The fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ are linked together—inseparably, everlastingly, never to be parted.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:41 PM, Logan said:

@Fair Dinkum

You are correct that according to LDS scripture there was no death anywhere on this earth prior to the fall of Adam and Eve. 

Which in my book means that the theory of unitarian scientists who age life on this earth to be millions of years old is false. 

I don't feel the need to harmonize the word of God with scientific theory. When the two are in direct opposition to each other the choice is simple for me, I choose the word of God over the words of man.

Then there was this Joseph Smith fellow, who at a young age had an important insight that:

Quote

The teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. (JS History, 12)

Jesus himself said of the Parable of the Sower, which was about the fact that the same seeds (that is "words") could produce radically different harvests depending on soil, nuture, treatment, and time, that "know ye not this parable?  How then will ye know all parables?"  (Mark 4:13)

Many years ago I saw a bumper sticker that said, "God said it. I believe it.  That settles it."  I was struck at the similarity to the logic of positivism, as summarized by Ian Barbour in Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion:

Quote

During the 1950’s positivism came under increasing attack, but many of its assumptions were perpetuated in the empiricism which came to replace it as the dominant interpretation of science. Among the empiricist claims were the following. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between theories is rational, objective and in accordance with specifiable criteria.

https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-1-introduction-3/

The problem is, of course, interpretation.  Just as the young Joseph Smith realized.  Data, in science and in scripture reading, inescapably requires interpretation.  Facts do not and cannot speak for themselves.  Ian Barbour's book is very good on this.  I recommend it often.  Written Hebrew is actually a fascinating demonstration of this.  It has no consonants, so in reading, meaning, interpretation has to be  literally breathed into the letters by human readers adding vowels.   And Barker has been very good at showing how often the same constants can have a different meaning by trying out different vowels, breathing in a different reading to the same passages.  So all interpretation is limited based on the theories and ideologies we bring to the data.  As N. R. Hanson famously put it, "All data are theory-laden."

For example, reading Genesis 1 as a history may lead a reader in one direction.  Another reader, Margaret Barker, observes that Genesis 1 and Exodus on the erection of the Tabernacle are closely paralleled, suggesting that Genesis ought to be read as a ritual text, describing the creation of the world symbolically through the erection of a tabernacle, a portable temple, realizing that Temples are models of the cosmos, and ritual erection the tabernacle is, by implication, represents the whole creation.   (See Temple Theology: An Introduction, p 18)

Day 1: Holy of Holies, the throne of God

2 the Veil, the web of matter that separates the throne of God from human perception

3, the table for the bread, the vegetation of the earth

4, the seven branched lamp, the sun the moon and the five known planets

5, the altar for the burnt offering, representing non-human creatures

6, The High Priest, the human as high priest of creation.

So Genesis was a Temple Drama, a ritual to be performed, with actors and sets and props, all representing something not present.  Hugh Nibley's last major essay was titled Abraham's Creation drama, pointing out that our Book of Abraham even includes stage directions.   Much of the problem comes from seeing relative objects as absolutes, for instance, where the Hebrew words for land and earth are the same, reading them as always absolute, rather than relative, rather than noting, as our Book of Moses does, there were many lands, and each land was called earth.

I've occasionally mentioned that I have worked for decades as a technical writer in Computer Aided Engineering, simulation, defining tools for building things spiritually before building them physically, a field where "hierarchy is a strategy for dealing with complexity."  A good example of that stategy is "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?"  The argument turns away from the phenomena at hand, in that case, the words and acts of Jesus, with all the messy controversies that the Gospel writers report and generate, to interpreters who presumably know.

In response to various opinions and differing authorities, we are urged to "Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom: seek learning even by study and also by faith."  (D&C 88:118)  It does not say, "Seek ye a Big Book of What to Think and Camp There Permanently," nor "Seek ye out of approved books words of orthodoxy," because, given D&C 1 pointing out regarding "the authority of my servants: that "Inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest."   

I occasionally mention the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth;

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  
 

And that by precept and example, Joseph Smith tries to lead us to Position 9

Quote

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build. 

Notice especially that at this point a person "can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known."  That is, we all interpret.  We all place the wine of experience in the most suitable bottles at hand, but must occasionally be ready, when confronted by new wine, with the need to change bottles.

And after all this, I recall that Joseph Smith also affirmed that "If don't prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine," which is nice, considering that at present none of us knows everything, or even very much at all.  So it's best to understand one another and have patience and tolerance, and a healthy dose of checking our own eyes for beams first,

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 27, 2021 by Kevin Christensen

[OGHoosier]

10 hours ago, Logan said:

It specifically says that they were not physically found upon the earth until after Adam was placed upon the earth. 

No, it doesn't. I assume you're referring to the parallel sequences in Moses 3 and Abraham 5?

Moses 3:1-3/Abraham 5:1-3: God/the Gods rest on the seventh day and declare Their satisfaction with creation. 

Moses 3:4-5/Abraham 5:4-5: Generations of the heavens and the earth, declaration that all things were created spiritually before physically. 

Moses 3:6/Abraham 5:6: Mist waters the earth

Moses 3:7/Abraham 5:7: Man created, given the breath of life. The first significant deviation between the two accounts is here: Moses claims that Adam was the "first flesh upon the earth, the first man also", but it is very much alone in so saying. Genesis and Abraham make no such statement and the temple ordinances seem to contradict it. 

Moses 3:8-14/Abraham 5:8-10: Eden is planted, plants grow, the two trees of the garden are planted, the  river flows. 

Moses 3:15-18/Abraham 5:11-14: Adam is placed in the Garden, instructed not to partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. God/the Gods decide to make a helpmeet for him. Notably this clashes with the temple ordinances, wherein Adam and Eve receive the instructions regarding the fruit together. 

Here we get a major difference between the narratives. The parallel narratives are inverted.. Moses 3:19-21 features the creation and naming of the animals, which is then followed by the creation of Eve in verses 21-25. Abraham 5:15-19, by contrast, has the creation of Eve first, followed by the creation and naming of the animals in  verses 20-21. Meanwhile, the temple ordinances don't bother with these post-Adam creations at all. What does this teach us? It makes it abundantly clear that we are not looking at step-by-step recitations of events as they unfolded. Even on a concordist viewpoint, it's clear that we're looking at deep retrospective history here. You'll notice that when the creation of plants and animals are introduced, it always starts with "and the Lord did X," as opposed to "and then the Lord did X." There's a difference between those two: the second one establishes a chronological sequence whereas the first one does not. One can aptly say of Winston Churchill that he served as prime minister, and opposed communism, and made a critical blunder regarding the Gallipoli campaign, with no regard for the chronological sequencing of these events. In order to establish such a sequencing, you'd need linguistic indication of the chronology, which we don't have here. Basically, all that the texts of Genesis and Abraham establish is that God did these things at some point, without any indication of the chronology besides the sequencing of the verses...which, as we've established, is not authoritative, lest Moses and Abraham contradict each other. 

I'd argue that we're not even dealing with a journalistic history here, that's not the intended genre, and also that inscipturation can be imprecise, but I expect you would not be comfortable with these conclusions. Even without those, my above argument stands. 

Quote

Go read what D&C 86 says about the wheat and the tares in the church and you’ll find the answer to why Elder Talmage said what he said. 

Have you figured out what the tree of life actually represents yet?

If you intend to draw something from these passages, please come out and do it. Innuendo is a poor method of communication and in this case it just feels condescending. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Logan]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

No, it doesn't. I assume you're referring to the parallel sequences in Moses 3 and Abraham 5?

Moses 3:1-3/Abraham 5:1-3: God/the Gods rest on the seventh day and declare Their satisfaction with creation. 

Moses 3:4-5/Abraham 5:4-5: Generations of the heavens and the earth, declaration that all things were created spiritually before physically. 

Moses 3:6/Abraham 5:6: Mist waters the earth

Moses 3:7/Abraham 5:7: Man created, given the breath of life. The first significant deviation between the two accounts is here: Moses claims that Adam was the "first flesh upon the earth, the first man also", but it is very much alone in so saying. Genesis and Abraham make no such statement and the temple ordinances seem to contradict it. 

Moses 3:8-14/Abraham 5:8-10: Eden is planted, plants grow, the two trees of the garden are planted, the  river flows. 

Moses 3:15-18/Abraham 5:11-14: Adam is placed in the Garden, instructed not to partake of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. God/the Gods decide to make a helpmeet for him. Notably this clashes with the temple ordinances, wherein Adam and Eve receive the instructions regarding the fruit together. 

Here we get a major difference between the narratives. The parallel narratives are inverted.. Moses 3:19-21 features the creation and naming of the animals, which is then followed by the creation of Eve in verses 21-25. Abraham 5:15-19, by contrast, has the creation of Eve first, followed by the creation and naming of the animals in  verses 20-21. Meanwhile, the temple ordinances don't bother with these post-Adam creations at all. What does this teach us? It makes it abundantly clear that we are not looking at step-by-step recitations of events as they unfolded. Even on a concordist viewpoint, it's clear that we're looking at deep retrospective history here. You'll notice that when the creation of plants and animals are introduced, it always starts with "and the Lord did X," as opposed to "and then the Lord did X." There's a difference between those two: the second one establishes a chronological sequence whereas the first one does not. One can aptly say of Winston Churchill that he served as prime minister, and opposed communism, and made a critical blunder regarding the Gallipoli campaign, with no regard for the chronological sequencing of these events. In order to establish such a sequencing, you'd need linguistic indication of the chronology, which we don't have here. Basically, all that the texts of Genesis and Abraham establish is that God did these things at some point, without any indication of the chronology besides the sequencing of the verses...which, as we've established, is not authoritative, lest Moses and Abraham contradict each other. 

I'd argue that we're not even dealing with a journalistic history here, that's not the intended genre, and also that inscipturation can be imprecise, but I expect you would not be comfortable with these conclusions. Even without those, my above argument stands. 

If you intend to draw something from these passages, please come out and do it. Innuendo is a poor method of communication and in this case it just feels condescending. 

The creation accounts in Moses and Abraham clearly state that there was no human, animal, or plant life on this planet prior to Adam. That's simply a fact.

Now you can choose to believe that this is merely allegorical or whatever, but it says what it says. 

As for D&C 86 and the wheat and the tares growing together in the church, some things are better left vague. 

[mfbukowski]

Well I will give my usual answer yet again.

This whole thread is as useful as worrying about whether or not a tree falling in the wilderness makes a "sound"

However you want to define it, "death" is a word concocted by human beings to describe a human experience or observation.

The tree falls, nobody knows it, does it make a "sound"?

In what sense does something "exist" for humanity if we don't know about it?   What exists that no one knows about it?

What precisely is it that has never been experienced by anyone?

Animal, vegetable or mineral?

Of course there was no "death" until someone knew what it was!

How do you describe what is unspeakable?  What is it?

[Logan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I will give my usual answer yet again.

This whole thread is as useful as worrying about whether or not a tree falling in the wilderness makes a "sound"

However you want to define it, "death" is a word concocted by human beings to describe a human experience or observation.

The tree falls, nobody knows it, does it make a "sound"?

In what sense does something "exist" for humanity if we don't know about it?   What exists that no one knows about it?

What precisely is it that has never been experienced by anyone?

Animal, vegetable or mineral?

Of course there was no "death" until someone knew what it was!

How do you describe what is unspeakable?  What is it?

God appeared to Moses and spoke to him face to face telling him about the creation. He said that there was no animal, human, or plant life upon this earth prior to Adam. He said that Adam was the first flesh upon the earth and the first man also. 

This isn't some unknown mystery we are forced to speculate about. God has revealed it to us. 

And it does matter, because the entire purpose of the atonement of Christ is to redeem man from the consequences of the fall of Adam. The fall of Adam brought physical and spiritual death into the world. Through Christ these two deaths can be overcome. 

If we reinterpret the fall to fit current scientific theory then we must do the same with the atonement, too. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Logan said:

God appeared to Moses and spoke to him face to face telling him about the creation. He said that there was no animal, human, or plant life upon this earth prior to Adam. He said that Adam was the first flesh upon the earth and the first man also. 

I addressed this same argument when it was posted by LDS Watchman here.  You wouldn't happen to know him, would you?  Your arguments sound very familiar. 

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, Logan said:

The creation accounts in Moses and Abraham clearly state that there was no human, animal, or plant life on this planet prior to Adam. That's simply a fact.

Now you can choose to believe that this is merely allegorical or whatever, but it says what it says. 

As for D&C 86 and the wheat and the tares growing together in the church, some things are better left vague. 

The creation accounts are manifestly not event-by-event chronological reporting and they have disagreements on these matters. That's simply a fact. 

"Some things are better left vague" that's a dodge. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Logan said:

God appeared to Moses and spoke to him face to face telling him about the creation. He said that there was no animal, human, or plant life upon this earth prior to Adam. He said that Adam was the first flesh upon the earth and the first man also. 

This isn't some unknown mystery we are forced to speculate about. God has revealed it to us. 

And it does matter, because the entire purpose of the atonement of Christ is to redeem man from the consequences of the fall of Adam. The fall of Adam brought physical and spiritual death into the world. Through Christ these two deaths can be overcome. 

If we reinterpret the fall to fit current scientific theory then we must do the same with the atonement, too. 

Sorry, you totally missed the point.

I agree that there was no "death" - the Word creates everything-John 1 - until the linguistic concept- the word death- between humans was understood, and that could not happen until Adam was on earth.

No Adam, no spoken words, no "death"

Was Moses a living human? Yes, therefore he understood what death meant.

 

"God appeared to Moses and spoke to him face to face telling him about the creation. He said that there was no animal, human, or plant life upon this earth prior to Adam."

That is exactly the point.

No life on earth= no concept of "death" either. No concept of death= death as we know it could not exist.  The Word creates the world as we know it.

There is no sound when a tree falls in the wilderness.

Got it now?

[Ipod Touch]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

However you want to define it, "death" is a word concocted by human beings to describe a human experience or observation.

Absolutely not.

Death was revealed and defined by God in the Garden of Eden. If human beings didn't exist, death would still exist.  Many concepts and phenomenon are independent of human sentience.

[Ipod Touch]

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No life on earth= no concept of "death" either. No concept of death= death as we know it could not exist.

Life and death are simply abstractions for a specific binary state.  Binary states exist without human cognition and language.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Life and death are simply abstractions for a specific binary state.  Binary states exist without human cognition and language.

But do abstractions exist without human language?

[Ipod Touch]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

But do abstractions exist without human language?

No.  And this is what Mark sometimes fails to account for.  As Kant would put it: noumenon are things as they are.  Phenomenon are things as human perceives them. Noumenon are entirely independent of cognition.  But phenomena (abstractions) exist as a means to describe perception of noumenon.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Ipod Touch

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The creation accounts are manifestly not event-by-event chronological reporting and they have disagreements on these matters. That's simply a fact. 

The creation accounts are records of temple endowments, not historical documents of the creation although there are historical events depicted in them.

[Logan]

7 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The creation accounts are manifestly not event-by-event chronological reporting and they have disagreements on these matters. That's simply a fact. 

"Some things are better left vague" that's a dodge. 

In both Abraham and Moses it was specifically stated that the 6 days of creation where describing the spiritual creation in heaven and not the physical one on earth. 

Moses is the JST of Genesis, so it's to be expected that Moses and the KJV of Genesis would disagree with each other. The Lord gave us the JST of Moses and a second witness in Abraham so that we would have a more correct understanding of the creation. He didn't give us these two accounts so we could downplay them and revert back to the corrupted account in the standard Genesis. 

As for your dodging charge, sometimes it's better to point someone to an answer than to simply hand it to them. When people connect the dots on their own it sinks in better.

But here's some more dots to connect. In the Book of Mormon we are told that the Tree of Life symbolizes the love of God not eternal life. Nephi made this connection after seeing a vision of the ministry and atoning sacrifice of the Savior. 

And as far as the wheat and the tares go. What does it say about the wheat and the tares in the church? They are to grow together in the church for the time being. The tares are not to be removed from the church. They are to remain. It is the wheat that will eventually be removed. 

 

 

[Logan]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, you totally missed the point.

I agree that there was no "death" - the Word creates everything-John 1 - until the linguistic concept- the word death- between humans was understood, and that could not happen until Adam was on earth.

No Adam, no spoken words, no "death"

Was Moses a living human? Yes, therefore he understood what death meant.

 

"God appeared to Moses and spoke to him face to face telling him about the creation. He said that there was no animal, human, or plant life upon this earth prior to Adam."

That is exactly the point.

No life on earth= no concept of "death" either. No concept of death= death as we know it could not exist.  The Word creates the world as we know it.

There is no sound when a tree falls in the wilderness.

Got it now?

I think I'm with you for the most part, but I don't know what you mean when you say that "There is no sound when a tree falls in the wilderness."

If there was life and death somewhere on the earth prior to the fall of Adam then surely God would have been aware of it and wouldn't have gone out of his way to tell us that these things did not exist on the earth before Adam.

[OGHoosier]

43 minutes ago, Logan said:

In both Abraham and Moses it was specifically stated that the 6 days of creation where describing the spiritual creation in heaven and not the physical one on earth. 

CFR, please. This clearly cannot be true because part of the six days of creation are the creation of light and dark, the land and sea, and the firmament, which clearly already exist physically by the time Moses 3 and Abraham 5 begin. The scriptures say that God created all things spiritually before He created them physically. I don't see a declaration that the 6 days were purely spiritual creation. 

43 minutes ago, Logan said:

 

Moses is the JST of Genesis, so it's to be expected that Moses and the KJV of Genesis would disagree with each other. The Lord gave us the JST of Moses and a second witness in Abraham so that we would have a more correct understanding of the creation. He didn't give us these two accounts so we could downplay them and revert back to the corrupted account in the standard Genesis. 

And yet Genesis is canonized whereas the JST is a study aid. 

43 minutes ago, Logan said:

But here's some more dots to connect. In the Book of Mormon we are told that the Tree of Life symbolizes the love of God not eternal life. Nephi made this connection after seeing a vision of the ministry and atoning sacrifice of the Savior. 

If you have something to say, say it. 

43 minutes ago, Logan said:

 

And as far as the wheat and the tares go. What does it say about the wheat and the tares in the church? They are to grow together in the church for the time being. The tares are not to be removed from the church. They are to remain. It is the wheat that will eventually be removed. 

Nah, the wheat and the tares are separated to go their different ways at the same time, the wheat to the barn and the tares to the fire. I don't see that as "remaining." 

Edited August 25, 2021 by OGHoosier

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Absolutely not.

Death was revealed and defined by God in the Garden of Eden. If human beings didn't exist, death would still exist.  Many concepts and phenomenon are independent of human sentience.

Oh my.

Were Adam and Eve existing humans? Then God revealed / defined it to existing humans.

Death as humans understand it did not exist before there were humans.

This even would be true for evolution believers, which I am sure you are not.

If a monkey kills another monkey is that "murder"?  No, they are not accountable for human commandments because they do not understand the concept of death or sin.

You keep making my case for me. Thanks.

"Many concepts and phenomenon are independent of human sentience."

Like what?? Tell me about some concept independent of human sentience! You can't because it is by definition independent of human sentience!! Please explain in detail how to resurrect someone!? Or how to explain death to a monkey not even capable of speech?

I won't bother you anymore 

Edited August 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

No.  And this is what Mark sometimes fails to account for.  As Kant would put it: noumenon are things as they are.  Phenomenon are things as human perceives them. Noumenon are entirely independent of cognition.  But phenomena (abstractions) exist as a means to describe perception of noumenon.

And what if you disagree with Kant ???

Kant's synthetic a priori was the whole basis for postmodern thought. What really is is unknowable 

What about Rorty_ see my siggy.

William James, John Dewey, Kuhn, Peirce and on and on

What about Wittgenstein? You need to read his later stuff, like Philosophical Investigations 

Cheesh.

You know how to bug me.

Bye

Edited August 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Logan]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

CFR, please. This clearly cannot be true because part of the six days of creation are the creation of light and dark, the land and sea, and the firmament, which clearly already exist physically by the time Moses 3 and Abraham 5 begin. The scriptures say that God created all things spiritually before He created them physically. I don't see a declaration that the 6 days were purely spiritual creation. 

And yet Genesis is canonized whereas the JST is a study aid. 

If you have something to say, say it. 

Nah, the wheat and the tares are separated to go their different ways at the same time, the wheat to the barn and the tares to the fire. I don't see that as "remaining." 

Read the creation accounts in Moses and Abraham again. In both accounts it says that nothing was physically created on earth following the 6 days of creation. In Moses the 6 days of creation are referred to as the spiritual creation and in Abraham they are referred to as a plan the Gods counseled together to perform later. 

Last I checked Moses and Abraham are both canonized scripture in the Pearl of Great Price. And they are both indeed a pearl of great price we should treasure, rather than trying to explain away their meaning and divert back to the corrupted account of the creation in the standard Genesis. 

I said what I have to say. If what I said isn't good enough for you, that's really not my problem. Take it or leave it. 

As for the tares in the church, whether they go somewhere or remain really doesn't matter. The wheat is gathered out first and then the tares are bundled up and burned along with the rest of the world. 

The point is that the wheat and the tares were to grow together in the church and the tares were not to be removed. Rather at the end, just prior to the second coming, the wheat is gathered out. That's how the two are seperated in the end. In the meantime both groups are present in the church and according to D&C 86 the tares are choking out the wheat. 

[Ipod Touch]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Tell me about some concept independent of human sentience!

My dog knows the difference between hot and cold.  Wet and dry.

An electron is "aware" of 1) its own electrical charge and 2) the charge of other electrons.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Ipod Touch

[Ipod Touch]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And what if you disagree with Kant ???

If you disagree, then please provide a rationale.  Because you present a world of only phenomenon.  This is an untenable position -- as Kant argues in several tomes.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Kant's synthetic a priori was the whole basis for postmodern thought.

This is false.  Postmodern thought is certainly not based on Kantian metaphysics.  LOL

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

My dog knows the difference between hot and cold.  Wet and dry.

An electron is "aware" of 1) its own electrical charge and 2) the charge of other electrons.

A talking dog! Wow I am impressed!

And talking electrons! 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

If you disagree, then please provide a rationale.  Because you present a world of only phenomenon.  This is an untenable position -- as Kant argues in several tomes.

This is false.  Postmodern thought is certainly not based on Kantian metaphysics.  LOL

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.00034.x

This is from my UCLA prof and dear friend 

Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia
"Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason

"Therefore, Kant proposes a new basis for a science of metaphysics, posing the question: how is a science of metaphysics possible, if at all? According to Kant, only practical reason, the faculty of moral consciousness, the moral law of which everyone is immediately aware, makes it possible to know things as they are.^[13] This led to his most influential contribution to metaphysics: the abandonment of the quest to try to know the world as it is "in itself" independent of sense experience. He demonstrated this with a thought experiment, showing that it is not possible to meaningfully conceive of an object that exists outside of time and has no spatial components and is not structured in accordance with the categories of the understanding (Verstand), such as substance and causality. Although such an object cannot be conceived, Kant argues, there is no way of showing that such an object does not exist. Therefore, Kant says, the science of metaphysics must not attempt to reach beyond the limits of possible experience but must discuss only those limits, thus furthering the understanding of ourselves as thinking beings. The human mind is incapable of going beyond experience so as to obtain a knowledge of ultimate reality, because no direct advance can be made from pure ideas to objective existence.^[14]"

Edited August 26, 2021 by mfbukowski