Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

RFM reveals himself


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In the whole walks upright and has two eyes, two ears and two arms kind of way, yes. Otherwise, I don't recall ever feeling other than that our lived experiences seem to have occurred in parallel universes that had this forum as their sole point of intersection. But then I feel that way about a number of people who have participated in this forum in the past and some who still do ...

😂 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Some of what members have posted here is almost embarrassing to read (and getting too personal, IMO at attacking this man).  I cannot imagine our leaders being happy reading this from anyone who claims to be a righteous, active member of the church or represents our active members in any way.  

 

Cue the church organ. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Some of what members have posted here is almost embarrassing to read (and getting too personal, IMO at attacking this man).  I cannot imagine our leaders being happy reading this from anyone who claims to be a righteous, active member of the church or represents our active members in any way.  

I do know who this poster is and have read some of what he's written.  I wish he were still in the church, but I have found him to be a seemingly good person who is articulate, smart and sincere.  If I met him in real life, I'd probably really like him :) 

What a nice and Christlike post.  I think I’d like him too.  It’s sad he left the church but that doesn’t mean we shun him or stop loving.

Link to comment
On 8/3/2019 at 6:13 PM, Calm said:

There was a name of a lawyer published when BYU Police lost the lawsuit. People assumed that was consig, but I don’t think it was confirmed. That was posted here, but might have been removed. 

Same name:  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/06/16/when-did-lds-church-know/

I guess that was the sacrifice he had to make in order to get something done about the case. I wonder why he wanted to be anonymous in the beginning. Perhaps his career or ?

Link to comment
On 8/4/2019 at 9:35 AM, ALarson said:

I agree.  Some of what members have posted here is almost embarrassing to read (and getting too personal, IMO at attacking this man).  I cannot imagine our leaders being happy reading this from anyone who claims to be a righteous, active member of the church or represents our active members in any way.  

I do know who this poster is and have read some of what he's written.  I wish he were still in the church, but I have found him to be a seemingly good person who is articulate, smart and sincere.  If I met him in real life, I'd probably really like him :) 

Does this manipulative “You should be ashamed” tactic ever work on anyone?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Does this manipulative “You should be ashamed” tactic ever work on anyone?

Not at all what I'm attempting to do.....just making an observation and then expressing my opinion regarding this person.  I really dislike any type of personal attacks here and feel they should be left out of discussions....I also dislike threads where we are all discussing one specific person (critical or not).  But then, I did join in :P

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess that was the sacrifice he had to make in order to get something done about the case. I wonder why he wanted to be anonymous in the beginning. Perhaps his career or ?

I don't know....but I sense that he's not that concerned about his own identity being known.  Maybe to protect his wife or family members?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Does this manipulative “You should be ashamed” tactic ever work on anyone?

I suppose it works as well as any other instance of public shaming. Those who already agree get the pleasure of having their sense of outrage massaged; those who don’t find it unpalatable. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Not at all what I'm attempting to do.....just making an observation and then expressing my opinion regarding this person.  I really dislike any type of personal attacks here and feel they should be left out of discussions....I also dislike threads where we are all discussing one specific person (critical or not).  But then, I did join in :P

 

Well, I agree that what some have posted here isn’t admirable or right to do.  Ugly and angry, imo.

I also agree about threads where the topic is about one person and then both sides chime in.  The personal attacks are uncomfortable to read and should not be coming from anyone who strives to be an example of how church members treat others.

I actually think consig is still a member too, correct?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those who already agree get the pleasure of having their sense of outrage massaged; those who don’t find it unpalatable. 

I feel more outrage in your posts here than from most others.  And yes, it is unpalatable, imo.

I think it’s fine to point out substance that you disagree with (from another person), but personal attacks are wrong I think and pretty ineffective too.

Link to comment
On 8/3/2019 at 12:46 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Not here. He’s an attorney by profession. He used his expertise to get the BYU-PD to turn over its interview records in the Denson case. He discussed his efforts on Mormon Discussions and, I think, his podcast. His name came up in news coverage from his nosing around in the Denson case. It was easy to put two and two together and learn his name, but I’ve forgotten it now. I could try to find it, but, like I say, I’m not that interested. 

In fact, I’ve lost interest in this thread. 

For someone not interested in this thread why do you keep contributing to it?

For my own opinion of RFM, he has great taste in music. 😊

M.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

For someone not interested in this thread why do you keep contributing to it?

For my own opinion of RFM, he has great taste in music. 😊

M.

Well, it it has been said "Taste in Music Makes the Man." I had a friend who had his taste buds shot off in the war.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I agree that what some have posted here isn’t admirable or right to do.  Ugly and angry, imo.

I also agree about threads where the topic is about one person and then both sides chime in.  The personal attacks are uncomfortable to read and should not be coming from anyone who strives to be an example of how church members treat others.

I actually think consig is still a member too, correct?

I choose to follow the example of the Savior over being “an example of how church members treat others”

003-jesus-cleansing-temple.jpg?153865882

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I agree that what some have posted here isn’t admirable or right to do.  Ugly and angry, imo.

I also agree about threads where the topic is about one person and then both sides chime in.  The personal attacks are uncomfortable to read and should not be coming from anyone who strives to be an example of how church members treat others.

I actually think consig is still a member too, correct?

I don't know if he's still a member.  Maybe someone else here can post if he is or not.....

Link to comment
19 hours ago, blarsen said:

Using “impressions” to describe information that seems to come from non-sensory sources is good, but I think may be too limited for what I’m trying to describe.

But I like the rabbit/duck metaphor.  You could also refer to dogs as another example of how reality can be perceived differently.  Dogs live largely in an olfactory world.  Tough for us to imagine how dogs sort out and process their incredible perception of smells, for instance. 

But these examples, in themselves, simply point to how we, compared to ducks, rabbits and dogs, are wired neurally.  And just referring to impressions, per se, seems to ignore this neural processing and the mechanisms it uses to integrate sensory data into something usable and meaningful. 

I rather equate this background processing with what is commonly called the subconscious.  It's kind of like a high-speed, powerful microchip, which I think, in and of itself can come up w/highly meaningful impressions, which aren't necessarily taking input from the numinous, timeless realm. 

And data from this realm isn't necessarily limited to 'impressions'.  Two manifestations come to mind: 

One would be visionary experiences, which may include both visual and auditory manifestations, and which are far from being simple impressions, especially when they come unbidden, suddenly and vividly, and more commonly manifesting in the mind's eye very much like a video.  Another is where two or more threads of activity from different persons or external events might coalesce into something highly meaningful to the individual experiencing them, and waaaay beyond the probability of them happening together and in the meaningful context of the one experiencing them.  This is more of a 'recognition' by the experiencer than an impression.  I may not be explaining this very well. 

Well I think that if we were to sit down and chat for an hour or so over diet cokes ;) we would end up on the same page, and I agree that it is all hard to put into words simply- philosophers have tried and succeeded- but only it seems in a convincing way to other philosophers who are used to swimming in these shark-infested waters. ;)  Ian Barbour is definitely one of these, as is Thomas Nagel, to whom I will refer a little later.

The trick - as Kevin brings up- is confusing the sophic with the mantic ways of seeing the world.  We have a great tendency to want to mix metaphors and find mechanical "causes" for these different ways of seeing the world- but in the final analysis

Using again the rabbit/duck analogy, one cannot easily "see" the duck AND the rabbit at the same time.  They are WAYS of seeing - or points of view which are difficult to mix in order to see both at once.

One analogy I also use is to imagine a pyramid shape.  We know that such a shape is triangular as one moves around the pyramid.  We even speak, as I just have, as a "pyramid shape".   Yet imagine looking at an actual three dimensional pyramid shape from directly above the apex of the pyramid.  Is the pyramid now "pyramid shaped"?   In one way yes, and in another no.  It can be seen, literally, both ways from differing points of view just like the rabbit on one hand and the duck on the other.

So what are the "facts" about the brain and the way we see each image differently?   We could speak all day about the brain mechanisms involved in the two different ways of perception but allow the difference in "what it is like to see a pyramid" to slip away entirely from the discussion.

The positivist might argue that there is NO difference between the points of view- except for some irrelevant ways of seeing the pyramid, but after all, our perception of the pyramid does not change its measurements, its weight, its manner of construction, how it would stand up to future earth quakes etc.

The positivist sees only "facts" and the facts are the facts.

But artists would see it all differently, poets would see it all differently and when we look at the symbology of the triangle mixed with the four sides of the pyramid, we get the number three- which might be interpreted as the trinity, say, mixed with view from above, incorporating squares symbolizing ..... whatever the believer wants, perhaps the four directions etc.... and suddenly we have the number three unified with the number four symbolically all in one object.   A poet or an artist could do a lot with all that- but again that has NOTHING to do with the dimensions of the actual pyramid, it's weight or manner of construction.

So we have two compatible ways of seeing which speak to entirely different WAYS of seeing- again, the mantic and the sophic.

One is not reducible to the other because they are two different worlds colliding - two different points of view and modes of thinking that are as compatible as baseball and gin rummy because there is no possibility of conflict.

So I think that is the problem we have here with communication and "putting it into words"

Let me quote a few lines from your post above yet again:

Quote

But these examples, in themselves, simply point to how we, compared to ducks, rabbits and dogs, are wired neurally.  And just referring to impressions, per se, seems to ignore this neural processing and the mechanisms it uses to integrate sensory data into something usable and meaningful. 

Saying that we are ignoring "neural processing and the mechanisms" is precisely what we WANT to do because we are now NOT looking at mechanisms and are intentionally leaving them out- we are looking at the mantic and not the sophic- because mixing those two is precisely the error Kevin is point out that Riskas makes in not understanding the religious because he is looking at "mechanisms" instead of significance.

We are talking as it were, about the pyramid being the unity of the numbers three and four and deriving, supposedly, symbolic meaning from the shape of the pyramid while Riskas is commenting on its weight or the way in which it was constructed.

So I would argue that discussing brain mechanisms in any degree and comparing them to religious or visionary experience is literally mixing metaphors or "language games" as Wittgenstein would say, and that is precisely what I am trying to avoid.

So I think that taking a vague semi-scientific notion like "the subconscious" - to me just a kind of homunculus- giving a undefined name to an undefined process - doesn't work, and it doesn't help to back up that undefined idea with an undefined computer process either.

I would like to recall to your mind the essay by Thomas Nagel-  "What is it like to be a Bat"-which touches both on this idea of sophic and mantic using different terms- in Nagel's case "physicalism" which in my definitions in this post we might call "positivism" AND the great point you raise about what it is like to be a dog.

In case you had missed this article here is a link to the full pdf-  I would highly recommend it!  https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf

 

 

Image result for great pyramid from above

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...