Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Faith Based vs. Scientific Reasoning


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The details of platonism, particularly this platonism of late antiquity or the Renaissance gets complicated fast. The details really don't matter as I'm just using it as an example of how one could read the text immaterially while still having spirits matter. I'm not a platonist myself, but the language of platonism is through unknown sources a clear influence on D&C 88 & 93 along with various other texts including Abr 3.

More or less platonism of this type starts with the One which is everything real. The image of light is used and so there are what are called emanations. These are levels of being that descend from the One via light. Each level is an intermediary and light from that level of being then illuminates and creates the next level of being. But that level is slightly darker than what came before due to what is called privation. This is basically rejecting some of the truth that was given to it in light. So you have places for light but they can choose not to receive it. Since the light is simultaneously this flow of The Good, Being, and Truth this rejection is to lose knowledge of things as they are - which is The One. If you look at D&C 93:24-32 is basically this idea of the flow of light as intelligent to lesser intelligences. They are lesser because they don't receive the fulness of the light that is given them.

In the various types of this platonism, particularly in the more religious forms, the goal is through meditation particularly on symbols try to purify the soul so that more and more of this light is accepted. As one accepts more light (which is truth and intellect) one becomes more like these higher levels of being. Thus one is ascending back to the One through a kind of mystic perception.

Thanks for explaining.  Certain elements of this concept of "the One" does sound very much like the doctrines taught about the light of Christ.  

Quote

In the 3rd century AD, Plotinus added mystical elements, establishing Neoplatonism, in which the summit of existence was the One or the Good, the source of all things; in virtue and meditation the soul had the power to elevate itself to attain union with the One.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism

I think where I see things differently is this idea of "the Forms" in Platonism.  I don't see that being taught in the revelations on the light of Christ.  

Let me share with you my interpretation and you can help me figure out which philosophy I am most closely related too, because I consider myself a relativist in some ways, an absolutist in others.  But I definitely consider myself a holist and a pragmatist as well.  I don't know about platonism, if that works with my interpretation of things.

This is the metaphor that I use to describe my theory and interpretation of truth and the light of Christ.  I see the whole of the light of Christ as "THE Truth", it is the big picture. The all seeing eye, and the omniscience of God.  It is like a puzzle of almost infinite pieces.  Truth exists in different spheres (D&C 93:30), like different puzzle pieces that act as parts of the whole.  All truth is an interdependent and interconnected web - "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.  It is all about perspective. 

Every bit of truth we gain alters our perspective of every other interconnected bit of 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 be 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 picture" due to a limited perspective.  If you compartmentalize any single atom of a tree (a hydrogen 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 and fruit it is apart of.

We cannot entierly 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 and perceiving of how it is all interrelated, connected, and flows in one eternal round.  

This, to me, is relativism.  Man's truth is relative.  It is relative to his position, perception, and involvement with the light of Christ.  We may have a few pieces of the puzzle, or a few pixels, and we interpret those and fill in the blank through the filter of our own philosophies and cultural ideas, etc.   Relativity, to me, 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 be certain of what we see if we only see 1,000 pixels on a screen of seemingly endless 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, so all man can know and experience in mortality is relative truth.  This is not to say that absolute truth does not exist however - that is God's truth encompassed in the entirety of the light of Christ. 

The parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant explains this idea well.  The blind men represent us.  Their truth is relative to their position on the elephant.  But there is still an absolute truth of the whole elephant. 

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 ("we see through a glass darkly").  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 understanding of it evolves over time, until we see as God sees and know as God knows.  

To me, this whole theory and the whole gospel can be summed up in one scripture:

Quote

That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day (D&C 50:24). 

I find "the perfect day" to be a very descriptive phrase as the word "day" is a reference to light.  God called the light day and the darkness night.  "The perfect day" to me then represents experiencing the fullness of the light - exaltation.   

It is all about line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.  

And ultimately we are taught that we will be judged according to what we did with the light we have been given.  Because our knowledge of truth is relative, so to will be our judgment.  

Quote

Alma 32 doesn't help too much since again on this level it can be read in many ways. There's a way to read it pragmatically for instance. Just try out what's said by a prophet. If it works then you know it's true. It's almost empiricism of just testing things. (That's my favored reading) The other way of reading it is more mystically. If you try the words of the prophets it opens up a mystic connection to God so that you taste the goodness that is flowing from God. This more aesthetic experience once it happens thus determines that the prophet is right. But fundamentally the issue isn't testing but a kind of experience.

I don't see that pragmatism necessarily negates aesthetic experience.  It is not a true dichotomy.  In fact, I see pragmatism as dependent upon it.  If it doesn't feel good or right in the gospel and in relation to Alma 32, then we can say that it doesn't work.   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 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 eye, ears, and hearts into one great whole, and we see the big picture, and see everything as it is.  It is all about perspective. 

For me and my paradigm, absolute truth exists.  That is God's truth - the light of Christ.  But it can only be known with absolute certainty with an absolute knowledge of all things and all spheres of truth and how they relate.  Until then, our limited perspective relegates us to relative truth.  We each perceive it differently from our unique perspectives and experiences with different bits/pixels of truth.  But those experiences with the gifts of the spirit upon obedience to trying the word, gives us hope and faith to endure uncertainty.  The more we obey, the more sure our anchor becomes. 

So, what do you think?  While I do see some elements of "the One" in this, I don't see the idea of "the Forms", and wouldn't consider it related to Platonism.  I don't see that in D&C 88 or 93 either.  Are there any philosophers out there who think along these lines?  I am curious to see what it would be most closely related to.

Edited by pogi
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well you agree they're metaphors now. I just raised all this to note that in your outline there were tons of metaphors. When you say, "allow the words to get in the way" what you're really saying is that these are all metaphors. Some would say we shouldn't take them too literally and what counts is the experience the metaphor is a catalyst for. That is what matters is what's behind the words and not the words themselves. But again this is a radically different way of reading this which is just God communicates with us, the light of truth is a kind of communication and sets of habits of intepretation we have.

More or less the issue is the classic one from the medieval era. Are these various terms referring to real things (whether material or immaterial) or are they referring to just the way language works?

The thing is that the revelations on the light of Christ have to do with more than just how God communicates with us.  It is about God's power too.  I don't accept the idea of an immaterial power that controls and governs material existence and sustains physical life.  That, to me, is supernaturalism, but I see God as living within the realm of natural laws.  I only see that as a metaphor in the sense that all words are metaphors.  Otherwise, I think the light of Christ is the power of God in the more literal sense of the words.  I just don't see any pragmatic point or meaning in tying the light of Christ to the power of God that created all things and governs the orbit of the planets, etc. in a metaphorical sense.  If it is a metaphor, what does it mean and what does it have to do with me?  It is hard to make sense of it that way.  But if you take it in a more literal sense it has everything to do with me and how I ultimately become exalted myself and utilize this power via the priesthood keys which unlock different spheres of the light of Christ. 

Edited by pogi
Posted
On 10/26/2018 at 9:42 AM, CV75 said:

What is that standard?

It really doesn’t matter to me so long as the standards used for religious and secular truth-finding are the same. 

Posted (edited)
On 10/27/2018 at 9:36 PM, pogi said:

The thing is that the revelations on the light of Christ have to do with more than just how God communicates with us.  It is about God's power too. 

A common Mormon theological position is a quasi-existential one that arises out of Orson Pratt's ontology. In this view God's power is purely his ability to persuade. As entities become more intelligent they gain more freedom and thus more ability to choose to disobey God. So the elements always obey God but humans don't. Thus God's power is intrinsically tied to communication.

Now as your position illustrates not everyone follows this theological view. I just raise it as a very common view in the history of Mormon theology. (Skousen repopularized it in the 70's although as I said it really goes back to Pratt's ontology. It's also popular with many who dislike Skousen.)

On 10/27/2018 at 9:36 PM, pogi said:

I don't accept the idea of an immaterial power that controls and governs material existence and sustains physical life.  That, to me, is supernaturalism, but I see God as living within the realm of natural laws. 

I'd distinguish between idealism, of which most platonism is a type, and supernaturalism. It's true that the platonism that persisted through the medieval and renaissance periods in Christian history really allowed later figures like Hume to create the idea of the supernatural as in opposition to naturalism. But from an idealist perspective this simply presupposes a kind of materialist monism where space-time extension is privileged over law and idea. One can be an idealist and reject the idea of the supernatural which was usually defined not in terms of idealism vs. materialism but a break from natural law. However as materialism became dominant then it because defined in opposition to materialism. The problem is though that materialism with the rise of modern physics in the 20th century became radically reconstituted. It no longer was simple extension in space and subject to time. Once that more Cartesian conception of materialism became rejected though it famously became quite difficult to define materialism at all. Typically it's done by appeal to the laws of physics, whatever they are. That is the natural law vs. violation of law. In that case though then the meaning of supernatural is an even bigger question.

On 10/27/2018 at 9:16 PM, pogi said:

I think where I see things differently is this idea of "the Forms" in Platonism.  I don't see that being taught in the revelations on the light of Christ.  

The forms in neoplatonism are quite different from the stereotype of the forms people encounter in freshman introductions to Plato. Again that gets way to complicated to explain in a paragraph. There are lots of ways to think about it. One is that each form is just a set of possibilities. So you have all the possibilities for say how this cow could exist. But this cow is but one of all the possible ways any cow could exist. But that is a subset of all the ways any bovine could be actualized. But that is a subset of all the ways any mammal could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways any animal could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways any creature with cells could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways anything with DNA could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways anything with complex organic chemicals could be actualized. You then keep going back along these lines of probability until you reach the idea of the probability of any actualized thing being actualized. Which some might call The One.

I should add that in physics there's something called a Hamiltonian which is the basis of most approaches to quantum mechanics. This is just a probability field. During any interaction (sometimes misleadingly called an observation) the probability field collapses reducing the number of probabilities. So those who adopt something like platonism can completely argue that platonism just is this view of quantum mechanics. I'm not one of them I'd again hasten to add - I just bring this up because I don't think things are as problematic as you portray. This seems a live interpretive possibility we can't discount.

The argument for this being in D&C 93 would be that to the degree things are free they can act for themselves in that sphere God created. The text simply makes no distinction between light of Christ in abstract and intelligence. So compare verse 29 to 31. So light is created but can reject the light through freedom and thus be something different. This is exactly the collapse of possibilities. While it's possible to read D&C 93 dualistically, there's actually nothing in the text really suggesting such a reading beyond 33-35. However it's precisely there that the most platonic like passage is found. God has a relationship to man akin to man's relationship to the elements. That is a body is what receives intelligence. The reason to think this is platonic is the constant emphasis on intelligence or thought rather than matter. Matter (or really elements) only pop up in 33-35 and play no role except for being stated they are necessary. Note though that this also makes a distinction between elements and spirit. Again that's very much in keeping with the platonic interpretation but not the more Pratt. (Skousen's variation on Pratt actually acknowledges this and introduces a kind of materialistic dualism where there's two kinds of matter - intelligent and unintelligent. Pratt's is typically seen as more monist although some see him as inconsistent.)

On 10/27/2018 at 9:16 PM, pogi said:

We cannot entierly 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 and perceiving of how it is all interrelated, connected, and flows in one eternal round.  

One can have limited holism (some things can only be known in terms of other things) without being a full holist (nothing can be known without knowing everything). 

Now in a certain sense platonists (and actually many pragmatists) embrace some degree of holism. The problem of course is that if you need to know everything to know anything then none of us know anything.

On 10/27/2018 at 9:16 PM, pogi said:

This, to me, is relativism.  Man's truth is relative.  It is relative to his position, perception, and involvement with the light of Christ.  

From a semantic perspective it's important to distinguish between perspectivism, which is what you outline, and relativism. Perspectivism is the idea that what we understand is only in terms of one perspective among many. Relativism is the idea that what is true (typically ethical truths) is purely in terms of my beliefs. So it's much more radical than perspectivism. Perspectivism usually entails incompleteness or that truths are filtered through categories not natural to the truths themselves. Relativism makes man the measure of all things.

On 10/27/2018 at 9:16 PM, pogi said:

I don't see that pragmatism necessarily negates aesthetic experience.  It is not a true dichotomy.  In fact, I see pragmatism as dependent upon it.

Formal pragmatism, particularly that of its originator Peirce, the aesthetic experience is ultimately foundational. But this gets conceived of in a quasi-platonic fashion.

 But again I'd just say my point isn't to argue for a particular reading but just to note the text is ambiguous and open to a number of readings. I raised platonism simply due to the obvious linguistic influence and reading the text in terms of that influence. However Pratt's ontology is an other way to read it. Most tend to just pick out a few vague notions and leave most of the text uninterpreted.

Edited by clarkgoble
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A common Mormon theological position is a quasi-existential one that arises out of Orson Pratt's ontology. In this view God's power is purely his ability to persuade. As entities become more intelligent they gain more freedom and thus more ability to choose to disobey God. So the elements always obey God but humans don't. Thus God's power is intrinsically tied to communication.

Now as your position illustrates not everyone follows this theological view. I just raise it as a very common view in the history of Mormon theology. (Skousen repopularized it in the 70's although as I said it really goes back to Pratt's ontology. It's also popular with many who dislike Skousen.)

I'd distinguish between idealism, of which most platonism is a type, and supernaturalism. It's true that the platonism that persisted through the medieval and renaissance periods in Christian history really allowed later figures like Hume to create the idea of the supernatural as in opposition to naturalism. But from an idealist perspective this simply presupposes a kind of materialist monism where space-time extension is privileged over law and idea. One can be an idealist and reject the idea of the supernatural which was usually defined not in terms of idealism vs. materialism but a break from natural law. However as materialism became dominant then it because defined in opposition to materialism. The problem is though that materialism with the rise of modern physics in the 20th century became radically reconstituted. It no longer was simple extension in space and subject to time. Once that more Cartesian conception of materialism became rejected though it famously became quite difficult to define materialism at all. Typically it's done by appeal to the laws of physics, whatever they are. That is the natural law vs. violation of law. In that case though then the meaning of supernatural is an even bigger question.

The forms in neoplatonism are quite different from the stereotype of the forms people encounter in freshman introductions to Plato. Again that gets way to complicated to explain in a paragraph. There are lots of ways to think about it. One is that each form is just a set of possibilities. So you have all the possibilities for say how this cow could exist. But this cow is but one of all the possible ways any cow could exist. But that is a subset of all the ways any bovine could be actualized. But that is a subset of all the ways any mammal could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways any animal could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways any creature with cells could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways anything with DNA could be actualized. But that's a subset of all the ways anything with complex organic chemicals could be actualized. You then keep going back along these lines of probability until you reach the idea of the probability of any actualized thing being actualized. Which some might call The One.

I should add that in physics there's something called a Hamiltonian which is the basis of most approaches to quantum mechanics. This is just a probability field. During any interaction (sometimes misleadingly called an observation) the probability field collapses reducing the number of probabilities. So those who adopt something like platonism can completely argue that platonism just is this view of quantum mechanics. I'm not one of them I'd again hasten to add - I just bring this up because I don't think things are as problematic as you portray. This seems a live interpretive possibility we can't discount.

The argument for this being in D&C 93 would be that to the degree things are free they can act for themselves in that sphere God created. The text simply makes no distinction between light of Christ in abstract and intelligence. So compare verse 29 to 31. So light is created but can reject the light through freedom and thus be something different. This is exactly the collapse of possibilities. While it's possible to read D&C 93 dualistically, there's actually nothing in the text really suggesting such a reading beyond 33-35. However it's precisely there that the most platonic like passage is found. God has a relationship to man akin to man's relationship to the elements. That is a body is what receives intelligence. The reason to think this is platonic is the constant emphasis on intelligence or thought rather than matter. Matter (or really elements) only pop up in 33-35 and play no role except for being stated they are necessary. Note though that this also makes a distinction between elements and spirit. Again that's very much in keeping with the platonic interpretation but not the more Pratt. (Skousen's variation on Pratt actually acknowledges this and introduces a kind of materialistic dualism where there's two kinds of matter - intelligent and unintelligent. Pratt's is typically seen as more monist although some see him as inconsistent.)

One can have limited holism (some things can only be known in terms of other things) without being a full holist (nothing can be known without knowing everything). 

Now in a certain sense platonists (and actually many pragmatists) embrace some degree of holism. The problem of course is that if you need to know everything to know anything then none of us know anything.

From a semantic perspective it's important to distinguish between perspectivism, which is what you outline, and relativism. Perspectivism is the idea that what we understand is only in terms of one perspective among many. Relativism is the idea that what is true (typically ethical truths) is purely in terms of my beliefs. So it's much more radical than perspectivism. Perspectivism usually entails incompleteness or that truths are filtered through categories not natural to the truths themselves. Relativism makes man the measure of all things.

Formal pragmatism, particularly that of its originator Peirce, the aesthetic experience is ultimately foundational. But this gets conceived of in a quasi-platonic fashion.

 But again I'd just say my point isn't to argue for a particular reading but just to note the text is ambiguous and open to a number of readings. I raised platonism simply due to the obvious linguistic influence and reading the text in terms of that influence. However Pratt's ontology is an other way to read it. Most tend to just pick out a few vague notions and leave most of the text uninterpreted.

Thanks for explaining.  I think you may have identified the philosophy that I probably most closely identify with - perspectivism (based on my limited understanding).  I didn't know such a philosophy existed until now.  Thanks for educating me, and I plan to read more about it.  Gotta love Nietzsche! 

Just to clarify, I am not arguing that my interpretation/perspective on the light of Christ is the only "right" one.  I agree that there are many different ways to look at it, and all need to be considered.  At this point in my life, this is my best understanding - that is all I am saying. Now, I could talk to a lot of these points you bring up and think that Pratt's ontology is intriguing (I have considered it), especially considering D&C 29:36 - "give me thine honor, which is my power", and also considering the accounts of the creation in Abraham which explain that it was a process of God speaking and waiting for the elements to obey.  This all speaks to his power of persuasion.   

While this might be one element of His power, there are other elements to his power (including omniscience, and omnipresence) which his power of persuasion cannot explain.  

What gives God the power of omniscience and omnipresence?  The light of Christ.  You see, His power must be more than his ability to persuade. God's power must be multifaceted.  As the scriptures say, God has ALL power, suggesting different types of power.  To me omniscience and omnipresence go hand in hand.  You cannot have one without the other.  This all ties back to perspectivism and holism (I don't really understand the difference between the two).  The light of Christ allows God a holistic and eternal perspective and thus omnipresence, and thus omniscience.  This omnipresence and omniscience gives God power of persuasion, which contributes to his omnipotence.  He has influence on things, because he sees all things and knows all things, and his influence can reach all things because he is in all things via this light.  His "word" without the light of Christ could not reach the ends of eternity.  The light of Christ gives His word power.  AT least, that is my interpretation as of now.

You suggest that one problem with the idea of holism and perspectivism is that a person can't know anything with certainty within those paradigms.  I don't see that as a problem from my perspective ;) Perhaps we can get into that more, but thought I should probably submit this first. 

I understand that there are limited holists, but how can one be certain that their understanding of a thing won't change given further information and perspective?  To me, limited holism is really just wishful thinking that their perspective won't change, when of course it can. 

Nietzche's perspectivism has been tied to nihilism, but I believe the restored gospel gives perspectivism new hope, and light, so to speak. 

 

Edited by pogi
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thanks for explaining.  I think you may have identified the philosophy that I probably most closely identify with - perspectivism (based on my limited understanding).  I didn't know such a philosophy existed until now.  Thanks for educating me, and I plan to read more about it.  Gotta love Nietzsche! 

I should note that while Nietzsche is a famous perspectivist there's many in that position broadly speaking including Hume. Many might argue that any rejection of foundationalism entails something like perspectivism particularly those types of positions (such as pragmatism) that suggest the hermeneutic aspect of interpretation is always unavoidable. As Peirce put it the meaning of any representation is a representation. I'd say pragmatism says it's interpretations all the way down but that not every interpretation is equal. (And thus rejecting relativism)

1 hour ago, pogi said:

While this might be one element of His power, there are other elements to his power (including omniscience, and omnipresence) which his power of persuasion cannot explain.  Both omniscience and omnipresence go hand in hand in my opinion.  You can't have one without the other - this all goes back to holism and perspectivism, I believe. 

I think it's unclear in Mormon thought what exactly God's omniscience means. There's a pretty wide range of views ranging from a rejection of strong foreknowledge by thinkers like Blake Ostler to McConkie's position that God can't learn any new truth (meaning proposition). Omnipresence is a bit trickier since I don't think any Mormon thinker embraces a quasi-platonic conception in which God's presence is literally everywhere and nowhere. (Well maybe Nibley, but it's not clear how far his platonism goes) Indeed Brigham Young put in the old endowment a ridicule of St. Bonaventure's statement "By God’s power, presence, and essence, God is the One whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. God exists uncircumscribed in everything."

The emphasis was always on God's essential embodiment. To the point where I suspect omnipresence is always taken as more a claim about knowledge and power and never location. But we should be aware how big a change this is from the traditional meaning of the term. (Although I'd argue it's well in keeping with what's called semantic, cognitive and epistemological externalism - the idea that the mind is never just where the nervous system is located)

Quote

What gives God the power of omniscience and omnipresence?  The light of Christ. 

Again though it's not clear what this is. Pratt considers it an interpenetrating fluid with the attributes of God but not the personage of God. More or less the old Stoic conception of the Trinity held by Tertullian passed through a filter of Priestly's 18th century atomic theory. But if we see space not as a foundational "container" ala Newton then it seems quite fair to say it's some kind of more fundamental function.

While seeing space as a container was fairly ubiquitous in modernism until the rise of 20th century physics, it wasn't universally so. Leibniz famously saw space as emergent out of more fundamental monads. Einstein largely takes this up in his attempts to think through general relativity. (He really wasn't successful in making a fully relativist theory like he wanted - but that gets into technical issues not really relevant here) The point is though that if we reject spacetime as a container then that has big effects on the light of Christ. It's interesting since Pratt equated his spiritual fluid with the aether. But the existence of the aether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley Experiment showing the speed of light was a constant. That in turn led Einstein to relativity. Further later work by Richard Feynman shows that light itself is actually omnipresent in a virtual way. Any quantum particle in a sense takes every possible path and the self-interference of those paths due to its wavelight nature determines the actual probability of where the light goes. (See Feynman's QED for a very good attempt to explain this to laymen) 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

As the scriptures say, God has ALL power, suggesting different types of power.

How so? I don't see it making a claim at all about what power ultimately is.

 

Edited by clarkgoble
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I should note that while Nietzsche is a famous perspectivist there's many in that position broadly speaking including Hume. Many might argue that any rejection of foundationalism entails something like perspectivism particularly those types of positions (such as pragmatism) that suggest the hermeneutic aspect of interpretation is always unavoidable. As Peirce put it the meaning of any representation is a representation. I'd say pragmatism says it's interpretations all the way down but that not every interpretation is equal. (And thus rejecting relativism)

I think it's unclear in Mormon thought what exactly God's omniscience means. There's a pretty wide range of views ranging from a rejection of strong foreknowledge by thinkers like Blake Ostler to McConkie's position that God can't learn any new truth (meaning proposition). Omnipresence is a bit trickier since I don't think any Mormon thinker embraces a quasi-platonic conception in which God's presence is literally everywhere and nowhere. (Well maybe Nibley, but it's not clear how far his platonism goes) Indeed Brigham Young put in the old endowment a ridicule of St. Bonaventure's statement "By God’s power, presence, and essence, God is the One whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. God exists uncircumscribed in everything."

The emphasis was always on God's essential embodiment. To the point where I suspect omnipresence is always taken as more a claim about knowledge and power and never location. But we should be aware how big a change this is from the traditional meaning of the term. (Although I'd argue it's well in keeping with what's called semantic, cognitive and epistemological externalism - the idea that the mind is never just where the nervous system is located)

Again though it's not clear what this is. Pratt considers it an interpenetrating fluid with the attributes of God but not the personage of God. More or less the old Stoic conception of the Trinity held by Tertullian passed through a filter of Priestly's 18th century atomic theory. But if we see space not as a foundational "container" ala Newton then it seems quite fair to say it's some kind of more fundamental function.

While seeing space as a container was fairly ubiquitous in modernism until the rise of 20th century physics, it wasn't universally so. Leibniz famously saw space as emergent out of more fundamental monads. Einstein largely takes this up in his attempts to think through general relativity. (He really wasn't successful in making a fully relativist theory like he wanted - but that gets into technical issues not really relevant here) The point is though that if we reject spacetime as a container then that has big effects on the light of Christ. It's interesting since Pratt equated his spiritual fluid with the aether. But the existence of the aether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley Experiment showing the speed of light was a constant. That in turn led Einstein to relativity. Further later work by Richard Feynman shows that light itself is actually omnipresent in a virtual way. Any quantum particle in a sense takes every possible path and the self-interference of those paths due to its wavelight nature determines the actual probability of where the light goes. (See Feynman's QED for a very good attempt to explain this to laymen) 

How so? I don't see it making a claim at all about what power ultimately is.

You highlight a lot that these ideas are unclear and that opinions vary.  I don't disagree at all.  In fact, that aligns exactly with what I am saying with perspectivism and holism.  As I have stated several times, this is all based on my perspective and best understanding at this point in my life.  I fully anticipate further enlightenmnet on these subjects.  I think we know very little about the light of Christ or what it is.  These are just my best guesses at this point.   The problem is that any explanation of the light of Christ, as to what it actually is, is largely dependent upon the limited revelations we have on it and our current understanding of the different theories of physics, which are also limited.  Because we don't have a theory of everything, our understanding and explanation of the light of Christ is limited and imperfect.  

For me, the light of Christ is the theory of everything - it is "the law by which all things are governed".  It functions in the gaps of our limited understanding. I see it as the spiritual embodiment of all truth being circumscribed into one great whole.  By becoming fully "in-tune" or one with it, we become God's ourselves.  It is the full endowment of power and knowledge.  It is the whole in holism.   

Quote

The emphasis was always on God's essential embodiment. To the point where I suspect omnipresence is always taken as more a claim about knowledge and power and never location.

 Perspectivism and holism that suggests that you can't know anything with certainty unless you know and perceive of everything.  In other words, it is His eternal perspective (omnipresence) via the light of Christ that endows him with knowledge and power, and not the other way around.  It is the cirmucscription of all truth into one great whole that gives him knowledge and power - that only seems possible via an eternal perspective (omnipresence). 

It all ties back to “His Spirit”.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipresent?lang=eng

Edited by pogi
Posted (edited)

Don't become Bewitched by words.

Know God, not words and "isms". None are true except in a context. In other words the same proposition could be both true and false from different perspectives.

Speaking of isms without a context seldom works to enlighten, and leads almost always only to confusion

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't become Bewitched by words.

Know God, not words and "isms".

Those are very wise...um...words ;)

No, I agree.  I was trying to make a similar point earlier by saying that we too often let words get in the way.    I think we could all become more spiritually enlightened by spending our time in meditative prayer.  But alas, here we spend our day speaking lots of words and isms to (or past) each other.  For me it is more of an exploratory exercise, to bounce my ideas off of others and get feedback from different perspectives.  Words are not all bad though.  After all, God uses them to teach us.  According to the prophets, all isms, all cultures, all religions, all sciences, all philosophies have elements of truth.  We are counseled to go out and explore the whole elephant.  

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

None are true except in a context. In other words the same proposition could be both true and false from different perspectives.

Speaking of isms without a context seldom works to enlighten, and leads almost always only to confusion

Right.  I hate to bring up an ism, but aren't you describing perspectivism? 

I think that until we experience the whole elephant, confusion to some degree or another is unavoidable as we use words to describe our different perspectives.  I absolutely love the parable of the blind men and the elephant.  It captures the idea of what I am speaking of well.  I just found a neat little video from when President Uchtdorf shared this old parable in conference.  Does this video not describe elements of holism and perspectivism in the restored gospel?

 

If we had to describe the principles that Uchtdorf is teaching here, what philosophies best describe it?  Wouldn't it be holism and perspectivism?  What I am doing here is exploring the idea of the light of Christ and how it relates to God's eternal perspective.

 

Edited by pogi
Posted
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't become Bewitched by words.

Know God, not words and "isms". None are true except in a context. In other words the same proposition could be both true and false from different perspectives.

Speaking of isms without a context seldom works to enlighten, and leads almost always only to confusion

More or less that's what I'm saying. We don't really know the proper context for D&C 93, 88 or related scriptures. Without that knowledge we're limited in how we can read it.

Posted
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Those are very wise...um...words ;)

No, I agree.  I was trying to make a similar point earlier by saying that we too often let words get in the way.    I think we could all become more spiritually enlightened by spending our time in meditative prayer.  But alas, here we spend our day speaking lots of words and isms to (or past) each other.  For me it is more of an exploratory exercise, to bounce my ideas off of others and get feedback from different perspectives.  Words are not all bad though.  After all, God uses them to teach us.  According to the prophets, all isms, all cultures, all religions, all sciences, all philosophies have elements of truth.  We are counseled to go out and explore the whole elephant.  

Right.  I hate to bring up an ism, but aren't you describing perspectivism? 

image.png.557191c26af6793e3a07edea8209a270.png

I think that until we experience the whole elephant, confusion to some degree or another is unavoidable.  I absolutely love the parable of the blind men and the elephant.  It captures the idea of what I am speaking of well.  I just found a neat little video from when President Uchtdorf shared this old parable in conference.  Does this video not describe elements of holism and perspectivism in the restored gospel?

 

If we had to describe the principles that Uchtdorf is teaching here, what philosophies best describe it?  Wouldn't it be holism and perspectivism?  What I am doing here is exploring the idea of the light of Christ and how it relates to God's eternal perspective.

I think which ism it is is irrelevant.

Use the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and look up each one- I am quite comfortable with their distinctions as opposed to others I have read.  Here's something about perspectivism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

Quote

 

This leads to the topics of perspectivism and interpretation (Auslegung) in Nietzsche.

Although the details are far from clear, the general tendency of his perspectivism is expressed quite well in aphorism 374 from The Gay Science: “How far the perspectival character of existence extends, indeed whether it has any other character; whether an existence without interpretation, without ‘sense,’ does not become ‘non-sense’; whether, on the other hand, all existence is not essentially an interpreting existence—that cannot be decided, as would be fair, even by the most studious and scrupulous analysis and self- examination of the intellect; for in the course of this analysis, the human intellect cannot avoid seeing itself under its perspectival forms, and solely in these.…Rather, the world has once again become infinite to us: insofar as we cannot reject the possibility that it includes infinite interpretations” (KSA 3. 626).

 

I would not be looking for ANY "hard and fast" reality at all in looking at that.

So if there is no hard and fast reality- then are there hard and fast "isms"??

I mean one could easily become a kind of "philosophical zoologist" spending one's life classifying points of view while having no ideas of one's own- guard against that!!

I think classifications are of little importance- forget all the secondary sources- there are tons of them- or use them to get to authors you might find interesting and then read the AUTHORS- not the secondary sources.

I think we have unquestionably similar ways of seeing the world- you and me- and I would recommend John Dewey- Reconstruction In Philosophy- which in my opinion parallels many facets of Restoration.  He is a kind of Restorationist- for philosophy! and actually deals with issues not unlike the challenges Joseph S had/has in restoring the gospel.  William James of course- Will to Believe- Varieties of Religious Experience. and some later Wittgenstein- Philosophical Investigations.  Not early Witt- he repudiated most of what he wrote, and the Tractatus is impenetrable.

But check out secondary sources for those books to get you prepared and then pick an author and book that looks interesting to you and go to it!!

We both lean toward the mystical - Kierkegaard might be interesting to you as well.  But before you dive in- read up on the book and see if it sounds good to you but then don't stop with the secondary sources.

Many of these are available as pdf's or cheap kindle editions and the kindle reader is free.

But don't get caught up in classifications- unless you are drawn to making pigeon holes for everything and trying to cram a square peg into an octagon hole!

In our perspective - it's all about perspective and so as your cartoon shows, you move a little in a different direction and it's all different anyway!  As far as holism vs perspectivism - they are two sides of the same coin- according to your perspective!  ;)

The idea there is the RELATION between them- one can see them as "wholes" or "parts" from different perspectives- are we talking about the "whole elephant" or the parts that make up the whole?  How do you separate that ?  Impossible!!  It depends on your.... PERSPECTIVE.

So which is it?  Neither and both!  That's what happens- the words break down so don't get bogged down in them!  Read for wisdom not for classification.

That's my PERSPECTIVE!

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

More or less that's what I'm saying. We don't really know the proper context for D&C 93, 88 or related scriptures. Without that knowledge we're limited in how we can read it.

Or I would say UNLIMITED!  ;)

That's our difference I think!  ;)

As Nietzsche says in the quote a couple of posts up-

Quote

 

Rather, the world has once again become infinite to us: insofar as we cannot reject the possibility that it includes infinite interpretations” (KSA 3. 626)

 

 

 

One can either keep looking for the "truth" and be frustrated or revel in the sheer randomness of it all and create one's own world from matter unorganized- now THAT is the work of intelligence and the light of Christ!]

The creation of worlds from matter unorganized.  Merely seeing through the chaos of perception and creating a perceived "chair" is part of that process.

There was nothing that was not created through The Word!  ;)

Intelligence pervades all of existence and makes it into order.  THAT to me is the light of Christ and his glory- without which there is no existence.

All is created by intelligence.

Pure idealism?  Maybe.  Who cares?  ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

More or less that's what I'm saying. We don't really know the proper context for D&C 93, 88 or related scriptures. Without that knowledge we're limited in how we can read it.

And I have never disagreed with that, but at the same time those passages were included for a reason.  Is it not for us to explore meaning?  I don’t see anything wrong with throwing around different ideas.  I am not assuming any hard fast conclusions, just sharing my current perspective. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, pogi said:

And I have never disagreed with that, but at the same time those passages were included for a reason.  Is it not for us to explore meaning?  I don’t see anything wrong with throwing around different ideas.  I am not assuming any hard fast conclusions, just sharing my current perspective. 

Yeah that's why I brought up the platonic ones since the language is so clearly platonic.

A variant of the platonic take is the Kabbalistic one - particularly the Lurianic form of Kabbalism. (Kabbalism basically is a form of platonism) In Kabbalism light is the living power of creation that enables existence. Vessels catch the light and overflow with the light. Intelligences in D&C 93 are these vessels opening themselves to this light. It's light flowing into these vessels or receptacles that constitutes experience for a person. Each person is a receptacle and their only real power is to accept or reject this light. Within Kabbalism there is a divine constriction where the light is withheld to enable freedom. This space of freedom is what creation is as it in this dualist move withdraws and fills to create.

In this sense God the person of the Father is himself receiving light and passing it to the rest of us. 

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think which ism it is is irrelevant.

I mean one could easily become a kind of "philosophical zoologist" spending one's life classifying points of view while having no ideas of one's own- guard against that!!

I think classifications are of little importance-

I think that is good advise and thanks for the recommended readings.

I have actually been approaching this in the reverse pattern of what you describe.  I experienced a personal spiritual revival of sorts several years back as I turned my soul over to the Lord and really learned to call upon Him.  I experienced what was like a fire hose of personal revelation in ways I didn't know was possible.  I kept a detailed prayer record of all my experiences with the Spirit.  Over-time I began to recognize a pattern.  I would be given one piece of light, and I would say, okay, this is what it means.  Then I would be given another piece of light which would alter the meaning of the previous piece I received, and so on and so on.  I really learned what line upon line, precept upon precept really meant.  Before this time I assumed that our understanding of each line would remain unaltered by succeeding lines of revelation...I was wrong.  I learned that with each line comes a new perspective that alters our previous perspective.  It is a journey of enlightenment.  The more I learned, the more it became clear how little I really "know" and how precarious this idea of absolute certainty really is, and how easily my most sure beliefs could change or be enhanced by new revelation. It became clear that I was being led down a path of ever expanding light and perspective.  

I began to see God as this being who was not limited in his perspective of the elephant, while we humans are.  He carefully guides each of us across the elephant.  Each new part that we experience alters our previous perspective slightly.  We learn that what we thought existed in isolation, only exists in relation to other truths, and that all truth is related to every other truth and can/will be circumscribed into one great whole.  That is the telos.  To know.  To see.  Everything. As God knows and sees. 

It became more and more easy for me to recognize the Holy Spirit.  The only way I can describe it is that it feels to me like a protective and loving blanket that covers the entirety of my soul and transports me to another dimension of being.  It is a tangible difference.  I began to wonder just what it was I was experiencing.  I knew that it couldn't be God Himself as he had a corporeal body.  I knew that it was unlikely to be the direct experience with the Holy Ghost, as he can only be in one place at one time.  I happened upon the passages in D&C about the light of Christ and it was like a light turned on (no pun intended).  It is His Spirit.  It is everywhere. It is in all things, through all things, round about all things - just like the blanket that covered even the insides of my soul.   At the time, I was meditating on becoming one with God.  It became clear to me that it is through this Spirit that I become one with Him.  To see and experience the wholeness of this Spirit which fills the immensity of space is to see as God sees - it is to become God ourselves and see eye to eye in all things.  But it all happens line upon line, piece by piece, here a little and there a little...until the whole elephant is revealed.

I began to wonder how it is that God could know me so intimately from such a distance.  It is through the light of Christ.  I began to wonder how he could touch me from such a great distance.  It was through the light of Christ.  I began to wonder how we could commune from such a distance without vocalizing words - the light of Christ.  etc. etc.  The light is in and through and round about me, as well as Him, and we can become one in it.  There is no deeper and more profound intimacy then to know someone in Spirit.  We know God in Spirit in bits and pieces.  He knows us endlessly.  The point - the telos is to know him fully as he knows us - this is life eternal (exaltation), to know God (John 17:3).  This is only possible through His Spirit, the light of Christ. 

Then you consider that it is not just you.  God intimately knows every atom of every cell of every body and of all non-organic matter - He knows and sees it all constantly.  He feels what I feel. He hears what I think.  He tastes all sweet and bitter experiences in my life.  Through the light of Christ this is possible.  He has EVERY perspective.  

The parable of the blind men and the elephant spoke to me like no other parable has.  It is how I experience God and how I identify with the frustration of the blind men in getting other's to identify with my experience.  That is a long story to simply say, that I think you are right.  Classifications don't really matter.  That isn't necessarily the quest I am on.  I am more in this to identify my experiences in different philosophies.  I don't believe that there is one right ism.  I believe they are all right to some degree and all wrong at the same time.  Just like the blind men and the elephant.  They are different men's perspectives.  But I think we can gain some enlightenment from them.  

In other words, I am not trying to fit my spiritual experience into one ism or another, I am seeing how elements of different isms fit into my spiritual experience. 

Edited by pogi
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah that's why I brought up the platonic ones since the language is so clearly platonic.

A variant of the platonic take is the Kabbalistic one - particularly the Lurianic form of Kabbalism. (Kabbalism basically is a form of platonism) In Kabbalism light is the living power of creation that enables existence. Vessels catch the light and overflow with the light. Intelligences in D&C 93 are these vessels opening themselves to this light. It's light flowing into these vessels or receptacles that constitutes experience for a person. Each person is a receptacle and their only real power is to accept or reject this light. Within Kabbalism there is a divine constriction where the light is withheld to enable freedom. This space of freedom is what creation is as it in this dualist move withdraws and fills to create.

In this sense God the person of the Father is himself receiving light and passing it to the rest of us. 

I identify with that experience of being a vessel of light.   I have learned that to become receptive of this light in meditation, I first have to empty my vessel - a sort of repentance and cleansing process where I have to silence my voice with all of it's desires, appetites, attachments, bias, ego, etc. in order to clearly hear His voice.  It is as the old saying goes, we first have to empty our vessel before it can be filled.

I see God as being in this light consciously.  It is inescapably in and through and round about all things.  There is no escaping it. But in order to recognize it, we have to quite our voice.  It is always in us, but we are not always in it, so to speak.  I know that is rather abstract, but that is how I think of it. 

Quote

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

11 If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

Psalms 139

Quote

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

D&C 88

This to me is the omnipresence of God.  The light of Christ.  It is the eternal perspective.  It is every perspective.  It is what gives God this ability and power. 

At least, that is my current limited perspective.  

Edited by pogi
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...