Einstein, Barker, and Jesus on New Wine needing New Wine Bottles

[Kevin Christensen]

My first accepted LDS publication was a Dialogue essay called "New Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural Scholarship as Sacrament," riffing on how different observations and different contextualizations for LDS creation accounts can make a huge difference in faith outcomes. I drew Thomas Kuhn as well as on the image from Matthew 9:16-17.

Quote

16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

The immediate context for this parable was the presence of some critics who are questioning why Jesus eats with "Publicans and sinners" and disciples of John asking "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?"  Beyond the apt answers to specific complaints, Jesus then addressed the need of the compulsive complainers to reframe some issues, to not try to maximize tension by shoving new information into traditional thinking that cannot contain it.

I have an old t-shirt from work, with an Einstein quote on the back:

Quote

"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them."

That is, if you keep trying to pour new observations into a container that simply cannot handle them, get a new container.  Einstein here notes that for many issues, the solution to the problem requires a different level of thinking.

In answering a question as to what advice she would give scholars, Margaret Barker had this to say:

Quote

What do I say to independent scholars?

First, read Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, first published 50 years ago, and see how changes come about. Although written about a world very different from biblical studies, it shows how establishments resist changes until in the end the next generation [us!] forces a paradigm shift. The current paradigm is going towards a non-faith-based study, which has no future. By this I do not mean simply that the study is not faith-based; it is based on non-faith, and so criticism does not mean close study; it so often means destructive study. New paradigms emerge from those aware of the crisis, who recognise that the situation is not likely to be remedied by the methods that caused it.

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2012/11/by-margaret-barker-what-do-i-say.html

Note to those in crisis: "The situation is not likely to be remedied by the methods that caused it."   "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them."  "Put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved."

It begins with self reflection, thinking about our own internalized-to-the-point-of-unconscious assumptions.  That is, as Jesus says, examining the beams in our own eye (Matt 7:1-5), and recognizing that they exist, that they obscure our vision and affect what we choose to see and how we process what we see, what we notice, and what we value as good, bad, important, or insignificant.  Removing them is a prelude to "seeing clearly."  Alma 32 lays out how that works.

Quote

Ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

Oh then, is this not real?  

I say unto you, yea, because it is light, and whatsoever is light is good.

Because it is discernable, therefore ye must know that it is good;

And now behold, after you have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

Behold I say unto you, Nay;

Neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only excercised your  faith to plant the seed that ye may try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

...And now behold, if ye nourish it with great care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

So, at 67, I can look at the process over time.

In dealing with some questions in the late 80s, I had to change my thinking.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V24N03_123.pdf

Had I not done so, had I shattered, rather than shifted thinking, there is much fruit that would not have grown.  For instance,

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/biblio?f[author]=448

And much that I would have missed, via Maxwell Institute, FAIR, and Interpreter, many scholars exploring areas that are far beyond my knowledge and expertise, and much more, as well as this:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/

Had I shattered it would not be:

Quote

because the seed was not good, neither because the fruit thereof would not be desirable, but because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

So I have been blessed, and am continually amazed, rather than fretful and cynical.  Worth it. Ask Bing Crosby.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 23, 2021 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[bOObOO]

29 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

... Jesus then addressed the need of the compulsive complainers to reframe some issues, to not try to maximize tension by shoving new information into traditional thinking that cannot contain it.

I have an old t-short from work, with an Einstein quote on the back:

That is, if you keep trying to pour new observations into a container that simply cannot handle them, get a new container.  Einstein here notes that for many issues, the solution to the problem requires a different level of thinking.

In answering a question as to what advice she would give scholars, Margaret Barker had this to say:

http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2012/11/by-margaret-barker-what-do-i-say.html

Note to those in crisis: "The situation is not likely to be remedied by the methods that caused it."   "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them."  "Put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved."

It begins with self reflection, thinking about our own internalized-to-the-point-of-unconscious assumptions.  That is, as Jesus says, examining the beams in our own eye (Matt 7:1-5), and recognizing that they exist, that they obscure our vision and affect what we choose to see and how we process what we see, what we notice, and what we value as good, bad, important, or insignificant.  Removing them is a prelude to "seeing clearly."  Alma 32 lays out how that works.

So, at 67, I can look at the process over time.

In dealing with some questions in the late 80s, I had to change my thinking.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V24N03_123.pdf

Had I not done so, had I shattered, rather than shifted thinking, there is much fruit that would not have grown.  For instance,

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/biblio?f[author]=448

And much that I would have missed, via Maxwell Institute, FAIR, and Interpreter, many scholars exploring areas that are far beyond my knowledge and expertise, and much more, as well as this:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/

Had I shattered it would not be:

So I have been blessed, and am continually amazed, rather than fretful and cynical.  Worth it. Ask Bing Crosby.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Great advice for anybody who is trying to learn or just understand something new to oneself.  To rephrase I would say the Lord meant that we need to try to look at an issue with an open mind, unrestricted by what we think we already know. 

And then at that point, when we think we understand the new issue, we can then compare our past and present perceptions and decide if we want to put that new wine into our newly opened bottles.

I could tell you some stories about how being stubbornly cynical could have stopped me from learning some things that I know now.  Stuck in the mud thinking that could have kept me just constantly spinning my wheels while going nowhere.

Not a pleasant picture, to think of how limited and lacking in intelligence that I could have still been now had I not learned the truth that has been restored in these latter days by the Lord through his prophet Joseph Smith.

[Navidad]

Hi Kevin: I just read your new post. In it you used the phrase "our own internalized-to-the-point-of unconscious assumptions." I really like that quote a lot. Is it yours or from some other source?  I find that wording very helpful. Our assumptions about people often overwhelm our interactions with them and are certainly often unconscious. Those assumptions certainly might inhibit our learning more about them.

I really do not know the protocol about using a phrase like this from this board? Is a citation necessary? Should it not be done because there is an implied confidentiality about things posted here? Or is it implied that things posted here become public info?  At any rate, thanks for the phrase. I really like it. It says a lot in a few words. Your posts always make me think.

[Meadowchik]

This is a great general principle, and good reminder for my own life. Thanks for talking about it.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Note to those in crisis: "The situation is not likely to be remedied by the methods that caused it."   "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them."  "Put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved."

There is a paradox in logic called the liar's paradox, in Greek philosophy which is older than New Testament times, and some believe that the answer might have influenced the scriptural passages above.

It based on the paradox created by someone saying "Everything I say is a lie". Your task is to determine if that is a true statement.

One of the solutions, worked out by Tarski, entails creating a hierarchy of languages to move the context of the question to a higher "level", a meta level, which asks questions about what the liar WOULD say IF a given question were asked.

See the Tarski section in this article 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/#TarsHierLang

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a paradox in logic called the liar's paradox, in Greek philosophy which is older than New Testament times, and some believe that the answer might have influenced the scriptural passages above.

It based on the paradox created by someone saying "Everything I say is a lie". Your task is to determine if that is a true statement.

One of the solutions, worked out by Tarski, entails creating a hierarchy of languages to move the context of the question to a higher "level", a meta level, which asks questions about what the liar WOULD say IF a given question were asked.

See the Tarski section in this article 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/#TarsHierLang

 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 7/22/2021 at 1:12 PM, Navidad said:

Hi Kevin: I just read your new post. In it you used the phrase "our own internalized-to-the-point-of unconscious assumptions." I really like that quote a lot. Is it yours or from some other source?  I find that wording very helpful. Our assumptions about people often overwhelm our interactions with them and are certainly often unconscious. Those assumptions certainly might inhibit our learning more about them.

I really do not know the protocol about using a phrase like this from this board? Is a citation necessary? Should it not be done because there is an implied confidentiality about things posted here? Or is it implied that things posted here become public info?  At any rate, thanks for the phrase. I really like it. It says a lot in a few words. Your posts always make me think.

Hi Navidad,

The quote is mine, though of course, the thought grew out of a range of inputs from other people, ranging from Kuhn, Ian Barbour, Hofstadter, the Perry Scheme, scripture, and Alan Goff's articles on ideology and positivism in the old Review, in Interpreter, and such.  And odd little expressions like "We don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't the fish" and "To a mouse, cheese is cheese: that is why mousetraps work."

I consider this a public board, and I use my own face and name so as to make sure I am both accountable and responsible, so if you find the phrase useful, help yourself.

Thanks for the comments.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 23, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[bOObOO]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a paradox in logic called the liar's paradox, in Greek philosophy which is older than New Testament times, and some believe that the answer might have influenced the scriptural passages above.

It based on the paradox created by someone saying "Everything I say is a lie". Your task is to determine if that is a true statement.

One of the solutions, worked out by Tarski, entails creating a hierarchy of languages to move the context of the question to a higher "level", a meta level, which asks questions about what the liar WOULD say IF a given question were asked.

See the Tarski section in this article 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liar-paradox/#TarsHierLang

Seems simple enough to prove if everything someone says is a lie.  If everything I say is a lie then what I just said must be true ("everything I say is a lie") and therefore not everything I say is a lie.

I don't understand what you meant when you said (in writing) that the answer might have been influenced the scriptural passages above.

[Warlock]

57 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Seems simple enough to prove if everything someone says is a lie.  If everything I say is a lie then what I just said must be true ("everything I say is a lie") and therefore not everything I say is a lie.

I don't understand what you meant when you said (in writing) that the answer might have been influenced the scriptural passages above.

So true

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

Seems simple enough to prove if everything someone says is a lie.  If everything I say is a lie then what I just said must be true ("everything I say is a lie") and therefore not everything I say is a lie.

I don't understand what you meant when you said (in writing) that the answer might have been influenced the scriptural passages above.

Of course you read the article?

I simplified it.

The paradox was discussed as early as 300 BCE. 

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course you read the article?

I simplified it.

The paradox was discussed as early as 300 BCE. 

If you're ignoring the fact that everything we discuss on this planet has already been discussed on an infinite number of other planets then, okay, I can see why you would say that.  I believe everything that happens here has happened before, infinitely.

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

If you're ignoring the fact that everything we discuss on this planet has already been discussed on an infinite number of other planets then, okay, I can see why you would say that.  I believe everything that happens here has happened before, infinitely.

Unfortunately I have trouble communicating with alien races.

I know you do not, Ahab.

 

 

[The Nehor]

On 7/23/2021 at 12:06 PM, bOObOO said:

Seems simple enough to prove if everything someone says is a lie.  If everything I say is a lie then what I just said must be true ("everything I say is a lie") and therefore not everything I say is a lie.

I don't understand what you meant when you said (in writing) that the answer might have been influenced the scriptural passages above.

It is a paradox. There is no answer without going meta beyond the statement itself. You didn’t just solve it.

[The Nehor]

On 7/23/2021 at 3:29 PM, bOObOO said:

If you're ignoring the fact that everything we discuss on this planet has already been discussed on an infinite number of other planets then, okay, I can see why you would say that.  I believe everything that happens here has happened before, infinitely.

Everything? So there are other mes out there. An infinite number of them. If everything has happened before then this exact earth must have happened exactly like this one.

That means I have typed this largely pointless comment an infinite number of times stretching back through eternity. Now I am depressed.

[bOObOO]

On 7/25/2021 at 7:42 AM, The Nehor said:

Everything? So there are other mes out there. An infinite number of them. If everything has happened before then this exact earth must have happened exactly like this one.

That means I have typed this largely pointless comment an infinite number of times stretching back through eternity. Now I am depressed.

Yes, everything, as understood from the appropriate meta level.  The names/words/symbols we use are perhaps different than those used by others before us to express the same thoughts, but the same kinds of things have happened before.

Maybe a McDonald's on some other planet wasn't or isn't called by the name of McDonald's on those other planets, for example, even though those restaurants served or serve the same foods prepared in the same way.  We (our species) has cows and wheat on those other planets, too, don't you know, even if those of our species call cows and wheat by some other names on those planets.

You might want to try to prepare yourself now for a never ending stream of repetition, seeing and being aware of people doing the same kinds of thing over and over again, infinitely.

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Yes, everything, as understood from the appropriate meta level.  The names/words/symbols we use are perhaps different than those used by others before us to express the same thoughts, but the same kinds of things have happened before.

Maybe a McDonald's on some other planet wasn't or isn't called by the name of McDonald's on those other planets, for example, even though those restaurants served or serve the same foods prepared in the same way.  We (our species) has cows and wheat on those other planets, too, don't you know, even if those of our species call cows and wheat by some other names on those planets.

You might want to try to prepare yourself now for a never ending stream of repetition, seeing and being aware of people doing the same kinds of thing over and over again, infinitely.

 

Nah, I am just going to say you are wrong.

[bOObOO]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nah, I am just going to say you are wrong.

Some other people say I am right, but yes there are some who like you instead say I am wrong.  Nothing original coming from you on this point. I am already accustomed to seeing repetition.

[OGHoosier]

7 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Yes, everything, as understood from the appropriate meta level.  The names/words/symbols we use are perhaps different than those used by others before us to express the same thoughts, but the same kinds of things have happened before.

Maybe a McDonald's on some other planet wasn't or isn't called by the name of McDonald's on those other planets, for example, even though those restaurants served or serve the same foods prepared in the same way.  We (our species) has cows and wheat on those other planets, too, don't you know, even if those of our species call cows and wheat by some other names on those planets.

You might want to try to prepare yourself now for a never ending stream of repetition, seeing and being aware of people doing the same kinds of thing over and over again, infinitely.

 

Why would the same events repeat but the names just be different? That seems arbitrary. 

Also I see no reason to believe that the world is just an eternal cycle of repetition from planet to planet. Where does this belief come from?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Why would the same events repeat but the names just be different? That seems arbitrary. 

Also I see no reason to believe that the world is just an eternal cycle of repetition from planet to planet. Where does this belief come from?

I agree, it is ridiculous. It would entail determinism on steroids, and there would be nothing to cause it.

But Nietzsche taught the idea of "Eternal Recurrence" a quasi- ethical position that said we should live AS IF we will repeat every second of our lives repeated again and again eternally - every joy, every pain, and horrible tragedy every mistake,every success, as the utmost AFFIRMATION of our lives as we lived them and wish to repeat it all without regret insatiaby " from the beginning "

One who could do this could be regarded virtually as a god

[Meadowchik]

It is good to return to first principles sometimes, even regularly, with the opportunity to re-evaluate. That might be one way to use "new bottles."

[bOObOO]

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Why would the same events repeat but the names just be different? That seems arbitrary. 

Consider how other people are in the process of learning what you have already learned. And you are still learning too.  Learning is an event.  For another event, consider eating something other people have eaten. Prepared in the same way, the same food.

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Also I see no reason to believe that the world is just an eternal cycle of repetition from planet to planet. Where does this belief come from?

Knowledge that there are other worlds like this one, with the same things on them, created like this one.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree, it is ridiculous. It would entail determinism on steroids, and there would be nothing to cause it.

But Nietzsche taught the idea of "Eternal Recurrence" a quasi- ethical position that said we should live AS IF we will repeat every second of our lives repeated again and again eternally - every joy, every pain, and horrible tragedy every mistake,every success, as the utmost AFFIRMATION of our lives as we lived them and wish to repeat it all without regret insatiaby " from the beginning "

One who could do this could be regarded virtually as a god

I would be much more dangerous if I believed this.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Consider how other people are in the process of learning what you have already learned. And you are still learning too.  Learning is an event.  For another event, consider eating something other people have eaten. Prepared in the same way, the same food.

Knowledge that there are other worlds like this one, with the same things on them, created like this one.

I don't believe there are other worlds exactly like this one. I think the other worlds which the Father has created are likely very different from ours in many ways. I see no reason to believe that they all appear identical to ours. 

 

[bOObOO]

4 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I don't believe there are other worlds exactly like this one. I think the other worlds which the Father has created are likely very different from ours in many ways. I see no reason to believe that they all appear identical to ours. 

 

Considering the way this planet changes its appearance I wonder what you think this planet looks like.  I see constant changes and only similarities.  Sometimes a lot of clouds, sometimes not many, sometimes stormy and sometimes not.  People are not identical either, but we still call all people the same kind of being.  When I begin to explore more out there I will not be expecting to find the variety of creatures I see in Star Wars movies, just more and more people like us and the other creatures we have and have had on this planet.  I neve0r said identical to us.  I said like us.  Rather than humanoids with a face like a walrus or an octopus or a lot of hair like a Wookie or some other strange thing.