Spencer W. Kimball and Ordinary Language Pragmatism

[Smiley McGee]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thought I was helping you by asking questions.  Socratic stuff 

I’m too much of a simpleton for that. Assume you’re explaining it to a golden retriever and it’ll be at about my level. 

I must admit I’m a little surprised: you have nearly 40k posts in 15 years on this forum but you don’t have a working paper of your philosophy to prime the pump with interested parties on this board?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

I’m too much of a simpleton for that. Assume you’re explaining it to a golden retriever and it’ll be at about my level. 

I must admit I’m a little surprised: you have nearly 40k posts in 15 years on this forum but you don’t have a working paper of your philosophy to prime the pump with interested parties on this board?

Ready for a 200 pager about the synthetic apriori and its implications, a completely different way of seeing the world?

I have all those posts and they need a little "editing"😜

 And it's not MY philosophy- it's already out there, I had the philosophy BEFORE I joined the church.  There are quite a few here

Anyone who knows philosophy would recognize it immediately, but you at least need to know the history, and why everything else DIDN'T work.

To a philosophy guy, all I would have to say is "Neopragmatic Antirealism".

There you go.

It's all there in two words!

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thought I was helping you by asking questions.  Socratic stuff 

I’m too much of a simpleton for that. Assume you’re explaining it to a golden retriever and it’ll be at about my level. 

I must admit I’m a little surprised: you have nearly 40k posts in 15 years on this forum but you don’t have a working paper of your philosophy to prime the pump with interested parties on this board?

Best wishes. It's a start

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism#:~:text=The term "anti-realism",Platonic realism%2C idealism and phenomenalism.

[Smiley McGee]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ready for a 200 pager about the synthetic apriori and its implications, a completely different way of seeing the world?

I have all those posts and they need a little "editing"😜

 And it's not MY philosophy- it's already out there, I had the philosophy BEFORE I joined the church.  There are quite a few here

Anyone who knows philosophy would recognize it immediately, but you at least need to know the history, and why everything else DIDN'T work.

To a philosophy guy, all I would have to say is "Neopragmatic Antirealism".

There you go.

It's all there in two words!

Haha…Jargon jargon jargon. You’re kind of a contradiction to me.

You: “people need to understand pragmatism or the church won’t last!”

Also you: “read 200 pages of jargon if want to understand what I’m saying.” 

Why is it so hard for you to produce a 5-10 document concisely describing your framework? It seems reasonable that anyone with your philosophical understanding and sense of purpose should be producing material accessible to the general membership. If your response is, “go study philosophy” then you’ll never make an impact. You’ll lose your audience to some garbage like the CES Letter. 

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Haha…Jargon jargon jargon. You’re kind of a contradiction to me.

You: “people need to understand pragmatism or the church won’t last!”

Also you: “read 200 pages of jargon if want to understand what I’m saying.” 

Why is it so hard for you to produce a 5-10 document concisely describing your framework? It seems reasonable that anyone with your philosophical understanding and sense of purpose should be producing material accessible to the general membership. If your response is, “go study philosophy” then you’ll never make an impact. You’ll lose your audience to some garbage like the CES Letter. 

You're right.

I would need to find simple summaries by others, because my mind doesn't work that way. 

Here's a start.

How's this for difficulty?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1992.tb01068.x#:~:text=Empirical theology is a twentieth,thereby justified against human experience.

"Abstract

Abstract. Empirical theology stands in contrast to science insofar as it seeks to understand the nature and source of human fulfillment and insofar as science seeks to understand the world and human beings regardless of the implications of that knowledge for human welfare. However, empirical theology is like science insofar as it affirms a dynamic, relational naturalism; accepts limitations of the human knower, thereby making all knowledge including religious knowledge tentative; seeks causal explanations as well as religious meaning; and argues that a key criterion for justifying ideas is their ability to explain experience already had and to predict new experiences in Lakatosian-type progressive research programs."

MFB:

Empirical theology studies the EFFECTS and UTILITY of beliefs in satisfying human needs, emotionally and physically 

Alma 32

Beliefs can become "sweet" through experimentation on which beliefs satisfy human needs the best

Edited April 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You're right.

I would need to find simple summaries by others, because my mind doesn't work that way. 

Here's a start.

How's this for difficulty?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1992.tb01068.x#:~:text=Empirical theology is a twentieth,thereby justified against human experience.

"Abstract

Abstract. Empirical theology stands in contrast to science insofar as it seeks to understand the nature and source of human fulfillment and insofar as science seeks to understand the world and human beings regardless of the implications of that knowledge for human welfare. However, empirical theology is like science insofar as it affirms a dynamic, relational naturalism; accepts limitations of the human knower, thereby making all knowledge including religious knowledge tentative; seeks causal explanations as well as religious meaning; and argues that a key criterion for justifying ideas is their ability to explain experience already had and to predict new experiences in Lakatosian-type progressive research programs."

MFB:

Empirical theology studies the EFFECTS and UTILITY of beliefs in satisfying human needs, emotionally and physically 

Alma 32

Beliefs can become "sweet" through experimentation on which beliefs satisfy human needs the best

The trick is now of course someone here will come along and say "Oh, it makes you feel good, so it's true. How stupid is that?"

This is where Pres. K comes in and tells us we must be seeking the spirit and be righteous for this to work.

THAT is the necessary milieu for this to work properly.

Intelligence and Spirit, understanding truth in independent spheres, creating the world= DC 93:30.

Pres K just SEES that in ordinary non-philosophical ordinary language.  Flawed "philosophy"?

Maybe, but there's the essence, straight from the heart and spirit.

[Smiley McGee]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You're right.

I would need to find simple summaries by others, because my mind doesn't work that way. 

Here's a start.

How's this for difficulty?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1992.tb01068.x#:~:text=Empirical theology is a twentieth,thereby justified against human experience.

"Abstract

Abstract. Empirical theology stands in contrast to science insofar as it seeks to understand the nature and source of human fulfillment and insofar as science seeks to understand the world and human beings regardless of the implications of that knowledge for human welfare. However, empirical theology is like science insofar as it affirms a dynamic, relational naturalism; accepts limitations of the human knower, thereby making all knowledge including religious knowledge tentative; seeks causal explanations as well as religious meaning; and argues that a key criterion for justifying ideas is their ability to explain experience already had and to predict new experiences in Lakatosian-type progressive research programs."

MFB:

Empirical theology studies the EFFECTS and UTILITY of beliefs in satisfying human needs, emotionally and physically 

Alma 32

Beliefs can become "sweet" through experimentation on which beliefs satisfy human needs the best

This is interesting; let me give it a read and do some further reading elsewhere.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

This is interesting; let me give it a read and do some further reading elsewhere.

This is a quote from a book by Robert C. Solomon, one of my underdgrad profs at UCLA about Kant's synthetic apriori, about how we synthesize the world around us as we know it.

This ultimately becomes a key to postmodernism; each of us creates our own worlds right here and right now.

Sounds familiar? Something about creating worlds kind of rings a bell... 🤔

Without the synthesis of experiences by "Intelligence" NOTHING WE KNOW could "exist". 

D&C 93:30

"All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence

Solomon on Kant's synthetic apriori :

Edited April 28, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a quote from a book by Robert C. Solomon, one of my underdgrad profs at UCLA about Kant's synthetic apriori, about how we synthesize the world around us as we know it.

This ultimately becomes a key to postmodernism; each of us creates our own worlds right here and right now.

Sounds familiar? Something about creating worlds kind of rings a bell... 🤔

Without the synthesis of experiences by "Intelligence" NOTHING WE KNOW could "exist". 

D&C 93:30

"All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence

Solomon on Kant's synthetic apriori :

Such a fantastic quote!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Such a fantastic quote!

Yeah, that was because of all that studying Joseph Smith did.  He could see the direction of philosophy and came up with these views before Pragmatism was even invented.

Clever dude.  I mean quoting philosophy that hadn't been published yet? Coming up with stuff that WE need TODAY to make sense of all this?  Joseph Smith the author of postmodernism?  Man he was really studying that Kant stuff, with 93 and Alma 32, and all the other stuff. 

But of course he was just a fake.  😡

[Smiley McGee]

On 4/27/2023 at 11:46 AM, mfbukowski said:

The trick is now of course someone here will come along and say "Oh, it makes you feel good, so it's true. How stupid is that?"

Ya I get this, the “facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd is rather obnoxious. It seems to me that pragmatism is more concerned about justification and less about truth, and groups with opposing views so often justify their beliefs is shockingly similar ways.

You’re average person doesn’t believe the earth circles the sun because they’ve “done the math” (a separate discussion). They don’t believe it because it’s easy to tell by observing the sky. They believe it because they appeal to authority and popularity of the belief and feel fine with those appeals (whether they notice them or not). It’s also socially useful to accept that belief; no one wants to friends with someone who believe the earth is the center of the universe (relatedly, probably why so many flat earthers are already somewhat socially outcast — acquiring that belief actually improves their social life by being embraced by a tight knit group). 

It would be interesting to develop some thought exercises or simple stories that help people peel back the onion and see their justifications clearly and realize that they aren’t so different from those of their opponents. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Ya I get this, the “facts don’t care about your feelings” crowd is rather obnoxious. It seems to me that pragmatism is more concerned about justification and less about truth, and groups with opposing views so often justify their beliefs is shockingly similar ways.

You’re average person doesn’t believe the earth circles the sun because they’ve “done the math” (a separate discussion). They don’t believe it because it’s easy to tell by observing the sky. They believe it because they appeal to authority and popularity of the belief and feel fine with those appeals (whether they notice them or not). It’s also socially useful to accept that belief; no one wants to friends with someone who believe the earth is the center of the universe (relatedly, probably why so many flat earthers are already somewhat socially outcast — acquiring that belief actually improves their social life by being embraced by a tight knit group). 

It would be interesting to develop some thought exercises or simple stories that help people peel back the onion and see their justifications clearly and realize that they aren’t so different from those of their opponents. 

We don't have linguistic sentences that come from any other source than human beliefs!

We never see or speak anything that is NOT a human belief; our entire universe AS WE KNOW IT is a human construction, it cannot be otherwise. We do not see the world as dolphins or apes or plants or fish.

So it is ALL based on human belief.

That's why history is irrelevant to religion- you have to believe the history to believe the religion.

That just adds another layer of ambiguity to religion!

Horses in the "New" World? No?

"There goes my religion! But wait! There were other things that LOOKED like horses, maybe..."

It's absurd!

"Now my religion, full of beautiful comments on how to live happily, is saved, and true again because there are things that LOOK LIKE horses! Phew!"

How can reasonable adults who manage to get through life think that way? To me, it is horrifying!

 

 

[Smiley McGee]

On 4/30/2023 at 1:00 PM, mfbukowski said:

We don't have linguistic sentences that come from any other source than human beliefs!

We never see or speak anything that is NOT a human belief; our entire universe AS WE KNOW IT is a human construction, it cannot be otherwise. We do not see the world as dolphins or apes or plants or fish.

So it is ALL based on human belief.

That's why history is irrelevant to religion- you have to believe the history to believe the religion.

That just adds another layer of ambiguity to religion!

Horses in the "New" World? No?

"There goes my religion! But wait! There were other things that LOOKED like horses, maybe..."

It's absurd!

"Now my religion, full of beautiful comments on how to live happily, is saved, and true again because there are things that LOOK LIKE horses! Phew!"

How can reasonable adults who manage to get through life think that way? To me, it is horrifying!

 

 

Curious how pragmatism has influenced your views on priesthood authority, specifically, is it useful to emphasize the a prophet as the church has? I ask since I have this theory that historicity isn’t used to directly justify most religious beliefs and practical, but is used to justify and preserve priesthood authority.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Curious how pragmatism has influenced your views on priesthood authority, specifically, is it useful to emphasize the a prophet as the church has? I ask since I have this theory that historicity isn’t used to directly justify practical religious beliefs but to justify and preserve priesthood authority.

Well it sounds like an interesting question, but I am not quite sure I understand it.

I believe it is important that one has a belief that there is such a thing as "Priesthood Authority";  I have seen in my own experience as a - now former- bishop, and simply as being a person familiar with organizations, and how to get things done in organizations.  I DID have spiritual experiences in selecting individuals for callings, and DID have experiencing spiritual evidence that healings ARE caused by prayer and blessings.   This stuff is real.  And pragmatically- we must keep in mind that there IS a real phenomenon that drug companies spend a LOT of money making sure that the Placebo effect- (scientific evidence that FAITH/Belief really DOES heal people without drugs) is NOT effecting the results that supposedly "proves" the efficacy of the drugs.  I have experienced myself that there IS such a phenomenon called "Priesthood Authority"

I am not sure about what you mean by "practical" religious beliefs as opposed to others- maybe you could clarify that?  There is also a typo in that question that compounds the issue. (..." is it useful to emphasize the a prophet as the church has?...")

As far as choosing succession,  I think it is a pretty good solution to pick the senior member of a small group of highly experienced leaders; it leaves it open to the possibility that God "really does" choose the person to be the "prophet".   So really I don't think that historicity has much to do with picking the prophet- except of course which one is the senior apostle.  But then I was raised Catholic- but I think our method is better than voting- which to me is probably the worst way to pick the leader of a church and one that is seen as "God's Representative" on earth.  One must at least have a system that allows belief that God makes the selection.

[Smiley McGee]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well it sounds like an interesting question, but I am not quite sure I understand it.

I believe it is important that one has a belief that there is such a thing as "Priesthood Authority";  I have seen in my own experience as a - now former- bishop, and simply as being a person familiar with organizations, and how to get things done in organizations.  I DID have spiritual experiences in selecting individuals for callings, and DID have experiencing spiritual evidence that healings ARE caused by prayer and blessings.   This stuff is real.  And pragmatically- we must keep in mind that there IS a real phenomenon that drug companies spend a LOT of money making sure that the Placebo effect- (scientific evidence that FAITH/Belief really DOES heal people without drugs) is NOT effecting the results that supposedly "proves" the efficacy of the drugs.  I have experienced myself that there IS such a phenomenon called "Priesthood Authority"

I am not sure about what you mean by "practical" religious beliefs as opposed to others- maybe you could clarify that?  There is also a typo in that question that compounds the issue. (..." is it useful to emphasize the a prophet as the church has?...")

As far as choosing succession,  I think it is a pretty good solution to pick the senior member of a small group of highly experienced leaders; it leaves it open to the possibility that God "really does" choose the person to be the "prophet".   So really I don't think that historicity has much to do with picking the prophet- except of course which one is the senior apostle.  But then I was raised Catholic- but I think our method is better than voting- which to me is probably the worst way to pick the leader of a church and one that is seen as "God's Representative" on earth.  One must at least have a system that allows belief that God makes the selection.

Ya sorry; rereading my comment and it’s poorly worded. Let me try to come up with a (hopefully) clearer way to ask the question.