The Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth

[let’s roll]

How is Authority defined?  Is it assumed that people process information from all Authorities (e.g. teacher, religious leader, Deity) in the same manner.  

With respect to Position 9, where Authorities are not included in the description, is the proper inference that folks at Position 9 don’t see the need for Authorities and thus don’t acknowledge Authorities?  And specific to Deity, they’re agnostic?

Or could someone at Position 9, after selecting and judging, exercise their agency to follow direction from Deity, as they understand that direction (and if so, is that considered something other than obedience)?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, changed said:

 

 

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

Do they watch the whole thing or just the section of concern?

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, changed said:

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

It's kinda funny how that works isn't it! 

Sometimes people invest more time and energy sustaining and justifying their disbelief than they ever spent sustaining their belief. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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

Exactly!

I think that what we need from an apologetics point of view to help this "faith crisis" situation is to focus on hermeneutics and develop our own point of view for scriptural interpretation perhaps based on the later Wittgenstein and Gadamer and others which give us a consistent methodology for interpretation of scripture.

We do not need nor should we desire a "systematic theology" - what we have in terms of the Plan of Salvation is all that is needed as a kind of armature upon which we can hang our own personal revelatory experience in building our own "worlds"- what is clearly needed however is a more systematic way of interpreting scripture, and I would suggest that the thoughts of the later Wittgenstein and Gadamer and others who were essentially theists looking for another way to express the nature of religious faith, might be a place to start.

Of course this relates to the Perry Scheme on a basic level, as one climbs the ladder of understanding.

I was looking at a paper about Gadamer the other day and came across this, as a powerful description of what apologetics could be if we allowed ourselves to slide up the Perry Scheme.

Imagine applying this point of view to both the various Book of Mormon controversies and the Book of Abraham, for example and the "problem" of the lack of "accurate translation".  If we had such an attitude the alleged "controversies" would simply dissolve into thin air:

http://www.metajournal.org/articles_pdf/286-303-regan-meta8-tehno.pdf

Quote

Gadamer’s dialogical approach to hermeneutic text is suggested to go beyond the author’s (or research participants transcribed narrative) meaning (2004a). Gadamer agrees with Chladenius that the reader and author ‘‘…doesn’t have to know the real meaning of what he has written…” because it is the process of interpretation that counts in the search for meaning of the written word (Gadamer 2004a, 296). The text is re-awakened by the interpreter making sense of what has been written (2004a). The interpreter, however, needs to be aware of the hermeneutic circle, not merely to understand what the author (or research participant) meant; life experience (history) and use of language, but also asking how the words resonate with the interpreter. The issue therefore is not about finding the truth the author wrote about but realising the truth it has for the reader, how it becomes alive for the interpreter (Gadamer 2004a). The process starts when text changes the spoken language into an ‘‘…enduring and fixed expression of life…” the experience of making sense of text always includes application; listening, observing, testing, judging, challenging, reflecting and looking for any bias whilst being-with-others (Gadamer 2004a, 389).

THIS to me is the most fruitful direction in which we must travel in developing such a systematic hermeneutics in LDS scholarship.

[changed]

On 6/21/2019 at 4:04 PM, Calm said:

Do they watch the whole thing or just the section of concern?

Yes - the entire text is not provided here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... s?lang=eng

so you have to search and search until you find the youtube.  Quite a lot gets edited out between the original and what ends up on websites, so part of the fun is comparing all of the different versions that float around, and analyzing what gets cut out

On 6/21/2019 at 4:11 PM, pogi said:

It's kinda funny how that works isn't it! 

Sometimes people invest more time and energy sustaining and justifying their disbelief than they ever spent sustaining their belief. 

well.. it is a choice of leaving friends/family/job vs.... continually justifying yourself to relatives who spend a large % of their free time and lives doing church-related things... another video which is making the rounds again - about controlling family and relationships... I suppose the Perry scheme - or any scheme should analyze how to appropriately interact with others, what kinds of commitments are made?  

 

 

 

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, changed said:

it is a choice of leaving friends/family/job vs.... continually justifying yourself to relatives who spend a large % of their free time and lives doing church-related things... 

From my personal acquaintances, there has never been a need to justify their disbelief or face the threat of leaving friends/family/job.  I have never seen that once.  The people who I know who leave the church don't need to justify themselves to believers or lose their friendship.  The fact is, if a believer is cruel enough to dissolve a friendship over another's disbelief, no amount of attempted justification will help the unbeliever win the believers friendship - it will only further confirm to the believer that the unbeliever is lost. 

From my personal observation, I see disillusioned members aggressively attempting to justify their position more out of anger than anything else.  They are not trying to preserve friendships, family ,and jobs, but their anger and feelings of being lied to and cheated drives them to a stronger devotion to tearing down belief then they ever had towards building up belief.  In an Ironic twist, this often causes them to pay closer attention to the words of prophets than they ever did before.  Instead of looking for light however, they search for darkness.

44 minutes ago, changed said:

another video which is making the rounds again - about controlling family and relationships... I suppose the Perry scheme - or any scheme should analyze how to appropriately interact with others, what kinds of commitments are made?  

  Do you see the Church as a cult?

Edited June 21, 2019 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

On 6/20/2019 at 10:36 AM, mfbukowski said:

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.  

I think the issue is the psychology of how people approach things that are more absolute. There are big epistemological questions. I think many scientists and perhaps philosophers worry about how people view the hard sciences. Of course there's a big gap between the hard sciences and soft sciences. 

On 6/20/2019 at 10:36 AM, mfbukowski said:

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".

I think you'll find that scientists, particularly physicists, have noted that issue for a very long time. Going back arguably to the origins of quantum theory. Feynman certainly emphasized it in his seminal lectures on physics that most physicists have studied. But even if we dismiss knowing "the ultimate nature of reality" that doesn't mean the things we do know aren't knowledge. That is to know something doesn't require knowing everything. I don't think you'll find many hard scientists who are relativists except perhaps towards ethics. Even there I wouldn't be at all surprised to find relativists are a small minority.

On 6/20/2019 at 10:45 AM, mfbukowski said:

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?

Certainly. But the question of relativism is whether it only applies to ethics. That is, where are the absolutes? Even the positivists, who seemed to wish to avoid messiness in epistemology dismissed things like ethics or music as knowledge. Whether they were right is of course a different matter. Not everyone follows Hume on ethics. Ethical realism is alive and well after all, even if not everyone accepts it.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the issue is the psychology of how people approach things that are more absolute. There are big epistemological questions. I think many scientists and perhaps philosophers worry about how people view the hard sciences. Of course there's a big gap between the hard sciences and soft sciences. 

I think you'll find that scientists, particularly physicists, have noted that issue for a very long time. Going back arguably to the origins of quantum theory. Feynman certainly emphasized it in his seminal lectures on physics that most physicists have studied. But even if we dismiss knowing "the ultimate nature of reality" that doesn't mean the things we do know aren't knowledge. That is to know something doesn't require knowing everything. I don't think you'll find many hard scientists who are relativists except perhaps towards ethics. Even there I wouldn't be at all surprised to find relativists are a small minority.

Certainly. But the question of relativism is whether it only applies to ethics. That is, where are the absolutes? Even the positivists, who seemed to wish to avoid messiness in epistemology dismissed things like ethics or music as knowledge. Whether they were right is of course a different matter. Not everyone follows Hume on ethics. Ethical realism is alive and well after all, even if not everyone accepts it.

Yep.

It's all in the definitions and that is why tolerance of ambiguity is so important.

Which brings us back of course to the central importance of the ideas around the Perry scheme.

If no one can agree on what knowledge or truth even mean, beyond one's own intellectual community, it is pretty clear to me that something like deflationary truth and the Perry scheme is about all we have, the absolute that there are no absolutes. Irony wins the day

I'm liking Gadamer's position better and better all the time. Of course it echoes Nietzsche's position-  there are no facts only interpretations.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm liking Gadamer's position better and better all the time. Of course it echoes Nietzsche's position-  there are no facts only interpretations.

So long as one adds the caveat that not all interpretations are equal. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So long as one adds the caveat that not all interpretations are equal. 

Predictions of experience as interpreted can be the only criterion of that in science 

But that does not even apply to most things like whether or not abortion should be legal, or who killed Capt. Mustard, or what college to attend, or many other statements.

Edited June 25, 2019 by mfbukowski

[changed]

On 6/21/2019 at 3:54 PM, let’s roll said:

How is Authority defined?  Is it assumed that people process information from all Authorities (e.g. teacher, religious leader, Deity) in the same manner.  

With respect to Position 9, where Authorities are not included in the description, is the proper inference that folks at Position 9 don’t see the need for Authorities and thus don’t acknowledge Authorities?  And specific to Deity, they’re agnostic?

Or could someone at Position 9, after selecting and judging, exercise their agency to follow direction from Deity, as they understand that direction (and if so, is that considered something other than obedience)?

 

In position 9 you become your own authority figure.  Instead of relying on someone else to make decisions for you, you make commitments and informed decisions based on your own conscience - based on your own experience, your own research.  You realize that your decisions are not perfect, just as other authority figures are not perfect either, but you do the best with what you have, and take personal responsibility for yourself and your actions.  

There should be no difference between religious, political, employment, or educational leaders.  The pope, the prophet, the Dali lama - they all claim the same spiritual guidance and you cannot follow all of them so....  the best decisions are made through researching all points of view, and also taking account your conscience - the light of Christ - what the Spirit - guides you to.  

Spiritual self-reliance - no borrowed light.  Imperfect leaders = personal freedom to think and act for ourselves.

Edited June 25, 2019 by changed

[changed]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Predictions of experience as interpreted can be the only criterion of that in science 

But that does not even apply to most things like whether or not abortion should be legal, or who killed Capt. Mustard, or what college to attend, or many other statements.

 

By their fruits ye shall know them.  Some people run into hardships and see it as a "trial of faith", refuse to change the road they are on, would rather die with a stiff neck than consider another way to live..... and call this being "faithful and steadfast" ....... others run into hardships, see the wall as "kicking against the pricks", look for other alternative routes, and change the road they are on to sunnier paths.... some call this being "open minded, flexible, teachable, meek, humble".... others call it "loss of faith, weak, apostasy, heretic to change your beliefs, disloyal etc. etc.

so.... experiment.... most will not experiment.... (have you tried coffee? did it destroy your life?  is going sleepy all the time really the better road? or if you decide it would be better to be energetic and get more service done with a cup of Joe - that there were more rewards and fruits down that road???  just an example of an experiment I'm sure many here would never try.... 

 

"Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith."-- Moksha

None of us are perfect, or all-knowing - all of us have "misplaced faith", and I think the more adventurous and willing to learn from all sources we are, the faster we will come to a better understanding of where all the evidences are pointing us to go.  

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by changed

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, changed said:

 

By their fruits ye shall know them.  Some people run into hardships and see it as a "trial of faith", refuse to change the road they are on, would rather die with a stiff neck than consider another way to live..... and call this being "faithful and steadfast" ....... others run into hardships, see the wall as "kicking against the pricks", look for other alternative routes, and change the road they are on to sunnier paths.... some call this being "open minded, flexible, teachable, meek, humble".... others call it "loss of faith, weak, apostasy, heretic to change your beliefs, disloyal etc. etc.

so.... experiment.... most will not experiment.... (have you tried coffee? did it destroy your life?  is going sleepy all the time really the better road? or if you decide it would be better to be energetic and get more service done with a cup of Joe - that there were more rewards and fruits down that road???  just an example of an experiment I'm sure many here would never try.... 

 

"Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith."-- Moksha

None of us are perfect, or all-knowing - all of us have "misplaced faith", and I think the more adventurous and willing to learn from all sources we are, the faster we will come to a better understanding of where all the evidences are pointing us to go.  

 

The only problem I have with this frankly is how one knows that one has misplaced faith if one is this or her own authority?

What could establish the faith as "misplaced"?

Even errors become part of the path, as a road not to travel.  That is what agency is all about.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

In position 9 you become your own authority figure.  Instead of relying on someone else to make decisions for you, you make commitments and informed decisions based on your own conscience - based on your own experience, your own research.  You realize that your decisions are not perfect, just as other authority figures are not perfect either, but you do the best with what you have, and take personal responsibility for yourself and your actions.  

There should be no difference between religious, political, employment, or educational leaders.  The pope, the prophet, the Dali lama - they all claim the same spiritual guidance and you cannot follow all of them so....  the best decisions are made through researching all points of view, and also taking account your conscience - the light of Christ - what the Spirit - guides you to.  

Spiritual self-reliance - no borrowed light.  Imperfect leaders = personal freedom to think and act for ourselves.

Thanks for this.  Do you have a view on my question about Deity and Position 9?  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

By their fruits ye shall know them.  Some people run into hardships and see it as a "trial of faith", refuse to change the road they are on, would rather die with a stiff neck than consider another way to live..... and call this being "faithful and steadfast" ....... others run into hardships, see the wall as "kicking against the pricks", look for other alternative routes, and change the road they are on to sunnier paths.... some call this being "open minded, flexible, teachable, meek, humble".... others call it "loss of faith, weak, apostasy, heretic to change your beliefs, disloyal etc. etc.

so.... experiment.... most will not experiment.... (have you tried coffee? did it destroy your life?  is going sleepy all the time really the better road? or if you decide it would be better to be energetic and get more service done with a cup of Joe - that there were more rewards and fruits down that road???  just an example of an experiment I'm sure many here would never try.... 

 

"Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith."-- Moksha

None of us are perfect, or all-knowing - all of us have "misplaced faith", and I think the more adventurous and willing to learn from all sources we are, the faster we will come to a better understanding of where all the evidences are pointing us to go.  

 

Talk to a cardiologist about the benefits of caffeine. Great way to raise your blood pressure and create stress from everything that happens.

This notion of Moksha, is paralleled in the LDS notion that we attain divinity through service to humanity, as the ultimate Humanism as we become beyond earth's hold on us as we overcome the world, as did our Master.

All religions reflect some portion of the Covenant Path

That is also about being saviors on Mt. Zion

We are human gods in embryo and we worship a Human God. (The concept of human unity with God)

 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by mfbukowski

[changed]

12 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks for this.  Do you have a view on my question about Deity and Position 9?  

Psalm 82:6 comes to mind... but then in this life, it comes to interpreting second-hand sources and interpretations of deity, so unless G-d is directly talking you through every thought and decision, then no - there is no such thing as relying on deity in this life.  ... God designed it this way - put a veil up - I guess we're supposed to think and act for ourselves and all that.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Predictions of experience as interpreted can be the only criterion of that in science 

But that does not even apply to most things like whether or not abortion should be legal, or who killed Capt. Mustard, or what college to attend, or many other statements.

Peirce would disagree as would I. We can make assumptions about what ethical action ought produce. We may get only weak conclusions, such as looking at evolution and charity and the like. Not solid and obvious problems appear. However as we investigate over time we may well come to knowledge. Of course in a Mormon context we might just say God has conducted that investigation, does know sufficiently, and trust him. Then the question becomes when God (or our perceptions of God) are trustworthy.

[changed]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Talk to a cardiologist about the benefits of caffeine. Great way to raise your blood pressure and create stress from everything that happens.

This notion of Moksha, is paralleled in the LDS notion that we attain divinity through service to humanity, as the ultimate Humanism as we become beyond earth's hold on us as we overcome the world, as did our Master.

That is also about being saviors on Mt. Zion

We are human gods in embryo and we worship a Human God. (The concept of human unity with God)

 

If the benefits did not outweigh the drawbacks I think it would be a much less-popular drink

Beautiful loving truths within all groups - everyone is getting the spiritual guidance they need.  A few misguided things within all groups too - everyone is also forced to split away form their group and take ownership of their own mind as well.  

The Perry scheme does a good job - replace "authority figure" with "group membership" , and the same progression is there.... start out believing one group is the end-all-be-all, has all the answers, ... then find out your group might not know everything ... start looking at other groups/other authority figures - recognize the good and bad in all of it, and in yourself - by the end, find a space for appropriate commitment to oneself and to others.

[let’s roll]

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Psalm 82:6 comes to mind... but then in this life, it comes to interpreting second-hand sources and interpretations of deity, so unless G-d is directly talking you through every thought and decision, then no - there is no such thing as relying on deity in this life.  ... God designed it this way - put a veil up - I guess we're supposed to think and act for ourselves and all that.

Thank you for your response.  The scriptures that come to mind for me are His invitation to ask Him if we lack wisdom and He will share “liberally” and His promise that if we trust in Him and not in our “own understanding” He will “direct our path.”

I agree He’s given us the ability to think and act for ourselves in deciding whether we will accept His invitations and take Him up on His promises.  My decision to do so was mine alone.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Peirce would disagree as would I. We can make assumptions about what ethical action ought produce. We may get only weak conclusions, such as looking at evolution and charity and the like. Not solid and obvious problems appear. However as we investigate over time we may well come to knowledge. Of course in a Mormon context we might just say God has conducted that investigation, does know sufficiently, and trust him. Then the question becomes when God (or our perceptions of God) are trustworthy.

What is "knowledge"?

[changed]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Thank you for your response.  The scriptures that come to mind for me are His invitation to ask Him if we lack wisdom and He will share “liberally” and His promise that if we trust in Him and not in our “own understanding” He will “direct our path.”

I agree He’s given us the ability to think and act for ourselves in deciding whether we will accept His invitations and take Him up on His promises.  My decision to do so was mine alone.

 

That is an interesting scripture - and I am assuming that  by "He will direct your path" you are referencing to paying attention to what your own conscience, or your own spirit, guides and directs you to do.  (and NOT believing that "He will guide your path" is equal to thinking some other person claiming to have revelation will tell you what to do)    If it comes to a choice between our intellectual understanding of a matter, vs. the dictates of our conscience/spirit/heart, yes - go with your heart after prayerfully asking for guidance.  

So long as we agree that "He will direct your path" is NOT saying "some other person will direct your path"

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by changed

[USU78]

On 6/21/2019 at 4:44 PM, pogi said:

From my personal acquaintances, there has never been a need to justify their disbelief or face the threat of leaving friends/family/job.  I have never seen that once.  The people who I know who leave the church don't need to justify themselves to believers or lose their friendship.  The fact is, if a believer is cruel enough to dissolve a friendship over another's disbelief, no amount of attempted justification will help the unbeliever win the believers friendship - it will only further confirm to the believer that the unbeliever is lost. 

From my personal observation, I see disillusioned members aggressively attempting to justify their position more out of anger than anything else.  They are not trying to preserve friendships, family ,and jobs, but their anger and feelings of being lied to and cheated drives them to a stronger devotion to tearing down belief then they ever had towards building up belief.  In an Ironic twist, this often causes them to pay closer attention to the words of prophets than they ever did before.  Instead of looking for light however, they search for darkness.

  Do you see the Church as a cult?

I liked this. I would only add that a whole lot of damage is done through the justification process. Evangelical atheism and homosexuality, for example, are species of justification. I n my experience, this is far more common.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I liked this. I would only add that a whole lot of damage is done through the justification process. Evangelical atheism and homosexuality, for example, are species of justification. I n my experience, this is far more common.

" Evangelical Atheism". I like that. Very steal-able.

 

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is "knowledge"?

Well of course the philosophical concern is part of the cartesian approach (IMO) and a bit of a mistake. So while I think talking about justification is important and useful it's ultimately insufficient an explanation for various reasons. I won't get into that as I suspect there we both will agree.

To me that which we can not help but believe after continued inquiry and after doing ones epistemic duty in terms of investigating in a skeptical fashion as part of inquiry is what we consider knowledge. If we can't doubt after such inquiry it is knowledge in practical terms. That doesn't mean we may not be mistaken, but again I think the idea that knowledge must be infallible to be knowledge is an unfortunate remnant of Cartesian foundationalism.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Well of course the philosophical concern is part of the cartesian approach (IMO) and a bit of a mistake. So while I think talking about justification is important and useful it's ultimately insufficient an explanation for various reasons. I won't get into that as I suspect there we both will agree.

To me that which we can not help but believe after continued inquiry and after doing ones epistemic duty in terms of investigating in a skeptical fashion as part of inquiry is what we consider knowledge. If we can't doubt after such inquiry it is knowledge in practical terms. That doesn't mean we may not be mistaken, but again I think the idea that knowledge must be infallible to be knowledge is an unfortunate remnant of Cartesian foundationalism.

Straight Peirce, of course.

I would just like to point out that what you are describing is a psychological state of absence of doubt.

It says nothing about the world "out there". 

 Of course that is fine with me and a good definition. I just wanted to point out it is still ultimately psychological and community defined by a community of believers.

Cartesians of course believe that knowledge is about the world independent of humans, which is not the case.