount of time inquiring about questions. What they converge on as agreement is true for all practical matters. While we might call that a regulative notion, it gives the idea that reality acts on inquirers and that it's agreement with this idealized if not actual community that is what we mean by truth. But again in the short term we're all cut off from it.

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 If it acts then given enough time that shapes belief given enough inquiry. So what I'm saying that beyond what I want to be true there is this convergence due to reality if only as a regulatory notion.When my beliefs are the same as these idealized beliefs that's what we mean by true. 

But in mortality our beliefs will always fall short of these "idealized beliefs" of infinite perspective.  There is no way to compare our perspective/beliefs against this infinite perspective/idealized belief, and therefore your version of truth is inaccessible to the mortal man.  As you state, we will "never fully know".  So, without an infinite perspective, your version of truth is not verifiable/justifiable regardless of the amount of inquiry we give.  Man's version of truth will always be relative to this absolute and universal truth from the eternal perspective of infinity. 

I actually think my philosophy of truth closely aligns with yours.  The truth that you speak of, I call God's truth - you call it "infinity community" - but I think it is the same idea.  It is absolute.  Man's version of truth is relative to his limited perspective of God's absolute (all seeing) truth.  It is all about perspective - even for God.  It is this infinite and eternal perspective of all variables of eternity that make it absolute, with certainty and reliability.  Man's perspective is limited to only a handful of the variables of eternity and will therefore be fallible until we see as God sees. 

Truth is relative.  Man's truth is relative to the limited variables that he can perceive of (which are colored by culture, bias, etc), and he fills in the blanks with his beliefs.  This is how we perceive of a single cohesive picture from individual pixels - we fill in the blanks.  The more variables/pixels we see, the more clear the overall picture is.  God's truth, on the other hand, is relative to every possible variable (there are no blanks to fill in) - which is my definition of "absolute truth".  In this way, the ideas of relative truth and absolute truth are not mutually exclusive.  Relative truth is truth as seen from a limited perspective, and absolute truth is truth as seen from an absolute perspective.  Of course, relative truth is our experience of truth in mortality, while we can only have faith in absolute truth - until we become God's ourselves with an eternal perspective. 

Here is an earlier post I made on this subject: 

Quote

 

All truth is interdependent in an interconnected web.  

In Mormon talk, “All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole”, a.k.a At-one-ment.  It is all "one eternal round".  We cannot compartmentalize truth and pretend to perceive it/understand it as it is.

Every bit of truth we gain alters our perspective of every other interconnected bit truth.  Just like one red pixel purposely placed next to a yellow pixel alters the appearance of both to  appear orange from the intended perspective.  The red pixel causes the yellow pixel to appear more vibrant and warm, while the yellow pixel subdues the starkness of the red pixel.  If you compartmentalize them, then you will never understand the intended purpose of each pixel and will be blind to "the big (orange) picture" due to a limited perspective.  If you single out any single atom of a tree (a carbon atom, for example), you will never appreciate its purpose, its role, or perceive of the big picture.  Your perspective is too limited and you will never see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the tree it is apart of.

We cannot entirely understand/perceive one truth (a tree) as it is, independent of every other truth, without first seeing every other truth (all things) as they are.  In other words, you cannot know one thing with certainty, without knowing all things with certainty - perceiving of how it is all interrelated, connected, and flows in one eternal round.  

I understand your concern that relativity might destroy the eternal constancy and absolute nature of truth.  I don't believe it does however.  With my paradigm, there IS an absolute, eternal, and constant big picture, Capital 'T' Truth.  That is God's truth.  Relativity is simply the intellectually honest admission that our perspective of truth is limited to our present position and gazing direction in the overall big picture.  Can we really be certain of what we see, if we only see 1,000 pixels on a screen of seemingly infinite pixels?   That is what the "all seeing eye" sees and knows.  God doesn't give us the big picture.  He gives us bits/pixels of truth, and we fill in the gaps.

What if the whole point is for us to embrace every pixel given to us and live it to the best of our ability, as we understand it (even if our understanding is incomplete and unwhole)?  The more we live and embrace, the more we are given as our perspective enlarges and our understanding broadens, and past truths (pixels) are seen in relation to new light and knowledge and thus our perspective and understand of it evolves over time, until we see as God sees and know as God knows.  We become God's ourselves in other words.  You see, that is the beauty of Mormonism.  It gives us hope beyond nihilism.  It gives us truth without paradox.  The faith of eternal life, being one-with-God and all other truths through the at-one-ment, gives purpose, meaning, and direction to present uncertainty.  We can embrace the uncertainty that a tree is 'out there' as we perceive it, without falling into nihilism, because of the hope and faith in exaltation.  

We can determine if something is good (even if we don't entirely comprehend it as it is) by its fruits - the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, etc.) which, if you will notice, are all subjective mental states.  Faith in those feelings, that we can only interpret as "good" because they feel good and bring more good into our lives, brings more bits of truth and more feelings of good, until all things are circumscribed in our eyee, ears, and hearts into one great whole, and we see the big picture, and see everything as it is.  It is all about perspective. 

I see it like this - Mark's version of truth is the only truth that we can know in mortality, while your version of truth is something that we can have faith in only.  Neither one is necessarily wrong.  I see my perspective as a bridge between each of your philosophies.

Edited April 20, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

But in mortality our beliefs will always fall short of these "idealized beliefs" of infinite perspective.  There is no way to compare our perspective/beliefs against this infinite perspective/idealized belief, and therefore your version of truth is inaccessible to the mortal man.  As you state, we will "never fully know".  So, without an infinite perspective, your version of truth is not verifiable/justifiable regardless of the amount of inquiry we give.  Man's version of truth will always be relative to this absolute and universal truth from the eternal perspective of infinity. 

Again I'm not offering absolute certainty just our continual duty to inquire.

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Truth is relative.  Man's truth is relative to the limited variables that he can perceive of (which are colored by culture, bias, etc), and he fills in the blanks with his beliefs.

Well I wouldn't call that truth but belief.

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh. Incorrect about my position.

And how is anyone supposed to know what your ideal infinite Community would think about anything?

That's why they called w i t t g e n s t e i n an ordinary language philosopher. He wants to know how real people communicate in a real context. If it's inconsistent it's inconsistent but it's real communication.

We use the word true all the time without ever thinking about an deal community

This ideal community is at best a regulatory concept of how we use truth. Ultimately I'm just noting it's not dualism though.

You don't have to use the term and think about an ideal community of course. That just come out logically in terms of how we attempt to verify statements.

Sorry if I misrepresented your view.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

This ideal community is at best a regulatory concept of how we use truth. Ultimately I'm just noting it's not dualism though.

You don't have to use the term and think about an ideal community of course. That just come out logically in terms of how we attempt to verify statements.

Sorry if I misrepresented your view.

 

No problem- I really should not post after 9 pm- I get too grumpy!  Sorry about being gruff!

[pogi]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again I'm not offering absolute certainty just our continual duty to inquire.

Inquiry to what end?  You seem to think that we can justify our beliefs in mortality through inquiry, but all we will find through more inquiry is more beliefs, which need more justification through more inquiry, ad infinitum...  All we will attain in mortality is...belief.  That is the end of inquiry in mortality. 

You said:

Quote

When my beliefs are the same as these idealized beliefs that's what we mean by true. 

That's what I call "absolute truth" and absolute certainty - only possible through an absolute perspective, because we can't know one thing (and how it relates to the whole) with absolute certainty until we know all things with absolute certainty.  All variables of truth are interconnected in one great whole.  We cannot compartmentalize those truths and understand their absolute meaning without the BIG picture.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I wouldn't call that truth but belief.

And that is exactly what you are describing as well...belief.  Your "truth" you describe is unknowable and unjustifiable, it is simply a belief.

To me, belief and relative truth are basically synonymous.  It is what creates our relative experiences of reality.  It is the only "truth" that we can "know" in mortality.  It carries with it immeasurable weight, and gravity.   

Here are some more writings of thoughts I have on this subject:

Quote

To me, the only distinction between absolute truth and relative truth is its measure.  Relative truth is man’s measure of truth. While absolute truth is God’s measure of truth.

With relative truth, the tools at our disposal for use in measurement are the faculties with which we are endowed, including the senses and reason of man.  It is limited by our ability to gather information and process that information which we have gathered. 

The gathering and processing of information forms a person’s reality.  Because the senses are easily deceived, fallible, and extremely limited in their scope, the amount of information that we can gather is so negligible that it can hardly even be considered consequential when you consider the vastness of the universe and beyond.  We can only perceive of an almost empty fraction of the variables that make up the eternity of space, matter, and energy.  How could we even think to be able to measure all of the properties of those variables and decipher how they all relate?  While we have been able to process and explain many of the variables that we can perceive in our little corner of the galaxy, we have to keep in mind that man’s reason and logic are also fallible, and thus those explanations are not absolute and may possibly change in time.  The best that we can do is form probabilities where even those probabilities are questionable.  Relative truth is also limited by time.  Man is incapable of exercising his faculties in the past or the future; we are limited to the present which incomprehensibly limits our access to information given the length of eternity.    

What we are left with is a probable picture and explanation of a few of the variables that we have gathered within our reach in an endless sea of variables.  It is like we are limited to 3 pieces of a possibly infinite piece puzzle, and we are not even sure if what we are holding are even real puzzle pieces, but they probably hopefully are; that’s our best guess of what they are anyway.  Does this give you the sense of the nothingness of man and his measure?  Because each man’s ability to gather and process information varies from person to person, relative truth is subjective to the individual, and thus it is different for each person; nevertheless, it is as real to that person as the words you are now reading.  Sensitivity and understanding should always be employed when speaking of another mans truth, because these truths form that person’s reality which is often tied to strong emotional experiences.  Like I said before, they are as real to that person as the sun or the moon.  Just like the sun or the moon, these beliefs have gravity to them which pull a person close and keep them nearby.  Depending on the magnitude or depth of that belief, that pull can differ in strength like the sun’s gravity differs from the moon.  

If man’s senses were not deceivable, fallible, or limited in their scope of time and space; and if man’s reason and action was equal in its fidelity of infallibility, what man would conceive of when viewing all of the variables and how they relate is absolute truth; what man would behold is God in his fullness of glory in relation to the expanse of eternity. He is the variable that ties all of the variables together.  In order to understand them, we have to understand him; and in order to understand him, we have to understand them.  To know and behold God in his fullness of glory in relation to all that exists in eternity, one would have to obtain the infallible faculties of God to comprehend it; in other words, one would have to be God to fully comprehend or know God.  

And this is eternal life - to know Him (John 17:3).  In other words, to know God is to be God.

I agree with you that we have a duty to continually inquire, but the "truth" you (and I) speak of will not be experienced in mortality.  

Edited April 21, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Inquiry to what end?  You seem to think that we can justify our beliefs in mortality through inquiry, but all we will find through more inquiry is more beliefs, which need more justification through more inquiry, ad infinitum...  All we will attain in mortality is...belief.  That is the end of inquiry in mortality. 

I think even God is subject to these limits. This is a place I differ with some other thinkers like Blake Ostler. I think God's knowledge is mediated and thus subject to the logical limits of language and semiotics. 

Anyway, to my eyes this changes how we think about things. We still should worry about justification, logic and evidence. However the process shifts from a more static conception of knowing to a more dynamic one where the main focus is our duty to inquire. Applying rules of evidence, logic and so forth is part of inquiry as is refining those rules. What beliefs stably persist through such inquiry are beliefs that can not be doubted and which we can not help but treat as certain.

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's what I call "absolute truth" and absolute certainty - only possible through an absolute perspective, because we can't know one thing (and how it relates to the whole) with absolute certainty until we know all things with absolute certainty.  All variables of truth are interconnected in one great whole.  We cannot compartmentalize those truths and understand their absolute meaning without the BIG picture.

And that is exactly what you are describing as well.  Your "truth" you describe is unknowable. You simply have faith/belief in it.

I don't think I'd say unknowable. If I've done my duty of inquiry and I find myself unable to doubt then that belief is something I know if it is what that ideal community would believe. However I'm a fallibilist about knowledge rather than a foundationalist like Descartes. I think it's fine to say we know ony to find ourselves wrong. 

I'm not sure I'd call this faith either. We can't really doubt in any way. But again that's a semantic issue.

To your other point you're making a claim about holism. While I think there are some interdependent beliefs I'm not sure I accept total holism such that to know anything you must know everything.

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with you that we have a duty to continually inquire, but the "truth" you (and I) speak of will not be experienced in mortality.  

Not sure what that means. I experience the objects and I have beliefs. If those beliefs are the same as an idealized community of inquirers would have were inquiry continued, then of course I am experiencing it now. I might not have absolute recognition that my beliefs are the same as this idealized community since of course I can't know all possible worlds. But the experience would be the same.

[pogi]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think even God is subject to these limits. This is a place I differ with some other thinkers like Blake Ostler. I think God's knowledge is mediated and thus subject to the logical limits of language and semiotics. 

When God (who sees all the variables with an absolute perspective) "speaks" to God (who sees all the variables with an absolute perspective), then there are no logical limits of language.  They simply know.  God could not know our hearts and be a perfectly just and merciful judge without the ability to decipher this ineffably pure language of the heart.  He simply knows.  That is how prayer works.  Perfect on his end, while we are still learning the language on our end. 

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Anyway, to my eyes this changes how we think about things. We still should worry about justification, logic and evidence. However the process shifts from a more static conception of knowing to a more dynamic one where the main focus is our duty to inquire. Applying rules of evidence, logic and so forth is part of inquiry as is refining those rules. What beliefs stably persist through such inquiry are beliefs that can not be doubted and which we can not help but treat as certain.

It is only relatively certain (if that is even possible) - in relation to what you believe.  You may be fairly accurate about that thing, but you are certainly missing the BIG picture.  You may be describing an atom, while being blind to the tree it is apart of - and therefore you are missing out on the fruits.  

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think I'd say unknowable. If I've done my duty of inquiry and I find myself unable to doubt then that belief is something I know if it is what that ideal community would believe.

The point is - YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT THE IDEAL COMMUNITY WOULD BELIEVE (sorry, not yelling, just emphasizing).  Your conditional "if" that makes a thing knowable, is entirely unknowable

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To your other point you're making a claim about holism. While I think there are some interdependent beliefs I'm not sure I accept total holism such that to know anything you must know everything.

Good to know it has a name - I am a holist!  I am happy to know that there are others quacks out there like me.  I see this "idealized community" you speak of as a form of holism in itself.  It wouldn't be ideal, unless it was whole. 

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what that means. I experience the objects and I have beliefs. 

We do not experience objects as they are as much as we experience objects as we perceive them.  We do not react to things, we react to our beliefs and judgments about things.   Our experience are the real gravity of relative truth.  For example,  people may react/experience in a myriad of different ways to a given stimulus, even in a controlled environment, based on how they perceive the stimulus. 

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If those beliefs are the same as an idealized community of inquirers would have were inquiry continued, then of course I am experiencing it now. 

That's a big "if" that you cannot know. You therefore cannot say with any degree of confidence that you are experiencing it (as it is) now.  All that you can say with confidence is that you are experiencing your perception of it. 

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I might not have absolute recognition that my beliefs are the same as this idealized community since of course I can't know all possible worlds. But the experience would be the same.

It might be the same "if" you could know...but you can't...not even close.

Edited April 21, 2018 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

On 4/20/2018 at 11:34 PM, pogi said:

That's a big "if" that you cannot know. You therefore cannot say with any degree of confidence that you are experiencing it (as it is) now.  All that you can say with confidence is that you are experiencing your perception of it. 

I don't think that follows at all. I can be quite confident. I just have to always acknowledge I may also be wrong. That's fallibilism. But throwing out the term "know" seems a bit extreme.

On 4/20/2018 at 11:34 PM, pogi said:

We do not experience objects as they are as much as we experience objects as we perceive them.

That seems a difference without a difference if sometimes we perceive them as they are.

On 4/20/2018 at 11:34 PM, pogi said:

The point is - YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT THE IDEAL COMMUNITY WOULD BELIEVE (sorry, not yelling, just emphasizing).  Your conditional "if" that makes a thing knowable, is entirely unknowable

Just a guess, but I suspect you want the word "know" to imply certainty when the common language use certainly doesn't imply that. The Cartesians of course tried to impose that kind of certainty but they are wrong. So to say (as I think you are likely saying) that i can't know what the ideal community would believe just seems wrong. For instance I am extremely confident to the point of being absolutely unable to doubt that I am now typing on a computer in my living room on my couch. Which is what continued inquiry would find. That's knowledge.

On 4/20/2018 at 11:34 PM, pogi said:

Good to know it has a name - I am a holist!  I am happy to know that there are others quacks out there like me.  I see this "idealized community" you speak of as a form of holism in itself.  It wouldn't be ideal, unless it was whole. 

I think elements of holism are correct. But absolute holism seems difficult to accept. I don't think you need to know everything to know anything.

[pogi]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that follows at all. I can be quite confident. I just have to always acknowledge I may also be wrong. That's fallibilism. But throwing out the term "know" seems a bit extreme.

I don't throw out the term knowledge.  I use it all the time.  I simply recognize that it is relative to my perspective and therefore fallible, as you state.  Am I confident that my perspective/beliefs aligns with the beliefs of this holistic ideal community - not at all. 

I can be confident in what I do and experience.  I know that if I walk into a wall, I can be confident that I will hit it and it will hurt.  That is my subjective truth.  However, I am less confident that my perspective/experience corresponds with the what is outside of my experience.

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That seems a difference without a difference if sometimes we perceive them as they are.

Because we cannot confirm and compare our experiences/perceptions with what is out there, we have no way know if "sometimes" things correspond.  To say that we "sometimes" perceive things as they are is a guess based on no evidence whatsoever. 

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just a guess, but I suspect you want the word "know" to imply certainty when the common language use certainly doesn't imply that. The Cartesians of course tried to impose that kind of certainty but they are wrong. So to say (as I think you are likely saying) that i can't know what the ideal community would believe just seems wrong. For instance I am extremely confident to the point of being absolutely unable to doubt that I am now typing on a computer in my living room on my couch. Which is what continued inquiry would find. That's knowledge.

I am contrasting absolute knowledge with what I call relative knowledge.  Anything less then absolute knowledge/certainty is really just belief.  You call it fallible knowledge, I call it relative knowledge, but I think it is all beliefs because it is all unverifiable (in the absolute sense).  Because we can't compare it against the perspective of the ideal community, all we can do is believe.   To me, confidence and the lack of doubt does not make a belief any more "true" (in the absolute sense of the term), but it will give it more gravity in the relative sense of truth.  Our beliefs are our "truths" (in the relative sense of the term).

You cannot rightly say that you are "absolutely" unable to doubt (you don't have an absolute perspective). All that you can accurately say is that you are relatively unable to doubt based on your relative and vastly limited perspective.  You are describing the correspondence theory of truth, which is unverifiable. What is a computer?  What is a desk?  Those are just words, but the experience of them is based entirely on our perspectives and our own judgments/beliefs.  For example, you might say that you are absolutely confident that you are "touching" your keyboard, but that might not mean what your experience/perspective tells you.  The more we learn about physics, the more we learn that we can't actually "touch" anything in the way that we might perceive the experience initially.  In other words, "touch" can mean different things to different people based on perspective.  That is true with all words.  We can't guarantee that our perspective corresponds with the absolute perspective. And without that absolute perspective, all we can do is believe in our relative truths. 

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think elements of holism are correct. But absolute holism seems difficult to accept. I don't think you need to know everything to know anything.

Absolute holism would be difficult to accept outside of a paradigm like Mormonism, because it would suggest that we can never know anything (in the absolute sense).  However, Mormonism gives us a hope to one day become God's ourselves and know absolutely.  This is eternal life (Godhood) - to know God.  To know God as he is, is to be a God as he is - to see as he sees.  I believe this is accomplished through the absolute perspective of the light of Christ. 

I like this:

Quote

 

  The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

The fundamental holistic characters as a unity of parts which is so close and intense as to be more than the sum of its parts; which not only gives a particular conformation or structure to the parts, but so relates and determines them in their synthesis that their functions are altered; the synthesis affects and determines the parts, so that they function towards the whole; and the whole and the parts, therefore reciprocally influence and determine each other, and appear more or less to merge their individual characters: the whole is in the parts and the parts are in the whole, and this synthesis of whole and parts is reflected in the holistic character of the functions of the parts as well as of the whole

 

 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

You cannot rightly say that you are "absolutely" unable to doubt (you don't have an absolute perspective).

Since it's my doubt I do have an absolute perspective in that thing. I don't need to know all those other things to know I can't doubt when I try. Again go outside and, assuming a nice day, make yourself believe the sky is red not blue. You can't. Inductively arrived at knowledge is still knowledge.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't throw out the term knowledge.  I use it all the time.  I simply recognize that it is relative to my perspective and therefore fallible, as you state.  Am I confident that my perspective/beliefs aligns with the beliefs of this holistic ideal community - not at all. 

I can be confident in what I do and experience.  I know that if I walk into a wall, I can be confident that I will hit it and it will hurt.  That is my subjective truth.  However, I am less confident that my perspective/experience corresponds with the what is outside of my experience.

Because we cannot confirm and compare our experiences/perceptions with what is out there, we have no way know if "sometimes" things correspond.  To say that we "sometimes" perceive things as they are is a guess based on no evidence whatsoever. 

I am contrasting absolute knowledge with what I call relative knowledge.  Anything less then absolute knowledge/certainty is really just belief.  You call it fallible knowledge, I call it relative knowledge, but I think it is all beliefs because it is all unverifiable (in the absolute sense).  Because we can't compare it against the perspective of the ideal community, all we can do is believe.   To me, confidence and the lack of doubt does not make a belief any more "true" (in the absolute sense of the term), but it will give it more gravity in the relative sense of truth.  Our beliefs are our "truths" (in the relative sense of the term).

You cannot rightly say that you are "absolutely" unable to doubt (you don't have an absolute perspective). All that you can accurately say is that you are relatively unable to doubt based on your relative and vastly limited perspective.  You are describing the correspondence theory of truth, which is unverifiable. What is a computer?  What is a desk?  Those are just words, but the experience of them is based entirely on our perspectives and our own judgments/beliefs.  For example, you might say that you are absolutely confident that you are "touching" your keyboard, but that might not mean what your experience/perspective tells you.  The more we learn about physics, the more we learn that we can't actually "touch" anything in the way that we might perceive the experience initially.  In other words, "touch" can mean different things to different people based on perspective.  That is true with all words.  We can't guarantee that our perspective corresponds with the absolute perspective. And without that absolute perspective, all we can do is believe in our relative truths. 

Absolute holism would be difficult to accept outside of a paradigm like Mormonism, because it would suggest that we can never know anything (in the absolute sense).  However, Mormonism gives us a hope to one day become God's ourselves and know absolutely.  This is eternal life (Godhood) - to know God.  To know God as he is, is to be a God as he is - to see as he sees.  I believe this is accomplished through the absolute perspective of the light of Christ. 

I like this:

 

I think you are right on the money at the beginning here but kind of lose the perspective toward the end.

Remember that since all we can "know" is a state of psychological certainty about our personal perceptions, there can be no certainty or "knowledge" of that which is outside those perceptions.

I am absolutely certain that the sky is "blue" BECAUSE what I MEAN by the word "blue" is DEFINED by the color of the sky.

I learned that in kindergarten when I learned "my colors".  THAT particular experience is NAMED "blue". I don't know what YOU see when you use the word- maybe, theoretically, it could be what I call "green" yet we can agree with certainty that

I personally see no difference between being absolutely certain about, say the color of the sky, or perhaps a point where I look at water and cannot decide if it is "blue" or "green".  I know what green is and I know what blue is, but in between there are other names for the blends of colors, like "aquamarine" which doesn't really help much because is it "really" aquamarine?  

So for me, seeing that as a continuum of certainty eliminates the (to me) useless distinction between absolute and relative "knowledge" or certainty which just confuses matters.

Sometimes I am absolutely the Spirit is speaking to me, other times it might be a bit iffy, requiring more prayer and study.  And even then, but rarely, one can be certain for a while and find out that it was a mistake.  That's just life, we do make mistakes.

So for me yes we might be absolutely certain about something and then find we were mistaken.  Oh well. 

The problem is that some are just not willing to give up the illusion of correspondence to "reality" as if "reality" itself is unchanging.   It's just deep deep Cartesianism they cannot give up or see the absurdity of knowing that which cannot be definition be known.

It is tautologous that we cannot perceive or know what we cannot perceive or know.   That is as logically certain as A=A, and yet folks demand that we get outside of perception to "reality"

It is a continuous amazement to me.   To me it is like insisting the sky is red.    Over, and over, and over.....

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Since it's my doubt I do have an absolute perspective in that thing. I don't need to know all those other things to know I can't doubt when I try. Again go outside and, assuming a nice day, make yourself believe the sky is red not blue. You can't. Inductively arrived at knowledge is still knowledge.

Inductive or not, certainty is a psychological state.  Certainty is certainty. 

And yes it is YOUR doubt- but guess what?  It is also YOUR certainty.   Two sides of the same coin! 

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Inductive or not, certainty is a psychological state.  Certainty is certainty. 

And yes it is YOUR doubt- but guess what?  It is also YOUR certainty.   Two sides of the same coin! 

Exactly.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Since it's my doubt I do have an absolute perspective in that thing. 

"That thing" being your limited relative perspective.

I don't know if we can even say that we have an absolute perspective of our own inner worlds to be honest - the subconscious reasons behind our beliefs, fears, bias, emotions, etc.  Most of us know very little about the inner workings of our hearts/minds/beliefs/doubts.  We don't take the time and effort to go deep inside the observers seat to witness ourselves for ourselves.  It is a mostly unexplored universe in there.  I have been meditating for several years now and feel that I am just barely breaking the surface of an inner and ever expanding universe.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't need to know all those other things to know I can't doubt when I try. 

I am sure a hard-core flat-earther would say the same thing.  But, knowing all those other things, and seeing all those other perspectives, might make them able to doubt. 

You can't know that you can't doubt, until you know what else there is to know.  All that you can know is that you can't doubt right now, given your vastly limited perspective.  Basically you are saying that I am confident despite my larger ignorance.  Before Christ, would you have doubted that water can be turned into wine, that the dead can be raised to life, that the blind can be made to see by anointing their eyes with spittle in mud, the deaf to hear, that it is possible to step onto water and not into water, that tempests can be rebuked and calmed by man, etc.  Think of everything we don't know!  Corporeal bodies defying gravity (angel Moroni, etc), telepathy (prayer), all of these things we have faith in but can't explain.  It all points to a much bigger picture then we can perceive.  We have great reason to question our limited perceptions/perspectives.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again go outside and, assuming a nice day, make yourself believe the sky is red not blue. You can't. Inductively arrived at knowledge is still knowledge.

Again, that is what I call relative knowledge based on my limited perspective and potentially faulty perceptions.  But I can't know that my experience of blue is the same as yours, or the same as God's, but it is my personal reality for now.  I have no problem with claiming a relative knowledge.  "Blue" is just a word/symbol for a indefinable subjective experience that I have.  Where does blue end and green begin?  Blue is not objective.   It cannot be compared against the bigger picture.  We are incapable of perceiving the invisible spectrum (ultraviolet, infrared).  Will the ability to perceive those spectrums in the universe alter how we perceive other colors?  What other variables of sight are we incapable of seeing?  Some animals like birds, bees, and fish can perceive of these wavelengths and see a totally different world then we do.  In many ways, we are literally blind and claim to see.  Our perceptions and abilities are vastly limited. 

[pogi]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think you are right on the money at the beginning here but kind of lose the perspective toward the end.

I guess it depends on whose perspective you are talking about, because mine is still fully intact, and always will be    I actually think we are still along the same line of perspective, I just use different words for different reasons. See my last post, I finished that before reading your post.  It is basically what you are saying.

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So for me, seeing that as a continuum of certainty eliminates the (to me) useless distinction between absolute and relative "knowledge" or certainty which just confuses matters.

So for me yes we might be absolutely certain about something and then find we were mistaken.  Oh well. 

To me, I find the distinction incredibly useful in a holistic paradigm.  Think of it this way - we have previously agreed that truth is relative.  If truth is relative from a mortal perspective, then everything that can be derived from that truth is also relative - certainty, knowledge, etc.   That is why I see it as more precise to keep absolutism and its language outside the realm of things of relativity (which we are limited to).  To say that we can have absolute certainty of a relative truth, just doesn't seem to work because a relative perspective cannot produce anything that is absolute.  I understand that linguistically it can mean different things to different people, and that is ok, that is their relative truth. But when we are talking about a holistic paradigm, it becomes important to be precise in distinguishing relative perspectives (truth, knowledge, certainty) with the absolute perspective of this "ideal community" aka "God".  

Of course it matters how you are defining "absolute certainty", but to me "absolute" means "free from imperfection; complete; whole; free from limitation; unlimited (dictionary.com)"  With that use of the word "absolute", in no way can mortal man's certainty be absolute, as it is limited to their perspective - making it relative, and therefore fallible.  A relative perspective, can only give us a relative truth, knowledge, certainty, all of which are fallible.  An absolute perspective gives an absolute truth, knowledge, certainty, all of which are infallible (as is the meaning of "absolute"). 

Quote

The problem is that some are just not willing to give up the illusion of correspondence to "reality" as if "reality" itself is unchanging.   It's just deep deep Cartesianism they cannot give up or see the absurdity of knowing that which cannot be definition be known.

It is tautologous that we cannot perceive or know what we cannot perceive or know.   That is as logically certain as A=A, and yet folks demand that we get outside of perception to "reality"

Amen!

Edited April 24, 2018 by pogi

[pogi]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Inductive or not, certainty is a psychological state.  Certainty is certainty. 

And yes it is YOUR doubt- but guess what?  It is also YOUR certainty.   Two sides of the same coin! 

I agree, but since it is his certainty and his doubt, based on his psychological state/perspective and not my certainty and my doubt, then it is more accurate to say that his certainty and doubt are relative rather than absolute.

Edited April 24, 2018 by pogi

[FormerLDS]

On 4/18/2018 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

Sounds like relative truth and pragmatism vs. the absolutism, which you claim.  Life?  Can you be more specific?  If there is one thing that I have learned from life, it's that life often leads me in the wrong direction, and into wrong conclusions.  This is a fallen world after all.    

How has fallen/fallible life given you absolute certainty that the word of God was accurately preserved in the Bible, and that no philosophies of men have been added?  Give me specifics?  How has life taught you that the passages in the OP are the perfectly preserved word of God?

Just as you have learned that life often leads you in the wrong direction and into the wrong conclusions, I used to believe that confirmational feelings was God's test for truth - the Holy Spirit telling me the truth of all things.  When I read the Book of Mormon, for example, and felt as if the very fingers of God Himself were touching my heart telling me these things were true.  

I now see clearly that a loving Heavenly Father would NEVER ask anyone to trust in or use something He has already revealed as "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9).  Life has taught me to trust in the Word of God as revealed in the KJV Bible as the only source of truth, and yes, I believe that is true for everyone, not just me (not relative - absolute).

When I first left the LDS church, I didn't just walk into the next congregation down the road and join up.  Like most who sense the disparity and see the truth about LDS theology and eventually leave, I went through a period of question if there could even be a "God".  Many who leave end up in other, similar congregations that practice and teach a very similar works-based gospel of worthiness and self perfection for an eventual reward of eternal life after death (i.e. the "broad road").

All I can tell you is that I thirsted and hungered for eternal life, and Jesus Christ gave me that life the moment I chose to believe that His atonement alone was enough - when I allowed eternal life to truly be a gift that I could take right now.  I have something that I never dreamed possible as member of good standing.  I have His gift of eternal life.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

I now see clearly that a loving Heavenly Father would NEVER ask anyone to trust in or use something He has already revealed as "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9).  Life has taught me to trust in the Word of God as revealed in the KJV Bible as the only source of truth, and yes, I believe that is true for everyone, not just me (not relative - absolute).

What do you mean "you see clearly"?  How? How is your vision more clear then mine? I thought we all "see through a glass darkly" and "know in part" (aka relative and not absolute knowledge)" (1 Corinthians 13:12) Relying on faith and hope and charity (1 Corinth 13:13). Yet you are claiming "absolute knowledge" of "absolute truths"?

Former, we have been through this before about the scriptural heart.  You are not taking this in context.  The Lord promised a new heart, that he would write his law on the fleshy tablets of the heart, that only the pure in heart can see God...  If God's law is supposed to be written in our hearts, shouldn't you trust it?

Quote

All I can tell you is that I thirsted and hungered for eternal life, and Jesus Christ gave me that life the moment I chose to believe that His atonement alone was enough - when I allowed eternal life to truly be a gift that I could take right now.  I have something that I never dreamed possible as member of good standing.  I have His gift of eternal life.

Was it the Bible or your heart that thirsted and hungered after eternal life?  Why did you trust in your heart that you did not yet have it?  

Wasn't it something outside of the Bible and within you (a spiritual satiation) that convinced you that you have eternal life?

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by pogi

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

1 hour ago, FormerLDS said:

I now see clearly that a loving Heavenly Father would NEVER ask anyone to trust in or use something He has already revealed as "deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9).  Life has taught me to trust in the Word of God as revealed in the KJV Bible as the only source of truth, and yes, I believe that is true for everyone, not just me (not relative - absolute).

What do you mean "you see clearly"?  How? How is your vision more clear then mine? I thought we all "see through a glass darkly" and "know in part" (aka relative and not absolute knowledge)" (1 Corinthians 13:12) Relying on faith and hope and charity (1 Corinth 13:13). Yet you are claiming "absolute knowledge" of "absolute truths"?

Former, we have been through this before about the scriptural heart.  You are not taking this in context.  The Lord promised a new heart, that he would write his law on the fleshy tablets of the heart, that only the pure in heart can see God...  If God's law is supposed to be written in our hearts, shouldn't you trust it?

Not comparing myself with you or anyone else, but I do see clearly now that the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  It simply isn't there and that is an absolute truth (like it or not).

Conversely, the Word of God is always the guiding factor - that which divides truth from error, illuminates one's path and opens one's eyes to truth.  For example, the references you provided never mention feelings; they are always read into the scripture or the process.  The references to 1 Corinthians 13, Ezekiel 36:26 and 2 Corinthians 3 never mention feelings one time, yet LDS theology teaches feelings are an integral part of the truth verification process.   Again, as a Latter-day Saint, I didn't see it this way, but now I see more clearly.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Quote

All I can tell you is that I thirsted and hungered for eternal life, and Jesus Christ gave me that life the moment I chose to believe that His atonement alone was enough - when I allowed eternal life to truly be a gift that I could take right now.  I have something that I never dreamed possible as member of good standing.  I have His gift of eternal life.

Was it the Bible or your heart that thirsted and hungered after eternal life?  Why did you trust in your heart that you did not yet have it?  

Wasn't it something outside of the Bible and within you (a spiritual satiation) that convinced you that you have eternal life?

When I didn't have eternal life, I desired eternal life and longed for something that I did not have as a Latter-day Saint: perfection.  You may not struggle with perfection, but I certainly did, and the vast majority of members I meet and speak with do struggle with their own perfection.  In my heart I knew that I wasn't perfect.  If I were honest, I would have to admit that I wasn't doing all that I could do.  

Today I have eternal life.  I have His perfection within me because I have Him within me (Rev 3:20).  A feeling in my heart has nothing to do with it.  My eternal life is based 100% on a promise made by Jesus Christ in numerous passages such as John 6:47, 54, etc.   

Jesus Christ said it and for the first time, I chose to believe His word.   

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Not comparing myself with you or anyone else, but I do see clearly now that the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  It simply isn't there and that is an absolute truth (like it or not).

Never?

Quote

 

The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the Lord trieth the hearts. Prov. 17:3.

But, O Lord of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause (Jeremiah 11:20).

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:  That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.  But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord God.  (Ezekial 11:19-21)

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, Prov. 3:5.

apply thine heart to understanding, Prov. 2:2.

Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart, 1 Kgs. 3:9.

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be, Matt. 6:21 (Luke 12:34; 3 Ne. 13:21).

Did not our heart burn within us, Luke 24:32.  

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:36-38).

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. (Deut 4:29)

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. (Deut 30:14).

love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, Deut. 6:5 (6:3–7; Matt. 22:37; Luke 10:27; D&C 59:5).

love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, Rom. 5:5.

sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, Gal. 4:6.

Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, Eph. 3:17.

 

How do men believe the word of God?

Quote

With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, Rom. 10:10.

Where is the word of God written?  ...You guessed it!

Is it the Bible that testifies to our spirit?

Quote

 

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit... (Rom 8:16)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26).  -  Not the Bible, but the Holy Sprit!

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13)

The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us (1 Jon 3:24).

By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. (1 John 4:13).

 

More to say later

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, FormerLDS said:

Not comparing myself with you or anyone else, but I do see clearly now that the Bible never equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  It simply isn't there and that is an absolute truth (like it or not).

Conversely, the Word of God is always the guiding factor - that which divides truth from error, illuminates one's path and opens one's eyes to truth.  For example, the references you provided never mention feelings; they are always read into the scripture or the process.  The references to 1 Corinthians 13, Ezekiel 36:26 and 2 Corinthians 3 never mention feelings one time, yet LDS theology teaches feelings are an integral part of the truth verification process.   Again, as a Latter-day Saint, I didn't see it this way, but now I see more clearly.

When I didn't have eternal life, I desired eternal life and longed for something that I did not have as a Latter-day Saint: perfection.  You may not struggle with perfection, but I certainly did, and the vast majority of members I meet and speak with do struggle with their own perfection.  In my heart I knew that I wasn't perfect.  If I were honest, I would have to admit that I wasn't doing all that I could do.  

Today I have eternal life.  I have His perfection within me because I have Him within me (Rev 3:20).  A feeling in my heart has nothing to do with it.  My eternal life is based 100% on a promise made by Jesus Christ in numerous passages such as John 6:47, 54, etc.   

Jesus Christ said it and for the first time, I chose to believe His word.   

And yet you cannot answer how you know the bible is God's word except by feelings, and how you know you now have eternal life.

"In my heart I knew I wasn't perfect" so your heart found a way to fix that with another feeling.

And a feeling is not a test of truth

Just a tad contradictory. Like it or not.

Wow, just wow. Maybe you need to think that through a little.

Edited April 24, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Never?

How do men believe the word of God?

Where is the word of God written?  ...You guessed it!

Is it the Bible that testifies to our spirit?

More to say later

It's pretty clear that no one can know that the Bible is true except it be revealed to them within their guess what? Hearts!

It's just historical fiction until you know that Jesus Christ is real. 

And how do you know that?  In your heart! 

And so at last he has a testimony. Great. Unfortunately he just doesn't know where it is.

It's not in a historical novel full of legends, it's in his heart where it belongs.

That's progress, big time.

[FormerLDS]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the Lord trieth the hearts. Prov. 17:3.

But, O Lord of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause (Jeremiah 11:20).

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:  That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.  But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord God.  (Ezekial 11:19-21)

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, Prov. 3:5.

apply thine heart to understanding, Prov. 2:2.

Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart, 1 Kgs. 3:9.

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be, Matt. 6:21 (Luke 12:34; 3 Ne. 13:21).

Did not our heart burn within us, Luke 24:32.  

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:36-38).

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. (Deut 4:29)

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. (Deut 30:14).

love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, Deut. 6:5 (6:3–7; Matt. 22:37; Luke 10:27; D&C 59:5).

love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, Rom. 5:5.

sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, Gal. 4:6.

Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, Eph. 3:17.

You've proven my point.  Not a single one of these passages equate a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.  

Just because the Bible mentions the word "heart" doesn't mean God is allowing us to trust in it or use it to divine truth.  It is always the Word of God that is the test of truth.

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, Rom. 10:10.

Where is the word of God written?  ...You guessed it!

Is it the Bible that testifies to our spirit?

The heart is the origin of good and evil thoughts and imaginations, emotions, conscience and the seat of one's beliefs.  But that doesn't mean we're supposed to use feelings within our hearts as a test for truth. 

Read the passages you provided - not one of them equates a feeling in the heart with a test of truth.

The Bible warns us that the heart of man is most capable of being deceived, is desperately wicked and no one can know it (Deut 11:6, Jer 17:9).

Consider how Satan uses the heart to initiate deception and false doctrine in Isaiah 44:20:

"He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?"

[FormerLDS]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet you cannot answer how you know the bible is God's word except by feelings, and how you know you now have eternal life.

"In my heart I knew I wasn't perfect" so your heart found a way to fix that with another feeling.

And a feeling is not a test of truth

Just a tad contradictory. Like it or not.

Wow, just wow. Maybe you need to think that through a little.

I know the Bible is God's word because the Bible plainly says it is God's word and because atheists, skeptics, unbelievers and LDS theology cannot prove the Bible is not God's word.

Where do you see "feelings" anywhere in my belief process?