Radical Orthodoxy: A Manifesto

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'll have to grant you that, Calm! 

But I still need my eyes to get around visually, regardless of whether my brain is the master visualizer!  

Had heard of ketamine, by name only, so just looked it up. Interesting substance! It's regulated severely, though, so I guess I won't be trying it out casually. 

I had a nasty experience with it the third time around. Went home and literally hid under the covers for the rest of the day even though grandkids were over to play. Couldn’t stop crying (not wailing, just tears and shaking in shock). Even so I could tell minus the very pure terror, I was in a better mood depression and anxiety wise, so once vaccinated and all, I may try it again...ensuring I get a decent rest the night before and avoid the crime pages (The Daybell story had just broken and I was distracting myself from my worry about family stuff with that...which put me in a dark mood which led to the hour long terror that seemed much much longer).

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had a nasty experience with it the third time around. Went home and literally hid under the covers for the rest of the day even though grandkids were over to play. Couldn’t stop crying (not wailing, just tears and shaking in shock). Even so I could tell minus the very pure terror, I was in a better mood depression and anxiety wise, so once vaccinated and all, I may try it again...ensuring I get a decent rest the night before and avoid the crime pages (The Daybell story had just broken and I was distracting myself from my worry about family stuff with that...which put me in a dark mood which led to the hour long terror that seemed much much longer).

Is this treatment something that worked for you over a long haul? My wife tends to have depressive spells which last days long, and she says sometimes that she feels guilty for being happy, too.

All the intellectual reassurance the God wants her to have joy doesn't seem to cut through the emotional burden, so it leaves me only able to be a good and sympathetic listener. Which might be the best I can do, but as a guy want to FIX things that are broken.  I can relate to this as a kind of survivor guilt (death of parents, a sibling, and so on), but I've had family deaths over a period of time, too, and I don't feel a shred of guilt for having survived when they have not. So I have a hard time understanding it at a deep level, although intellectually it has some currency.

[MiserereNobis]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I had a nasty experience with it the third time around. Went home and literally hid under the covers for the rest of the day even though grandkids were over to play. Couldn’t stop crying (not wailing, just tears and shaking in shock). Even so I could tell minus the very pure terror, I was in a better mood depression and anxiety wise, so once vaccinated and all, I may try it again...ensuring I get a decent rest the night before and avoid the crime pages (The Daybell story had just broken and I was distracting myself from my worry about family stuff with that...which put me in a dark mood which led to the hour long terror that seemed much much longer).

Timothy Leary famously taught that the key to a positive psychedelic experience is set and setting. Setting is the environment you are in, and set is your mental state. Sounds like the Daybell story threw off your set

In my psychedelic spirituality days, I found that "bad trips" (like the hour of terror you experienced) were actually very useful. They taught me how my mind functions when things go negative. Working through those bad trips gave me tools that I use even now when my mind goes in a negative direction. I guess it's kinda like meditation in that way.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Is this treatment something that worked for you over a long haul? My wife tends to have depressive spells which last days long, and she says sometimes that she feels guilty for being happy, too.

All the intellectual reassurance the God wants her to have joy doesn't seem to cut through the emotional burden, so it leaves me only able to be a good and sympathetic listener. Which might be the best I can do, but as a guy want to FIX things that are broken.  I can relate to this as a kind of survivor guilt (death of parents, a sibling, and so on), but I've had family deaths over a period of time, too, and I don't feel a shred of guilt for having survived when they have not. So I have a hard time understanding it at a deep level, although intellectually it has some currency.

Unfortunately Covid hit before I got my nerve back. And treatment is a couple of hours in an office with others in the room, not safe enough in my view. 
 

My daughter’s thyroid went all wonky so she had to delay ketamine as well. When you are paying hundreds out of pocket for each treatment, each needs to count.  I will let you and the world know if I find something that helps.  My daughter’s plan is medical marijuana, application is in...we just can’t find out if it is in the process yet or sitting on someone’s desk. If it works for her, I may try that first as it will likely help a few more things besides depression/anxiety.

 

 Ongoing deeper depression often has a neurochemical component that talking and analysis cannot manage alone. Sometimes exercise and diet can effect change on that level, sometimes medication is needed. Deep chronic depression is not really something that someone who has had an acute or minor depression can understand any more than someone wearing a cast for several weeks is going to be able to deeply and significantly understand a paraplegic.   
 

Depression is a particularly vicious disorder imo because it  can leave someone feeling like they should be able to do the things that can help them get better, there is after all in most cases nothing stopping them from getting out of bed or going out in the sun...and yet they can’t. And they feel guilty because our culture teaches us will power, determination, unselfishness, prayer, commitment...”if you really wanted to, you could”...is all that is needed to deal with it and other emotional difficulties.   It is also extraordinarily hard to describe or even identify what is preventing us from helping ourselves, but it becomes obvious something is actually wrong if you have times where the fog lifts and you become more functional. 

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Working through those bad trips gave me tools that I use even now when my mind goes in a negative direction. I guess it's kinda like meditation in that way.

The dominant feeling was total loss of control.  Worse nightmare times 1000 because it was at warp speed. Like drowning and getting a few seconds of air where I could hear the assistant reassuring me I was in the clinic and undergoing ketamine treatment and then I was pulled under again.  And I could not get a sense of direction, but I just flailed all over while being dragged by whatever monster had a hold of me. (Sometimes actual monsters, more often just the feeling of monstrous).  I wonder if that reassurance is standard or if it was a response to what I think I was chanting which was “this is hell, this is hell, this is hell”....

I would be interested in hearing how you worked with them.  My mind still shies away from trying to ‘relive’ the memory, even a year later. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Timothy Leary famously taught that the key to a positive psychedelic experience is set and setting. Setting is the environment you are in, and set is your mental state. Sounds like the Daybell story threw off your set

In my psychedelic spirituality days, I found that "bad trips" (like the hour of terror you experienced) were actually very useful. They taught me how my mind functions when things go negative. Working through those bad trips gave me tools that I use even now when my mind goes in a negative direction. I guess it's kinda like meditation in that way.

Well I don't have time right now to go into details but I have a few comments.

Yes LSD was beneficial to me precisely in understanding the difference in "what is in your head" and "alleged reality"

Right now most of us are on this level:

Quote

 

See there was this guy?

And his name was like, uh, Joseph Smith?

And then he went out into the woods, and like then he had this visiony thingy?

He saw GOD!  Like what about THAT?  Oh wow man, was that like REAL?   Or was it just acid or what, man?

 

Back to being the present MFB: 

Was Joseph's vision "real"?   In what sense was the reality he saw related to our everday reality?

We as LDS MUST have a clear understanding of the nature of "reality" to even begin to understand what is in my mind, the most important point about being LDS and that is the NATURE OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

Every one of us supposedly has a testimony- a personal revelation that "the church is true"!

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?   How can a hallucination be "TRUE"??

For now:

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/index.html

If nothing else, find the TED video and watch that.

And no, describing chemical reactions in your brain does not define "BLUE"   If you were blind would that help you understand the experience of  BLUE as opposed to the experience of RED?

Anil Seth, neuroscientist - from TED video, in the article linked above:

Quote

 

What are the properties of consciousness? What should a science of consciousness try to explain? Well, for today I’d just like to think of consciousness in two different ways. There are experiences of the world around us, full of sights, sounds and smells, there’s multisensory, panoramic, 3D, fully immersive inner movie. And then there’s conscious self. The specific experience of being you or being me. The lead character in this inner movie, and probably the aspect of consciousness we all cling to most tightly. Let’s start with experiences of the world around us, and with the important idea of the brain as a prediction engine.

Imagine being a brain. You’re locked inside a bony skull, trying to figure what’s out there in the world. There’s no lights inside the skull. There’s no sound either. All you’ve got to go on is streams of electrical impulses which are only indirectly related to things in the world, whatever they may be. So perception — figuring out what’s there — has to be a process of informed guesswork in which the brain combines these sensory signals with its prior expectations or beliefs about the way the world is to form its best guess of what caused those signals. The brain doesn’t hear sound or see light. What we perceive is its best guess of what’s out there in the world.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

The dominant feeling was total loss of control.  Worse nightmare times 1000 because it was at warp speed. Like drowning and getting a few seconds of air where I could hear the assistant reassuring me I was in the clinic and undergoing ketamine treatment and then I was pulled under again.  And I could not get a sense of direction, but I just flailed all over while being dragged by whatever monster had a hold of me. (Sometimes actual monsters, more often just the feeling of monstrous).  I wonder if that reassurance is standard or if it was a response to what I think I was chanting which was “this is hell, this is hell, this is hell”....

I would be interested in hearing how you worked with them.  My mind still shies away from trying to ‘relive’ the memory, even a year later. 

That was probably the best thing you could have done, making sure you were "actually" safe under the covers.  What would have been best, after knowing that, is to sit back and watch the scary movie going on in virtual reality without goggles. 

Plato's Allegory of the Cave sees our reality as shadows of the "real" reality.

There is a sense in which I think he was definitely onto something there, BUT the ontology he deduced was totally incoherent and was the basis for the correspondence theory of truth which destroyed common sense in western culture for 2500 years.

Reality IS experience, nothing more, nothing less. And every one of us INTERPRETS experience differently, even here, even in the Ward, even between general authorities.   So what the heck IS TRUTH if it is not reational?

 And we share that in language which makes it all more ambiguous.

Here we are, a bunch of relatively intelligent people who cannot even define "TRUTH".  And I am the leading culprit in this inability.

Scientific types would NEVER call religious experience TRUTH- they would dismiss it as hallucination, and us as deluded fools

So if we do not have a definition of TRUTH which can destroy the line between religion and science, in today's world, we are dead in the water.

Be good kids or I will again post THE RORTY VIDEO so cower in fear!!   😉

[MiserereNobis]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Be good kids or I will again post THE RORTY VIDEO so cower in fear!! 

Sweet mother of god, not the Rorty video!!! Not those German subtitles again!!!! AHHHHH!!!! (ok, ok, now I'm using the tools I learned from bad psychedelic trips)

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So if we do not have a definition of TRUTH which can destroy the line between religion and science, in today's world, we are dead in the water.

How about "selflessness" -- the epitome of religious "charity" and scientific "open-mindedness"? That is how we get "one heart and one mind" in religion and qualified knowledge (the juncture of admitted ignorance and contextual knowledge) in science.

Edited December 2, 2020 by CV75

[MiserereNobis]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

The dominant feeling was total loss of control.  Worse nightmare times 1000 because it was at warp speed. Like drowning and getting a few seconds of air where I could hear the assistant reassuring me I was in the clinic and undergoing ketamine treatment and then I was pulled under again.  And I could not get a sense of direction, but I just flailed all over while being dragged by whatever monster had a hold of me. (Sometimes actual monsters, more often just the feeling of monstrous).  I wonder if that reassurance is standard or if it was a response to what I think I was chanting which was “this is hell, this is hell, this is hell”....

I would be interested in hearing how you worked with them.  My mind still shies away from trying to ‘relive’ the memory, even a year later. 

I don't have experience with ketamine, so I can't speak directly to how it works. My strongest experience was with DMT, but I didn't have a bad trip. I "sat up" (participated) in a couple of Native American Church peyote ceremonies. I didn't have a difficult time there, but I think that was due to the setting. It was a complete religious ceremony with all details having spiritual significance. It honestly never felt like I was "tripping" and my first time when the ceremony ended at dawn and we stepped out of the teepee I was surprised at how "high" I was. It was all perfectly "normal" in the teepee during the ceremony, if that makes sense.

My most difficult trips were on high doses of psilocybin mushrooms. While LSD can be strong, I always felt like I could control it more. I could direct it where I wanted it to go. With mushrooms, however, I feel like the organic component asserts itself. On high doses I couldn't control it. My biggest tool for not spiraling out is actually kind of cliche. I would let go. Instead of fighting the feelings, the fear, the disturbing visuals, I would give in to them. I would let my eyes go out of focus and in my mind embrace, usually actually visualizing hugging whatever negative thing was happening. Sometimes I would say out loud, "I love you." Sometimes I would focus on my reactions to what was happening more than what was happening. I think I picked this up from my Buddhist time when I practiced mindfulness meditation. This is what fear feels like. This is how fear affects my mind and body, etc. This created space between my awareness and whatever difficult thing was happening.

Sometimes the bad experience was good because it would point my attention, unflinchingly, at some aspect of myself that needed examining, but that I didn't want to look at. That is different, though, then the type of experience you described on ketamine.

And sometimes nothing worked and the mushrooms just had their way with me, and the learning was done afterwards, reflecting on the experience. When reflecting, I wouldn't just blame it on some chemical, but I would try to see how my reactions, thoughts, etc., caused difficulty.

For those reading and wondering how in the world did we get to a discussion of psychedelics (ha!), I just want to reiterate that my time with psychedelic spirituality was NOT about partying. It was about exploring the mind and mysticism. I never thought of myself as "taking drugs." I would usually wander alone in the vast desert behind my house at the time, seeking spirit and understanding. It was a very important part of my journey to God.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't have experience with ketamine, so I can't speak directly to how it works. My strongest experience was with DMT, but I didn't have a bad trip. I "sat up" (participated) in a couple of Native American Church peyote ceremonies. I didn't have a difficult time there, but I think that was due to the setting. It was a complete religious ceremony with all details having spiritual significance. It honestly never felt like I was "tripping" and my first time when the ceremony ended at dawn and we stepped out of the teepee I was surprised at how "high" I was. It was all perfectly "normal" in the teepee during the ceremony, if that makes sense.

My most difficult trips were on high doses of psilocybin mushrooms. While LSD can be strong, I always felt like I could control it more. I could direct it where I wanted it to go. With mushrooms, however, I feel like the organic component asserts itself. On high doses I couldn't control it. My biggest tool for not spiraling out is actually kind of cliche. I would let go. Instead of fighting the feelings, the fear, the disturbing visuals, I would give in to them. I would let my eyes go out of focus and in my mind embrace, usually actually visualizing hugging whatever negative thing was happening. Sometimes I would say out loud, "I love you." Sometimes I would focus on my reactions to what was happening more than what was happening. I think I picked this up from my Buddhist time when I practiced mindfulness meditation. This is what fear feels like. This is how fear affects my mind and body, etc. This created space between my awareness and whatever difficult thing was happening.

Sometimes the bad experience was good because it would point my attention, unflinchingly, at some aspect of myself that needed examining, but that I didn't want to look at. That is different, though, then the type of experience you described on ketamine.

And sometimes nothing worked and the mushrooms just had their way with me, and the learning was done afterwards, reflecting on the experience. When reflecting, I wouldn't just blame it on some chemical, but I would try to see how my reactions, thoughts, etc., caused difficulty.

For those reading and wondering how in the world did we get to a discussion of psychedelics (ha!), I just want to reiterate that my time with psychedelic spirituality was NOT about partying. It was about exploring the mind and mysticism. I never thought of myself as "taking drugs." I would usually wander alone in the vast desert behind my house at the time, seeking spirit and understanding. It was a very important part of my journey to God.

What are your thoughts on if Joseph Smith used them for his journey to God?

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What are your thoughts on if Joseph Smith used them for his journey to God?

Well, as a faithful Catholic, I'd say if he did, it didn't get him far enough along the journey  

[Stargazer]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What are your thoughts on if Joseph Smith used them for his journey to God?

@MiserereNobis's remark to this made me laugh, but I'd have to say that if the vision or revelation depends upon some kind of chemical influence, then it's not from God. If you've deliberately impaired your brain, then what you're going to get isn't some great wisdom. God doesn't dwell in drugs. It might be fun, and it might be interesting, and it might even develop thoughts that benefit you in some way. I'm not going to say that there is absolutely no value in it. But God doesn't need drugs to give you revelation. I'd go so far as to say that drugs would more likely impair your ability to receive genuine revelation.

I feel like mentioning an experience I once had. It was back in 1970ish when I had been given the assignment to give a 5 minute talk in Sunday School opening exercises. I was about 17 or 18. I prepared the talk, came up with a lightly amusing quip to start with, and stood at the pulpit. I got partway through the quip, then something happened to the punchline, such that it was no longer an amusing anecdote but a serious question, and what followed had nothing whatsoever to do with my prepared talk. I didn't know what was coming out of my mouth except just a few words before I said them. I have completely forgotten the subject of the talk I prepared, but the talk I was given was about the need for bearing testimony. It happened to be Fast Sunday, by the way. Anyway, the words just kept coming until the talk was finished, and I closed it the usual way and sat down. I was completely stunned. I knew where it all came from, who it came from, and it was amazing. But I was fully in possession of myself; my mind was on nominal; there was no diversion from chemicals, and I was in full control of my body and my mind. I could have broken off at any time without any trouble at all.

A God that requires chemicals to dispense revelation is not a God.

[MiserereNobis]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If you've deliberately impaired your brain, then what you're going to get isn't some great wisdom.

I understand your point, and I don't mean to quibble, but didn't feel then and I don't feel now that my experience was "impairing" my brain. Psychedelics are a strange class of "drugs." They can misused, abused, and cause problems, certainly. But they can also, if used deliberately, sincerely, and with true intent, teach us some things, good things.

I can trace a clear path from my psychedelic spirituality to Catholicism. Now, since you're LDS, this is probably a good argument against psychedelic spirituality 😁

I haven't taken psychedelics in years, and I can't imagine a scenario where I would -- I'm past that stage in my journey now -- but it was an important part, and it was good, and I think all good things come from God.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, kllindley said:

You made me think of this series of articles: https://www.ldsphilosopher.com/series/who-is-truth/

Their intro says:  "When asked, “How can we know the truth?” Christ answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the light.” What if we take this seriously? If we see truth as a person, instead of as a set of ideas, how does this change the way we think about our faith?"

It's not exactly Rorty, but it contrasts a Hebraic view of truth with the later Hellenistic view.  It's hard to wrap my head around, but it is interesting.

Well there is a way that this works, and it is in the sense Jesus is the PERSONIFICATION of Truth, that we see him AS truth in the same sense in which God is the personification of Goodness.  It is an elevation in the way we see him as not a mere human - yet like us in a way.

Suppose we had the actual Gold Plates.   How would we treat them?  As an artifact?   Where would they be in a museum case or hidden in a place we regard as "sacred" like the temple?

What makes a place "sacred" to us?  What makes a person into "God" or "Truth itself"?   I would suggest it is a change in the way WE humans see things, just as a hallucination can be "seen as" a vision depending on its context.

How do we see the temple?   It is a building but what makes it special to us psychologically and what elevates and sanctifies it as an object?   It is bricks and mortar and The Christ is a human body- yet much more.

"Blue" is electrochemical changes in our brain reflecting what we call by Words- yet much more.

The richness of the color experience is not contained in the description of chemical changes.   Green is a restful color and red is not- what IS the difference? Seeing AS!

What makes a piece of bread into the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?

SEEING it that way!   The change in context is the change in meaning

What makes a little boy into the Prophet or Pope?  Seeing him that way- the change in context IS the change in meaning and IS the "reality" since we have no other way to measure or show the "reality" of such things

The Hebraic view, as you have pointed out, sees - Jehovah/the Word/ Jesus the Annointed One as one made in the image of God- a Human person yet sanctified infinitely over us.

I have been reading / watching a lot of Robert Barron"s work- he is a Catholic Bishop who actually understands philosophy and knows how to explain it.  

I highly recommend taking an hour out of your life and listening to this, it could change your life or the way you see how we create our worlds, and also how God created this one by The Word- or Words- or Descriptions.  Read Genesis 1 again and notice how many times The Word "calls" reality AS WE KNOW IT into existence through naming.  "And the called the light and dark day...." thereby defining time by The Word "day".   One cycle of dark and light- extended by repeated cycles creates the idea and word "Time" and therefore the idea of "Before" and "After" in our sequential memories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzCPu_lEhe8

And I do not necessarily see that as a metaphor- it is based on a very interesting way of seeing religion, and how we sanctify things and mentally raise them to another degree of holiness than they ordinarily would be- 

Ann Taves has her theory about the origin of the plates with which I cannot agree- yet she DOES capture the way we are able to make things or people "SACRED"

And I would say that that is the process in miracles in general- the change in perception- the change in the way we SEE and experience the world around us.

And that is straight out of contemporary, atheistic philosophy which is used against us, while it is actually the best support secularly we have for our position.   We are the ultimate humanists- human words create reality AS HUMANS KNOW IT, through a glass darkly.

Now look at one aspect of our sacrament prayer and see what is really happening.   Does it differ from "This IS my Body"?

Quote

 

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son,

 

What is our request?  "TO SANCTIFY the bread TO THE SOULS of all those who partake...."

We are asking THE WORD to make the bread sanctified- or lifted above normal reality- with its definition now changed into "bread made holy" (the meaning of "sanctified bread")  TO THE SOULS OF THOSE WHO PARTAKE OF IT.... .

The Word makes it SANCTIFIED.   And literally the word "sanctified"- MAKES it actually "sanctified" for those within the language game (Wittgenstein) of the community!   And a given community creates a language that creates a culture and creates a reality as the people inside the culture see it.  "I confer upon you the Priesthood"....  "Sister Jones... I set you apart as a temple ordinance worker..."

And so it is, and so they are.

I recall the words "Brother Bukowski, I have been authorized by the First Presidency of the church to CALL you to the position of Bishop within the xyz Ward.....   If that doesn't give you the willies, nothing will....    Shock and terror personified! 

But the Word makes it so.

We say "I know the church is true" while really what we mean is that "living the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as taught by this church are true, for I have experienced them first hand in my life, and they work".  Buildings are not true any more than people are true or bread is sanctified to a purpose.

Yet though I can see that there could be a sense in which we can see the Word as truth itself, as the personification- the sanctification- of words into The Word created by the context of the language.

And I find it odd that the Manifesto eschews literalism except for this one phrase- which seems to me to be VERY much like "This is my body" as understood within the Catholic community.

Wow.  This went a little longer than I had thought.... 

 

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

OK, here you go:

"Blue: The eye perceives blue when observing light with a dominant wavelength between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres."

There's the definition.  

No way. 

Definitions ought to be logical synonyms for the term- and statements about light wavelengths are clearly not.  Your statement does not capture the color nor does it do so in a way which communicates the EXPERIENCE of seeing something red.   When I talk about "crimson" I am not speaking about wavelengths.

This is called "reductionism" and it simply doesn't work.  You are mixing subjective and objective metaphors - and saying nothing about the subjective experience.   There is no logical equivalence between statements about wavelengths.

What you are now doing is like defining the experience of Beethoven's Fifth to wavelengths of sound.  Unsatisifactory.

Thomas Nagel, an actual philosopher  has affected the philosophical view of the "mind/body problem" with his essay "What is it like to be a bat?"

Yes it's a funny name but it changed the way the question is seen in philosophy

And if Joseph Smith saw blue in his vision - was he seeing a wavelength of light?  Or was it all "in his head"?   For practical purposes about what he learned, what difference does it make?

Here we are believing what he told us, and find that it changes our lives on hearsay without any link to his experience except what he wrote.

 Do you believe that he had a vision?  Please explain his subjective vision using the same subjective context he did in his descriptions of the event -   - just kidding I know you cannot -

Yet this article is from an atheist- or actually one who "hopes" there is no God because he knows he cannot prove it- and an eminent philosopher- the end of the essay mentioned above.

If you want a fully secular argument for religious experience- here it is, written by an atheist!

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf

Quote

 

We appear to be faced with a general difficulty about psycho- physical reduction. In other areas the process of reduction is a move in the direction of greater objectivity, toward a more accurate view of the real nature of things. This is accomplished by reducing our dependence on individual or species-specific points of view toward the object of investigation. We describe it not in terms of the impressions it makes on our senses, but in terms of its more general effects and of properties detectable by means other than the human senses. The less it depends on a specifically human viewpoint, the more objective is our description. It is possible to follow this path because although the concepts and ideas we employ in thinking about the external world are initially applied from a point of view that involves our perceptual apparatus, they are used by us to refer to things beyond themselves- toward which we have the phenomenal point of view. Therefore we can abandon it in favor of another, and still be thinking about the same things.

Experience itself, however, does not seem to fit the pattern. The idea of moving from appearance to reality seems to make no sense here. What is the analogue in this case to pursuing a more objective understanding of the same phenomena by abandoning the initial subjective viewpoint toward them in favor of another that is more objective but concerns the same thing? Certainly it appears unlikely that we will get closer to the real nature of human experience by leaving behind the particularity of our human point of view and striving for a description in terms accessible to beings that could not imagine what it was like to be us.

If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to greater objectivity -that is, less attachment to a specific viewpoint-does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us farther away from it. In a sense, the seeds of this objection to the reducibility of experience are already detectable in successful cases of reduction; for in discovering sound to be, in reality, a wave phenomenon in air or other media, we leave behind one viewpoint to take up another, and the auditory, human or animal viewpoint that we leave behind remains unreduced. Members of radically different species may both understand the same physical events in objective terms, and this does not require that they understand the phenomenal forms in which those events appear to the senses of members of the other species. Thus it is a condition of their refer- ring to a common reality that their more particular viewpoints are not part of the common reality that they both apprehend. The reduction can succeed only if the species-specific viewpoint is omitted from what is to be reduced. But while we are right to leave this point of view aside in seeking a fuller understanding of the external world, we cannot ignore it permanently, since it is the essence of the internal world, and not merely a point of view on it. Most of the neobehaviorism of recent philosophical psychology results from the effort to substitute an objective concept of mind for the real thing, in order to have nothing left over which cannot be reduced. If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the sub- jective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done. 

...A Martian scientist with no understanding of visual perception could under- stand the rainbow, or lightning, or clouds as physical phenomena, though he would never be able to understand the human concepts of rainbow, lightning, or cloud, or the place these things occupy in our phenomenal world. The objective nature of the things picked out by these concepts could be apprehended by him because, although the concepts themselves are connected with a particular point of view and a particular visual phenomenology, the things apprehended from that point of view are not: they are observable from the point of view but external to it; hence they can be comprehended from other points of view also, either by the same organisms or by others. Lightning has an objective character that is not exhausted by its visual appearance, and this can be investigated by a Martian without vision. To be precise, it has a more objective character than is revealed in its visual appearance. In speaking of the move from subjective to objective characterization, I wish to remain noncommittal about the existence of an end point, the completely objective intrinsic nature of the thing, which one might or might not be able to reach. It may be more accurate to think of objectivity as a direction in which the understanding can travel. And in understanding a phenomenon like lightning, it is legitimate to go as far away as one can from a strictly human viewpoint.9 In the case of experience, on the other hand, the connection with a particular point of view seems much closer. It is difficult to understand what could be meant by the objective character of an experience, apart from the particular point of view from which its subject apprehends it.

After all, what would be left of what it was like to be a bat if one removed the viewpoint of the bat? But if experience does not have, in addition to its subjective character, an objective nature that can be apprehended from a particular  point of view, then any shift to greater objectivity -that is, less attachment to a specific viewpoint-does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us farther away from it. In a sense, the seeds of this objection to the reducibility of experience are already detectable in successful cases of reduction; for in discovering sound to be, in reality, a wave phenomenon in air or other media, we leave behind one viewpoint to take up another, and the auditory, human or animal viewpoint that we leave behind remains unreduced. Members of radically different species may both understand the same physical events in objective terms, and this does not require that they understand the phenomenal forms in which those events appear to the senses of members of the other species. Thus it is a condition of their refer- ring to a common reality that their more particular viewpoints are not part of the common reality that they both apprehend. The reduction can succeed only if the species-specific viewpoint is omitted from what is to be reduced. But while we are right to leave this point of view aside in seeking a fuller understanding of the external world, we cannot ignore it permanently, since it is the essence of the internal world, and not merely a point of view on it. Most of the neobehaviorism of recent philosophical psychology results from the effort to substitute an objective concept of mind for the real thing, in order to have nothing left over which cannot be reduced. If we acknowledge that a physical theory of mind must account for the subjective character of experience, we must admit that no presently available conception gives us a clue how this could be done. ...

...Does it make sense, in other words, to ask what my experiences are really like, as opposed to how they appear to me? We cannot genuinely understand the hypothesis that their nature is captured in a physical description unless we understand the more fundamental idea that they have an objective nature (or that objective processes can have a subjective nature).14

 

.....I should like to close with a speculative proposal. It may be possible to approach the gap between subjective and objective from another direction. Setting aside temporarily the relation between the mind and the brain, we can pursue a more objective understanding of the mental in its own right. At present we are completely unequipped to think about the subjective character of experience without relying on the imagination-without taking up the point of view of the experiential subject. This should be regarded as a challenge to form new concepts and devise a new method-an objective phenomenology not dependent on empathy or the imagination. Though presumably it would not capture everything, its goal would be to describe, at least in part, the subjective character of experiences in a form comprehensible to beings incapable of having those experiences. We would have to develop such a phenomenology to describe the sonar experiences of bats; but it would also be possible to begin with humans. One might try, for example, to develop concepts that could be used to explain to a person blind from birth what it was like to see. One would reach a blank wall eventually, but it should be possible to devise a method of expressing in objective terms much more than we can at present, and with much greater precision. The loose intermodal analogies-for example, "Red is like the sound of a trumpet"-which crop up in discussions of this subject are of little use. That should be clear to anyone who has both heard a trumpet and seen red. But structural features of perception might be more accessible to objective description, even though something would be left out. And concepts alternative to those we learn in the first person may enable us to arrive at a kind of understanding even of our own experience which is denied us by the very ease of description and lack of distance that subjective concepts afford. Apart from its own interest, a phenomenology that is in this sense objective may permit questions about the physical15 basis of experience to assume a more intelligible form. Aspects of sub- jective experience that admitted this kind of objective description might be better candidates for objective explanations of a more familiar sort. But whether or not this guess is correct, it seems unlikely that any physical theory of mind can be contemplated until more thought has been given to the general problem of subjective and objective. Otherwise we cannot even pose the mind- body problem without sidestepping it.16 THOMAS NAGEL

And so as a subjective experience, Nagel himself must admit that religious experiences are "real" for those receiving them.

So if anyone says they EXPERIENCE Christ as "TRUTH", great.

In my daily conversations with Him, I do not doubt for one second what he teaches me but I do not experience HIM as "Truth".

I experience Him as my Father, as another Intelligence infinitely beyond mine with whom I can communicate, but never have I experienced Christ as "Truth".

Edited December 3, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Peacefully]

On 12/1/2020 at 1:00 PM, Nofear said:

Several good intellectual saints have signed this. I would too.

https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/

I’m not sure I understand the purpose of signing something like this.

[MiserereNobis]

I dig how the thread on Radical Orthodoxy is now about psychedelics and the philosophical question of truth. It's why I've now spent 8 years here with you good folk  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

@MiserereNobis

A God that requires chemicals to dispense revelation is not a God.

Uh, I missed that.

Where did anyone say "God requires chemicals"?

And then you argue for chemicals being a good definition for the experience of blue?

Uh, mi amigo, I think we have here a logical problem...   Luv ya dude but if brain chemicals are not involved in religious experience,.....   I am stumped in how they happen.

Does the experience cause the chemical reaction or does the chemical reaction cause the experience?

How are we to figure that one out?  And do brain chemicals cause one to seek other brain chemicals in the decision or not?

I'm in a tizzy.... 

😘

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

@MiserereNobis's remark to this made me laugh, but I'd have to say that if the vision or revelation depends upon some kind of chemical influence, then it's not from God. If you've deliberately impaired your brain, then what you're going to get isn't some great wisdom. God doesn't dwell in drugs. It might be fun, and it might be interesting, and it might even develop thoughts that benefit you in some way. I'm not going to say that there is absolutely no value in it. But God doesn't need drugs to give you revelation. I'd go so far as to say that drugs would more likely impair your ability to receive genuine revelation.

I feel like mentioning an experience I once had. It was back in 1970ish when I had been given the assignment to give a 5 minute talk in Sunday School opening exercises. I was about 17 or 18. I prepared the talk, came up with a lightly amusing quip to start with, and stood at the pulpit. I got partway through the quip, then something happened to the punchline, such that it was no longer an amusing anecdote but a serious question, and what followed had nothing whatsoever to do with my prepared talk. I didn't know what was coming out of my mouth except just a few words before I said them. I have completely forgotten the subject of the talk I prepared, but the talk I was given was about the need for bearing testimony. It happened to be Fast Sunday, by the way. Anyway, the words just kept coming until the talk was finished, and I closed it the usual way and sat down. I was completely stunned. I knew where it all came from, who it came from, and it was amazing. But I was fully in possession of myself; my mind was on nominal; there was no diversion from chemicals, and I was in full control of my body and my mind. I could have broken off at any time without any trouble at all.

A God that requires chemicals to dispense revelation is not a God.

Thanks for that story, I've never had that happen to me. How would that be!

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

@MiserereNobis's remark to this made me laugh, but I'd have to say that if the vision or revelation depends upon some kind of chemical influence, then it's not from God. If you've deliberately impaired your brain, then what you're going to get isn't some great wisdom. God doesn't dwell in drugs. It might be fun, and it might be interesting, and it might even develop thoughts that benefit you in some way. I'm not going to say that there is absolutely no value in it. But God doesn't need drugs to give you revelation. I'd go so far as to say that drugs would more likely impair your ability to receive genuine revelation.

I feel like mentioning an experience I once had. It was back in 1970ish when I had been given the assignment to give a 5 minute talk in Sunday School opening exercises. I was about 17 or 18. I prepared the talk, came up with a lightly amusing quip to start with, and stood at the pulpit. I got partway through the quip, then something happened to the punchline, such that it was no longer an amusing anecdote but a serious question, and what followed had nothing whatsoever to do with my prepared talk. I didn't know what was coming out of my mouth except just a few words before I said them. I have completely forgotten the subject of the talk I prepared, but the talk I was given was about the need for bearing testimony. It happened to be Fast Sunday, by the way. Anyway, the words just kept coming until the talk was finished, and I closed it the usual way and sat down. I was completely stunned. I knew where it all came from, who it came from, and it was amazing. But I was fully in possession of myself; my mind was on nominal; there was no diversion from chemicals, and I was in full control of my body and my mind. I could have broken off at any time without any trouble at all.

A God that requires chemicals to dispense revelation is not a God.

Thanks for sharing that experience.  Sincerely.

Can I ask why you were asked to give a talk on fast sunday?  Did they not do a testimony meeting usually?

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/1/2020 at 3:08 PM, Rain said:

"This polarization is driving members of the Church to spiritually dangerous extremes, tempting some Latter-day Saints to reduce fidelity to knee-jerk traditionalism and others to abandon fidelity for worldly philosophies."

Why would reducing fidelity to knee jerk traditionalism be a temptation/bad thing? I can see that traditions can be good.  "Knee jerk" not so much.   

If it aint knee-jerk, it aint me.

And I mean that.

Truth is truth. Doesnt' change w/ the times

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No way. 

Yes, way.  

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Definitions ought to be logical synonyms for the term- and statements about light wavelengths are clearly not.  Your statement does not capture the color nor does it do so in a way which communicates the EXPERIENCE of seeing something red.   When I talk about "crimson" I am not speaking about wavelengths.

You better believe that if I build a device that passes an electric current through a wire, and this current causes the wire to emit light of a frequency that falls within the frequency of such-and-such nanometers wavelength that corresponds with the color blue, you will see blue.  You can talk and talk until you turn blue, but never will your talk generate blue light.

Words are not reality. Words only describe reality, and sometimes pretty darn poorly. Of course, words have their own beauty when communicating thoughts. But words, again, are not reality. And a blind man will not see blue, whether demonstrated or described in words.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is called "reductionism" and it simply doesn't work.  You are mixing subjective and objective metaphors - and saying nothing about the subjective experience.   There is no logical equivalence between statements about wavelengths.

What you are now doing is like defining the experience of Beethoven's Fifth to wavelengths of sound.  Unsatisifactory.

Yet I can present notations on a musical scale, speak no words at all, and a competent musician can reproduce Beethoven's beautiful symphony so that it may be heard. But your description of the symphony, however many words long it is, nor how sonorous your speech, will not allow your interlocutor to hear it.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thomas Nagel, an actual philosopher  has affected the philosophical view of the "mind/body problem" with his essay "What is it like to be a bat?"

Yes it's a funny name but it changed the way the question is seen in philosophy

And if Joseph Smith saw blue in his vision - was he seeing a wavelength of light?  Or was it all "in his head"?   For practical purposes about what he learned, what difference does it make?

Here we are believing what he told us, and find that it changes our lives on hearsay without any link to his experience except what he wrote.

 Do you believe that he had a vision?  Please explain his subjective vision using the same subjective context he did in his descriptions of the event -   - just kidding I know you cannot -

Yet this article is from an atheist- or actually one who "hopes" there is no God because he knows he cannot prove it- and an eminent philosopher- the end of the essay mentioned above.

If you want a fully secular argument for religious experience- here it is, written by an atheist!

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf

And so as a subjective experience, Nagel himself must admit that religious experiences are "real" for those receiving them.

So if anyone says they EXPERIENCE Christ as "TRUTH", great.

In my daily conversations with Him, I do not doubt for one second what he teaches me but I do not experience HIM as "Truth".

I experience Him as my Father, as another Intelligence infinitely beyond mine with whom I can communicate, but never have I experienced Christ as "Truth".

This is why I love you, Mark. You can spin the most lovely of verbal cloth, but I still can't quite follow what you're saying. Well, a little.

But I can play and sing the Beatles' "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" on my guitar, and everyone will cringe. On the other hand, if you try to explain the song, the best you will get is a puzzled look.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for that story, I've never had that happen to me. How would that be!

It's only happened to me the one time. These days, the Lord makes me come up with my own words. That day, he wanted it done just that way and no other. I guess.

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for sharing that experience.  Sincerely.

Can I ask why you were asked to give a talk on fast sunday?  Did they not do a testimony meeting usually?

Ah, you are so young, bluebell! As I said, this was in 1970ish, before the consolidated meeting schedule was brought into being. Back in those days, Primary and Relief Society meetings were held during a weekday morning or afternoon (because most women didn't work, theoretically anyway), Priesthood was early Sunday morning, Sunday School was shortly thereafter, and Sacrament meeting was held in the afternoon or early evening. In some wards, you had to come to church three times each Sunday, depending upon how many wards there were in a building.

And back in those days of yore, Sunday School was about 1 1/2 hours long and consisted of:

• opening exercises in the chapel,
  • which began with an opening hymn and invocation,
  • followed by the sacrament (yes, if you went to both Sunday School and Sacrament meeting that day, you'd partake of the sacrament twice),
  • then a couple of short talks (either 2 1/2 minutes or 5 minutes long),
  • followed by a hymn practice for the entire congregation, and finally
• division into Sunday School classes.
• Closing prayers would occur in the classes.

This Sunday School schedule would occur every Sunday, including Fast Sunday. Testimony bearing would take place in Sacrament Meeting, but not Sunday School.

In the branch of the church in England, where I was at the time, Priesthood meeting was at 7:30 am, Sunday School at either 9 or 10 am (can't remember which), and Sacrament Meeting was at 5 pm. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Stargazer