Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted June 17, 2019 Popular Post Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) I bring this up fairly often, and thought I'd make it easier for newer folks to see what I am talking about. Perry studied the development of students coming to Harvard from various provincial backgrounds and conducted interviews over several years to understand how they came to cope with the university environment. There is a book. A few decades ago, an LDS author named Veda Hale used the Perry Scheme as a framework for tracing character development in Levi Peterson's novel Canyon's of Grace for a Sunstone presentation. While we were both on the LDS literature list, I made a post that she liked, and in return, she sent me this appendix from her paper. I've grown to appreciate this more and more over the years, and have quoted from it in some of my Interpreter essays. (In Sophic Box and Mantic Vista, I made a case that Joseph Smith and the LDS scriptures try to guide us to Position 9.) It reads like concentrated poetry, and I think, is very relevant to the LDS experience. I prefer it to the Fowler 6 Stages scheme because I see Fowler as sorting people based on their conclusions, whereas Perry does so on how people process information. **** I was cleaning up my email and wondered if I ever sent this to you. Whatever....here goes. Veda PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION POSITION 1 - Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.) The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary. Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth. (It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.) POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake) Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there". POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered) The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually. ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.) There are seven ways a person can go. Transition 1. The person can make the transition by modifying dualism drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them. Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors. With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain. Transition 2. The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes. All is of equal value. To have an opinion makes it right. Transition 3. Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many. Transition 4. Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively. Transition 5. The person is moving closer to accepting relativity. He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations. To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers. So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want. Transition 6. Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent. They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground. But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently. Transition 7. This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity. The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases. NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM. POSITION 5 Relativism discovered. The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments. THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY. If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want. If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with. Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.) POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen. FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength. He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth. He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical. The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows: Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK. POSITION 7. Commitments in Relativism developed. The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggle responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative. POSITION 8. Commitments in Relativism developed continues. The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity. He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN THE MODEL MUST BE TRANSCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma. The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas. But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love". POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed. The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build. veda Edited July 5, 2019 by Kevin Christensen typo 7
CV75 Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: I bring this up fairly often, and thought I'd make it easier for newer folks to see what I am talking about. Perry studied the development of students coming to Harvard from various provincial backgrounds and conducted interviews over several years to understand how they came to cope with the university environment. There is a book. A few decades ago, an LDS author named Veda Hale used the Perry Scheme as a framework for tracing character development in Levi Peterson's novel Canyon's of Grace for a Sunstone presentation. While we were both on the LDS literature list, I made a post that he liked, and in return, she sent me this appendix from her paper. I've grown to appreciate this more and more over the years, and have quoted from it in some of my Interpreter essays. (In Sophic Box and Mantic Vista, I made a case that Joseph Smith and the LDS scriptures try to guide us to Position 9.) It reads like concentrated poetry, and I think, is very relevant to the LDS experience. I prefer it to the Fowler 6 Stages scheme because I see Fowler as sorting people based on their conclusions, whereas Perry does so on how people process information. **** I was cleaning up my email and wondered if I ever sent this to you. Whatever....here goes. Veda PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION POSITION 1 - Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.) The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary. Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth. (It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.) POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake) Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently. TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there". POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered) The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually. ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.) There are seven ways a person can go. Transition 1. The person can make the transition by modifying dualism drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them. Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors. With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain. Transition 2. The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes. All is of equal value. To have an opinion makes it right. Transition 3. Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many. Transition 4. Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively. Transition 5. The person is moving closer to accepting relativity. He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations. To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers. So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want. Transition 6. Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent. They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground. But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently. Transition 7. This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity. The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases. NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM. POSITION 5 Relativism discovered. The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments. THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY. If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want. If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with. Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.) POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen. FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength. He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth. He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical. The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows: Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK. POSITION 7. Commitments in Relativism developed. The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggle responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative. POSITION 8. Commitments in Relativism developed continues. The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity. He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN THE MODEL MUST BE TRANSCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma. The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas. But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love". POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed. The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build. veda Have you seen a relationship between how people process information and their conclusions? Is your preference due to the diagnostic nature of Fowler versus the descriptive nature of Perry, or something else?
The Nehor Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 I have found that every attempt to build a roadmap for human development fails on many levels. The intense need humans have to categorize like this seems fun but to me it seems futile. 2
USU78 Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 This reminds me conceptually of Fromm's "Art of Loving." 1
CV75 Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 12 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have found that every attempt to build a roadmap for human development fails on many levels. The intense need humans have to categorize like this seems fun but to me it seems futile. I see these as tools, and not solutions themselves, to help people inasmuch as their psychological development, preferences or styles may influence their spiritual development. 10 hours ago, USU78 said: This reminds me conceptually of Fromm's "Art of Loving." Hopefully each generation builds and improves upon the last!
Kevin Christensen Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have found that every attempt to build a roadmap for human development fails on many levels. The intense need humans have to categorize like this seems fun but to me it seems futile. D&C 52:14, " I will give unto you a pattern in all things" If that is correct, there are patterns to be found. One of the patterns happens to be opposition in all things. But without patterns, we'd have no language, no art, no myth, no story, no medicine, no science, no culture, no reason for discipline and discipleship, because all would be simply unpredictable, unknowable chaos, and Korihor and Cain would be right. One of the things heroes do that makes them heroes is to face, and defeat chaos, and return to society with a boon. Job doesn't find meaning in chaos, but elsewhere, sometimes in just the hope that there is pattern, plan and purpose that overcomes chaos. Pattern recognition is what intelligence does. And part of that is recognizing larger and better patterns, constantly improving. It took a while for me to appreciate this pattern, but I find it useful in approaching a lot of social chaos. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited June 18, 2019 by Kevin Christensen 1
Kevin Christensen Posted June 18, 2019 Author Posted June 18, 2019 13 hours ago, CV75 said: Have you seen a relationship between how people process information and their conclusions? Is your preference due to the diagnostic nature of Fowler versus the descriptive nature of Perry, or something else? Sure. Do people simply follow authority figures and tradition, conforming, making judgements based on tribal standards and personal loyalty and advantage, or do they seek for "greater light and knowledge, desiring to be greater followers of righteousness?" My preference for Perry over Fowler has to do with the way the Level 6 of Fowler happens to praise people for concluding as Fowler did. The lower 3 in Fowler do have some support. The higher ones are fluffier. It's the Perry Scheme focus on how people process information that I like. The retreat from complexity and uncertainty, to relying on hierarchy, trusting an authority figure, as Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof "When you're rich they think you really know", judging on surfaces rather than righteous judgment that, according to Jesus starts with self-examination. Using hierarchy and scapegoats as a strategy for dealing with moral complexity is a danger sign in most societies, as the last few years have shown. Plus, I've found it useful to look at the reasoning of various people, and seen that it casts light on what is happening under the surface. (I've gone into detail in some Interpreter essays.) A lot of what is discussed under the heading of Faith Crisis in LDS culture fits into the Perry Scheme. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
The Nehor Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: D&C 52:14, " I will give unto you a pattern in all things" If that is correct, there are patterns to be found. One of the patterns happens to be opposition in all things. But without patterns, we'd have no language, no art, no myth, no story, no medicine, no science, no culture, no reason for discipline and discipleship, because all would be simply unpredictable, unknowable chaos, and Korihor and Cain would be right. On of the things heroes do that makes them heroes is to face, and defeat chaos, and return to society with a boon. Job doesn't find meaning in chaos, but elsewhere, sometimes in just the hope that there is pattern, plan and purpose that overcomes chaos. Pattern recognition is what intelligence does. And part of that is recognizing larger and better patterns, constantly improving. It took a while for me to appreciate this pattern, but I find it useful in approaching a lot of social chaos. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I concede the point.
CV75 Posted June 18, 2019 Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Sure. Do people simply follow authority figures and tradition, conforming, making judgements based on tribal standards and personal loyalty and advantage, or do they seek for "greater light and knowledge, desiring to be greater followers of righteousness?" My preference for Perry over Fowler has to do with the way the Level 6 of Fowler happens to praise people for concluding as Fowler did. The lower 3 in Fowler do have some support. The higher ones are fluffier. It's the Perry Scheme focus on how people process information that I like. The retreat from complexity and uncertainty, to relying on hierarchy, trusting an authority figure, as Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof "When you're rich they think you really know", judging on surfaces rather than righteous judgment that, according to Jesus starts with self-examination. Using hierarchy and scapegoats as a strategy for dealing with moral complexity is a danger sign in most societies, as the last few years have shown. Plus, I've found it useful to look at the reasoning of various people, and seen that it casts light on what is happening under the surface. (I've gone into detail in some Interpreter essays.) A lot of what is discussed under the heading of Faith Crisis in LDS culture fits into the Perry Scheme. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I think generally, children "follow" and then as they grow up they begin to "seek," and then "find" and "become." Of course we can do that in the wrong direction or get stuck at any point along the way due to disobedience and tradition. Sometimes that is purely developmental and sometimes it is succumbing to the ease of short-cutting the processing of information (that which is plainly manifest is not received because of the exercise of the agency, or work, involved to do so). We typically end up doing both in different aspects of life. But hopefully in the main a saint can keep moving in the right direction. Edited June 18, 2019 by CV75 1
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) When encountering these categories it's always helpful to ask how they approach scientific inquiry and the processes and types of knowledge found within the hard sciences. How does one approach the beliefs of non-scientists who reject scientific claims? (Say the germ and viral theory of disease for instance or the role of vaccines) Edited June 19, 2019 by clarkgoble
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 11 hours ago, clarkgoble said: When encountering these categories it's always helpful to ask how they approach scientific inquiry and the processes and types of knowledge found within the hard sciences. How does one approach the beliefs of non-scientists who reject scientific claims? (Say the germ and viral theory of disease for instance or the role of vaccines) I would strongly disagree with them. That's about it. As I see it one might be a 9 on the Perry Scheme and still be against vaccinations. Of course the Scheme clearly values independent thinkers and those against vaccinations are either thinking independently or slavish followers of someone else's (in my opinion) crackpot ideas. I think a scientist who sees what he does as improving or disproving a paradigm might score higher on the Perry Scheme than one who thinks that he is "discovering the truth" of how the world really works I think there are many famous scientists who would fit into the latter category. Essentially they would tend to be positivists, and we certainly see many atheists in that positivistic category. In my opinion, there are many scientists who may be brilliant in their fields who could be very low on the Perry scale.
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I would strongly disagree with them. That's about it. Who is "them" - the Perry proponents or the scientists? 34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: In my opinion, there are many scientists who may be brilliant in their fields who could be very low on the Perry scale. I think the reason I raised the science question is more how other people view scientific claims. Relativism can be deeply problematic there. You can see them as doing different langauge games, but eventually you have to apply it to experience and lots of claims fall there. The problem is that it's rather easy to avoid that engagement which is why pseudoscientific claims are so popular yet the people engaged in them so rarely wish to test them.
CV75 Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 12 hours ago, clarkgoble said: When encountering these categories it's always helpful to ask how they approach scientific inquiry and the processes and types of knowledge found within the hard sciences. How does one approach the beliefs of non-scientists who reject scientific claims? (Say the germ and viral theory of disease for instance or the role of vaccines) I would say to try, if able, to get them to open their minds (which I think is a function of temperament), even if you are getting them to do so "again." Someone may well have "opened" his mind in the first place, but seems to prefer to hang his hat on politicized/ideologized information ("what's really going on") than on the more rigorous, "insider" analysis.
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) We might take some time here to look at how the Perry Scheme helps us be better disciples of Christ by directly addressing the perceived problems of the criticism of "relativism" we have seen, with actual ways such ways of thinking can actually help us as disciples of Christ. One of the gorillas in the room I think is how this impacts belief in gospel doctrines. Take for example the doctrine that God has a glorified body of flesh and bone- a doctrine which I believe quite heartily. Of course this doctrine of ours is ridiculed and dragged through the dirt again and again- "HA! a God who is a primate! - how did that happen? ....chuckle chuckle" Those types of criticisms are, I think, made by folks very low on the Perry Scheme- who can only see the literal implications of their own imaginations and nothing beyond. I was called once on a missionary discussion to discuss issues like this with a Catholic priest who was convinced that God could not have a body because that would make Him automatically "imperfect" because then His body would be of the earth and not heavenly substance. He could not be transcendent and his presence could not fill the universe if he had a body. I brought up the body of the resurrected Savior and asked if Jesus still had a resurrected body. He stammered and admitted that he did. I asked him how the Savior could be part of the Trinity with such an imperfect body, and he did not have an answer. * So how could the Perry Scheme help us resolve the issue of the bodily nature of God and Christ, and clarify what might be an apparent disagreement with Catholics on this issue? One might recognize that we cannot put the wonders of creation into our silly little languages for discussion, and know "what really is" happening with God because now we only see "through a glass darkly" Without discounting for one second the idea that God "really does" have a body of flesh and bones, what if for a moment we take that question out of the discussion and consider what the BELIEF - the Paradigm- offers as benefits. We might even say that "since we cannot know what really is"- which is clearly the case in applying science to God- the best we can do is to go with the "best paradigm" we have that allows us to think of God in the best way. What are the benefits of thinking of God AS having a glorified human body? Suddenly instead of being a cloud of Spiritual Substance he becomes our Father! He is a being who could literally take us into his arms, if he wanted to do so! Is it easier to see all humanity as being brothers and sisters and children of such a God than seeing HIM as a cloud of Spiritual Substance filling the universe? Is it easier to understand that in the Resurrection we will get our bodies back and be more like our Father? In other churches what is the purpose of Resurrection if our bodies are inherently imperfect simply because they are of the earth? Why in heaven- literally!- would we want this hunk of earth to drag around us as we behold the Beatific Vision and do whatever we do in heaven- why do we need a body for that?? What is the status of families in the eternities if God is a cloud? Does the best of family life inspire us to become better parents? Why bother if the kids are on their own and either make it or not ? Does it make us aspire to a better life here if we see that better life here extending into eternity as a "forever family"? Is it easier to commit our lives to this ideal life style of service of others and the spiritual growth of our families WITH this paradigm or without it? I think the answer must be in the affirmative with a resounding "YES"! And what are we really losing by seeing this as "only a paradigm"?? Nothing at all, because our Prime Paradigm is that we come to earth to live by FAITH and find the way back to God!! The entire efficacy of belief in the Plan of Salvation is based on faith! Faith is the HOPE for things unseen. So seeing it this way, do we have to worry about evolution? What is evolution? A paradigm. Not a statement about what is absolutely and certainly true. Do we have to worry about Book of Mormon historicity? What IS BOM historicity? A paradigm. Not a statement about what is absolutely and certainly true. Do we have to worry about the translation of the BOA? Those alleged problems hinge on the word "translation" and what is the difference between "translation" and "revelation"? Arguably it's a paradigm about hemeneutics. Not a statement about what is absolutely and certainly true. What about prophets making errors? The belief that they do not is not scriptural but nevertheless it is itself also a paradigm. So thinking about these issues we have the freedom to see them as provisional theories to be modified in the future as all paradigms are modifiable as greater knowledge is obtained- by whom? By our prophets and by ourselves as we grow more mature intellectually in the gospel and in the ways of the world. In short, since we are here to walk by faith, NOTHING is lost be seeing all these doctrines as faith promoting ways of seeing which we can and are encouraged- to re-discover for ourselves. We can "bracket" those literal ideas if they seem troublesome and ask ourselves and the Spirit to discover the PURPOSE of the belief, and seeing that purpose can help us to see beyond the literal. What is the purpose of the story of Noah? Is it about a scientific global flood? To me, no, it is about that God loves and preserves those to strive for righteousness and love Him. The reality of the flood becomes irrelevant. Maybe it happened maybe not- but look at the PURPOSE of the story first and what it teaches, before you get hung up on the science or history. Look always to the gospel PURPOSE of the story! Growing up is not easy but it is necessary for advancement both in the world and in the gospel, and that is what I think the Perry Scheme helps us immeasurably to do! ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *I think this is still an unresolved area of Catholic dogma- of course I might be wrong. There have been visions of the Savior alleged showing his wounds, yet I think the RC Church refuses to comment on their "authenticity" with statements like this: https://www.ucatholic.com/blog/saint-bridgets-vision-of-5480-wounds-on-jesus-christ/ Quote “Yet there is no doubt that the Church which recognized Bridget’s holiness without ever pronouncing on her individual revelations, has accepted the overall authenticity of her interior experience” I find it interesting that even in this view they see a dualism between the content of the vision - the "interior experience" and presumably the authenticity of the "exterior event"- Cartesian Dualism and the correspondence theory in full bloom Edited June 19, 2019 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2019 Posted June 19, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Who is "them" - the Perry proponents or the scientists? I think the reason I raised the science question is more how other people view scientific claims. Relativism can be deeply problematic there. You can see them as doing different langauge games, but eventually you have to apply it to experience and lots of claims fall there. The problem is that it's rather easy to avoid that engagement which is why pseudoscientific claims are so popular yet the people engaged in them so rarely wish to test them. Obviously I was talking about the people who have unscientific beliefs about vaccinations Scientific beliefs like all beliefs are paradigms subject to change based on experience and experimental change and data as one perceives this Quote You can see them as doing different langauge games, but eventually you have to apply it to experience and lots of claims fall there. Huh? What could this possibly mean? Apply what to experience? Different language games? Who is saying otherwise? Edited June 19, 2019 by mfbukowski
clarkgoble Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Obviously I was talking about the people who have unscientific beliefs about vaccinations Scientific beliefs like all beliefs are paradigms subject to change based on experience and experimental change and data as one perceives this Sorry, that was a typo on my part. My apologies. I wasn't trying to equate you in the least with science doubters. I meant to say vaccine skeptics and accidentally wrote scientists and didn't catch it. The point I was trying to get at is that these structures work only to the degree they focus on honest inquiry (or avoiding it) and empirical data. So I'm raising the same point I raise with the Fowler point. How does one deal with "objective" facts. (Here again meaning by objective the accounts that persist through continued inquiry -- long term successful paradigms if one wants to use a more Kuhnian language) My problem with these schemes arises when one switches from "ethical" to "scientific" claims. So relative to science rather than ethics or religion how does this sound? "The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas. But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love"." We'd see it as silly to embrace such viewpoints in conflict with our established scientific ones. Relativism of this sort just doesn't make sense for things we have lots of evidence for. But if it doesn't there, why should we assume that somehow it works within an ethical system without first making a fundamental ontological or epistemological claim about ethics? Put an other way, as you noted of the vaccine deniers, we can't help but consider them wrong. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Sorry, that was a typo on my part. My apologies. I wasn't trying to equate you in the least with science doubters. I meant to say vaccine skeptics and accidentally wrote scientists and didn't catch it. The point I was trying to get at is that these structures work only to the degree they focus on honest inquiry (or avoiding it) and empirical data. So I'm raising the same point I raise with the Fowler point. How does one deal with "objective" facts. (Here again meaning by objective the accounts that persist through continued inquiry -- long term successful paradigms if one wants to use a more Kuhnian language) My problem with these schemes arises when one switches from "ethical" to "scientific" claims. So relative to science rather than ethics or religion how does this sound? "The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas. But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love"." We'd see it as silly to embrace such viewpoints in conflict with our established scientific ones. Relativism of this sort just doesn't make sense for things we have lots of evidence for. But if it doesn't there, why should we assume that somehow it works within an ethical system without first making a fundamental ontological or epistemological claim about ethics? Put an other way, as you noted of the vaccine deniers, we can't help but consider them wrong. First of all, this is Psychology and not physics. If one has a background in the social sciences, one will find that interviews, of which Perry did over 400 over a period of years, is perfectly acceptable methodology. There were flaws, of course, because most of the interviews were done in the late 50's and 60's with college students, only a few- a very few- like perhaps one or two- (iirc) women were included. Also there is the question of "changing times" - does the progression occur today in the same way? But I think the Scheme has been around long enough and has accumulated quite an amount of literature supporting the general trend toward relativism even in science students- I don't understand how contemporary physics students could not be aware of the problems and ideas of physicists now wondering if it is even possible to know the ultimate nature of "reality". http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf But I cannot help but see the question itself as reflecting back on the Scheme and wondering if raising the question itself is not evidence FOR the scheme. It is said in the literature https://www.jstor.org/stable/27558677?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents that professors who actually attempt to move people along the path of the scheme are most successful using texts and literature, especially poetry. I suppose that is not impressive for physicists, but I find that HIGHLY relevant for philosophy and certainly religion - and in analyzing texts in general. And isn't that what this is all about? Again, I see this as a paradigm that coheres with all my intellectual experience in observing others through probably 50 years of doing so, and I think it is stone-cold true. And certainly the scientific methodology- with a minor in psych - for what that is worth- seems fine to me as a psychological methodology. Psych is based on all kinds of data based on interviews, then looking at the trends in what was revealed in interviews, and then summarizing and extrapolating the data and forming a theory/paradigm. Perfectly acceptable within that language game.
mfbukowski Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, clarkgoble said: We'd see it as silly to embrace such viewpoints in conflict with our established scientific ones. Relativism of this sort just doesn't make sense for things we have lots of evidence for. But if it doesn't there, why should we assume that somehow it works within an ethical system without first making a fundamental ontological or epistemological claim about ethics? Put an other way, as you noted of the vaccine deniers, we can't help but consider them wrong. I just wanted to answer this part separately I would refer you to Hume on ethics. It ain't science. Pretty clear and well accepted. The epistemology has been around for what- 400 years? Edited June 20, 2019 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 On 6/17/2019 at 11:05 AM, Kevin Christensen said: It reads like concentrated poetry, and I think, is very relevant to the LDS experience. As related to the above discussion I just wanted to quote this. I agree. And of course that is highly relevant to scriptural hermeneutics.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 21, 2019 Author Posted June 21, 2019 On 6/20/2019 at 12:51 PM, mfbukowski said: As related to the above discussion I just wanted to quote this. I agree. And of course that is highly relevant to scriptural hermeneutics. Yes. It's rather like Jesus says in 3 Nephi.. we cannot understand it all at once, but have to ponder it, to prepare our minds, to search, to do some experiments, and nurture, and watching for what grows. It took me a while to grasp the importance of it when I first read it. Longer than I like to remember. It's the rare sort of thing that stays fresh through re-reading, year after year, and it grows when I have more and broader life experience to mix with it in my mind. It casts a lot of light on the ongoing "faith crisis" discussion that goes on, and from my perspective, provides a different way of addressing and dealing with it. Best, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
changed Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) On 6/17/2019 at 1:05 PM, Kevin Christensen said: POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed. ...He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, Oaks would be pretty upset to hear you say this... https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-oaks-shares-most-reliable-prevention-for-anxiety-with-byu-hawaii-students?lang=eng One of the major causes of cultural deterioration is the loss of belief in absolutes, President Oaks said....“Removed from their foundation of an absolute right and wrong, ethics and legalities have been unable to hold back the tide of immoral conduct that now threatens to engulf us..... from 40:35 more and more support that authority and rules are man-made and can be accepted or rejected as one chooses, each person deciding for himself or herself what is right and what is wrong.... according to Oaks, rejecting authority figures and thinking for yourself leads to nothing but pornography and immorality.... Edited June 21, 2019 by changed
pogi Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 27 minutes ago, changed said: Oaks would be pretty upset to hear you say this... https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-oaks-shares-most-reliable-prevention-for-anxiety-with-byu-hawaii-students?lang=eng One of the major causes of cultural deterioration is the loss of belief in absolutes, President Oaks said....“Removed from their foundation of an absolute right and wrong, ethics and legalities have been unable to hold back the tide of immoral conduct that now threatens to engulf us..... from 40:35 more and more support that authority and rules are man-made and can be accepted or rejected as one chooses, each person deciding for himself or herself what is right and what is wrong.... according to Oaks, rejecting authority figures and thinking for yourself leads to nothing but pornography and immorality.... I am impressed that you watch BYU Hawaii devotionals with your free-time! 2
Danzo Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, pogi said: I am impressed that you watch BYU Hawaii devotionals with your free-time! I think it is good for her. She should keep doing it.
Danzo Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 40 minutes ago, changed said: Oaks would be pretty upset to hear you say this... https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-oaks-shares-most-reliable-prevention-for-anxiety-with-byu-hawaii-students?lang=eng One of the major causes of cultural deterioration is the loss of belief in absolutes, President Oaks said....“Removed from their foundation of an absolute right and wrong, ethics and legalities have been unable to hold back the tide of immoral conduct that now threatens to engulf us..... from 40:35 more and more support that authority and rules are man-made and can be accepted or rejected as one chooses, each person deciding for himself or herself what is right and what is wrong.... according to Oaks, rejecting authority figures and thinking for yourself leads to nothing but pornography and immorality.... So your reliance on Oak's position places you where on the Perry scheme . . . ?
changed Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 On 6/21/2019 at 2:55 PM, pogi said: I am impressed that you watch BYU Hawaii devotionals with your free-time! On 6/21/2019 at 3:04 PM, Danzo said: I think it is good for her. She should keep doing it. Haha - that little talk is being discussed quite a bit on a few other forums... sometimes I think those who have left the church have watched more talks than those still in it
Recommended Posts