The Non-Imperative for a historical Book of Mormon

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm fine if that is used as a working definition of the term. But, as I've stated before, I think the concept has significant utility beyond social agreement. 

 

Like where?

In contemporary philosophy that is more like an axiom than it is a definition.

only linguistic statements can be true or false. Can you think of any other usage that makes sense?

The church is true.

That is more saying that the doctrines and practices of the church are true than that the church is true.

It's a kind of Mormon shorthand. On its own it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Edited March 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Wade Englund]

This seems to be a great group to test my relevant hypothesis.

To me, the imperative of belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or by extension the historicity of the mortal Christ or even whether the Godhead are non-fiction), has less to do with growth in faith and knowledge, and more to do with becoming (a point that is finding its way more often into General Conference talks of late--like Elder Oaks on the Godhead) .

By this I mean that, to an extent, spiritual faith can be inspired and strengthened and grow based on fictional characters, dreams, or figments of imagination, etc.   Carl Jung, by way of Dr. Jordan B Peterson,  underscore this notion in their discussions of various archetypes--heroes in particular, using fictional stories like Pinocchio, Star Wars, Harry Potter,  etc.(see for example HERE)

However, one cannot fully, in a non-fictional sense, become a fictional character. One can only fictionally become a fictional character. Thus, in terms of fully becoming in non-fictional terms, the archetypes of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER_DAY SAINTS, must be non-fictional.

Feel free to test and tear this hypothesis apart or bolster and magnify.

BTW, @mfbukowski is one of my heroes, as is also Stephen Smoot..

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The existence of Freud's "unconscious" is highly debatable.

That's not the sense I'm using it. Freud didn't originate the idea. It goes back to the Greeks including Plato and the Stoics. All I mean by it are mental-like processes or judgments we're not conscious of. It's very important in particular in Leibniz' thought. See his Discourse on Metaphysics for instance. In the Monadology he talks about consciousness in a manner akin to Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment and gets quite well at the issue of unconsciousness. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

only linguistic statements can be true or false. Can you think of any other usage that makes sense?

The church is true.

That is more saying that the doctrines and practices of the church are true than that the church is true.

It's a kind of Mormon shorthand. On its own it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Just a plug for my post where I discuss this. "How is the Church True?" This is standard Hebrew usage but also remnants of a similar form remains in English. So we talk about truing a wheel when making a bicycle wheel round. We talk about a true friend or so forth. If you do a Google search you'll find lots of examples of "wife is true" or "husband is true" particularly in Christian literature. The idea is truth as reliability or trustworthiness of objects being what they appear.

Edited March 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Ryan Dahle]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Like where?

In contemporary philosophy that is more like an axiom than it is a definition.

only linguistic statements can be true or false. Can you think of any other usage that makes sense?

Well, first of all, isn't this rationale sort of like saying that only linguistic statements can be hot or cold. 

After all, hot and cold, are only perceptions which can't be proven to relate to any sort of external reality. It isn't really fire that is hot, it is only the word fire that is hot. And the real kicker is that words themselves are only perceptions. We can't prove that they exist any more than we can prove that fire exists. Which sort of brings us full circle.

Maybe you can precisely explain why it is that only linguistic statements--rather than the things they were created to represent--can be true or false. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

This seems to be a great group to test my relevant hypothesis.

To me, the imperative of belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or by extension the historicity of the mortal Christ or even whether the Godhead are non-fiction), has less to do with growth in faith and knowledge, and more to do with becoming (a point that is finding its way more often into General Conference talks of late--like Elder Oaks on the Godhead) .

By this I mean that, to an extent, spiritual faith can be inspired and strengthened and grow based on fictional characters, dreams, or figments of imagination, etc.   Carl Jung, by way of Dr. Jordan B Peterson,  underscore this notion in their discussions of various archetypes--heroes in particular, using fictional stories like Pinocchio, Star Wars, Harry Potter,  etc.(see for example HERE)

However, one cannot fully, in a non-fictional sense, become a fictional character. One can only fictionally become a fictional character. Thus, in terms of fully becoming in non-fictional terms, the archetypes of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER_DAY SAINTS, must be non-fictional.

Feel free to test and tear this hypothesis apart or bolster and magnify.

BTW, @mfbukowski is one of my heroes, as is also Stephen Smoot..

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

Wow thanks! That's a great compliment ! 

And I fully agree it is all about BECOMING!

I am not quite understanding this:

Quote

However, one cannot fully, in a non-fictional sense, become a fictional character. One can only fictionally become a fictional character. Thus, in terms of fully becoming in non-fictional terms, the archetypes of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER_DAY SAINTS, must be non-fictional.

I personally would never ever use the word "fictional" to describe any part of the BOM.

I personally believe incidentally that there could have been "Nephites" in some sense - perhaps existing as I think Mark Wright believes, as a sub-culture existing as more of a religious than ethnic group- perhaps not at all unlike the Jews, perhaps, who are both, and who during the entire diaspora have lived as a sub-group within larger cultures.  In the case of Nephites et al of course it would be within Mayan culture etc. 

I am not a scholar in that area at all - in fact I avoid it because I think a detailed explanation of their history is irrelevant to my religious beliefs.

But I think we need to be careful about the usage of the word "fiction" because it connotes a deliberate creation of a story known by the author to be completely imaginary

I don't see that at all in the case of the BOM- I think it was pure revelation.  From where?  Who knows?

Spiritually I have personally done the suggested exercise in Moroni 10 and gotten a resounding answer that I SHOULD FOLLOW this path, so here I am.  It was an earthshakinging and life changing experience.

But I find that history is less important in these areas - ie: of religion-  than finding a path that gives one's life meaning and purpose and an overall paradigm about who we are and why humanity exists in the first place- whether or not the scenario "really happened" is irrelevant to the FUNCTION of the belief in our lives.  

People die for "freedom" - a very abstract notion- or "for my country" when- in my experience after Viet Nam for example that became a rather dubious claim in any literal sense.  Yet it gave meaning to to those lives and meaning to their deaths for their families- and who am I to debate that?  It was their purpose in life to sacrifice themselves for what they perceived as the greater good and so they were heroes!

But was their sacrifice "fictional"?  Was the cause "fictional"?  Did their cause of "freedom" really NEED their deaths?  How is "our country" better for having lost those heroes?

So too with the BOM I would say, and on a larger level, the church.  It is the best paradigm to answer these questions in a humanistic fashion than, I would argue, the world has ever developed.  What is more humanistic than to believe God is human and that we can become like him?   What better plan exists for the perfection of mankind?  What idea is better than that God communicates with each of us individually and gives us wisdom and "upbraides us not"?

Those people DIED for "their country" and for "freedom" - complete abstractions- and now we worry if the Book of Mormon actually happened and if it is worth taking care of a few kids in primary for an hour- or on the other hand- spending 40 hours a week on church matters as a bishop is worth it?

Here we have a tangible experience in our own lives- a "testimony" that "The Book of Mormon is true"- whatever that means - teaches true principles?  literally happened?  teaches us a path to God?- all and none of these? and we give it up because someone calls it "Fiction"?

What of the fiction of freedom or of the merit of dying because some General thought it would be a good thing?

Think of the Army slogan- "BE all you can BE"!!  Isn't that what it is all about?

Elder Oaks talks about "Becoming" all we can be and the Army understand that that is what it is about to LIVE a paradigm- a story about one's purpose in life - to "BE all we can BE"!!

There is no "fiction" there- it is a belief, a cause, a paradigm, a way of life that shows forth wisdom and just a dang good idea about where we came from to be taken and embraced - whether or not it "really happened".

Getting stuck on the history, for me, just becomes irrelevant to its importance in my life.  And I would wager that the heroes who died for their country did it not because General x wanted them on hill y at that particular time:  That would be the HISTORY of their deaths- they were about the CAUSE and the history was irrelevant to their sacrifice!!  They might have been on hill z instead of hill y but they were not and the history- though unfortunate- was irrelevant.  And so they gave their all, as we should in the process of BECOMING.

And there is no evidence that Joseph saw it as a made-up story trying to make the NY Times best seller list-  so "fiction"- no sir!  not for me!! 

It is no more "fiction" than living or dying to save the planet or become better than we are now in any sense. 

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Just a plug for my post where I discuss this. "How is the Church True?" This is standard Hebrew usage but also remnants of a similar form remains in English. So we talk about truing a wheel when making a bicycle wheel round. We talk about a true friend or so forth. If you do a Google search you'll find lots of examples of "wife is true" or "husband is true" particularly in Christian literature. The idea is truth as reliability.

In other words Pragmatic truth that works, not that corresponds to something.

OK good point! 

That's exactly how I see it.  Truth is a property of a sentence that shows what works.  Not anything about the world.

Works for me.

 

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, first of all, isn't this rationale sort of like saying that only linguistic statements can be hot or cold. 

After all, hot and cold, are only perceptions which can't be proven to relate to any sort of external reality. It isn't really fire that is hot, it is only the word fire that is hot. And the real kicker is that words themselves are only perceptions. We can't prove that they exist any more than we can prove that fire exists. Which sort of brings us full circle.

Maybe you can precisely explain why it is that only linguistic statements--rather than the things they were created to represent--can be true or false. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you had me going until that last sentence- agreed with it completely

oh gosh no not again

Because we cannot compare them to anything but perceptions as you have said a hundred times, and can never see "the world as it is"

nevermind.

Prove God exists.

You can't in reference to the "real world".

So be consistent and be an atheist for Pete's sake.  Show me some Nephite pottery or tell me something about the world that shows they were "real"

It's one or the other

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

In other words Pragmatic truth that works, not that corresponds to something.

OK good point! 

That's exactly how I see it.  Truth is a property of a sentence that shows what works.  Not anything about the world.

Works for me.

In these uses truth is a property of objects and only secondarily linguistic. In Hebrew the two aren't really separated since there's not quite as clear a distinction between language and world that you find in Greek thought especially after Aristotle. 

I'm not sure I'd say it's what works in a Jamesian sense. Rather it's that objects are what they appear to be. So they work as they present themselves to work. A tent pole that breaks isn't a true tent pole in this usage because it wasn't what it appeared or presented itself to be. Now I do think this lines up with pragmatic senses but closer to the Peircean sense as the emphasis is on the behavior of the object and not the psychology of the investigator. If the object is tested it is as it appears to be. So, to use Peirce's example an object is a diamond if it's hard with that hardness explained by the pragmatic maxim. That is by the empirical steps we take to confirm it. So if you have a diamond that breaks when its hardness was tested (perhaps because it was cubic zirconium) then it wasn't a true diamond.

The Greek use, again particularly after Aristotle, makes a distinction between the essence of a thing and then the linguistic representations. Which I might hasten to add is quite useful to do. That utility meant that with the rise of modernism our discussion of truth becomes primarily about propositions. Although as I mentioned the other uses of true persist in our language.

Edited March 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In these uses truth is a property of objects and only secondarily linguistic. In Hebrew the two aren't really separated since there's not quite as clear a distinction between language and world that you find in Greek thought especially after Aristotle. 

I'm not sure I'd say it's what works in a Jamesian sense. Rather it's that objects are what they appear to be. So they work as they present themselves to work. A tent pole that breaks isn't a true tent pole in this usage because it wasn't what it appeared or presented itself to be. Now I do think this lines up with pragmatic senses but closer to the Peircean sense as the emphasis is on the behavior of the object and not the psychology of the investigator. If the object is tested it is as it appears to be. So, to use Peirce's example an object is a diamond if it's hard with that hardness explained by the pragmatic maxim. That is by the empirical steps we take to confirm it. So if you have a diamond that breaks when its hardness was tested (perhaps because it was cubic zirconium) then it wasn't a true diamond.

The Greek use, again particularly after Aristotle, makes a distinction between the essence of a thing and then the linguistic representations. Which I might hasten to add is quite useful to do. That utility meant that with the rise of modernism our discussion of truth becomes primarily about propositions. Although as I mentioned the other uses of true persist in our language.

Taxonomy.

Sigh.

I know you like stability but things have changed.

Becoming.

Truth is not a property of the world.

Edited March 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ryan Dahle]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

you had me going until that last sentence- agreed with it completely

oh gosh no not again

Because we cannot compare them to anything but perceptions as you have said a hundred times, and can never see "the world as it is"

nevermind.

Prove God exists.

You can't in reference to the "real world".

So be consistent and be an atheist for Pete's sake.  Show me some Nephite pottery or tell me something about the world that shows they were "real"

It's one or the other

Well, I'm glad I had you going. But I think you are missing my point. The given rationale for seeing truth as a purely linguistic concept effectively divests all linguistic concepts of the perceptions that spawned them and ultimately renders all language as meaningless. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, first of all, isn't this rationale sort of like saying that only linguistic statements can be hot or cold. 

After all, hot and cold, are only perceptions which can't be proven to relate to any sort of external reality. It isn't really fire that is hot, it is only the word fire that is hot. And the real kicker is that words themselves are only perceptions. We can't prove that they exist any more than we can prove that fire exists. Which sort of brings us full circle.

Maybe you can precisely explain why it is that only linguistic statements--rather than the things they were created to represent--can be true or false. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the problem. You can't hold things as they are independent of perceptions in one hand and look at text in the other hand and say "yep they correspond."

You can't even see things as they are, only your perceptions so how the heck could you possibly know if they correspond to text?

Honestly if that doesn't make sense to you that's fine. But let's just say I disagree.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, I'm glad I had you going. But I think you are missing my point. The given rationale for seeing truth as a purely linguistic concept effectively divest all linguistic concepts of the perceptions that spawned them and ultimately renders all language as meaningless. 

No it renders it as not say anything about the world.

We can talk about perceptions all day. In fact that's all we do.

That is why it is said that all that exists - that there is to talk about- is text. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Here's the problem. You can't hold things as they are independent of perceptions in one hand and look at text in the other hand and say "yep they correspond."

You can't even see things as they are, only your perceptions so how the heck could you possibly know if they correspond to text?

Honestly if that doesn't make sense to you that's fine. But let's just say I disagree.

But treating linguistic aspects as secondary can be done without buying into a metaphysical correspondence theory. That's Heidegger's view for instance where there is an originary phenomenal truth which enables us to talk about propositional truth or correspondence. Likewise for Peirce what is compared isn't "the world" and a perception or assertion but current perception and future perception.

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Taxonomy.

Sigh.

I know you like stability but things have changed.

Becoming.

Truth is not a property of the world.

I'm talking about the way their language works. But when we say the Church is true we don't merely mean our perceptions of the Church but the Church as it is independent of my current perceptions.

Edited March 27, 2019 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

But treating linguistic aspects as secondary can be done without buying into a metaphysical correspondence theory. That's Heidegger's view for instance where there is an originary phenomenal truth which enables us to talk about propositional truth or correspondence. Likewise for Peirce what is compared isn't "the world" and a perception or assertion but current perception and future perception.

I'm talking about the way their language works. But when we say the Church is true we don't merely mean our perceptions of the Church but the Church as it is independent of my current perceptions.

...but perceptions are all you have...

When I bear testimony that the Church is true, it is an expression of my perceptions delivered in such a way (including hopefully with the Spirit) that the hearers will receive it and seek or edify their own perception about the truthfulness of the Church. If we perceive each other as agreeing, and agreeing with God, we are doing it with a body-connected spirit.

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

...but perceptions are all you have...

When I bear testimony that the Church is true, it is an expression of my perceptions delivered in such a way (including hopefully with the Spirit) that the hearers will receive it and seek or edify their own perception about the truthfulness of the Church. If we perceive each other as agreeing, and agreeing with God, we are doing it with a body-connected spirit.

Yeah they just can't see that I guess. 

The folks in church get it just fine - it is a peer group that speaks the same language game and lives in the same context.  I am not saying our loyal opposition here is not- they just see it differently but I cannot possibly see it any more they way they do.

There is no justification for God whatsoever if we cannot perceive God- and none of their arguments have even touched how a "testimony" can be "true" in a Cartesian or objective sense.

The problem is that the Restoration started using un-restored language - the same as Aquinas and the boys way back to Aristotle, and so we see again and again parroting the same taxonomy which is irrelevant for today

The church was restored for OUR time and our language- which sees the world quite differently.  

We live in a man-made world, organized by the Man of Holiness through his MESSENGER- The WORD.

THAT is how I read the scripture.  The message becomes reality itself!  Christ IS the way the truth and the life- quite literally in my book.

The WAY is the message of the Plan of Salvation- the WORD is the only truth we can discuss about it- ie scripture-  and the LIFE is how Christ - a human mortal lived his LIFE!!

It is a plan, a description of "how things are", and a way of life.

I honestly don't see a way of justifying religion through Cartesianism and that is precisely what you see from Anti's- they want history and objective "evidence" when there just isn't any for any of it.

"Objective" now means peer-reviewed and in church the reviewers are our "peers in the pews"!  

We have our own context and language game and have revised our way of seeing it all- except for the followers of Aristotle Descartes and Aquinas who still live in a world consistent with the anti-Mormons- Cartesian dualism where history and the "world as it is" only leads to atheism.

God's existence is not objective in any way, nor should it be.  We are here to walk by faith in what we know in our hearts.  THAT is the test!

And notice that in all this verbiage from the Cartesians, there is no reference to justifying the existence of God.  Because it can't be done.

Feelings in the heart are not "objective" by definition.  If you want objective evidence of God as part of the world- to believe, there is none.  No photographs, no foot prints, God is more elusive than Sasquatch or space aliens if you want to look at it "objectively".

And the BOM?  Where are the pots?

Either we see it differently or we will always have these stupid arguments about "reality" outside of our experiences.

If we say with Radical Empiricism that feelings "count" as "real" then we have a beginning.

And when did Romanticism start?  Gosh- just around the time of the Restoration.  Gosh - I wonder why?? 

But did we grasp hold of it?

No we were too busy being classic "Christian" followers of Aquinas rather than Christ to get the philosophy right.  We were looking for the "stable" instead of "BECOMING"

But now at least we are getting the hang of it!

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

Quote

 

Radical empiricism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.[1]...

Radical empiricism is a postulate, a statement of fact and a conclusion, says James in The Meaning of Truth. The postulate is that "the only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience". The fact is that our experience contains disconnected entities as well as various types of connections, it is full of meaning and values. The conclusion is that our worldview does not need "extraneous trans-empirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure."....

Fact[edit]

James' factual statement is that our experience isn't just a stream of data, but a complex process that's full of meaning. We see objects in terms of what they mean to us and we see causal connections between phenomena. Experience is "double-barreled": it has both a content ("sense data") and a reference, and empiricists unjustly try to reduce experience to bare sensations, according to James. Such a "thick" description of conscious experience was already part of William James' monumental work The Principles of Psychology in 1890, more than a decade before he first wrote about radical empiricism.

It differs notably from the traditional empiricist view of Locke and Hume, who see experience in terms of atoms like patches of color and soundwaves, which are in themselves meaningless and need to be interpreted by ratiocination before we can act upon them.

Conclusion[edit]

James concludes that experience is full of connections and that these connections are part of what is actually experienced:

Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. (James 1912, Essay I)

 

"Trans-empirical connective support" means connection to "the world" which is beyond our ability to perceive.  

In very simple terms, what you see/feel/infer is what you get!! 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ryan Dahle]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No it renders it as not say anything about the world.

We can talk about perceptions all day. In fact that's all we do.

That is why it is said that all that exists - that there is to talk about- is text.

Perceptions? What perceptions? The ones we had last year or yesterday or only a few moments ago? How can we ever prove that such perceptions ever existed, even to ourselves?

Text? What text? What proof is there for any text? 

 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Perceptions? What perceptions? The ones we had last year or yesterday or only a few moments ago? How can we ever prove that such perceptions ever existed, even to ourselves?

Text? What text? What proof is there for any text? 

 

He said in text.

OK thanks for your comments.  I had thought we were making progress

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

...but perceptions are all you have...

When I act it's not a perception. It's a behavior or comportment. So to reduce the world to perceptions is to miss a lot of what being human involves.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Perceptions? What perceptions? The ones we had last year or yesterday or only a few moments ago? How can we ever prove that such perceptions ever existed, even to ourselves?

Text? What text? What proof is there for any text? 

 

He said in text.

OK thanks for your comments.  I had thought we were making progress

I'm actually being quite serious. How do you define proof? 

Late Edit: The reason I ask is because I don't think you can prove the existence of language or text or interpretations anymore than you can prove the existence of an external reality. Our memories are fallible and without reliable memories we can never be sure of anything, except perhaps the present. Unfortunately, time is like a river. Not only can you not step in the same river twice, but really you can't even step in the same river once. By the time any coherent perception forms it is essentially already in the past.

Of course, one can choose to place faith in his or her memories of past perceptions, but that is essentially placing faith in something that can't be proven, much like external reality itself. There are no facts. There are no memories. There is no past. There is no future. There are no interpretations. There is only a fleeting now with no context which can be drawn upon for interpretation.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm actually being quite serious. How do you define proof? 

Late Edit: The reason I ask is because I don't think you can prove the existence of language or text or interpretations anymore than you can prove the existence of an external reality. Our memories are fallible and without reliable memories we can never be sure of anything, except perhaps the present. Unfortunately, time is like a river. Not only can you not step in the same river twice, but really you can't even step in the same river once. By the time any coherent perception forms it is essentially already in the past.

Of course, one can choose to place faith in his or her memories of past perceptions, but that is essentially placing faith in something that can't be proven, much like external reality itself. There are no facts. There are no memories. There is no past. There is no future. There are no interpretations. There is only a fleeting now with no context which can be drawn upon for interpretation.

 

Define "prove" and why it is necessary?

Other s may think it a useful word, have I used it?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

When I act it's not a perception. It's a behavior or comportment. So to reduce the world to perceptions is to miss a lot of what being human involves.

 

Using your definition, perhaps.

Why is acting not a perception?

How can you act without perceiving?

what are you saying? You put on ear plugs and a blindfold and flail your arms purposelessly? 

Don't bump into anything or that would be a perception.

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, first of all, isn't this rationale sort of like saying that only linguistic statements can be hot or cold. 

After all, hot and cold, are only perceptions which can't be proven to relate to any sort of external reality. It isn't really fire that is hot, it is only the word fire that is hot. And the real kicker is that words themselves are only perceptions. We can't prove that they exist any more than we can prove that fire exists. Which sort of brings us full circle.

Maybe you can precisely explain why it is that only linguistic statements--rather than the things they were created to represent--can be true or false. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really doubt that the cause of our perceptions of heat which we call "fire" doesn't exist?

What kind of "proof" would you like?   Have you ever burned yourself?

That would not leave me questioning its existence.  I don't know why this is so difficult.

What is "existence" anyway?  Can you define it- as opposed to what?  Nothingness?  What is Nothingness?  It has a name but is it comprehensible?

Experiences simply present themselves- we do not worry about whether or not they "exist".  They might be errors in perception as say a mirage which does not prove to give the further experiences we expect when examined further- but merely acting on that perception shows that the perception itself was a "real" perception - we did see something- that just did not turn out to be what we thought.

I don't know if it is worth carrying this forward- but I am a sucker for a challenge I guess.  Busy day tomorrow.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you really doubt that the cause of our perceptions of heat which we call "fire" doesn't exist?

What kind of "proof" would you like?   Have you ever burned yourself?

That would not leave me questioning its existence.  I don't know why this is so difficult.

What is "existence" anyway?  Can you define it- as opposed to what?  Nothingness?  What is Nothingness?  It has a name but is it comprehensible?

Experiences simply present themselves- we do not worry about whether or not they "exist".  They might be errors in perception as say a mirage which does not prove to give the further experiences we expect when examined further- but merely acting on that perception shows that the perception itself was a "real" perception - we did see something- that just did not turn out to be what we thought.

I don't know if it is worth carrying this forward- but I am a sucker for a challenge I guess.  Busy day tomorrow.

... speaking of books and composers of books ...

[Ryan Dahle]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm actually being quite serious. How do you define proof? 

Late Edit: The reason I ask is because I don't think you can prove the existence of language or text or interpretations anymore than you can prove the existence of an external reality. Our memories are fallible and without reliable memories we can never be sure of anything, except perhaps the present. Unfortunately, time is like a river. Not only can you not step in the same river twice, but really you can't even step in the same river once. By the time any coherent perception forms it is essentially already in the past.

Of course, one can choose to place faith in his or her memories of past perceptions, but that is essentially placing faith in something that can't be proven, much like external reality itself. There are no facts. There are no memories. There is no past. There is no future. There are no interpretations. There is only a fleeting now with no context which can be drawn upon for interpretation.

 

Define "prove" and why it is necessary?

Other s may think it a useful word, have I used it?

I'm getting at the idea that the rationale for essentially avoiding the concepts of truth, reality, facts, objectivity, etc. would also ostracize perceptions themselves and the language which is used to communicate them. You keep drawing attention to the idea that we can't step outside of ourselves to verify (i.e. prove) the reality of our perceptions. But neither can we step outside of the present to verify past perceptions. And without reliable past perceptions for context, present perceptions are rather meaningless. 

You keep pushing against a worldview that triumphs science and objectivity because none of it can really be verified or proven. Yet neither can our own perceptions be verified or proven, even to ourselves.

Of course, the lack of external verification doesn't bother me. I never felt it was necessary for belief. That is why I'm fine with mixing evidences from science, history, archaeology and so forth along with my personal spiritual experiences. They must all be interpreted subjectively and they all lack any sort of absolute verification. I personally privilege spiritual evidence, but that is hardly because it is the only meaningful type of evidence. Despite their privileged status, spiritual experiences have their own inherent set of challenges and uncertainties, just like all types of subjective perceptions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm getting at the idea that the rationale for essentially avoiding the concepts of truth, reality, facts, objectivity, etc. would also ostracize perceptions themselves and the language which is used to communicate them.

You are misunderstanding completely.

Last shot.  I have to cut this off but because of our background in this, off the board,  I will try one more time

I will go line by line.  Hopefully this will help someone see it who cannot.

I don't know how to "ostracize" a perception but I do not do that if it means that I want to make them undependable.

I do not regard perceptions as unreliable- they are the only world we have that we can know anything about!!

You are still tying perceptions to "the world" and because I disconnect them from "the world" you think I am saying they are "not accurate" simply because you cling to the idea that they MUST represent the world for them to be "accurate"

Quote

 

You keep drawing attention to the idea that we can't step outside of ourselves to verify (i.e. prove) the reality of our perceptions. But neither can we step outside of the present to verify past perceptions. And without reliable past perceptions for context, present perceptions are rather meaningless. 

 

Again you are insisting on a reality outside of perceptions which we must check.  We cannot do so.  You are the one pushing "proof"- when you burn yourself in a flame do you really need further proof that the fire is "real"??  And yet it is "only" a perception?  No the perception of fire IS the reality of fire!!

And the same for the future and past.  The past is gone and we were not there.  The future will be and we are not there. 

All I can tell you about is my perceptions of the past and the collective memories of myself and others who lived it- and they will all differ.  There is no "reality" to check the past against either but perceptions of what was.

Quote

 

You keep pushing against a worldview that triumphs science and objectivity because none of it can really be verified or proven. Yet neither can our own perceptions be verified or proven, even to ourselves.

 

Well I don't know about "to ourselves" but no I do not push a world view that triumphs over science and "objectivity" at all if objectivity is peer review.  Peer review creates reality as it is known to the peers.  Physicists create physics for physicists, biologists for biologists etc.

Each of these disciplines are peer-reviewed contexts that further mankind's ability to predict future experiences which will show progress in meeting the objectives in studying these experiences.  It is not necessary to believe in anything "beyond" our perceptions - like a world outside our perceptions- to achieve pragmatic success in repeating experiences ("replicating experiments") and moving forward in doing things like curing cancer etc.  "We put this stuff on what we experience as "the tumor' and it shrinks and dies".  Good!  do it again and again until they all die!!

And now unexplainedly you shift to statements on which we can agree:

Quote

Of course, the lack of external verification doesn't bother me. I never felt it was necessary for belief. That is why I'm fine with mixing evidences from science, history, archaeology and so forth along with my personal spiritual experiences. They must all be interpreted subjectively and they all lack any sort of absolute verification. I personally privilege spiritual evidence, but that is hardly because it is the only meaningful type of evidence. Despite their privileged status, spiritual experiences have their own inherent set of challenges and uncertainties, just like all types of subjective perceptions. 

Yep, exact agreement.

Accuracy is impossible in that context because the perception must be checked against an invisible world- so all we have are perceptions!  PERCEPTIONS ARE reality for all we can know!  Drop the idea of correspondence!