Arosophos at Spock with a Beard


1	Forum	Topic	Time Posted	Content

2	The Font of Knowledge	The Effects of The New Mormon History	7/27/2003 20:25:00	Red, Thank you for posting those thoughts. I sincerely enjoyed reading them. Although I do not agree with some of the doctrinal perspectives you suggest, the underlying feelings resonate with me -- and I suspect they resonate with many of us, Mormons and members of that True Church of which Joseph wrote.
3	Introductions	Arosophos	8/19/2003 4:28:00	Spockwithabeard: ". . . 2) You need to post an introduction . . . Just tell us a bit about yourself, who you are, and who invited you to the site. You do not neccesarily need to say your real name. But at least tell us who invited you to the site, so you have someone who can vouch for you." Hi. Joey invited me to SWAB. He and I met some time ago on a religion chat site, and have enjoyed a developing friendship. I also count several other SWAB participants among my friends.
4	Introductions	Arosophos	8/20/2003 4:40:00	sara sassypants: "What is your name?" I would enjoy telling you in person, but please excuse me if I do not post that here. A rose by any other name . . . right? <!-- s;-) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";-)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;-) --> Jeshrika: "I hope that you were including me as one of your friends on SWAB." . . . of course. Jeshrika: "Now, you just need to convince Mrs. Arosophos to come and join this forum." You and Cherie have a better chance of doing that than I do.
5	Introductions	Timothy	8/20/2003 20:36:00	Timothy: ". . . science (from which I believe immortality will come) . . ." What kind of science? Popular contemporary science, full of entropy? Or some other science? The science of the Gods? The knowledge of the Gods? Beyond that, what of joy? What of wise immortality? Immortal misery is, by definition, hardly desirable. How will joy come? How will it endure in immortality?
6	The Font of Knowledge	Sadness - How to Deal	9/10/2003 5:48:00	Someone wrote about indifference, that it is worse than sadness. Maybe so -- maybe sometimes, or for a while. What of the miserable soul that finds no joy in life? Imagine a creature whose desires are so incongruent with the world that every conscious moment is sadness. Will she always maintain faith that sadness is better than indifference? Do you think that, given the opportunity, she would ever choose to slip away quietly into a deep spiritual sleep, never to wake again -- oblivion? . . . or nirvana? Life is suffering, the Buddhists and Hindus tell us. So escape it. Do not attach. Do not desire. The flesh is evil, the Catholics and the Gnostics tell us. So subject it. Deny it. Together they seek solace from misery, marginalizing its risk by marginalizing its possibility. Did we learn a lesson from the Garden? If you eat the fruit of that tree, you will surely die -- how true! There is death in that fruit, and until then there is sadness. We partake. We suffer and die. Again we partake, suffer and die. Do we learn? Some do and choose indifference over sadness. Others feel the lie, the barely perceptible vibration of the serpent's forked tongue. These flex their arm and shake their fist at the God of indifference. Tempt me not! I will walk this valley of death. I will fear no evil. My God is that of life, immortal and eternal; flesh and bone, and glory. I will take the fruit of that tree and add to it the fruit of life, and in them together will I taste the fullness of joy. If we marginalize the risk of misery by marginalizing its possibility, we also marginalize the possibility of joy. We choose. Which will it be? Seek to minimize misery, or seek to maximize joy? Which is the priority? One priority can be achieved in a world, a worldless world, of something like indifference that is nothing at all. The other only in a world, and worlds without end, of everlasting burnings. Is indifference worse than sadness? The answer seems to depend on the God I choose to worship.
7	The Font of Knowledge	Why are you,or are you not, a Mormon ?	9/16/2003 4:30:00	I feel like I label myself "Mormon" in the same way that the Nephites, prior to the visit of Christ, labeled themselves "Jews". Consider these scriptures, as Nephi exhorts, likened unto you and unto all . . . "Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of [Joseph] been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him." (2 Nephi 11: 4) "And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of [Joseph], and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. "For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. "Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away." (2 Nephi 25: 24-27) "Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of [Joseph], it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son." (Jacob 4: 5) "Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of [Joseph], and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them." (Jarom 1: 11) "Yet the Lord God saw that his people were a stiffnecked people, and he appointed unto them a law, even the law of [Joseph]. "And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of [Joseph] availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood." (Mosiah 3: 14-15) "And now ye have said that salvation cometh by the law of [Joseph]. I say unto you that it is expedient that ye should keep the law of [Joseph] as yet; but I say unto you, that the time shall come when it shall no more be expedient to keep the law of [Joseph]. "And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of [Joseph]." (Mosiah 13: 27-28) "Therefore, if ye teach the law of [Joseph], also teach that it is a shadow of those things which are to come— "Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen." (Mosiah 16: 14-15) "Yea, and they did keep the law of [Joseph]; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of [Joseph] as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of [Joseph], they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of [Joseph] was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them. "Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of [Joseph]; but the law of [Joseph] did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come." (Alma 25: 15-16) "Yea, and the people did observe to keep the commandments of the Lord; and they were strict in observing the ordinances of God, according to the law of [Joseph]; for they were taught to keep the law of [Joseph] until it should be fulfilled." (Alma 30: 3) "And there were no contentions, save it were a few that began to preach, endeavoring to prove by the scriptures that it was no more expedient to observe the law of [Joseph]. Now in this thing they did err, having not understood the scriptures." (3 Nephi 1: 24)
8	The Font of Knowledge	Knowledge of Gods	9/22/2003 4:52:00	Joey: "I hope some more people will respond. Just tell me what you think about when you read what I am saying. Don't worry about what it's going to sound like. Just start talking. It will be helpful, I promise." You made me think of some of the teachings of Paul and John . . . "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; <b>whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away</b>. "<b>For we know in part</b>, and we prophesy in part. "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: <b>now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known</b>. "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13: 8-13) . . . "BEHOLD, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore <b>the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not</b>. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but <b>we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him</b>; for we shall see him as he is. "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3: 1-3)
9	The Font of Knowledge	Why do we love the Christ?	9/22/2003 5:13:00	I feel like this thread is related to the "Knowledge of Gods" thread that you started recently, Joey. Why do we love Christ? The scriptures propose that we love Christ because Christ first loved us. I agree, but think some additional clarity should be given. We love Christ because Christ <i>is</i> that which loves us. Christ <i>is</i> that which is congruent with our exalted desires. We love Christ not <i>because</i>; we love Christ <i>by definition</i>. Asking "Why do we love Christ?" is like asking "Why does God exist?". Why does God exist? God exists not <i>because</i>; God exists <i>by definition</i>. God is chosen. God is posited. God is that in which we place our faith. How do you worship your God? How do you love your Christ? . . . and how do your answers affect you and your context?
10	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	9/24/2003 4:33:00	Manfoom, does God guard his identity?
11	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	9/26/2003 3:22:00	Manfoom: "Arosophos, are you God?" I am interested in following his example. Now will you answer my question?
12	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/8/2003 6:50:00	Arosophos, previously: "Manfoom, does God guard his identity?" Paul: "Arosophos, Well does he?" Jim Weed: "Does God guard his identity?" Is God omnipotent? Do you not know his identity without exception? Given a context in which the answers to these questions are "yes" and "yes", the answer to your question is also "yes". Even those of us who wonder about the meaning of "omnipotence" are confronted with the scriptural suggestions that God guards his identity . . . "Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. "When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. "Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. "And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1: 10-15) "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. "And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." (Isaiah 6: 8-10) "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." (Luke 8: 10) "And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. "And they talked together of all these things which had happened. "And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. "But their eyes were holden that they should not know him." (Luke 24: 13-16) "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Hebrews 13: 2) "Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself." (Alma 40: 3) "Murmur not because of the things which thou hast not seen, for they are withheld from thee and from the world, which is wisdom in me in a time to come." (D&C 25: 4) "God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; "Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; "A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest." (D&C 121: 26-28) "For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times." (D&C 124: 41) Paul: "And will you explain the utility of God guarding his identity?" Various justifications come to mind, particularly after reviewing the scriptures quoted above. Here is one: Knowledge is power. Power should be shared discriminately. Jim Weed: "Obviously there are things about his identity that I don't see right now. Is this because he is guarding them from me? Or is it because I refuse to see what's already there?" . . . or both? Manfoom: "I wish to follow God's example as well, but there are many things he does, that I do not do yet." If you do not do that which God does, should you change? The scriptures tell us that we should be perfect as God is perfect. I read no qualifiers such as "almost" or "later". Manfoom: "Additionally my relationship with him is very different than that with one of my brothers." Should your relationship with your brothers be as that with God? John the Apostle appears to have thought so: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be bone, as we are . . . That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us . . ." (John 17: 11, 21) Manfoom: "I don't know how much of himself is guarded, that would require massive presumption on my part (to assume as to a motive, or a degree)." Does God guard even the extent to which he guards his identity from you? Manfoom: "Something that has come to be sort of a maxim for me is that people deserve love, but need to earn trust." That sounds good. I may yet earn your trust. If I do, I hope it will be not because of my name, rank and serial number, so to speak, but rather because of a relationship that develops between us. Manfoom: "I don't disregard your posts, but if you are unwilling to trust me with your identity I am less inclined to offer my trust in return." I consider my words to be as much my identity as is that to which you refer. Different parts of our identity can be used in different ways. I offer here those parts that I feel are pertinent here. Manfoom: "On this same sight I have appeared under different names, usually for a joke. Others have done the same. Some hide insecurity, and others seek to dishonestly ferret out information. There are a multitude of reasons for being anonymous, many much less negative than the ones I have suggested." . . . and many much more positive? Manfoom: "But as I read through posts, I look with a jaundiced eye at the posts written by someone trying to conceal something. Just like with God, I am left to guess why, but I neither have the reassurance of the Spirit, nor power of faith to compell me to trust in an unknown." Why not use the Spirit -- the discerning of spirits, of my spirit? This is the beginning of faith. Then, depending on the results of discernment, why not exercise greater faith? Manfoom: "If I have learned one thing about these internet communities, it is that the main danger is that it can insulate the ideas from practicallity and from the real world." Although I do not think this to be the main danger, I agree that it is a danger. It is, however, a danger that I risk because I feel the potential reward outweighs it. Manfoom: "Soon imagined persona live their lives virtually while the flesh and blood ones are sacrificed at its expense. I have used this example before, but I shall again. Kant preached the virtues of travel and knowing the world, but the fact that he seldomly left the city of his birth is quite telling about the truth of that ideal. We talk a lot about ideas here, but hopefully they aren't merely ivory tower ideas, but they intersect with the living and breathing of life." I agree, but do not see how the disclosures you request would change whether I am a hypocrite. Manfoom: "Because this forum is based largely on friendshipes that predated the forum, and exist off-line. The off-line existences are quite important to me, and I am glad that when I see someone I know I will be responsible for what I said to them online. It keeps me honest, it makes me careful, and it makes me responsible." You request, here, not merely disclosure of a name, for example. You request something that I cannot give you now -- something that, if given at all, will take time and effort. Manfoom: "Arosophos, I will trust that you are a good person, and are not attempting anything malicious." Thank you. Manfoom: "I will trust that Arosophos is a good person. But if it is not a reciprocal relationship then it is fruitless. Furthermore, I think it is unwise." In the spirit of reciprocity, I will, unless and until you demonstrate otherwise, think that you are a good person. Manfoom: "But I can't help but give your words less weight." Please, both now and in the future, give my words only the weight they deserve. Even the man of unclean lips may prophecy. Manfoom: "I once again point out that I have no malice for Arosophos, nor any of the anonymous masses. But they should be aware that by choosing anonymity they are also giving something up." Are you too? Joey: "My wife and I spent time with Arosophos and his wife just last weekend and this very subject was discussed at length. He has his reasons why he doesn't want his name out and maybe it would be appropriate for him to share those reasons." The reason I gave for God guarding his identity is the reason I guard mine: Knowledge is power. Power should be shared discriminately. I can do that which I come here to do without providing the knowledge of the requested disclosures. When I want to do that which requires the knowledge of the requested disclosures, I will share that knowledge discriminately. Joey: "I think it is one more obstacle to overcome on the road to atonement with another person, and why do we put up more obstacles if it is not neccesary?" My experience is that the requested disclosures can be as much an obstacle as anything else, particularly when done indiscriminately.
13	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/9/2003 4:02:00	Manfoom: "At the same time, if I make a rule, like "don't touch the ark", I don't strike someone dead if they disobey that rule." Do you support the death penalty? Manfoom: "I don't create worlds . . ." Do you intend to create worlds? Would you now if you could? Manfoom: "I don't prophesy . . ." Prehaps you do prophesy? The Book of Revelation explains that the Spirit of Prophesy is the testimony of Christ. Do you have a testimony of Christ? Beyond that, Paul has advice for us: "Wherefore, brethren, acovet• to prophesy . . ." (1 Corinthians 14: 39) . . . and Moses a desire for us: "And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!" (Numbers 11: 29) "I don't sacrifice my son." Maybe not now, but perhaps tomorrow? Joseph taught: "The sacrifice required of Abraham in the offering up of Isaac, shows that if a man would attain to the keys of the kingdom of an endless life; he must sacrifice all things." (TPJS 322) . . . and: "Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation;" (Lectures on Faith 6: 7) Manfoom: "Not only do I lack the power, but I lack the knowledge of the results of my actions . . ." I suspect you have more power and knowledge relative to these things than you admit here. Manfoom: "Also, while I don't have his identity perfectly, He has given me something that we, as peers, of a sort, cannot offer each other. God is the first mover, if you will, in our relationship. I love him, because first he loved me. It would be noble of me to say that I loved him, with our without his love, but he offered himself in ways that I was uncapable of offering first." To the extent that you are God, can you say the same about yourself? Should you be able to say the same about yourself? I feel that to the extent I cannot say the same about myself, I fall short of the perfection to which God exhorts me. So I repent and again seek perfection in Christ, to love first, to atone, as God loves first and atones. Manfoom: "Thirdly, you have to admit that anonymous have the majority of posters at a disadvantage. Having been around we have unveiled ourselves over time, to a much greater extent then we may have originally planned. I have opened up over time and now sit splayed before you." Manfoom, for what it's worth, I know little about you. The little I know is that which you have posted in the more recent threads on this board (Philosophy / Religion). Regardless, I try to focus most on what you write -- and on the person you claim to be only to a lesser extent. Manfoom: "It is a matter of charity to disarm yourselve to some extent when first visiting a welcoming host, so that your host and other visitors can feel more at home." This metaphor does not resonate with me. Although a host has welcomed me, I have yet to become acquainted with the other visitors. Additionally, I do not consider myself armed. Manfoom: "Fourthly, I am glad you are here Arosophos . . ." . . . and I would not be here if it were not for persons like you, so we share the feeling. Manfoom: "I am not stewwing in my juices that I don't know your name. (for now, I will pretend that it is Keith)." Okay. That works as well as "Arosophos". If you want, I will consider any post you address to "Keith" as being addressed to me.
14	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/9/2003 4:20:00	Sterling: "God, justly, wields power over us. You, however, have no right to that power. Using God's partially masked identity to justify your own anynonimity is disengenuous and wrong." Why should I not emulate my Father? Why should I indiscriminately concede power over my identity to you? These questions aside, God is not the only example we have of persons whose participation in anonymity may persuade us to justify its use. Another example that comes to mind is Joseph Smith, who wrote many of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants using code names for himself and others. Sterling: "Yes, the disclosure I would like requires more than simply a name. Attaching your name to a simple description of who you are allows the possibility of investigation, and discourages lying." . . . and allows for other less than desirable possibilities as well. Sterling: "I'm glad to hear that you are getting what want out of this board." This statement does not seem genuine to me; however, if you affirm that it is, I will believe you. Sterling: "But I suggest that you have a responsibility to the others here." I agree enthusiastically. Sterling: "A question: Would it be fair for someone to show up at a dinner party at your house, offer opinions and seek answers, but never explain to the other guests who they are themselves? Such a visitor would make me uncomfortable." It would be fair if such were predetermined to be acceptable. Would it be fair to predetermine that such is acceptable and then change the rules when the guests have already arrived with the original understanding? Arosophos, previously: "My experience is that the requested disclosures can be as much an obstacle as anything else, particularly when done indiscriminately." Sterling: "Do you mean an obstacle for you?" I mean an obstacle both for me and others -- for us. Sterling: "And exactly what part of disclosure here would you count as indiscriminant?" There are some aspects of my identity that I try not to share on public websites, such as my name, telephone number and street address. When I want to share these things, I try to do so in private.
15	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/10/2003 5:01:00	Sterling: "You should not try to emulate behavior you have not been instructed to . . ." I have been instructed to be perfect, as God is perfect. Does God behave in ways that are not a manifestation of his perfection? Sterling: ". . . and lack a full understanding of." I don't think Adam or the Angel of the Lord would agree with you. "And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me." (Moses 5: 6) Sterling: "Why God reveals what he does of himself is beyond our ability to comprehend." Everything we choose to categorize as being beyond our ability to comprehend is, by definition, beyond our ability to comprehend. Recognizing this, I choose to hope that I can comprehend God. I may be wrong, but then so are the scriptures: "The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. "Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand? "Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power. "I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended. "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. "Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound." (D&C 88: 45-50) Sterling: "I also suggest that you not ask for animal sacrifices in your name, not ask people to pay a tithe to build your kingdom, and not instruct your followers to take the lives of others." I will keep this in mind, as I keep in mind the words of Joseph: "God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy'. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted-by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire . . ." (TPJS 256) Sterling: "Here, among this group, you share your identity because we have done so." I understand that this is your request. I am not yet sure whether this is a SWAB requirement. Sterling: "As Joey often points out, this is a community. As such, we grant and cede certain powers." I respect this. However, I am not sure whether the community has ceded anonymity. Sterling: "I believe when you register, everyone is encouraged to make a full introduction. I don't total anonymity was ever predetermined to be acceptable, it just wasn't specifically prohibited." I believe I fulfilled all the requirements given me when I joined SWAB. Again, I recognize that a community can justifiably change its rules. If SWAB changes its rules, I will respect the change. Sterling: "Obviously, I don't make the rules here. But I can say, that as a participant in this little dinner party I am extremely uncomfortable with those unwilling to identify themselves." Sterling, I am sorry. My intention is not to make you uncomfortable. However, it appears that my intentions may continue to result in your discomfort. Sterling: "I percieve your insistence that anonymity is Godly as a dodge . . ." . . . a dodge of disclosing the aspects of identity that you request? If so then yes, but I would not use the word "dodge", of course. I like the word "justification". Sterling: "I believe your motive is dishonest." Why? Sterling: "I am genuinely glad that you get some benifit from your participation." I will try to believe you. Sterling: "But I feel that participants with hidden identities and hidden agendas costs the rest of us the full benifits of our participation. As Manfoom said, the rest of us are laid bare." I do not understand how my anonymity and your supposed bareness costs you the full benefits of your participation. Will you please explain? Sterling: "I understand your concern here. I'm not asking for your phone number or street address. Your name, yes." . . . and with the particular name you request, you will have access to a phone number and street address. So, in effect, you are asking for a phone number and street address. Sterling: "But in your previous post you showed some unwillingness to reveal any part of your identity. That goes beyond a concern about identity theft or internet stalking." I disagree. The unwillingness need imply nothing more than concern about such things. They are sufficient justification, so far as I am concerned. So, on a related note, something about me . . . I was once a moderator for an online religion website. In the course of moderating, the need arose to revoke membership from a person. The person became angry and lashed out, spamming the website to the point of uselessness, contacting other persons' ecclesiastical authorities with questionable accusations, and impersonating me to defame my character. Although this person cost me time and harmed some of my relationships with others, he was unable to reach into my life outside the website because of the anonymity I maintained.
16	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/10/2003 5:05:00	Joey: "If this isn't good enough, then perhaps we should change the rules. Do you think it is good enough? Why or why not?" Joey: "Why does the sharing of one's first name inspire more faith in that person than does the testimony of another member of the board?" These seem like valuable questions for the SWAB community to consider.
17	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/10/2003 5:25:00	Red: "On the question of whether God revealed his identity, the answer for the Christian is a resounding yes." In part or in full? I will agree with the former, but not with the latter. Red: "God appeared in human form." . . . but never claimed that to be exhaustive of his form. To the contrary, we read in the scriptures that there is more -- for one example, see the D&C 88 scripture I quoted in my post to sterling. Red: "He did not remain aloof, mysterious, unknowable . . ." I agree that he became less aloof and mysterious, but yet remained so to some extent. See the scriptures that I quoted above to demonstrate God's guarding of his identity -- particularly those from the New Testament. Red: ". . . wholly other . . ." Wholly agreed. :-) . . . but simply because God is not wholly other does not mean that he is wholly known or that he has wholly disclosed his identity. He tells us that to know him is eternal life. Do Christians have eternal life? Red: ". . . but became like us." I agree. Red: "His perfect love cast out his fear." Yes, but it took him thirty years to do it, and he is counted as the greatest among us. Red: "He did reveal his identity. And then, of course, we crucified him for it." Exactly . . . and I wager he could have revealed more about his identity, but what he revealed was sufficient for his death, evidently. Red: "As I see it, and here I speak as one who has himself published anonymously, there is only one reason for anonymity: fear. I wonder what it is you fear on this board?" I agree that a reason is fear, and I agree that fear is a lack of love. However, I do not agree that a person willing to disclose the aspects of identity requested here necessarily demonstrates greater love another that chooses anonymity. One may choose to disclose identity for less than loving reasons. What do I fear on this board? It is the answer I cannot give you that I fear most.
18	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/10/2003 5:41:00	Sterling: "Striving to be like God and mimickry are not the same." What is the difference? Sterling: "You missed the point. As a community, we have given each other a level of power. By revealing not just our names, but who we are. Truth be told, I can live without your real name." I believe I am still missing the point because I am not sure what I should understand from this statement. Sterling: "But just to be sure I didn't miss anything I reread you introduction thread. Other than saying you know Joey, you don't tell us anything. It isn't really an introduction, it's an announcement of your presence." What should an introduction include? Sterling: "No, not a justification. A dodge. A way to divert the discussion from the motives for your behavior. It's an old trick, and it allows you to claim the moral high ground while avoiding an honest discussion of your fears and motivation. 'I'm not hiding anything, I'm just trying to be like God. You want to be like God, don't you?'" We see this differently. For what it's worth, I will claim that it is, sincerely, a proposed justification. I recognize that you think I am disingenuous in this.
19	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/10/2003 6:01:00	Arosophos, previously: "Knowledge is power. Power should be shared discriminately." Greenfrog: "It is curious to me to realize how inconsistently this principle is applied by reality." I agree. Sometimes we make mistakes, and sometimes we do not have the option of discrimination. Greenfrog: "God seems pretty indiscriminate in sharing such information." Perhaps he, too, sometimes does not have the option of discrimination? "And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear. "And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen? "And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. "And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this? "And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me. "And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak? "And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie. "And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you." (Ether 3: 6-13) The tension between ability and disability to discriminate is interesting to me, as is God's interest in discrimination. Greenfrog: "I think Red is asking for a discussion of the values of esotericism. This topic resulted in a fascinating (but nearly endless) thread at BeliefNet a couple of years ago, with some characters who, online, at least, will be familiar to you: Arosophos, Grasshopper, Timothy and me. When I get off work, I'll go hunt for a url for that thread." Greenfrog, here is the url: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=28174">http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message ... onID=28174</a><!-- m -->
20	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/10/2003 6:13:00	Manfoom: "I think you are dodging the issue." I recognize that you think this. Please know that I claim to be sincere in my proposed justification of anonymity. Manfoom: "The reason I don't sacrifice my son is what makes the difference between Abraham and the Lafferty's. I could go on, but I believe the majority of the readers know what I am talking about." Please go on. What do you perceive to be the difference? Manfoom: "I strive to be like God in the important ways." Which characteristics of God are unimportant for us to emulate? Manfoom: "God also allows us to kill, if I saw someone trying to kill I would try to stop them, Does this make me un-godlike?" I believe the answer depends on the circumstances. See the quote from Joseph Smith that I posted above. Manfoom: "we could go on in this discussion, but I believe this line of defense is sophisticated in the worst way." Why? Manfoom: "I am willing to accept that you are uncomfortable linking your words to a breathing personna, for whatever reason." I am a breathing persona that writes these words. They are linked, so far as I am concerned. Manfoom: "Surely you must be willing to accept that insistence on anonymity makes some here uncomfortable as well." I recognize that. I am sorry about it, but not sorry enough to change it. In an ideal world, such conflict does not exist. Keeping such an ideal in mind, I may succeed at decreasing your discomfot in other ways.
21	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/11/2003 8:47:00	T-rex: "To the extent that perception is reality, those who choose anonymity undercut their own relevance." This seems right. Extending this, would it also be true that those who choose anonymity, yet engage faithfully, offer something that is less encumbered by their ego? I do not think self-love is unimportant. I do think, however, that we can sometimes offer more when we do not require the gift to bare a signature or other identifying information. T-rex: "Arosophos has offered very little to my perceptors, and therefore, makes a poor case for his own reality." You are not the only person who has doubted my existence. :-) That said, at least I am in good company with nearly all the rest of the world that has offered little to your perceptors. T-rex: "As such, it is he who is at the disadvantage, not me. His opinions, thoughts, and feelings are, to me, meaningless. Should he be shouting his deepest, most sacred convictions at the top of his lungs, I would be remiss to pay him any more attention than that which I would pay a malfunctioning car alarm." You could not have written any of this if it were true.
22	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/11/2003 8:57:00	Arosophos, previously: "What do I fear on this board? It is the answer I cannot give you that I fear most." Red: "This conveys nothing to me." Would you like me to try to explain better? Red: "I take it that what you fear is trouble with the Church based on false accusations from members or lurkers on this board. Having witnessed the harm false accusations can do to people's standing in the Church, I can respect this. And perhaps at some time in the future we will develop sufficient mutual trust that this fear will subside." That is certainly something that I fear, and no matter how much I trust you or the regular participants on this board, this site remains public. That aside, I hope you understand that this fear (and fear generally) is not the only reason I feel to prefer anonymity. Red: "I hope so. Because at present you have the power to contact our ecclesiastical leaders with questionable accusations, while denying us this same power over you." I did not ask and would not have asked for that power over you on a public web site. Red: "Perhaps this lack of reciprosity is at the root of some of the discomfort that has been expressed by other swabbies on this thread." I think so. Red: "Welcome." Thank you.
23	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/11/2003 9:05:00	Jim Weed: "Arosophos, My sentiments are with Red and bone." Thank you. Jim Weed: "The post about your negative experience as a moderator had impact. While all of the scriptures and references to God are clever justifications or dodginess or whatever people choose to call it, that personal experience is the most convincing argument." I feel the opposite, but recognize that we are not all alike. Jim Weed: "Also, the hostile tone of some of these posts isn't representative of how we all feel." Hostile tone? ;-) Jim Weed: "I would characterize my feeling as one of cautious skepticism and curiosity." That sounds healthy.
24	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/11/2003 9:14:00	Manfoom: "Oddly, I thinky your annecdote gives more, not less, reason for full disclosure. I imagine if someone were to assume my persona and start sending emails with my name on them, people from this forum, would probably say, "That doesn't sound like Damian". Moreover, they could personally contact me in a way that cannot be hijacked so easily, as calling me, or talking to me face to face." What about people you have only met online and with whom you have not been acquainted for long? What about people who encounter your name for the first time with the impersonated words following it? Do you, Manfoom, stop to ask whether each perceived inappropriateness posted by another person may have been the work of impersonation? Or do you silently add the experience to your mental profile under the label of the person's name? Manfoom: "Unlike other boards, the relationships of this board have a foundation offline. Most of the people that I interact with here, I will probably meet in real life, if I don't allready know them well. So it is unlike beliefnet, or any other idea based discussion forum. Nonetheless we like to discuss ideas. Someone can put on a persona when I know that it is a persona, and I know the person behind the mask." Unlike other boards . . . at least until now. Perhaps longer, too? That is a decision SWAB needs to make. If you do not make it, it will be made for you. Manfoom: "But they will remain strangers, until a time of their choosing." How do you think our interaction on this thread will affect their choice?
25	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/11/2003 16:51:00	Thank you, Jeff Freebird Z.
26	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/11/2003 21:19:00	T-rex: "He's just some sort of crazy knowlege perv." In my experience, sexuality need not be perverted. For such experience, I have learned to approach the woman carefully, respectfully, faithfully, first spiritually, then physically, toward the union of ecstasy. I have learned that I cannot demand to know her. To know her, I must work with her until we give ourselves to each other. In my experience, wisdom is a woman.
27	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/14/2003 3:53:00	Paul: "BTW, Arosophos, don't you always seem to get into these issues over who exactly you are?" Sure -- it must be an extension of my lifelong identity crisis. ;-)
28	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	10/21/2003 5:43:00	God by any other name is as divine.
29	The Font of Knowledge	Purpose of Life	10/29/2003 5:56:00	Greenfrog: "It seems to me that, assuming that I have agency, the purpose of my life is mine to choose. Joy if I choose joy, something else if I choose something else." Agreed, yet may those of us that choose joy recognize the importance of persuading others to make a similar choice. The fullness of my joy depends on the fullness of yours, and ours depends on that of all that is. Timothy: "I also choose to pursue truth as a means to increase my opportunity to achieve joy." I agree, and consider this another way of saying that the fullness of my joy depends on the fullness of yours. Truth is that which we share. The more we share, the more likely my pursuit of joy will enhance yours, and yours mine.
30	The Font of Knowledge	Capitalism	10/30/2003 6:01:00	Brandini: "The other alternative is that conservatives don't support affirmative action because they don't think it remedies inequalities associated with race, and becuase it weakens incentives for merit." Jeff Freebird Z: "fair enough. I still maintain, though, that not enough credence is given to race and other factors in the ambition+desire=success equation." I agree, Jeff Freebird Z, that race is a factor in success, on average -- for both justifiable and unjustifiable reasons, I think. However, regardless of race being a factor in success, I see only hypocrisy and reverse discrimination in affirmative action. As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. I am guessing that you do not see this the same as I do? If so, why do you not see affirmative action as hypocrisy and reverse-discrimination? ----- Sterling: "it is unaccepable to me that anyone has to go without healthcare, a quality high school education, proper nutrition or adaquate housing." Jim Weed: "I think it reflects poorly on our culture that we allow these things to exist considering our wealth. If more people adopted an attitude of stewardship towards others, I wonder what difference that would make. Instead of saying, 'Hey, if you make good decisions you can dig your way out' why aren't we saying 'Hey, let me dig with you?' I'm not saying everybody has to be rich, but they should have rights to the things sterling listed." So long as we ensure the "with you" part of the digging, I agree with the stewardship perspective you advocate here, Jim Weed. I do, however, have concerns with the idea that everyone should have a RIGHT to benefits such as healthcare, a quality high school education, proper nutrition and adequate housing. To begin with, whether we choose to call it a "right" or not, some people simply cannot achieve a high school education. Others would happily do no work while accepting the listed benefits. Still others would act in various ways contrary to the goals of the listed benefits while simultaneously accepting them. To say the listed benefits are a right seems to overlook our capabilities and ethics. In other words, even if we could claim that these benefits are rights, we should not do so unconditionally. That aside, I agree with what I feel is the intent behind your words, Jim Weed and Sterling: we feel it is wrong that persons who would do what they can to attain these benefits should not have them simply because of the inopportune context in which they find themselves. This seems to be the model of Christ: so long as we will do what we can, Christ will make it sufficient for salvation -- although exaltation seems to be a different matter.
31	The Font of Knowledge	Perfection	11/1/2003 10:01:00	Sterling: "It doesn't mean anything. Perfection is too distant a standard to even be reasonable." Strictly speaking, these statements contradict each other. However, I am inclined to believe that the second statement comes closer to representing your understanding of "perfection": a distant standard. This is not meaningless because this communicates something to me. Unreasonable? Is there something inherently unreasonable about a distant standard? Or is it how we sometimes compare ourselves to that distant standard that is . . . maybe, "hopeless"? . . . "unreasonable" does not seem to be the right word. Reason itself is founded in all kinds of distant standards, so to speak. Sterling: "I've always thought strive to be better is a better guideline than strive to be perfect." I agree that this is a practical perspective, particularly in the face of hopelessness. However, is there not some distant standard in this? Always strive to be better. That is a standard, and the "always" seems distant. That said, I think this is a less distant standard than that commonly associated with perfection. What if always striving to be better is perfection? Joseph taught us of a God that progresses eternally -- a God that not even the heaven of heavens can contain. Is God perfect? If so, it appears that perfection is something more like the standard you are describing than that commonly understood. Cowboy Dan: ". . . the scriptures answer Joey's question by saying that God is perfect." . . . but what do they mean by this? Do they necessarily mean that which we commonly associate with "perfect" in contemporary conversation? Or perhaps it is simply a matter of definition: whatever God is, that is perfect? That's what I understand when I read the scriptures. God is, at least in part, the ideal human -- eternally progressing. Be perfect, the scriptures say. How? . . . as God is perfect, and as Christ is perfect. In the spirit of Brigham, they are the only perfection with which you and I have anything to do. Cowboy Dan: "It's pretty clear that it is just about impossible to know God (at least in this life)." I understand the scriptures to teach the opposite, even command the opposite. Do you disagree? Cowboy Dan: "For practical reasons . . . perfection is the enemy of good." Unless they are the same thing? Cowboy Dan: "If we are so bent out of shape trying to be perfect we run the risk of being dissatisfied with anything else, such as adequacy or general goodness. Let's be better. I like it when President Hinckley tells us that." I agree; and I, too, appreciate Hinckley's repetition of the need for enduring incremental improvement. However, the question remains, is anything adequately good other than perfection? The scriptures seem to teach clearly that nothing else is adequate. Yet you and I recognize vice in the depression resulting from running faster than we have strength, as the scriptures say. Could there be perfection in the goodness -- in the progression itself -- eternally? Perhaps any termination of the progress into some kind of static final would-be perfection is not perfection -- not the state of being that the scriptures label "perfection"? Sterling: "Really, I think the word "Perfection" is almost without meaning." This backs off from your original statement slightly. Do you really mean that it is almost without meaning? Does it have, for example, more meaning than "God"? Sterling: "As imperfect beings in an imperfect world, I don't think we can comprehend fully what a perfect entity would be." "Imperfect" is understood relative to "perfect". I agree that our concept of perfection may itself progress, and that our current concept, relative to our future concept, may not be so full. Yet we do not go from empty to full without filling. Sterling: "When we say something is perfect, most of the time we mean it is as good as it can be, or as good as we are capable of making it." Sure. What is as good as you and I can be now? What is as good as we are capable now? If we do whatever that is, are we perfect? I understand the gospel of Christ to be precisely that: so long as we are, in good faith, doing well, the grace and love of Christ is sufficient to make us perfect. This reminds me of one of my favorite passages of scripture, and arguably one of the most important messages from the Book of Mormon, right at the end: "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. "And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." (Moroni 10: 32-33) Do we believe it? Do we believe that only whatever love we are capable of giving God is required for our perfection? Further, do we read this as it is, or add to it? I don't read any phrases such as "kind of" or "later". I read: "be perfected". Love will perfect us? That's what it says. It does not say "omnipotence" or "omniscience". It says "love". The author of the epistles of John must have had the same thing in mind when writing: "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. "Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love." (1 John 4: 16-18) Perfect in love, as he is, so are we in this world! No more fear, no more doubt or depression, no more feelings of inadequacy or meaninglessness. Rather, boldness in our day of judgment! Can you feel the Spirit of God in this? I can. Sterling: "Humans are never perfect even in the second sense." Why not? Maybe that is true only so long as you make it so? I am not suggesting that there is no evil in the world, or in each of us. I am suggesting only that there is also goodness, and in that goodness, in our union with Christ, there is perfection. I am suggesting that there is nothing more perfect for us than to be as Jesus Christ taught us: perfect in love, one for the other. "Perfection" need only be meaningless if we reduce it to meaninglessness. We can choose to do that with any word. We can also choose to use the word in a meaningful way, such as that suggested by the scriptures. Then, when we agree upon the meaningful usage, we communicate. You tell me we should be perfect as Christ. I tell you the same. We understand, and we do. Sterling: "We are good, sometimes, and bad others, and often the difference is a matter of seconds." Agreed, as John taught: if we say we are not sinners, the truth is not in us. However, in Christ, the man of sin dies, and the man of holiness -- perfection -- lives. I wonder . . . without Christ, was Jesus any more perfect than you or I, any less a sinner? In Christ, we overcome sin, the misery and pain we cause each other. In Christ, we atone, a profound work of reciprocity -- not compromise, but mutual exaltation. Can Jesus atone alone? Can you or I? Is there any meaning in solitary atonement? No. I am not suggesting that Jesus has done nothing for our salvation. To the contrary, I can think of no other that has done more. I am suggesting, rather, that he has done as we should do, as we must do, if we are to be perfect -- perfect in Christ, keeping his commandments and having his Spirit with us, taking his name and doing his works, loving God and neighbor as we should. Sterling: "Better simply means advancing positive characteristics, and minimizing negative characteristics. Any increment of change could be characterized as better, making it a regularly achievable standard." Generally speaking, I agree with this, and I believe that if we are doing this then, as the scripture says, the grace of Christ is sufficient for us, and we are perfect. Timothy: "This question depends entirely upon the contextual use of 'perfect'." I agree. The scriptures seem to use "perfect" is reference to the way a human should and can live. Timothy: "I can envision perfection in many areas. For example, in bowling, I can envision bowling a perfect game, by achieving a score of 300. That is a quantifiable activity. Other things, I think, become nonsensical when referred to as 'perfect'. For example, I don't think there is any sense in which a song or a piece or art can be 'perfect' in the literal sense." Why is 300 a perfect bowling score? Why not 400? . . . because somebody defined it that way. The same is done in music regularly. Young pianists, for example, are often scored for their performances -- and sometimes receive perfect scores. Why are their scores perfect? . . . because somebody defined it that way. Likewise with the perfection of humans, we define standards. Some of us, in our conviction that the standard is something akin to the Law of Moses, wonder in fear of worthlessness. Christ offers another standard, an easier burdon. Love one another, as I have loved you. Such is perfection. Timothy: "Likewise, I can't conceive of what "perfection" means when applied to an individual, subjective being. Even God. Such a use is nonsensical, imo." As perfect bowling and perfect art are only non-sensical outside the context of a standard, so perfect humans are only nonsensical outside the context of a standard. We have our standard by which to measure: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ . . ." (Ephesians 4: 12-13) Do we measure up to the stature of the fulness of Christ? Do we love God with all our hearts? If so, his grace is sufficient for us, and we become the perfect man. Steven Bone: ". . . the reason i don't like perfect is that it is a teleological word, it suggests a destination, an end point. a preconceived idea of where the path will lead before we've travelled it et cetera." . . . unless perfection is as God is: eternally progressing. Steven Bone: ". . . which can also be used (in various morphs) to talk about concepts like "completion" or being finished. obviously that rubs against the idea of eternal progression or eternal evolution or whatever. maybe the biblical translation of "be ye therefore perfect" could use a better word . . ." I agree that there will always be a struggle to persuade others to understand perfection as we understand it. However, this is not new, of course. Such has been the struggle for the Gospel of Christ since the beginning. The good news is just that: there is another way, beyonf the law, to understand and achieve perfection. Greenfrog: "Is there a sensical way to determine whether one song or piece of art is better than another?" . . . only when we agree on a standard of measurement. Sterling: "My answer is satisfactory. I believe perfection is a word without meaning or value, so I can't help you find meaning or value in it." You can, if you choose -- I am sure. Sterling: "An interesting thing about the scriptures you referenced . . . is that the contextual deffinition of perfection is different each time it appears." Will you explain how the word "perfection" should necessarily be understood differently in each of the examples Joey provided? Timothy: "So, rather than discuss the possibility that your scriptures aren't coherent, you'd rather redefine the word "perfection" to fit with a view that you find more coherent." Are you different, Timothy? When you come across something in an important aspect of your life that you do not understand as coherent, do you first discuss possibilities for coherence or do you first discuss possibilities for incoherence? Of course you do the former because you are already concerned by the latter. The question does not arise unless there is already some incoherence perceived, and incoherence does not cohere unless possibilities for coherence are considered. Timothy: "I don't think this is a semantical game. I actually believe that the pursuit of "perfection" is harmful, rather than helpful, to both the individual and the broader community." Depending on your standard for perfection, I agree. However, I am confident, judging from this statement, that you and I have different standards for perfection. Timothy: "I have a theory on this that I call 'horizonal goal setting'. I think we can only set goals for that which we can 'see' and understand. If we don't know where a destination is, can't define the path to get there, then our chances of achieving the goal are diminished." I agree with this to some large extent; however, we cannot set goals without a concept that lies beyond the goals we set. Goals point somewhere. Ideals remain useful. Timothy: "So, in apparent answer to your original question, 'pefection' seems to be entirely self-defined by you . . . 'Perfection', for Joey, means whatever Joey wants it to mean." Maybe. Likewise, Joey can choose to worship whichever God he wants to worship. The interesting question is: which choice will effect more desirable outcomes? Timothy and all the world may understand "perfection" as meaningless or evil, yet may Joey's understanding of "perfection" lead him to salvation. So, instead of taunting Joey, perhaps we should be asking him what practical difference it makes to understand "perfection" as he does? Sterling: "You can say 'words are how I define them', but then language loses it's value and it's ability to express thought across generations and between people." Agreed, but why should we give all the authority to Webster? If we do, Mormonism dies now. Have you read Webster's definition of "God", "salvation", "justification", "sanctification" and "Christ"? Are they sufficient for us to communicate on these subjects? Or is more required? Yes: if we do not proselyte, our language will not express thought across generations and between people. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16: 15) "Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah . . ." (2 Nephi 2: 8) Sterling: "I reject the word perfection precisely because it is ill defined, and therefore without meaning." . . . until you change your mind and work to agree on a meaning . . . perhaps given the context of usage in the scriptures? That seems to be Joey's request. Sterling: "I don't think the prophets of old used the word." Right. They wrote in Greek, or whatever . . . but we still try to understand them. Sterling: "I believe they used a word for which english has no equivalent translation." Is there, in any absolute sense, an equivalent word in any language for any word from any other language? Particularly when the persons using the word and its translation live millenia apart, but even when they are practically neighbors? So, a couple things about me: I am a computer programmer by profession, and I speak almost exclusively a non-English language in my home. I use at least three languages, and perhaps as many as ten, every day for extended periods of time, intermixed with each other. My experience is that each of the different languages I use is filled with nuanced meaning that is difficult to translate into the other languages. Yet it is also my experience that, despite the difficulty, translations are possible -- and frequently worthwhile. Of course, something may be lost in translation, but something may also be gained. I have also learned that sometimes we are able to communicate something better in a seond language that we thought only the first could communicate sufficiently. Often, until we work at it, we do not know -- and certainly if we decide not to work at it, we will not know. Sterling: "The scriptures are not wrong, they just don't contain the exact language." Sure. I agree with this, but I think it is as applicable to the original language as it is to the English. Sterling: "I remeber something about 'as long as they are translated correctly' in the articles of your faith." I agree with this, too. However, I think it is only a step in the right direction. The scriptures also teach us that we must read with the Spirit if we are to understand. "Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? "And if it be by some other way it is not of God. "And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way? "If it be some other way it is not of God. "Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth? "Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together." (D&C 50: 17-22) This we can do, I believe. We can come together in the Spirit of God and understand "perfection". That is my faith.
32	The Font of Knowledge	Perfection	11/1/2003 20:05:00	Timothy: "However, I am relatively confident that were we to ask the general population of LDS Mormons, we'd find a significant level of incoherency within their understanding of the term 'perfect'." Sure, and the same can be said of the use of any term in any community, to varying degrees. Timothy: "I think LDS Mormonism, in practice, has tended to teach that perfection is a destination, and not a journey." Some LDS Mormons teach this. I agree. Some do not. I know many of both. Timothy: "I think canonized scripture is dangerous . . ." Do you think law is dangerous? Why or why not? I suspect that the answers you provide to these questions will be sufficient to demonstrate that you do not think canonized scripture is inherently dangerous. Rather, I think your point will be that it can be dangerous if misused, which I think is true of all law. Timothy: "I think it necessarily leads toward dogmatism." Necessarily? So far as I can tell, there is no logical necessity that canonized scripture leads to dogmatism. Let's look at your reasoning . . . Timothy: "Both you and Joey, perceiving incoherency relative to the term 'perfection' would rather change the understood definition of the word than to change the word itself." Off-hand, I perceive no incoherency in my understanding of "perfection" as used in the scriptures. I do perceive incoherency between my understanding and others' understanding, which is why I am engaged in this discussion. Timothy: "Why? Becuase the word is part of your canonized scriptures." Since I do not perceive incoherency in the scriptures' use of "perfection", this criticism is misplaced. Timothy: "You mentioned that I'd fight to see the coherency in those things I deem important, and I don't disagree . . ." Good. Timothy: ". . . but this is much different than fighting to keep the coherency in specific written texts . . ." I see no difference. If the text is important to you then, according to that which you write above, you would fight to see coherency in it. Timothy: ". . . and changing meaning in specific words to make it work." To begin with, I am convinced that I am not doing that relative to the use of "perfection" in the scriptures. Can you convince me otherwise? That aside, I am skeptical of your claim that you would not do as you say with texts that are important to you. How about Constitutional interpretation, Timothy? Would you ever argue over the correct interpretation of that text? Timothy: "I'd rather just change the words." I bet you would, but, as with the Constitution, changing texts for greater clarity is not always the most practical decision. Often persuasion of interpretation is far more practical. Timothy: "I think canonized texts lead to dogmatic thinking." You mentioned this before, but you have yet to explain why. Again, let's look at your reasoning . . . Timothy: "I think this discussion provides a keen example of this." Okay. Why? What is dogmatism, how has this thread illustrated dogmatism, and how is this dogmatism the result of canonized scripture? Timothy: "I can find no equivalent to this in my own life or thinking." As I mention above, talk to me about law in your life and thinking. Timothy: "Let's take the following statement: 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.' Rather than change the popularly accepted definition of the word to meet your understanding of the intent of the passage, why not work to change the words altogether?" Because the statement is all about redefining perfection. It is not saying that God is as perfection is. It is saying that perfection is as God is. Timothy: "Perhaps you chould change it to say... 'Therefore, seek to love others as does your Father in Heaven.'" I like that, and agree with it. I also like and agree with that which the text says. Timothy: "That, it would seem, would fulfill the task of inspiring to motivation that you speak to. It would provide a much more tangible and coherent path for believers to follow, would it not?" Again, I like what you wrote. However, I think there is profound importance in the original text. It is a radical statement that can change us for the better when we understand it as explained in the New Testament. Perfection is not in the Mosaic Law, or any similar law. Instead perfection is in Christ. Our feeling to desire perfection will not change simply because we change a text. It is precisely the text that liberates us from the burdon of impossible perfection. Timothy: "I am contending that it is dogmatism that compels you to change the meaning rather than the words." I like the words. If advocating that which I like is dogmatism then I am dogmatic. There are, however, other passages of scripture that I feel differently about. Some, even, that Joseph went to the effort to change. I am not necessarily against changing scripture, as guided by the inspiration of God. I am, however, against changes for the worse. Greenfrog: "I am interested in more dimensions than love alone." Good point, Greenfrog. As we understand God, Christ, to be the definition of perfection, we seek to be like him in all ways, whether we describe those ways using "love" or otherwise.
33	The Font of Knowledge	Perfection	11/1/2003 20:08:00	Timothy: "Greenfrog...I'm not suggesting that this is the only possible solution...I'm just suggesting the approach." I agree that more is needed than simply to declare that God is the definition of "perfection". We then need to talk about God so that we can develop an understanding of "perfection". The scriptures do this. Eternal life is all about this.
34	The Font of Knowledge	Prayer - what is it good for?	11/14/2003 5:20:00	. . . some scriptures this thread brought to mind: "I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. "Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience." (Alma 29: 4-5) "But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble." (Jacob 4: 14) "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." (D&C 93: 30) According to these passages of scripture, freedom to pursue desire is essential to existence and of such importance to God that he will not only answer our prayers, but also decree unalterable decrees, whether for salvation or damnation, in accordance with them. From this I understand: if I perpetually pray my desires, I progress toward either salvation or damnation; if I perpetually do not pray my desires, I regress toward inexistence.
35	The Font of Knowledge	Prayer - what is it good for?	11/15/2003 19:31:00	I pray to the God that I associate with the various descriptions of him in the scriptures. I consider each of the descriptions to be an aspect of him, yet not exhaustive of him, even in combination. The aspect that tends to be the most important for me during prayer is the physical and spiritual feeling I call the "Holy Spirit". It may be appropriate to say that I pray to a state of being which unites me with God.
36	The Font of Knowledge	Prayer - what is it good for?	11/15/2003 19:34:00	. . . although "pray in" would reflect the feeling as much as does "pray to".
37	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 4:46:00	I would like the government to separate itself entirely from marriage and replace any laws related to marriage with civil contracts that any number of parties may enter into -- regardless of whether they also engage in sexual relations. Our various traditions can celebrate marriages as customary, and simultaneously enter the marrying persons into civil contracts, if they desire. . . . I can't vote on this poll because I don't think the government should allow homosexuals to marry, as I don't think the government should allow heterosexuals to marry. To the contrary, we shouldn't allow the government the authority to allow marriage.
38	The Font of Knowledge	The Devil	11/22/2003 5:14:00	Joseph Smith taught, in simple terms, that Satan is a spirit -- in contrast to humans with physical bodies. However, I think we can go further with Joseph's understanding by considering the implications of passages such as this: "All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all;" (TPJS 355) Everything God reveals to us is revealed: (1) in the abstract, (2) as if we have no bodies, and (3) in the manner spirits perceive. Spirits perceive in the abstract. When one spirit perceives another, it perceives an abstraction. So far as I can tell, it would make little difference to Joseph whether we called Satan a spirit or an abstraction. However, does this make him less than real? No. Abstractions are real, of course, but real in a way that we associate with all abstractions -- all things spiritual.
39	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 20:02:00	Greenfrog: ". . . do you think that society . . . should endeavor to regulate consensual sexual conduct in any fashion . . ." Yes. I even think the government should be the source of some of that regulation. I don't think the government should be the source of that regulation, to the extent that sexual conduct is private and non-violent, and to the extent that multiparty sexual conduct is between adults and consensual. Greenfrog: ". . . through laws forbidding certain practices . . ." Yes. I think sexual conduct should be illegal to the extent that it is public or violent, or to the extent that it is multiparty and not between adults or not consensual. Greenfrog: ". . . through moral opprobrium that does not involve governmental action . . ." Moral opprobrium is just the start. I am all about legislating morality. I don't think there are any other kinds of laws we can create. Greenfrog: ". . . through even the thoughts or feelings of those who witness or participate in the conduct?" That's where it starts. Greenfrog: "For what it's worth, I think that society existing between two people is as important and relevant as society existing among millions . . ." From the perspective of the two people, I agree. Greenfrog: ". . . so I'm curious about whether you perceive there to be any differences when you get to society at the level of ones and twos." There is at least one substantial difference: the magnitude of complexity. Greenfrog: "It seems to me that the effects of sex on our society can hardly be understated. Similarly, the quite human responses to sex can hardly be understated (for the same reason)." This surprises me unless you meant that they can hardly be overstated, in which case I would agree with you. Greenfrog: "For a society to disregard what is evolutionarily the only relevant action of a creature . . ." I disagree. Sexual procreation is not the only tool of evolution. Even if we attain immortality, even if we do away with sexual procreation, evolution will have its way -- and to the extent that we are God, we will have our way with evolution. Greenfrog: ". . . what is among the functions for which we are most centrally "hard wired" (if you'll pardon the expression) . . ." Recognizing the "among", I agree. Greenfrog: "Does anyone believe that we should, as a society, forbid opinion or thought -- even if it is repugnance -- about sexual conduct? If so, why? If not, why not?" Even if we can, we should not, because doing so requires that we cease to exist.
40	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 20:08:00	Backwards: ". . . it's going to bring out conservative opposition in full force . . ." I hope it does, and think they will be justified. The government should not be endorsing homosexual marriages, given the context of the governed, so many of which consider homosexual marriages to be utterly immoral. To repeat, I hope, but do not expect, that the conservatives will also come out in full force against government endorsement of any kind of marriage. The government can do its job just fine without engaging in the defining of marriage. It need not fight this battle to achieve its role. It can transcend the battle.
41	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 20:10:00	Jeff Freebird Z: "Whose version of morality should we be legislating?" Our constitution outlines this. Generally, we should be legislating the morality of the majority. Do we agree with this? If not, we should be seeking to change the constitution -- and I think that, generally, the best way to do this is through peaceful means.
42	The Font of Knowledge	The Devil	11/22/2003 20:21:00	Timothy: "Arosophos...does your Satan have free will?" . . . as a spirit, not to the extent that you and I have free will. As Joseph taught, physical beings have power over spiritual beings. However, as the scriptures and experience teach us, a spirit can possess a physical being, and thereby gain greater power. Can you hear Satan now? "I will take the spirits that follow me, and they shall possess the bodies thou createst for Adam and Eve!" Jeff Freebird Z: "Interestingly, the temple video at least seems to go out of its way to show Satan as a corporeal being . . ." . . . or is the temple ceremony recounting the interaction between archetypes? Consider the statement from Satan above. How many bodies do Adam and Eve need? Does that make sense unless they are archetypes? Greenfrog: "As it does God and Christ." The scriptures teach us about the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. I understand these phrases, in part, to be references to the archetypes. Of course, the scriptures also teach us that these particular archetypes reach their greatest exaltation in concrete flesh and bone. Jess Freebird Z: "But that's not suprising or seemingly contradictory at all. LDS doctrine is quite clear on the corporeality of God and Christ." I agree.
43	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 20:38:00	That sounds good to me, but do recognize that, in this, you and I are desiring that our morality be legislated. Jeff Freebird Z: "In theory, majority only rules when to do so does not disrupt anyone's else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Even if the majority desires that certain groups not be allowed to pursue life, liberty, and happiness." . . . ironically, only so long as the majority legislates this theory.
44	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 20:48:00	Backwards: "I think you can stop hoping." There is always hope.
45	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 21:03:00	Jeff Freebird Z: "Only in a manner of speaking . . . Of course, it's not foolproof." . . . thus not only in a manner of speaking.
46	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 21:16:00	Jeff Freebird Z: "Are you comfortable then, with no bedrock of rights?" Do I have a choice? I am confortable with my faith in Christ. Jeff Freebird Z: "That majority simply rules?" Actually, in practice, the powerful rule, whether they are the majority or not. When speaking of the majority, I was speaking within the context of the U.S. Constitution. May Christ be powerful. Jeff Freebird Z: "You realize that the majority of Americans are not members of the LDS church." I do. Jeff Freebird Z: "What if they took it upon themselves to outlaw the LDS church?" Practically speaking, it would not be the first time. That aside, what would I do? I would try to change the law, first peacefully. Jeff Freebird Z: "Would you be comfortable in that sort of society?" No, as there are many things about our society contemporarily with which I am not comfortable. Our duty is to work on this -- eternally. Jeff Freebird Z: "What you propose is a law of the jungle, where the strongest survive and the weak are trampled upon." I do not propose it. I recognize it, and I see only Christ as transcending it. I propose Christ.
47	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/22/2003 21:35:00	Jeff Freebird Z: "Until your proposal goes through, we're going to need more than Christ to prevent the Holocausts of this world from occurring." I disagree. To the extent that we prevent the Holocausts, the effectiveness of my proposal is demonstrated. No law, no logic, nothing except love can ultimately keep the Holocausts from happening. As mentioned before, may Christ be powerful. Jeff Freebird Z: "We do that by creating and enforcing laws that protect the rights of the minority against the unjust will of the majority." Why do we do that? Does law or logic compel us to do that? Jeff Freebird Z: "That would provide shallow comfort to someone who is suffering today." I didn't write that we should start working on it sometime in eternity. I wrote that we should work on it, eternally -- starting now, if we have not already started. Jeff Freebird Z: "Eternity is a long time to wait for basic rights, if the majority takes them from you." A long time is better than never, in my opinion. Jeff Freebird Z: "Under your version of reality, this would be impossible." How so? It sounds to me as if you are referring to some other person's version of reality. In my reality, Christ is manifest.
48	The Font of Knowledge	The Devil	11/24/2003 3:34:00	Timothy: ". . . what kind of free will do you percieve a spirit to have?" This is something I think about frequently, in particular as I consider loved ones who have died. I feel the influence of their spirits. I am not sure to what extent the influence I feel has free will. Do solopsists wonder the same when they feel the influence of Timothy? Timothy: "I mean, I understand its 'less' than that which we have, but what does this mean?" I intend the "less" to mean something like, for example, the difference between the apparent free will of a human and the apparent free will of a dog. While it seems, in my experience, that both sometimes act by instinct and both sometimes act by choice, it also seems that the former acts by choice more often than the latter -- although I admit that there is no proof for this without a certain kind of faith. Timothy: "What things can a spirit do or not do?" Within the context of my response to your first question, let's say that a spirit can do at least as much as we can imagine that it can do. Timothy: "In what way does this view affect your understanding of the pre-existence?" I think "pre-mortal existence" is more accurate than "pre-existence". I understand the myth (by which word I do not intend to mean anything like "untruth") to describe the origins of humanity, both generally and individually. The original War in Heaven represents to me, in part, the primal choice -- the primal ability to choose -- the origin of free will -- or, yet more accurately, the original metachoice, separating us from those beings that do not recognize their free will. Timothy: "The LDS mythology of the pre-existence suggests that choices were made, and that Lucifer was a leader in those choices. If he, as a spirit, has restricted free will, does that diminish his choices?" In the original War in Heaven, Lucifer represents a side of the metachoice. Of course, this primal choice, by definition, is not exalted to the point of free will that you and I enjoy. As the myth goes, I see Lucifer advocating determinism dishonestly, in that he does not intend himself to partake of determinism, but rather to become that God in power over those wills that would become reduced to meaninglessness in determinism. In this, Lucifer falls and becomes Satan, and we move on to the Garden, where recognition of free will soon leads us to a knowledge of morality.
49	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/24/2003 3:45:00	Timothy: "How is this applied, practically?" Mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those in need of comfort. Help the widows and the fatherless. Love others as we love ourselves. Love God with all our hearts. This is just the beginning, of course. You know where you can find other recommendations. Timothy: "Do you think this is the solution to equity that the gay community seeks?" What is the equity they seek? Is it the same kind of equity afforded singles relative to marrieds in the LDS Church? Timothy: "What are the specific points of implementation that you associate with this proposal? Do you have a plan of action?" I will not list them here. The scriptures already do that. My plan is to live and teach the gospel of Christ. Timothy: "The majority of the 'christian' world strongly opposses and is at war with gays/lesbians." Maybe so. I have trouble measuring this. Timothy: "Are you suggesting that gays and lesbians should place their faith in the christian world?" What is the alternative? Timothy: "Your statement seems like rhetoric with nothing concrete to it." You know the scriptures, Timothy. I suggest you read them again if you have forgotten the concrete suggestions contained therein. If there is nothing concrete to Christianity then there is nothing concrete to any ideology known to man.
50	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/25/2003 5:04:00	Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Christ's law is not 'majority rules,' rather, the rights of all should be preserved, or that we should even go out of our way to ensure the comfort of others before ourselves." In general terms, I agree. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "For me this leads to greater forms of socialism than our government currently espouses, which I favor." As do I, so long as force is not involved -- which is the hard part, of course. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Arosophos, I do not understand how you may have trouble measuring Christian opposition to gay marriage. The LDS Church, the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, just to name a few, all have official policies condemning homosexuality as evil, deviant behavior." Are the official policies the Christians? No. Are they representative of Christians? Yes. Most? Maybe, but I become less confident as we continue in this direction. . . . and concerning your words on equity, I feel generally in agreement. ----- Timothy: "I consider it hate speech . . ." . . . hypocritical, exagerated and inflammatory rhetoric . . . to the extent your message is strengthened by this, we are fools. Timothy: "It is language that is specifically crafted to be prejudicial towards a whole class of individuals." Maybe, but you are equivocating between prejudice and hate -- and I fail to see the justification. Timothy: ". . . many if not most active LDS families have a copy of the Proclamation hanging on the walls of their home, indoctrinating their children to the idea that God hates gays and lesbians." This is a narrow-minded interpretation of the document. Single LDS persons could as easily interpret the document to mean that God hates singles. Although they may do so, I understand the document to be primarily about the exaltation of an environment in which children are created and educated. I asked you what kind of equity you proposed for homosexuals, and my asking was related to the point I am making here. As you know, Timothy, there are some kinds of experience and individual growth that persons who choose not to create and educate children (or some analogous experience) will not have. These kinds of experience are at the heart of a sustainable human community. That may not mean that everyone must participate in these kinds of experience. That does not mean that singles or couples that choose not to participate are worthless or necessarily evil. It does mean, however, that these persons will not participate in the blessings that come with these experiences, except to some extent indirectly. Joseph taught that singles may attain Celestial glory. He also taught that married persons with descendents may attain a greater exaltation of Celestial glory. Yet, in addition, he taught that Celestial glory could be considered to consist of three degrees. If singles may attain the first, and marrieds with descendents may attain the third, who may attain the second? Why did he not tell us at the time? Perhaps we would have killed him sooner? Timothy, to James the Old Bean: "Are you suggesting that God's love for gays/lesbians is manifest through the LDS Church?" . . . not enough. Timothy: "In what way would the LDS Church act differently towards gays/lesbians if it actually did hate them?" The Holy Inquisition comes to mind. ----- Jeremy the Giant Robot: "I can see Timothy's point of view. I can also see valuable principles in the Proclamation. But the valuable principles in the Proclamation seem awfully simple and obvious." . . . as opposed to the careful reading required to arrive at Timothy's interpretation. I do not disagree that there are statements antagonistic to homosexuality included in the proclamation. However, I do not think it is hate rhetoric -- in fact, I think the characterization to be ridiculous. Jeremy the Giant Robot, to James the Old Bean: "That's a fine line James . . . Granted, the analogy is a little strained." So perhaps the line is not so fine? :-) Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Hate is a strong word. But I don't see a lot of love." Agreed. ----- Timothy: "it's interesting to me, because my attitude towards the LDS Church has been labeled as 'hate' by several members of this forum." Timothy, you have verbally abused the LDS Church to magnitudes the LDS Church has not remotely approached, in my opinion -- and I think it an educated opinion. Timothy: "I think if my activities towards the LDS Church (confined mostly to discussion on online forums) would qualify as hate, I am confident that the political actions of the LDS Church, whereby they seek to restrict homosexuals from building stable communities in the secular world would certainly qualify." Hate is an attitude. You do not simply demonstrate disagreement with the LDS Church. You do not merely say that the LDS Church is wrong. You do not in soberness declare the LDS Church sinful. You do not stop with financing opposition to its policies, and teaching those in your influence to oppose it. If you acted only in these ways, I would say you were treating the LDS Church as it treats homosexuality. You go beyond this in demonstrations of attitude that I recognize as hate. I think you do this because you feel that the LDS Church has hurt you and your loved ones. For what it's worth, I am sorry. Timothy: "Add to this my sense that by actively working to deny gays/lesbians the ability to build stable communities precisely at a time when unstable communities leads to greater promiscuity . . ." I agree with this concern, although I am skeptical concerning homosexuals' desire, in general, to enter into committed relationships. I hope this is an unjustified prejudice in me. For my part, I am willing to risk being right, in hope that I am wrong.
51	The Font of Knowledge	Poll on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions	11/26/2003 5:33:00	Timothy: "Your response to me reads as though you are uncharacterisitically naive on this issue . . ." Naivete is quite in character, but I will take that as a compliment. :-) Timothy: "My guess is that you have little to no association with real, believing, faithful, living, breathing, loving, sinning, imperfect, fully-human homosexuals . . ." . . . little direct association is accurate. The two homosexuals that I should know best have worked hard at not having much of a relationship with me. In addition to my uncle that you mention, one of my best friends from high school is now openly homosexual. To my sincere dismay, he has not returned phone calls or emails for several years now. However, fortunately, I have a good relationship with his parents, and I try to keep up on the latest events in his life. Timothy: "To characterize my actions relatve to the LDS church as worse than those actions of the LDS Church relative to the homosexual community is beyond reason. Really." Demonstrate, then, in word and deed that my characterization of your attitude is beyond reason -- perhaps starting now. Timothy: "But, thanks for your thoughts." :-) Your opinion, although interesting, is irrelevant: is that the impression you intended me to receive? If so, you succeeded. Is my opinion in this matter irrelevant because I do not have much direct association with homosexuals? Maybe, but that has seldom kept me from sharing my opinion. Timothy: "The bottom line is that the LDS Church is not a healthy place for gays to be; either spiritually or physically." I agree. I also hope and expect this will change. Timothy: "I'll continue to work against the LDS Church on these issues specifically." . . . and exclusively?
52	The Font of Knowledge	The epitome of your faith.	11/27/2003 4:37:00	Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free. Let the mountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid rocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the morning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and immortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!" (D&C 128: 22-23)
53	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	11/30/2003 16:26:00	What is faith?
54	The Font of Knowledge	Self	11/30/2003 17:40:00	I feel to have learned something about identity by watching my son draw and paint. His artwork begins with a white page. Although each point on the white page is unique, as are each of its subpoints in infinite regression, none is easy for me to identify uniquely, except perhaps by arbitrarily categorizing the points into groups, such as upper-left quadrant or lower-half. Even when arbitrarily categorized, however, the points remain interconnected in a single white page that can be tilted and turned to the point of obfuscating the arbitrary categorization of identity. When my son completes his artwork, the white page remains present, as the foundation, but it is now different. Each of the points remain interconnected, yet now I can more easily categorize them, identifying them in more granular units. I can more easily distinguish between the points, perhaps even uniquely identifying a single group of subpoints so fine that it appears atomic, and no matter how the page is tilted or turned I yet am able to reidentify the atom with confidence. Someday, if my son decides to participate in a profession similar to mine, he may use computers to assist in his artwork. At that time, he may continue to enhance the identity of points and subpoints on a white page, but he will have the assistance of thousands of other persons that have coded the computer programs he uses, and, ultimately, even the assistance of the computer program itself -- and of the computer programs that assisted in the creation of the computer program. As I understand Mormon tradition, our identity has emerged in much the same way as the points in my son's artwork. There is a foundation for identity -- intelligence or the light of truth which was not created or made, neither indeed can be. This foundation may be an abstract shortcut for an infinite regression of identity, but we begin faithfully with the foundation. On top of the foundation, our unique identites are organized by God, not separating us from the others so much as distinguishing us from the others. At some time, at some magnitude of organization, perhaps emergent, the identity itself becomes sufficiently organized to choose to participate in its ongoing organization -- and even in the organization of other identities. So we work to exalt identity, to know as we are known, and to attain eternal life. . . . "The intelligence that is in me to cease to exist is a horrid thought; it is past enduring. This intelligence must exist; it must dwell somewhere. If I take the right course and preserve it in its organization, I will preserve to myself eternal life. This is the greatest gift that ever was bestowed on mankind, to know how to preserve their identity . . . "The principles of life and salvation are the only principles of freedom; for every principle that is opposed to God--that is opposed to the principles of eternal life, whether it is in heaven, on the earth, or in hell, the time will be when it will cease to exist, cease to preserve, manifest, and exhibit its identity;" (Journal of Discourses 5: 54) "You understand that you have organizations endowed with a certain portion of divine intelligence, which is supreme, absolute, and independent in its sphere. You are organized expressly for the purpose of being exalted, of preserving your identity before the Lord, and being prepared to enter into celestial glory, to be crowned, to receive kingdoms, thrones, and dominions,--to design and act as do the Gods." (Journal of Discourses 6: 146) "The greatest gift that God can bestow upon the children of men is the gift of eternal life; that is, to give mankind power to preserve their identity--to preserve themselves before the Lord . . . "Cleave to light and intelligence with all your hearts, my brethren, that you may be prepared to preserve your identity, which is the greatest gift of God." (Journal of Discourses 6: 333) "They will be decomposed, both soul and body, and return to their native element. I do not say that they will be annihilated; but they will be disorganized, and will be as though they never had been, while we will live and retain our identity, and contend against those principle which tend to death or dissolution. I am after life; I want to preserve my identity, so that you can see Brigham in the eternal worlds just as you see him now. I want to see that eternal principle of life dwelling within us which will exalt us eternally in the presence of our Father and God. If you wish to retain your present identity in the morn of the resurrection, you must so live that the principle of life will be within you as a well of water springing up unto eternal life." (Journal of Discourses 7: 57)
55	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	11/30/2003 17:58:00	I once participated in a team of students that organized and documented an "axiomatization of quantificational logic" -- essentially, a foundation for a commonly used type of formal logic. Looking back over the document this morning, I see so many assumptions, both acknowledged and unacknowledged, that contributed to the organization. Ultimately, it was our common faith that gave us a beginning. Without it, we could not have worked together to create or document logic itself.
56	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	11/30/2003 18:13:00	Timothy: "Are all of the objects of faith equal?" Apparently not. I feel to value some more than others, and I perceive the same in others. Timothy: "Or, is all faith made of the same stuff, and therefore, all knowledge an illusion?" The conclusion you suggest does not follow from the premise. All faith may be made of the same stuff, so to speak, yet all knowledge be other than illusion. Timothy: "Is faith in all objects equally justifiable? Or, rather, are some types of faith more easily justified than others?" How is faith justified? Or, perhaps more applicable: can faith be justified without reference to faith?
57	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	11/30/2003 20:31:00	I distinguish between objects of faith first according to desire. The more desirable the object of faith, the more important the attempt to know the object of faith -- to discover it to the extent that it already exists and to create it to the extent that it does not already exist. Is there a limit to that which can be discovered and created? Maybe, but faith mandates that we consider such limitation itself to be a hypothesis, and that we reject it in favor of its alternative: that there is no limit to that which can be discovered and created. Is there wisdom in recognizing that which has not, as yet, been discovered or created? Yes, but only to the extent that it does not keep us from the faith I describe in the previous paragraph -- at which extent it is foolishness. Is there a point at which I should fully discard a hypothesis as false or fully embrace it as true? Yes: so soon as it makes a practical difference. Otherwise, we are free to reserve judgment, and there may be a kind of wisdom in doing so. Some hypotheses are of the sort that they are highly desirable and do, if true, necessarily make a practical difference now, whether we embrace them or not -- even the attempt to remain indifferent itself has practical consequences. Such an hypothesis is faith in God.
58	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/1/2003 5:26:00	Timothy: "And, what determines your desire?" At least in part, past experience of pain, pleasure, misery and joy. By definition, I desire to seek that which effects pleasure and joy; I desire to avoid that which effects pain and misery. At some point, too, I realized that my individual pain, pleasure, misery and joy are affected by that of others, and by the context that we discover and create together. Of course, all of that begs the question: what led to past experience? I think desire led to some experience, as experience led to some desire . . . and then the chickens and eggs come to mind. Brandini, responding to Timothy's question: "Survival." I agree, but there is more, too. Survival is just the beginning. The end, so far as I am concerned, is fullness of joy in immortality and eternal life -- the exaltation, reconciliation and fulfillment of all our desires. Timothy: "What makes one hypothesis more desirable than another?" Extending the words above, the hypothesis we expect to bring the greatest joy and pleasure and the least misery and pain is the most desirable. Timothy: "You seem to indicate here that some hypothesis are 'implicitly' more desirable than others. Are you suggesting that this is universally true?" I did not intend to indicate that. To the contrary, my experience has taught me that precisely the opposite is true. For example, as a missionary, I once taught a man who desired, sincerely so far as I could tell from interacting with him over an extended time, to cease existing after death. I investigated his desire, tested it, suggested alternatives, and wondered with him. In the end, perhaps the only comfort for such a person is Brigham's teaching that we can devolve, according to our desires, into, if not anihilation, something approaching it. I cannot tell you that which a person will desire. I can try to persuade them to various desires, but ultimately the desires must be desired. My feeling is that the love of God is manifest in the teachings of Joseph and Brigham that there are infinite varying salvations for the children of God. Timothy: "What do you use to determine which are more desirable than others?" My primary hypothesis is that we can eternally increase joy and pleasure while decreasing misery and pain. In essence, my primary hypothesis is hope. When I act on this hypothesis, I exhibit faith. When I project this hypothesis beyond myself onto others, I exhibit love. This does not directly answer the question, I suppose, but it is the only answer I have. Put differently, I measure desire relative to eternal exaltation, reconciliation and fulfillment of desire. That is an abstraction -- an ideal. In practice? Grace by grace, I lovingly put my faith in the hope; recognizing that all may be vain, yet confident in the better world.
59	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/3/2003 3:22:00	Timothy, are you suggesting that if we desire meaning then we must choose between comfort and truth?
60	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/3/2003 3:39:00	A few days ago, I posted several passages from the Journal of Discourses. One of the passages I posted comes from a discourse that also includes these words: "The disposition, the will, the spirit, when it comes from heaven and enters the tabernacle, is as pure as an angel. The spirit from the eternal worlds enters the tabernacle at the time of what is termed quickening, and forgets all it formerly knew. It descends below all things, as Jesus did. All beings, to be crowned with crowns of glory and eternal lives, must in their infantile weakness begin, with regard to their trials, the day of their probation: they must descend below all things, in order to ascend above all things." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 6:330) These words reminded me of a passage from John in the New Testament: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (John 14: 12) What do you understand from these words of Brigham and John?
61	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/3/2003 3:41:00	Which is your priority?
62	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/3/2003 5:42:00	Timothy, four questions for you . . . 1) What if 100 units of truth permit 1 unit of joy, whereas 1 unit of truth permits 100 units of joy, and you know infallibly that these are the only possible combinations? Which do you choose -- the (a) 100 truth and 1 joy combination, or the (b) 1 truth and 100 joy combination? 2) Same as #1, except that the only possible combinations are (a) 100 truth and 99 joy, or (b) 99 truth and 100 joy. Which do you choose? 3) Same as above, except your choice is between (a) 100 truth and 1 joy, or (b) 99 truth and 100 joy. 4) Same as above, except your choice is between (a) 100 truth and 99 joy, or (b) 1 truth and 100 joy.
63	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/3/2003 5:47:00	Both . . . the first certainly, because you are the authority on your understanding; the second contingent on whether I feel there is someplace to go, given the first. Would you answer your question the same way, Manfoom?
64	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/4/2003 5:08:00	Timothy, will you please answer all four of my questions? I would appreciate it. I recognize that they place you in a context that neither of us desire -- one in which we are forced to choose between truth and joy. Unfortunately, neither of us can prove that such is not our state. So, if, for whatever reason, you suddenly knew, infallibly, that your choices were limited as described in the four questions, which would you choose? A or B, in each case? Thanks, in advance.
65	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/4/2003 5:35:00	. . . and back to the question: is faith rational? I think Timothy asks a good question: faith in what? Faith seems to be required for either rationality or irrationality. Neither rationality nor irrationality seem possible without faith. Faith is courage in the face of ignorance and impotence. Faith is creativity in the face of destruction. Faith is will to exist, will to choose, will to know and will to power. Of course, even these descriptions of faith are founded on faith, and are not themselves faith, but they seem to point our minds to faith. So far as I understand it, faith, in itself, is neither rational nor irrational -- faith is arational. Again, from a Mormon perspective, Timothy's question seems good. Joseph did not teach us that the first principle of the gospel is faith. He taught us that the first principle of the gospel is faith in something. In what? In Christ. So do we ask: is faith in Christ rational? Maybe, but until we have introduced faith in rationality (and its opposite), we have nothing to say about the rationality of faith in Christ -- or any other kind of faith, for that matter. Until you and I, in faith, have agreed on how to measure rationality and irrationality, we may be wise to recognize them as words often abused for emotional affect -- ironically, perhaps. I, for one, claim to have faith in both Christ and rationality. I consider my faith in Christ to be rational, and I consider my faith in rationality to be Christian. What an excellent way to show love for another: to work together in thoughtful persuasion toward a unity of faith! That is rationality, and I consider it my Christian duty.
66	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/4/2003 5:53:00	While we are (or at least I am) on the subject, here is another passage from the scriptures to consider in association with those above. "Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. "For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; "But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; "Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— "Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men. "Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit." (D&C 19: 15-20) . . . they must suffer even as Christ? Is that possible? That seems to be what the scripture says. I suppose we can read some "almost"s or "kind of"s into that verse, like we can when we read the scripture telling us to be perfect even as God and Christ are perfect, but should we? Greater works and above all on the one hand; even suffering and below all on the other? Greater than what? Even as what? Who was speaking when "greater" was used? Who was speaking when "even" was used? Is there a meaningful distinction to make?
67	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	12/4/2003 6:06:00	This evening on the way home from an icecream parlor, a teenage friend asked: so how old were you guys when you stopped believing in Santa Clause? I told him I still believe. :-) Do you?
68	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	12/6/2003 8:27:00	Sterling: "Ah, see you have all missed the crafty nature of this thread. Arosophos asked if you believe in Santa Clause, not Santa Claus. Clearly, he was asking if we all are fans and supporters of the fine series of Tim Allen movies. Very clever, but shouldn't it have gone in the art forum?" Steven Bone: "i thought that might have been what he meant, knowing what sort of secrets he likes to hide within names, that arosophos." It was just a spelling mistake. Thanks for the correction. However, I plead guilty to the charge of craftiness -- sly as serpents yet harmless as doves. Thanks, Joey and Brandini. ----- Timothy, I feel that there are important differences and similarities between the two. What do you think? How did you vote? ----- Jeremy the Giant Robot, Is Santa Claus inherently a lie and fabrication -- complete with all the negative connotations? Is there some conception of Santa Claus that escapes these negative connotations?
69	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/6/2003 8:42:00	In the spirit of Mormonus, Lord of La Mancha, the wild winds of fortune carry onward . . . "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled "In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: "Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." (Colossians 1: 21-29) Paul rejoices in his sufferings for you -- the afflictions of Christ in his flesh -- the labour and striving of Christ that work in him mightily. Is this an example of Brigham's thoughts on descending below all? Paul hopes in the riches and glory of God: Christ in us. Is this an example of Brigham's thoughts on ascending above all?
70	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	12/6/2003 18:48:00	Timothy: "Do Santa and Christ exist in fundamentally different ways?" Jeremy the Giant Robot wants me to answer this question more fully. Do they exist in fundamentally different ways? Emphasizing "exist" and "fundamental", my answer is "no". Fundamentally, Santa Claus and Jesus Christ exist as abstractions in our minds. They are abstractions with various unique historical, mythical and ethical associations; however, these associations are accidental to their fundamental existence. Is this different than the existence of Timothy? Timothy, too, exists in our minds as an abstraction associated with various other abstractions. Among the associated abstractions may be: SWAB participant. Among the associated abstractions may also be: walks on water. Regardless of the associations, Timothy exists in fundamentally the same way as Jesus Christ and Santa Claus. What about Timothy's flesh and bone, an associated abstraction we suppose him to have? What about his free will, as we suppose him to have? Do these associated abstractions give Timothy a fundamentally greater existence than that of Santa Claus and Jesus Christ, beyond their fundamental spiritual existence? I think so, to some extent. To what extent, I am not sure. From a historical perspective, I think that both Santa Claus and Jesus Christ were flesh and bone, as I think Timothy is now. The myth (I do not use "myth" to connote falsehood) is that Christ now is resurrected in flesh and bone like Timothy. The myth is that Santa Claus now remains living in flesh and bone like Timothy. In one sense, I suspect this is wrong. In another sense, I am confident this is right. The nuances of my ideas along these lines shift from time to time, for whatever reason, and I will not try to explain them now. However, in general, there are two extremes that seem to remain constant: my faith in uniformity leads me to suspect that persons do not yet physically rise from the dead or yet live in physical immortality; however, another kind of faith leads me to suspect that persons do already spiritually rise from the dead and do already live in spiritual immortality, both as precursors to physical resurrection and immortality. Santa Claus, the individual historical person, may not yet be physically immortal; but Santa Claus, the myth, should be immortal and living, complete with concrete flesh and bone, in you and me. Jesus Christ, the individual historical person, may not yet be physically resurrected; but Christ, the myth, should be resurrected and living, complete with concrete flesh and bone, in you and me. See the "Greater Works" thread. ----- Jeremy the Giant Robot: "But I don't see anything SO good about Santa Claus that he deserves to be presented as truth . . . Why make up something false and present it as truth?" Why not present Santa Claus accurately as history to the extent he is history and accurately as myth to the extent he is myth? Nearly all the world believes in God, of all shapes and sizes. All of us, with time, decide no longer to believe in a particular shape and size of God, or to expand, reduce or otherwise adjust the shape and size of God in which we believe. We have choices to make: try to give up on God of all shapes and sizes, focus on rejecting God of a particular shape and size, focus on seeking God in a particular shape and size, etc. As I understand Christ, he teaches me to love God in all shapes and sizes with all my heart, and to love the shape and size of my neighbor's God as I love the shape and size of my own. He also taught me that this love is manifest in many ways, ranging from unity to separation, and consisting mostly of the workings in between. I feel our duty, as true Mormons, is to organize and reorganize the shapes and sizes of God to ever greater exaltation. In accordance with this duty, I feel the need to incorporate our common faith in Christ, as taught in the scriptures. The law must be fulfilled -- not broken. Why not break it? Why not escape? Joseph Smith apparently wondered concerning these questions on occasion. Why will you not believe my words on their own authority? I suppose you will make me return to the Bible to prove it. So he did as we do, because we love their God in its shape and size, and we seek a way to fulfill it -- not break it, not even compromise it, and not by compromising our own, but through real atonement that transcends compromise. The Greeks built an altar to an unknown God, and the Lamanites worshipped a Great Spirit. Paul and the Sons of Mosiah loved these shapes and sizes of God, enough to fulfill them. You are right: the unknown God is God! Now know him. You are right: the Great Spirit is God! Now know this of him.
71	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	12/6/2003 18:53:00	Timothy: "I believe that you equivocate in your usage of the term 'exist.' I asked you a question to help clarify your usage of the term. You avoided my question. Why? Do you mean to equivocate? To what end?" Tell me what "exist" means for you, and I will answer your question within that context as directly as I am able. In the meantime, please understand that "exist", for me, is hardly a simple concept; and I suspect that which you perceive as equivocation is reflecting off very real degrees of complexity and ambiguity that I feel and project.
72	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/6/2003 19:04:00	Timothy: "Can you give me an example, then, of something that would be considered irrational?" Relative to you, faith in Christ is irrational. Timothy: "Also, list for me those traits of that thing that make it irrational." 1) You feel such. You want to believe there is more than this; but, ultimately, that is the appeal you must make. Timothy: "Now, as a start to the exploration you propose, perhaps you can tell me how you are using the term rational, what it is about faith in christ that is rational, and what might qualify as irrational." My experience of faith in Christ feels rational to me. Removing faith in Christ would make me feel less rational -- irrational. Timothy: "Again, what would an example of irrationality be?" Again, relative to you, faith in Christ is irrational. Again, give me your reasons, and your reasons for those reasons, and on until you appeal, as I have, to your feelings. I suppose there is an important difference between us, however. I am content to acknowledge the ultimate appeal to my feelings, and my faith itself rejoices in acknowledging this appeal. Timothy: "According to Arosophos: Rationality=Thoughtful persuasion toward a unity of faith. Is this the definition of rationality that you are using?" Sure -- at least until you thoughtfully persuade me to a unity of faith in another definition.
73	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	12/7/2003 7:00:00	Timothy: "I'm merely asking you to define your term. What does exist mean, to you, relative to Santa Claus?" Did you read my second to last post? I answered this question there. If I did not answer adequately, please explain how I did not do so. Have you given any thought to the questions I have asked you?
74	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/7/2003 7:34:00	Barlow: "Do you beleive that the man called Jesus, described in the Bible, lived on this planet." Yes Barlow: "Do you beleive that this Jesus of Nazareth was a perfect man? Was he sinless?" Yes, but please see the thread on perfection to understand my answer here. Barlow: "In what ways (if any) do you beleive he was unique from other men (and women)?" I believe he was fully human, and I do not believe he was inherently unique among humans. I do not believe he was any more a God than any of us can and should be. I do not think it vain that the scriptures teach us to be perfect as he is perfect. What about all those scriptures that refer to Christ as the Firstborn? You, too, can and should be the Firstborn; according to the scriptures, there appears to be an entire church of them. What about all those scriptures that refer to Christ as the Only Begotten of the Father? You, too, can and should be the Only Begotten; according to the scriptures, we should be One in Christ -- where there is one, there is "only". So much for the lack of inherent differences. I am also inclined to believe, as taught in the Doctrine and Covenants, that Jesus Christ has done more for our salvation than any other human. For this, I am thankful, and feel a respect, a reverence, toward him. What about greater works? I do not think it impossible for other humans to perform greater works for our common salvation. To the contrary, I expect such to happen to the extent that we survive the dangers our future presents.
75	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/7/2003 8:14:00	Paul, John and Joseph sometimes made mention of two interesting organizations: 1) The Church of the Firstborn 2) The Order of the Only Begotten As you request, here are some references, either directly or indirectly, to these organizations: "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect," (Hebrews 12: 22-23) "WWHOSOEVER believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him." (1 John 5: 1) "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (1 John 5: 18) "Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen." (Alma 13: 9) "They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. "They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things— "They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; "And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God— "Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s . . . "These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all. "These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn" (D&C 76: 54-59, 66-67) "And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; "I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. "For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. "And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; "And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn. "Ye were also in the beginning with the Father . . ." (D&C 93: 19-23) "Verily I say unto you, I now give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood, that ye may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek, which is after the order of mine Only Begotten Son." (D&C 124: 123)
76	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/7/2003 8:37:00	. . . and back to greater works: "Brethren is your Mission ended? No, it is as much upon you here as when you are out in the distant parts of the earth preaching the Gospel. Jesus Christ made water into wine by calling together from the elements the properties of wine. He fed thousands of people with five loaves and two small fishes by calling the elements together to compose bread and fish; and he says, 'Greater works than these shall ye do, because I go to the Father.' It is our privilege and our duty to continue to learn, until we shall have wisdom enough to command the elements as he did, and until the earth is brought back to its paradisiacal state. But we must first redeem ourselves from every root of bitterness that may be in our nature, striving daily to overcome the evil that is in the world and in ourselves, sanctifying our hearts and affections until there shall be nothing abiding in us contrary to the Holy Ghost in its perfect and full fruition of enjoyment to the creature." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10: 23)
77	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/9/2003 4:55:00	Arosophos, previously: ". . . my faith in uniformity leads me to suspect that persons do not yet physically rise from the dead or yet live in physical immortality . . ." Manfoom: "What then of the New Testament?" What then of all concrete historical resurrections, whether interpreted from the Bible or elsewhere? On the one hand, I certainly do not disbelieve in concrete historical resurrections; all the uniformity in the world cannot disprove a single exception. On the other had, I feel the duty to work as best I can with the knowledge God has given me, which does not include that of concrete historical resurrections. Essentially, I feel no need to affirm or deny the concrete historicity of resurrection; I feel I can reserve judgment, because I sense no immediate and sufficiently important practical consequence of thinking decisively on the matter. Please do not interpret this as disinterest; to the contrary, I am quite interested in the subject, but interest does not equate to knowledge in my mind. Also, please do not understand me to be referring to the general subject of resurrection when I mention that I sense no immediate and sufficiently important practical consequence of thinking decisively on the matter. Concerning resurrection in itself, my faith is strongly in the affirmative -- that it is a real and desirable possibility. On a side note, if there have been concrete historical resurrections and knowledge of them is of immediate and great importance then I wonder about the character of God -- I suspect him to be less benevolent than I would like to suppose. Manfoom: "I know you pull a lot of scriptures from there. How can you account for the persecution of Peter who meets with adversity, not for the doctrine he teaches, but for his insistence not only that Christ has risen, but that Peter has witnessed it." Persecution is easy to account for. Many persons are persecuted without claiming knowledge of concrete historical resurrections. Manfoom: "This seems to be the major source of contention with the Saddiccees. As I understand, this group believed in most of the Jewish doctrine, but rejected the metaphysical elements thereof." As I understand the matter -- and I am no historian -- the Sadduccees denied the possibility of resurrection. I am not sure whether I have many common beliefs with them, but this belief, in particular, certainly is not in common between us. Manfoom: "Also, why then do we have the climax to the gospels focus on an corporeal resurrection, involving a manifestation that must be felt by the witnesses, as well as seen. He is also manifest in specific times and places." Perhaps because that is exactly what happened? Perhaps because they wanted to believe, or wanted others to believe that is what happened? If I am correctly informed by the scholars, the gospels were written well after the life of Christ -- even after the epistles of Paul. I wonder how this should affect our understanding of them? Manfoom: "Lastly I find the argument utterly unconvincing as I read the last epistles of Peter. His insistence is that there is one Christ. and repeatedly testifies of what he SAW." I am interested in reading the passages to which you refer -- and your interpretation of them. Manfoom: "I think these ideas where brought to the Greeks to offer more than another comfortable sophistry. Paul brought the concept that beyond the grand ideas there is a concrete God. Surely we can take part in him, but there is an actuality that lies beyond platonic forms." I agree. Christ without flesh and bone is no Christ -- or, at least, certainly not the Christ I worship. Manfoom: "Without this, our faith is a fable. albeit a powerful one. Peter does make this much clear: 'For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.' I think there are very few ways that you can read that scripture. Other interpretation could be very perilous indeed." What do you understand Peter to be saying here? Manfoom: "This seed of yours does not grow in me." Which? Faith in uniformity? I wager it grows in you -- even despite me. Your life depends on that faith constantly. Or ignorance concerning concrete historical resurrections? If you refer to this, I agree: it does not grow in me, either. I would like knowledge here, but have not yet been so blessed -- in honesty. That said, I do not feel that my faith in Christ depends on concrete historical resurrections. To the contrary, my faith in Christ is based in the practical everyday experience that I associate with the faith. It is based on the Spirit that I feel. It is based on the love to which his example moves me. It is based on the confidence I gain in him. It is based on matters that feel much more solid to me than do historical wonderings. The Book of Helaman explains that Christ is a sure foundation of faith, and this resonates with me. In my experience, Christ is a sure foundation of faith. I have known no surer.
78	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/9/2003 5:31:00	By the way, Manfoom, thanks for the engaging questions. Please know that I am trying to answer them clearly and honestly.
79	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/10/2003 5:27:00	You're right: that statement needs to be fleshed out. In itself, it is incomplete -- and not necessarily true. Can God be both benevolent and concretely omnipotent if we do not have perfect knowledge of concrete historical resurrections?
80	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/10/2003 5:49:00	I consider rationality, or knowledge, to be a feeling of confidence in a proposition or set of propositions, and I consider truth to be to a community as knowledge is to an individual. Truth, then, is something like a communal feeling of confidence in a proposition or set of propositions. Timothy: "So, are you suggesting that that which is 'rational' is that which, relative to a given community, is the majority opinion or 'feeling' on the matter." In one sense, yes; but not in all senses. Communities are of all shapes and sizes. Some are unanimous in some truths; some are evenly divided; some are divided unevenly -- and the divisions themselves are communities. Timothy: "In other words, the minority position on any given subject is 'irrational' and the majority opinion is always rational. Is this your position?" No. All the world may think me irrational for faith in a given proposition, yet may I feel rational in it -- even possibly to such extent that my rationality becomes the world's rationality in the future through my persuasion. Transfer of rationality judgments between communities depends entirely on common faith; until the common faith is in place, transfer is impossible. Timothy, you use computers regularly and are familiar with the differences between operating systems. Some programs simply do not work on some operating systems because they are designed for some operating systems. Beyond that, the code that creates the programs cannot be compiled into programs unless it is written in the right manner for a particular compiler. Compilers themselves depend on certain common rules . . . and so on, until we get to the human mind. Does this stop at the human mind? No. Timothy: "As an extention to that, relative to the majority population of the United States, which don't feel that mormonism is rational, would that then, suggest, that indeed, to this community, Mormonism is irrational?" Ultimately, that which feels irrational is so; at least until persuasion makes a change. "Change" is the important part. We do not simply choose rationality or irrationality -- except perhaps in pretence. Rationality happens as our faith navigates among propositions. As we become congruent in our thoughts with those around us, we become rational; as we becomes incongruent in our thoughts with those around us, we become irrational. The Mormon community certainly is irrational relative to the rest of the world -- else they would all be Mormon. So we proclaim the gospel, and seek to persuade them to atonement in rationality.
81	The Font of Knowledge	Emotions	12/10/2003 5:59:00	Timothy: "What method would one use to determine that feeling 'a' is 'the spirit' while feeling 'b' is 'not the spirit?'" Paul taught us there are many spirits, many lords -- many Gods. Joshua exhorted us to choose among them which we will serve. Given such a context, I think the answer to your question depends on which spirit one chooses to call "The Spirit". Joseph gave an entire sermon on this matter; it is entitled "Try the Spirits" -- a reference to the antichrist warning in the first epistle of John. Which do I choose? That which testifies of Christ, which brings with it the emotions described in the above mentioned passage from Galatians, which works upon me physically and spiritually in a manner that I desire and cannot deny without denying my existence, and which moves me to greater faith, hope and love.
82	The Font of Knowledge	Greater Works	12/10/2003 6:20:00	This is a variation on the Problem of Evil. If it is good for us to have a perfect knowledge of concrete historical resurrections then God is either not concretely omnipotent or not perfectly benevolent. If he were concretely omnipotent and perfectly benevolent, he would ensure that we have a perfect knowledge of concrete historical resurrections. I do not have such knowledge -- or so I claim. Do you? If you do not then, as the Problem of Evil goes, which do you choose: faith in a less than concretely omnipotent God, or faith in a less than perfectly benevolent God? I prefer the former, a God whose benevolence knows no bounds, whose power is great, yet whose impotence leads him to weep with us in our pain and misery -- and in our ignorance.
83	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	12/10/2003 6:30:00	Timothy: "This 'to some extent' could be read to mean that the 'fundamentally greater existence' is a minor difference or a major difference. Where on that spectrum might you fall? . . . Can you flesh out your ideas of "spiritual immortality" a bit more? For example, do such "beings" if you'd allow the use of that term, have free will? Self-knowledge? Do they think, act, make decision? Are they aware of their existence? If you can help me understand your position here, I'd find that helpful." I don't know. As I have mentioned to you before, I often think about this -- particularly as it relates to persons I love that are dead. I would like to give a better answer than this. Timothy: "Is your usage of the term 'suspect' as compared to your usage of 'confident' meant to imply that you have greater faith in one than in the other?" Not necessarily. Please see the "Greater Works" thread, where I have already answered this question. Timothy: "Do you believe that LDS Mormonism, today, teaches this aspect of Christ? Openly? Esoterically?" I think the LDS Church cannot avoid teaching this aspect of Christ esoterically, so long as they maintain use of the writings of dead prophets. Openly? My answer to this one depends, in a manner of speaking, on the particular alignment of the stars on a given day, I suppose. :-)
84	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/11/2003 4:56:00	Greenfrog, So long as we recognize the reasoning process itself also to be preferred or desired, or chosen as rational, then I agree with what you wrote. The trouble is that we often think of logic, or other less formal reasoning, as being absolute or purely rataional in some manner that transcends all subjectivity -- and it simply is not.
85	The Font of Knowledge	Are you racist and don't know it?	12/11/2003 5:45:00	Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Judaism Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for STRAIGHT PEOPLE Your data suggest little or no automatic gender association with Science or Liberal Arts Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Thin People Your data suggest little or no automatic preference [From the Skin Tone Test]
86	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/12/2003 5:53:00	Facts are experience. I am an empiricist.
87	The Font of Knowledge	Getting your act together	12/12/2003 6:08:00	I liked your post, Brandini.
88	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/13/2003 8:33:00	It is a fact to the extent it was experienced.
89	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/13/2003 8:47:00	. . . or more precisely: it was a fact to the extent it was experienced; and to the extent it is now experienced in memory, the experience in memory is a fact.
90	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/13/2003 18:23:00	There may be a concrete aspect to the past that we cannot change, and perhaps some decreasingly concrete aspect to the future that we cannot change -- regardless of our desires. However, these concrete aspects may be less unchangeable than common sense leads us to believe. You are asking me to confirm faith in objectivity. I will do that: I do have faith in objectivity as shared experience. Do I have faith in objectivity as something concrete and unchangeable? Only to the extent that wisdom necessitates -- so far as I may be wise. To the remaining extent, my faith is in organizing and reorganizing reality toward ever greater joy for all of us. So, back to the story. Frankie listens to Jimmy's accusation. He then responds kindly and persuasively, such that Jimmy's desire to accuse Frankie is changed into a desire to continue searching for the bike elsewhere. Eventually, Jimmy finds his bike and returns to ride it with Frankie. Their desires are both fulfilled. We can make the story even better, of course. We could talk about them growing up and jointly running a bike factory together. We could talk about them growing old, dying and rising again from the dead in glorious immortality. We could talk about them becoming Gods. The thing to notice, here, is that we have, relative to them, placed ourselves in the position of omniscient and omnipotent Gods. As you began the story by noting that, for the sake of discussion, all related occurences in this story happened as they are recounted here. This forces us to the relative position of omnipotence and omniscience -- and thereby makes us, relative to the story world, that which we are not relative to the world of experience in which we live. In that abstract world, there are absolutes -- even some valuable and inspiring absolutes. In the concrete world of experience, we wonder, while wisdom and inspiration urge us sometimes to caution and sometimes to boldness in our faith, our knowledge claims and in our deeds. Back, once more, to the story: let's write that all becomes ideal for Jimmy, Frankie, Jimmy, Lynetta and all their world. Let's also remember that we agreed, in our omnipotence and omniscience, that all related occurences in this story happened as recounted here. So written, so done. Now, back to our world: I am an empiricist, and consider experience to be the totality of factuality. Interestingly, from the vantage point of our world, even their world subjects itself to empiricism, as we experience it in creating it.
91	The Font of Knowledge	Is faith rational?	12/15/2003 5:44:00	Timothy: "While I generally agree with you here, I think you understate the importance of the concrete aspects in our lives." Okay. What makes you think I understate the importance of the concrete aspects in our lives? Timothy: "Regardless of your faith in their ability to be changed, they yet play a dramatic role in our daily lives." How dramatic? I agree that the concrete aspects in our lives play a role in our daily lives, but again: how dramatic? How much of my agreement is based in faith in common sense? You say you generally agree with me when I write that these concrete aspects may be less unchangeable than common sense leads us to believe. Why do you generally agree? What in this is congruent with your faith? Timothy: "Therefore, I think it foolish to look past them without trying to fully understand them." Did you notice that I wrote essentially the same thing? Here it is again, in case you did not notice: Do I have faith in objectivity as something concrete and unchangeable? Only to the extent that wisdom necessitates -- so far as I may be wise. Timothy: "I am confident that objectivity exists beyond the exclusive realm of 'shared experiences'." How confident? Are you sure that that which you perceive as the concrete world is not fed into your head by a computer, a demon or a God? Are you sure that its world is not similarly created? Are you sure that, ultimately, there is a final concrete world? Are you sure that this is not an infinite regression? Is "concrete" a shortcut for descibing something that is not so concrete as you appear to imagine it to be? These are things we've considered before. How confident are you that something analogous to these things is not the case? In the end, Timothy, you must appeal to experience and desire, as I have. You must position yourself in faith, as I have. "Must"? Yes -- at least so long as you would not be a nihilist. Timothy: "I understand your argument about a lack of meaning outside of subjective beings; but, even where we don't understand or have direct experience with a set of facts, they can and do play important roles in our lives." As soon as something plays an important role in our lives, it is experience. You are talking about extrapolating beyond the experience -- an act of induction -- an act of faith. There are, I believe, matters that merit such extrapolation, and matters that do not. To discern between the two, I ask myself: do I expect it will make an important practical difference -- an important difference in experience -- to extrapolate in faith, or do I expect that I may wait, reserving judgment? Timothy: "Jimmy has no shared experience of 'who' took his bike, and yet, his bike was taken, and that 'fact' affects his life." One fact, if Jimmy is an empiricist, is that he no longer experiences his bike. Another fact, if Lynetta is an empiricist, is that she experiences remembering Billy with Jimmy's bike. Yet another fact, if Billy is an empiricist, is, at least so far as we have developed the story, that he experiences remembering himself with Jimmy's bike. And yet another fact, if Frankie is an empiricist, is that he does not experience Jimmy's bike. You, in the position of omnipotent and omniscient God, experience all the facts because you created them. What about the world in which you and I live? Are we omnipotent and omniscient in our world? I don't think so. Are there concrete facts outside of our experience? I suspect so. Are there concrete aspects of the world that are outside of all current experience? I suspect so, but that is our hypothesis. Are there concrete aspects of the world that are and ever will be entirely outside of all experience? It does not matter. If it cannot be experienced then it does not matter. Timothy: "Jimmy's desires relative to 'who' took his bike are irrelevant relative to this question." Only because you have defined them to be irrelevant -- and because you are their God. However, since I have begun vying for Godhood in this world, I explained that Jimmy ultimately found his bike. I did not mention, however, that he found it in Frankie's possession. As it turns out, Jimmy persuaded Frankie to steal the bike from Billy, and thus Jimmy's desire becomes altogether relevant to our story. Timothy: "To exalt his desires as a fact-finding or fact-creating tool, as you seem to suggest, is to make Jimmy a fool." No. His exaltation of his desires makes him suspicious of someone who, in his experienced memories, evidently gave him reason for suspicion. My exaltation of his desires makes him a creator of the future of the story. After all, he really does persuade Frankie to steal the bike. Timothy: "Insofar as you seek to brush aside objecitivy, I think your faith will fail." The connotations of this portrayal of my position do not reflect the position of which I have written. I will repeat it: Do I have faith in objectivity as something concrete and unchangeable? Only to the extent that wisdom necessitates -- so far as I may be wise. I do not brush aside objectivity. To the contrary, I feel I understand it in its most practical sense: shared experience. I don't know much about a kind of objectivity that is unchangeable. I suspect it may be there, but my faith is in it only to the extent of wisdom -- beyond that, my faith is in doing all it takes to organize and reorganize the world to a fullness of joy in shared experience. If we never know much about an unchangeable concrete substrate to reality, yet we ever improve the fullness of joy in our shared experience, that is fine with me. I do not feel bad acknowledging that the kind of objectivity to which you appeal is a hypothesis. I feel good acknowledging that, although the kind of objectivity to which you appeal may ultimately keep us from a fullness of joy, the kind of objectivity to which I appeal is an equally worthy hypothesis, given our current situation. In addition, I recognize that it makes an important practical difference in my life to place my faith in the hypothesis that the concrete world is shared experience. It fills me with hope and love, and these seem to make all the difference in the world. Timothy: "If Jimmy relys solely on his desires, as you seem to suggest here, he will remain a fool; even if this method eventually leads him to his bike." Why is his hypothesis foolish? From your vantage point of experience, his hypothesis is inaccurate; however, as we have seen, the desire behind his hypothesis yet results in the return of his bike. What is foolishness in this? I do not see that being wrong is equivalent to being a fool -- but maybe I am a fool in this. ;-) Timothy: "Your insistance that 'desire' plays a role here is foolish, in my opinion." If my foolishness in this leads me to the end results I desire, as it led Jimmy to the end results he desired, so be it: God bless that I be and remain a fool -- and I will pray that you, too, become a fool, that we may some day rejoice together in the good fortune of our foolishness. Timothy: "There is much about the objective world that we can know, short of being 'God'." I agree. However, as an empiricist, I am unwilling to call something "fact" unless it is experienced. Timothy: "You overstate your position here in attempt to support your theory." I don't think so, but am willing to entertain the idea. How have I overstated my position? Which theory is the overstatement intended to supprt? Timothy: "Again, the point of relevance here is that Jimmy's desires are irrelevant regarding the actuality of who took his bike. I think you've failed to adequately account for this." I agree that Jimmy's desires do not change the experienced memories of Lynetta, Billy and Frankie. I do not agree that Jimmy's desires are irrelevant -- they are that which got him his bike, in the end. Does desire create experience? My hypothesis is YES -- a big one. Can desire change experience? My hypothesis is YES -- a big one. Is there an extent to which desire cannot or should not change experience? My hypothesis is yes, but only to the extent of wisdom and inspiration. Whatever can be changed for the better should be changed for the better, organized and reorganized toward the perfect day. In the process we will work with that which is relatively concrete and that which is relatively abstract, and the efficiency of our reorganizations will depend on how well we work with the differences. Yet I remain convinced that the important differences manifest themselves only in our experience -- those outside of experience may ultimately begin manifesting themselves, and thereby become important, but to the extent they do not, they are unimportant. The goal is a fullness of joy. My hypothesis is that truth will help us get there, but truth, in itself, could be miserable. Let's keep going, at the rate and to the extent of wisdom and inspiration, and we shall see. I suspect it will be glorious: better than we now imagine -- at least that is my hope.
92	The Font of Knowledge	Love	12/19/2003 3:52:00	Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15: 13) "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again." (John 10: 17)
93	The Font of Knowledge	What's the most useless major?	12/19/2003 4:28:00	I majored in philosophy at BYU and count it among the best decisions of my life for both financial and spiritual reasons. Financially, the knowledge and skills, such as logic and Greek ontology, that I learned and improved while studying philosophy have directly contributed to furthering my career as a computer programmer. Most of the persons with whom I work have studied fields related to computer science. Because of their studies, they have advantages in some kinds of programming tasks; however, because of my studies, I have advantages in other kinds of programming tasks. Those with whom I work appreciate and frequently acknowledge the technical and business value of my background in philosophy. Beyond the personal example, other persons in our community illustrate a correlation between financial success and a background in philosophy studies. Many lawyers choose to study philosophy as an undergraduate. Also, if I remember correctly, the average salary of BYU graduates with philosophy degrees is well above the average for the university. . . . so much for the financial reasons. Let's discuss the spiritual reasons on the Philosophy board. One last thing: someone mentioned, in passing, that graduates of four-year philosophy degrees may tend not to consider themselves philosophers. I cannot speak for the tendency, but I consider myself a philosopher of the fullest sort: a lover of wisdom. Whether she loves me in return is a different matter.
94	Introductions	Ignorant Sage	12/19/2003 4:51:00	Yeah . . . what Joey wrote.
95	The Font of Knowledge	Hope	12/28/2003 18:54:00	Jim Weed: "My view is that all laws are black and white." In the abstract, I agree. "Thou shalt not kill." is black and white; so is "Thou shalt utterly destroy." However, we do not live in either of those abstract worlds. We live in a concrete world of complexity where both of these black and white abstractions, and infinite others, appear in our law -- contrasting, conflicting, contradicting, giving and taking eternally. So we appeal to the Spirit of God as the authority, and claim that God commands according to circumstance, and whatever God commands is right. Again, this is black and white in formulation -- but in practice? In a world full of Gods, among whom we are free to choose, is practice black and white? We appeal to the True and Living God, him only to serve . . . black and white in formulation, but in practice? As you mentioned, we look through the glass darkly, so to speak, wondering what it is we see of the nature of that God. I wonder: is the perfect day final and static? When I put away childish things and understand as a man, will Eternal Life, my knowledge of the True and Living God, be final and static? Or is the perfect day dynamic, yet admitting of contrast, conflit, contradiction and eternal give and take? If it is not, is it a perfect day? Is it anything at all? ----- Faith in Christ assures my hope in a better world: less pain, more pleasure, less misery and more joy. Faith in Christ is substantial. I perceive it affecting my thoughts, words and actions. I am persuaded of its power in and on others. Christ will return, with the dead he freed from their prison, to be crowned and embrace his queen at her unveiling.
96	The Font of Knowledge	Hope	12/30/2003 4:13:00	Jim Weed, Do you expect your experience will ever be as black and white as the laws you think about?
97	The Font of Knowledge	Mormon Feminism	12/30/2003 4:36:00	Jim Weed: "My theories about some of the more esoteric mysteries of God don't have much bearing on how I treat those close to me." In my opinion, an idea that does not affect our thoughts, words and (particularly) actions is of no value. If the esoteric mysteries of God have no such affect then they are of no value to me. If, on the other hand, they have such an affect, they are of value to me. In the Bible, Jesus tells us that the truth will set us free. This sounds to me like something that affects our thoughts, words and actions -- that affects us practically. Reasoning from this, that which does not affect us practically must not be true -- note that this is not the same as claiming: that which affects us practically is true, which does not follow reasonably from Jesus' claim. Thus, if our understanding of the esoteric mysteries of God do not affect us practically, our understanding must not be correct -- must not be understanding. In short, I think that we may know that we do not understand the esoteric mysteries of God if our ideas on the matter are not affecting us practically -- or: we may know that we do not know God to the extent we lack love.
98	The Font of Knowledge	Hope	12/30/2003 7:56:00	How so?
99	The Font of Knowledge	Mormon Feminism	12/30/2003 8:24:00	Arosophos, previously: "In my opinion, an idea that does not affect our thoughts, words and (particularly) actions is of no value." Jim Weed: "I don't know, that sounds a little black and white." In the abstract, sure. In practice, can you give me an example of an idea that does not affect our thoughts, words or actions? The question is circular, to begin with, because as soon as we have an idea it is affecting our thoughts, by definition. Beyond the circularity, can you give me an example of an idea that does not affect our words or actions? To the extent you can, the idea is, so far as I am concerned, of no value -- but I think all examples you give me will be, to some extent, however small, of value, having affect on my words and actions, however small the affect may be. That aside, I assume you are making reference to our exchange on the other thread. If you have understood that I do not believe in blacks and whites then I have poorly explained my beliefs. I do believe in them. I simply do not think we experience them, except in the abstract -- in the same manner that God's revelations come to us. Jim Weed: "I don't think equality is an issue for God now, nor has it ever been." Why not? Jim Weed: "He favors the righteous and has a chosen people." . . . but he invites all of us to be joint-heirs in the righteous chosen people. I don't think this demonstrates that equality is not an issue for God; to the contrary, I think it demonstrates that it is an issue for God. So the question remains: do you have other reasons for thinking equality has never been an issue for God? Jim Weed: "Do I consider women and the priesthood an esoteric mystery? Yes." What makes it an esoteric mystery? Jim Weed: "I don't see it getting in the way of anyone's personal progression except those who choose to make it an issue or those who choose to completely disregard it." Would a lack of authority to exercise priesthood get in the way of male progression? If so, why? And ahy does it not get in the way of female progression for the same reason(s)? Jim Weed: "When I have more time and energy, then I'll address the mysteries of God." What if your salvation and exaltation depend on a knowledge of the mysteries of God? I do not want to detract, even slightly, from the good works you mention, nor from the exercise of faith, hope and love. Without these, we are -- quite literally -- nothing. However, I wonder whether these good works and attributes lead us to desire to know God, in all ways, whether they be esoteric and mysterious or otherwise? Nephi appears to be an excellent example of a person who is moved by faith, hope and love to desire to know the mysteries of God. "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers." (1 Nephi 2: 16) "For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round." (1 Nephi 10: 19) . . . and Joseph Smith persuades me to agree with him in this: "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich." (D&C 6: 7) Is a knowledge of the mysteries of God Eternal Life? Is to know God Eternal Life? The scriptures tell us it is so, but they warn us that the pursuit of this knowledge is vain without faith, hope and love . . . yet building on these, the pursuit of wisdom in the mysteries of God leads us to eternal life in fullness of joy: "If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things—that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal." (D&C 42: 61) "But unto him that keepeth my commandments I will give the mysteries of my kingdom, and the same shall be in him a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life." (D&C 63: 23) Amen! :-)
100	The Font of Knowledge	Hope	12/31/2003 16:57:00	Why didn't it kill you?
101	The Font of Knowledge	Mormon Feminism	12/31/2003 16:59:00	I think you underestimate the relationship between knowledge of the mysteries of God and practical life -- for the reasons proposed above.
102	The Font of Knowledge	Jehovah. God in Training?	12/31/2003 17:06:00	. . . a God that will save us from the destruction that awaits tech superpowers.
103	The Font of Knowledge	The Book of Mormon	12/31/2003 17:21:00	The Book of Mormon . . . I like it -- learned to read using it, and am using it to help teach my children to read. I have an emotional attachment to it. So many of the things it teaches inspire me. It teaches religious ideas that are and likely will remain a part of who I am. I don't know whether it is historically accurate. I care, but I don't know. It would not surprise me if the core of the story has some historical accuracy that was elaborated -- to some degree consciously and to some degree unconsciously -- by Joseph Smith. This perspective stems from time spent assembling a syntactical textual comparison between the Book of Mormon and the King James version of the Bible. They are more similar than is commonly suspected.
104	The Font of Knowledge	Emotions	12/31/2003 17:28:00	And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand. "Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. "Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory." (D&C 19: 4-7) Apparently even the scriptures are intended to be manipulative . . . if that's the word -- I can think of others without the negative connotations that are just as accurate.
105	The Font of Knowledge	The Book of Mormon	12/31/2003 17:52:00	Manfoom: "If you were translating a document that you viewed as scripture, would you translate it in the colloquial vernacular, or use 'scriptural language' which you appear to be very comfortable with." I suspect it would end up somewhere in between the two. As I attempt to express not only the content of the document, but also the feeling of the document, I would lean toward familiar phrases and ideas from existing scripture. As I attempt to communicate with the readers of my day, I would lean toward familiar phrases and ideas from contemporary language. Manfoom: "The sermons of the time of Joseph Smith where modeled after KJ language, and those that I have read (admittedly few) reflect that." I don't agree with this. Joseph Smith, in sermon, seems to me to illustrate the tension between use of familiar scriptural syntax and the use of familiar contemporary language. By the way, when I say that the two books are more similar in syntax than commonly suspected, I mean more than that they are similar in grammar or overall word choice. I mean that substantial portions of text are remarkably parallel -- and much more than the commonly recognized Isaiah passages in Nephi and Pauline passages in Moroni.
106	The Font of Knowledge	Becoming gods....	12/31/2003 18:01:00	AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— "The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— "And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15: 1-4)
107	The Font of Knowledge	Becoming gods....	12/31/2003 18:04:00	VERILY, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am; And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; "And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one— "The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men." (D&C 93: 1-4)
108	The Font of Knowledge	Becoming gods....	12/31/2003 18:16:00	In order to have this subject clearly set before the mind, let us ask what situation must a person be in, in order to be saved? or what is the difference between a saved man and one who is not saved? We answer from what we have before seen of the heavenly worlds, they must be persons who can work by faith, and who are able, by faith to be ministering spirits to them who shall be heirs of salvation. And they must have faith to enable them to act in the presence of the Lord, otherwise they cannot be saved. And what constitutes the real difference between a saved person and one not saved, is the difference in the degree of their faith: one's faith has become perfect enough to lay hold upon eternal life, and the other's has not. But to be a little more particular, let us ask, where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may be assimulated, in order that we may be made partakers of life and salvation? or in other words, where shall we find a saved being? for if we can find a saved being, we may ascertain, without much difficulty, what all others must be, in order to be saved - they must be like that individual or they cannot be saved: we think, that it will not be a matter of dispute, that two beings, who are unlike each other, cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutes the salvation of one, will constitute the salvation of every creature which will be saved: and if we find one saved being in all existence, we may see what all others must be, or else not be saved. We ask, then, where is the prototype? or where is the saved being? We conclude as to the answer of this question there will be no dispute among those who believe the bible, that it is Christ: all will agree in this that he is the prototype or standard of salvation, or in other words, that he is a saved being. (Lectures on Faith 7)
109	The Font of Knowledge	Becoming gods....	12/31/2003 18:17:00	Maybe they are not skipping the process? Perhaps they each represent perfection within the context of a particular kind of existence: spiritual, mortal and glorified? We are in mortal existence, and look to God the Son and Daughter as the archetype of perfection in our context. We came from and will return to spiritual existence, and look to God the Holy Spirit as the archetype of perfection in that context. We hope for glorified existence, and look to God the Father and Mother as the archetype of perfection in that context.
110	The Font of Knowledge	Becoming gods....	12/31/2003 19:02:00	For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 12: 12) ----- "I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended. "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. "Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound." (D&C 88: 48-50) ----- "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalm 82: 6) ----- "I and my Father are one. "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. "Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. "But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10: 30-38) ----- "THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. "For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." (Romans 8: 1-19) ----- "BEHOLD, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3: 1-3) ----- "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. "And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." (Moroni 10: 32-33)
111	The Font of Knowledge	Becoming gods....	12/31/2003 19:10:00	. . . and when the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, is in us, perhaps we are Gods? Maybe we join Jesus in the Church of the Firstborn and in the Order of the Only Begotten?
112	The Font of Knowledge	Hope	12/31/2003 20:31:00	I wasn't there -- didn't experience it. I wonder, though, whether your experience was as black and white as your understanding of the law to which you attribute the experience?
113	The Font of Knowledge	Mormon Feminism	12/31/2003 20:40:00	Do you agree?
114	The Font of Knowledge	Hope	12/31/2003 20:41:00	Now it's my turn: you tell me.
115	The Font of Knowledge	Gadfly	12/31/2003 21:03:00	From Plato's Apology of Socrates: "Men of Athens, do not interrupt, but hear me; there was an agreement between us that you should hear me out. And I think that what I am going to say will do you good: for I have something more to say, at which you may be inclined to cry out; but I beg that you will not do this. I would have you know that, if you kill such a one as I am, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me. Meletus and Anytus will not injure me: they cannot; for it is not in the nature of things that a bad man should injure a better than himself. I do not deny that he may, perhaps, kill him, or drive him into exile, or deprive him of civil rights; and he may imagine, and others may imagine, that he is doing him a great injury: but in that I do not agree with him; for the evil of doing as Anytus is doing - of unjustly taking away another man's life - is greater far. And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God, or lightly reject his boon by condemning me. For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the God; and the state is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has given the state and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. And as you will not easily find another like me, I would advise you to spare me. I dare say that you may feel irritated at being suddenly awakened when you are caught napping; and you may think that if you were to strike me dead, as Anytus advises, which you easily might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless God in his care of you gives you another gadfly."
116	The Font of Knowledge	Gadfly	12/31/2003 21:05:00	I agree with Socrates, except for the part about not easily finding replacement Gadflies. There seem to be plenty at SWAB. :-)
117	The Font of Knowledge	Mormon Feminism	1/3/2004 1:21:00	Why not?
118	The Font of Knowledge	Hope	1/3/2004 1:24:00	Okay
119	The Font of Knowledge	Favorite book of scripture?	1/3/2004 1:31:00	I almost voted for the Book of Mormon, and then I thought of Paul. I almost voted for the New Testament, but then I thought of Joseph. I almost voted for the Doctrine and Covenants, but then I thought of Isaiah. . . . so I didn't vote. :-)
120	The Font of Knowledge	Mormon Feminism	1/3/2004 1:40:00	Is there a relationship between: 1) Faith and Repentance 2) Mormon Feminism
121	The Font of Knowledge	Jehovah. God in Training?	1/3/2004 5:11:00	Both, of course -- but the latter only matters to the extent that the former is achieved. I am not on the whole pessimistic about technology or supwerpowers. To the contrary, I think technology and superpower states are excellent tools to use in our pursuit of immortality and eternal life. However, like all tools, they can be used unwisely. When we learn the gospel of Christ, we learn that salvation begins with faith, repentence, baptism and the Spirit. We then learn that salvation permits exaltation. Reflecting this, my first concern, when choosing among the Gods vying for my love, is that I choose a God that can provide salvation. At that point, I can think more clearly about exaltation. Maslow wrote of a hierarchy of human needs. I think his ideas can be further developed in the spiritual aspect: spiritual survival being a priority over spiritual feasting, so to speak.
122	The Font of Knowledge	Separation of Church and State	1/4/2004 18:07:00	Why is removing "God" not establishing agnosticism?
123	The Font of Knowledge	What religion would you be?	1/6/2004 4:01:00	I appreciated your post, Eagluv.
124	The Font of Knowledge	Mormon Feminism	1/6/2004 4:17:00	Eagluv: "After reading a tiny little bit of scientific literature on psychic phenomena, I'm beginning to wonder if Joey Smith was channeling spirits, or a spirit, when he wrote all those stories." . . . as one that hath a familiar spirit -- and the Bible scholars tell me that Isaiah didn't mean that which we commonly mean by "familiar".
125	The Font of Knowledge	Separation of Church and State	1/6/2004 4:23:00	Thanks for the comments, Jeff Freebird Z and Red. I feel inclined to agree -- at least for today. ;-) . . . with the qualification that there is a substantial difference between positive agnosticism and default agnosticism, to echo Red.
126	The Font of Knowledge	Male dreams	1/6/2004 4:47:00	Eagluv, in case you are not familiar with this quote from Joseph Smith . . . ". . . all things whatsoever God of his infinite wisdom has seen proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle; but are revealed to us as if we had no bodies at all . . ." It's from his King Follett discourse. Then there is Lehi's equivocation between dreams and visions in the Book of Mormon: "Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision." (1 Nephi 8: 2) . . . which is not unique to the Book of Mormon, but rather a continuation of the equivocation between dreams and visions as presented in the English text of the Old Testament.
127	The Font of Knowledge	Separation of Church and State	1/8/2004 4:52:00	If the government were to retract its statements concerning God then I think it would be weaker -- for better or for worse.
128	The Font of Knowledge	What religion would you be?	1/8/2004 5:11:00	My results for today (don't seem much different than the other times I have taken this test over the last few years): 1. Neo-Pagan (100%) 2. Orthodox Judaism (95%) 3. Bahá'í Faith (94%) 4. Sikhism (94%) 5. Hinduism (89%) 6. Reform Judaism (88%) 7. Jainism (82%) 8. Unitarian Universalism (82%) 9. Mahayana Buddhism (77%) 10. Islam (76%) 11. Liberal Quakers (73%) 12. New Age (72%) 13. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (66%) 14. Orthodox Quaker (65%) 15. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (60%) 16. Eastern Orthodox (58%) 17. Roman Catholic (58%) 18. Seventh Day Adventist (52%) 19. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (51%) 20. Theravada Buddhism (50%) 21. Jehovah's Witness (47%) 22. New Thought (43%) 23. Scientology (36%) 24. Secular Humanism (32%) 25. Taoism (31%) 26. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (26%) 27. Nontheist (18%)
129	The Font of Knowledge	What religion would you be?	1/9/2004 3:40:00	Greenfrog: "Arosophos, Are you concerned about your apparent stagnation?" Before I answer, I am interested in your perspective. Does it appear that I have stagnated?
130	The Font of Knowledge	What religion would you be?	1/10/2004 18:44:00	Maybe, but you did not answer my question. :-)
131	The Font of Knowledge	What religion would you be?	1/10/2004 20:59:00	:-) Okay . . . then from the perspective of the dimension I identified in my earlier post, I am not concerned about my apparent stagnation. I wondered whether you were thinking of anything else that you wanted to discuss.
132	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a happy person?	1/15/2004 4:37:00	Brandini, what has changed?
133	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/15/2004 5:08:00	Sorry, Ron, it's just not that easy. If you would have stopped after the first line, I would have agreed with you; however, so far as I can tell, heaven is what we make it -- and God weeps. Joey: "God loves everyone. But the fruit of that love is only available in its fulness to those who have faith." . . . the desirable fruit. What of the undesirable fruit of the love of God, such as being driven from the Garden and blocked out by a flaming sword, or from the temple on the receiving end of a few lashes? Joey: "Believing such a thing would minimize the importance of my actions." Greenfrog: "They seem to suggest to me that nothing really matters." Amen Cowboy Dan: "I think it's important to have an understanding of God's unconditional love . . ." I agree that God loves us unconditionally -- that is essential to my faith in God. However, I do not think unconditional love always manifests itself in the fulfillment of my desires, and I do think it sometimes manifests itself in opposition to my desires. Cowboy Dan: "I think it's more important to love than to be loved." I am inclined to believe that the two are equally important. God, in the scriptures, illustrates the balance between the two. He commands us to love him, and he tells us he loves us. I think evil can result from a lack in either direction. There is the Satan that seeks only to be loved. There is Satan's demon that seeks only to love. Then, there is Christ that seeks to love and be loved, jointly. Cowboy Dan: "God's gonna take us all back, but I don't think the murderer is going to feel very comfortable in His presence." What does it mean: God will take us all back? It seems to me that going back to God has everything to do with our choices, and the world -- the heaven -- that results from our choices. If it means that God will not keep us from making good choices, I agree. If it means that God will grant our desires regardless of our choices, I disagree. Paul: "Red, if you're asking whether or not we will all return to live with him someday, I hope the answer is yes. My faith is that through the atonement, I can and so I believe that all can." I agree . . . so long as we recognize that it is all about work. That which does not require work has no value. Heaven is all about value. Heaven is all about work, and the attainment of our exalted desires because of that work. Steven Bone: "It seems that the concept of GOD and the concept of DEATH are pretty interchangeable in these lyrics. Are as far as that interchangeability goes, I think I mostly agree with him." So we are again confronted by the choice of Joshua: choose this day which God to serve, whether it be a God of death or the God of life, immortal and eternal. The latter does not seem to fit within the description of God provided by the author. Timothy, to Greenfrog: "It seems to me that in the myth of the prodigal son, the brother took a similar view..." I disagree. The brother simply was not ready to forgive to the extent of rejoicing in the repentence of the younger son. The father readily acknowledged to the brother that his work would be rewarded. Red: "I think a likely practical effect of this point of view is to reduce one's level of intolerance and judgment. If God loves and accepts everyone unconditionally, why shouldn't I?" . . . reduced to the point of apathy. Yes, there are dangers in judgment. We may judge unrighteously. However, God willing, we may judge righteously -- and that, it seems, is the way of salvation. Red: "But do think people do "good" primarily to enhance their own prospects of glory hereafter? Is that why you are faithful to your wife and love and pamper your children? Is that why you give to the poor or say your prayers? (I mean "you" in the generic sense.) I don't think so. And if that is in fact the reason we do these things, it seems like we're missing Jesus' main point: love." I don't think Jesus' main point is that love is good regardless. I think Jesus' main point is that love is that which brings glory both now and in the future. His example is certainly not remotely approaching apathy or lack of judgement. He is quick to judge, quick to forgive, hard working, profoundly loving . . . he is God. Red: "Joseph Smith stated that if men could see the glory of the telestial (lowest) kingdom, they would kill themselves to get there. His vision of the three kingdoms of glory where even adulterers and murderers are saved in glory was a radical departure from the heaven and hell dichotomy found in the Bible and Book of Mormon." . . . will these glories be attained or maintained in apathy or without work? Without judgment? Without ethics? It seems our Telestial world requires all of these. Joey: "I think mr. sexsmith's poem advocates a grace without works position. This, in my mind, cheats the atonement of its efficacy. Indeed, it cheats the true meaning of God's love." Worse: it makes a mockery of the atonement of Christ -- of all saviours, of all suffering, of all pain and misery endured by the children of God for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.
134	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a happy person?	1/15/2004 5:11:00	That'll do it. :-)
135	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 4:25:00	[quote="Red":1314uzom]As for Jesus, he wasn't into condemnation at all.[/quote:1314uzom] Jesus: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt 10: 34-39) Jesus: "[Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me." (Matt 15: 7) Jesus: "O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." (Matt 16: 3) Jesus: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." (Matt 18: 6-9) Jesus: "My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." (Matt 21: 13) Jesus: "Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?" (Matt 22: 18) Jesus: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Woe unto you, [ye] blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! [Ye] fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. [Ye] fools and blind: for whether [is] greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. [Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Matt 23: 13-36) Jesus: "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt 24: 48-51) Jesus: "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" (Mark 3: 28-29) Jesus: "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men." (Mark 7: 6-7) Jesus: "And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9: 42-48) Jesus: "Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves." (Mark 11: 17) Jesus: "Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and [love] salutations in the marketplaces, And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation." (Mark 12: 38-40) Jesus: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16) Jesus: "Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. [Ye] fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over [them] are not aware [of them]." (Luke 11: 39-44) Jesus: "Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." (Luke 11: 46-52) Jesus: "[Ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, [as thou art] in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite." (Luke 12: 56-59) Jesus: "THEN said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." (Luke 17: 1-3) Jesus: "Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation." (Luke 20: 46-47) Jesus: "Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." (John 2: 16) Jesus: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3: 17-21) Jesus: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5: 24-30) ----- "Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves," (Matt 21: 12) "Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry [any] vessel through the temple." (Mark 11: 15-16) "Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;" (John 2: 13-15) [quote="Red":1314uzom]As for Jesus, he wasn't into condemnation at all. He did condemn people, but the ones he condemned were the "righteous."[/quote:1314uzom] . . . so he was into condemnation -- righteous condemnation.
136	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 4:50:00	[quote="Red":152pw39x]I definitely think we should all be good . . .[/quote:152pw39x] Why? [quote="Red":152pw39x]I find the idea that God loves me unconditionally a lot more motivating than the idea that the plan of salvation is a competition in which I buy a bigger reward by keeping rules.[/quote:152pw39x] What about a plan of salvation in which an omnibenevolent God will do all he can to help you work out your salvation, because he can't do it all for you? It seems to me that there is a balance to be found here.
137	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 4:54:00	[quote="Red":1e9rn5fz]Arosophos, in disproving my generalization, you proved the qualification, which I added but you failed to quote: [quote="Red":1e9rn5fz]He did condemn people, but the ones he condemned were the "righteous." [/quote:1e9rn5fz][/quote:1e9rn5fz] My apologies for the confusion. I did actually address that, but you may have read the post before I finished trying to figure out this new BBCode stuff and added the final thought. [quote="Arosophos":1e9rn5fz][quote="Red":1e9rn5fz]As for Jesus, he wasn't into condemnation at all. He did condemn people, but the ones he condemned were the "righteous."[/quote:1e9rn5fz] . . . so he was into condemnation -- righteous condemnation.[/quote:1e9rn5fz]
138	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 6:02:00	Jeremy the Giant Robot: "I vehemently disagree with Arosophos." From Websters . . . "Main Entry: ve·he·ment Pronunciation: -m&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin vehement-, vehemens, vement-, vemens Date: 15th century : marked by forceful energy : POWERFUL <a vehement wind>: as a : intensely emotional : IMPASSIONED, FERVID <vehement patriotism> b (1) : deeply felt <a vehement suspicion> (2) : forcibly expressed <vehement denunciations> c : bitterly antagonistic <a vehement debate> - ve·he·ment·ly adverb" Why do you vehemently disagree, and does vehement disagreement resonate with the message you are trying to convey? Jeremy the Giant Robot: "I believe that Jesus' paramount teaching was that love is good regardless." Can you persuade me to agree? As I read the Bible, I understand Jesus to be providing all kinds of reasons to love. I read not only the commandment, but also the reasoning. Beyond that, does it make any sense that something is good regardless? What does that even mean? "Good", it seems to me, can only maintain meaning relative to the desires of some subject being. In the very least, Jesus must be saying that love is good because he desires it. Of course, he is saying more than that. He is also pointing out that love is good because we ALL -- or at least most of us -- desire it. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "What quailifications can you put on love? Love is only good if.....what?" Desire -- the same qualification I put on everything with meaning. If a person does not want love, that is her choice: spiritual death. Imagine the poor soul! God willing there will be none such -- but Jesus, Joseph and Brigham seem to have feared otherwise. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Love is always good." I agree. Hopefully we can persuade many others to agree. Please recognize, also, that I have never claimed that love is not always good. I have claimed that it is not good without reason. To the contrary, it is good for the best of reasons: we desire it. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Does this mean that because God loves us he will fulfill our every desire? No it does not." I agree, as I pointed out in the post to which you are responding. Jeremy the Giant Robot: " do not think that declaring God's love as unconditional also comes with the belief that God will grant all of our desires." Neither do I, and you can read that in the post to which you are responding. Perhaps you do not so vehemently disagree with me? :-) Jeremy the Giant Robot: "I do not think that Sexsmith's song implies this either." Okay Joey: "Believing such a thing would minimize the importance of my actions." Greenfrog: "They seem to suggest to me that nothing really matters." Jeremy the Giant Robot: "These two statements make it seem like the opportunity for reward is what provides significance to your actions. Is that the case?" Yes: I believe fulfillment of our desires is the source of meaning. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Without a post-mortal reward is loving your neighbor meaningless?" They certainly increase the meaning of love; however, the mortal rewards are sufficiently persuasive for me. Please note that I stated as much in the post with which you vehemently disagreed. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Sure, your actions can be done out of love and for a reward, but in reaction to hypothesizing a world without that reward you responded that 'believing such a thing would minimize the importance of my actions.' Is it the post-mortal reward that imbues your actions with meaning?" They add to the meaning, as all time does -- as the present does. If the meaning derived from my actions lasts a hundred years, there is meaning. If the meaning derived from my actions lasts forever, there is infinitly more meaning. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "If so then what’s the point of the love?" I feel the point of love is the beneficial -- desirable -- results of love, both now and in the future. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Isn’t the love you share with others, the improvement and strengthening of the community, isn’t that the reward?" Yes -- and may that reward continue eternally! Jeremy the Giant Robot: "For me, the belief in a God of unconditional love, who loves me like my own mother, is far more motivating than a concept of action and reward." It seems to me that the one concept is built upon the other -- is a more mature understanding. As Paul taught concerning love: when we are children, we understand as children; when we become men, we put away childish things. I, too, prefer faith in a God of unconditional love; however, I see value in faith in a God of punishment and reward. The one led Judaism to the other. The one led me to the other. I suspect the one may have led you to the other. Jeremy the Giant Robot: ". . . is motivated by a love for his community and a desire to help and save his community . . . is motivated by what tangible reward he will receive for himself . . ." Is the former motivation without the latter? No. It is simply a broader, more mature form of the latter. With time, many of us choose to believe that there is greater reward in mutual exaltation of desires in a commnity than in exclusive exaltation of individual desires. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Absent the unconditional love of the father, there would have been no reason for the son to return." . . . and the father's reward is the return of his son. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the good samaritan does not help the injured man because he anticipates a tangible reward here or in heaven, he helps the man out of love for his neighbor. Are his actions any less significant because he didn't receive a reward or advancement above those that ignored the injured man?" Not all rewards are advancements or tangible -- in the sense you appear to be using the word here. Some rewards, perhaps the best, come in the form of feeling good -- feeling fulfilled -- feeling congruent with the world. I suspect, as Jesus taught, that the private love of the Samaritan was rewarded richly. It may have been cold on that road to Jerhico, but he was warm inside. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "And the ultimate example must be Jesus Christ. What reward did he receive for undertaking the ultimate condescension and suffering?" . . . the fulness of the glory of the Father. Yes: he descended below all things. Then he ascended above all things, but not so high that we cannot join him as joint heirs in that glory. I agree: Jesus is the ultimate example of love. He laid down his life for his friends -- and then, as the Bible says, he took it up again. If that same Spirit which was in him abides in us, we too will rise again. If we join him in his sufferings, we will become joint heirs in that glory. That, at least, is my faith. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "It was Lucifer who offered himself as a savior only if he would be rewarded and worshipped for the act." The difference between Satan and Christ appears not to be in whether one is worshipped. Certainly the scriptures tell us to worship Christ. Certainly the scriptures tell us that Satan desires to be worshipped. The difference, rather, is the exclusivity or non-exclusivity of the worship they promote. Satan promotes exclusive worship. Christ promotes participatory worship. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Jesus performed the action out of love for God and all humankind." . . . and shall have his reward, as will we if we join him in the atonement. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "My understanding is that the greatness of the atonement is because it has come to us as a free gift . . ." What does "free" mean here? Yes, Christ gives it, but it is worthless and meaningless unless you take it. Likewise, you are called to take on you the name of Christ: to give the same, hoping that it, too, shall be taken. Jeremy the Giant Robot: ". . . a gift of something that we could never attain." I agree. There is something in each of us that another can never attain except through the giving and receiving of love. I may wrong you. You may wrong me. If Christ is in us, we will give and take in love to our mutual forgiveness. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "To add on to the atonement the concept of a reward for your actions, or additional requirements, or a system by which one is exalted above another, THAT cheats the atonement of its efficacy, THAT makes a mockery of the atonement of Christ." In the abstract, love is the only requirement for the kind of heaven I desire. In the conrete -- in practice -- love manifests itself in work: sometimes the painful, miserable work of atonement. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "My understanding of the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that none of us are worthy to return to God. All of us are sinners. All of us fall short. On our own, by our own actions, there is no way we can earn salvation or exaltation." I agree . . . and then we are invited to take on us the name of Christ, to be perfected in him together as joint heirs in the glory of the Father. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Hence the greatness of God’s mercy and love in providing the atonement for his children." Yes . . . and as his children, may we join him, being perfect as he is perfect, joint heirs in his glory, if it so be that we suffer with him. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "But Arosophos and Joey seem to be advocating an understanding of the Atonement that diminishes the importance of the atonement and instead exalts the importance of our personal actions." What is atonement if not action? Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Which is the exact opposite of what is taught in scripture." Can you persuade me to agree with this statement? Jeremy the Giant Robot: "You seem to advocate a position in which everyone is granted the head start of the atonement so it is on the basis of our own actions and choices that we will be rewarded with Celestial glory or not." I advocate the impossibility of Celestial Glory without joining Christ in the atonement, according to the covenants we have made, and according to his invitation. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "That is a position that takes the atonement for granted and diminishes its importance. That is a position that places the importance of our works above the atonement." To the contrary, that which I advocate takes nothing about the atonement for granted, but rather expressed the profound and eternal need for it. That which I advocate does not place works above the atonement; it recognizes the role of work within atonement, but without intention of marginalizing the importance of grace -- the one cannot work without the other. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Ultimately I believe that we must love one another for the sake of love alone." Momentarily ignoring the "alone", that statement illustrates circular reasoning, and is true of anything at all. I must write to write. I must type to type. With the "alone", it adds meaninglessness to the circularity. Without ultimate appeal to subjective desire, nothing has value in itself.
139	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 6:06:00	Jim Weed: "One thing that really draws me to God is my belief that regardless of how I feel about this particular issue, or even if I overtly reject him, he still feels the same way about me. I believe that my relationship with him, like with any other person, will have more meaning if I choose to open myself to the possibilities of that relationship. I don't think this will cause him to love or value me more, it will just make our relationship more meaningful and significant. Conversely, if I decide to disregard him and break all of his commandments, he won't love or value me any less. However, we would both probably miss out on some good times." That resonates with me.
140	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 6:09:00	Rich Pak: "So God is one who is looking for repentence, yes, but he's also one who's actively seeking, and willing to carry all our burdens." This, too, resonates with me.
141	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 6:18:00	Steven Bone: "This may be true, but are not these lyrics an expression of faith? And if such a stance precludes any necessity for works or action, why did Sexsmith go to the trouble of writing and recording and performing the song, are these not faith-motivated acts?" Yes, and maybe Sexsmith is being a hypocrite? Steven Bone: "I'm not sure what you mean by "serving a god of death or a god of life". What are you saying with that one? I'm not sure that death and immortality are mutually exclusive. To me they seem like two different ways of talking about the same thing." . . . then you and I mean different things by "immortality". Steven Bone: "Why assume that the natural outcome of accepting a totally 'unconditional' love is apathy?" I don't. As you can read in the post to which you are responding, my faith is that God's love is unconditional. I simply don't believe that unconditional love manifests itself as Sexsmith's theory suggests because such a theory does not account for my experience. In my experience, love is sometimes manifest in other than indiscriminate acceptance.
142	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 6:26:00	Sterling: "The point of the prodigal son story isn't the sinner who returns, it is the hard working son who A) can't find forgiveness in his heart and B) is angry that his father offers unconditional love to someone who behaved badly." I think this is among the points of understanding that we may draw from the story, and I think it is a good point. It does not, however, detract from the other points of the story, such as that made by the father to the brother: all choices have their consequences, including the choice of forgiveness. Sterling: "None of wants to thing taht the atheist or the murderer will attain the same degree of glory as the repentant follower." . . . and, so far as I can tell, they will not unless they repent. Of course, there may be a magic wand out there that will render all of existence meaningless at any time. In such a scenario, please consider my statement retracted -- but wait, it will have already been rendered utterly meaningless. ;-) Sterling: "Your actions are only relevant to your relationship with God, how he deals with the other 90 billion of us ain't none of yo' bidness." I disagree. Everything affects me and I affect everything. That is what my experience has taught me. That being the case, I will be my brother's keeper, I will take on me the name of Christ, I will seek to persuade others to do the same, and may God grant us the wisdom and inspiration to do so righteously.
143	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 6:28:00	Jim Weed: "I think it's possible that God loves and accepts unconditionally AND judges us although I'm probably alone on this one." You are not alone on this one.
144	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/16/2004 6:33:00	Steven Bone: ". . . these words will do nothing to determine whatever it is that happens when we die--I guess that sounds lacking in faith, but it is actually very inspiring to me . . ." My faith is the opposite. Who is right? God knows -- maybe. In the meantime, does it make a practical difference to believe one way or the other? Steven Bone: "Is the idea of hierarchy really consistent with the idea of salvation?" Hierarchies, it seems, are a means of describing our experience. Christ taught us to consider our experience from the perspective of an inverted hierarchy.
145	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a happy person?	1/16/2004 6:40:00	I'm glad to read that, Brandini. Perhaps the work required makes it even better?
146	The Font of Knowledge	Interpretation of scripture	1/16/2004 6:46:00	Maybe it is D&C 76 that is presenting only half the picture -- but in more detail? It talks about three degrees of salvation . . . what about the three degrees of damnation? Where there is eternal life on the one hand, there is spiritual death on the other. We can talk about them as a dichotomy (heaven and hell, as in the Book of Mormon), or we can talk about them as a spectrum (degrees of glory as infinite as the stars, as in the Doctrine and Covenants). . . . seems like Brigham had a few interesting things to say about this.
147	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/17/2004 23:55:00	I voted for "highly probable" only because it comes closest to presenting my feelings on this matter. Life after death, for me, is not so much a matter of probability as it is a matter of desirability. It is and has been among the greatest of human ideals for thousands of years. My faith is that we have and will continue to approach it, eternally.
148	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/18/2004 0:02:00	Joey: "My joy is linked to the joy of those whom I love. When their joy increases, so does mine. So, in those instances when there exists conflicting desires, there must be give and take. Atonement requires sacrifice." Amen
149	The Font of Knowledge	God Loves Everyone	1/18/2004 0:33:00	Jeremy the Giant Robot: "What I mean is I understood Arosophos to be advocating a position more like "I love for the eternal reward I will earn through my actions" (I realize that this is an over-simplification. I'm just trying to explain myself)." Here, more accurately, is the idea I would advocate: We should love for the fulfillment of our desires both now and in the future. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "And I meant to stress a position that I see as distinctly different which is love for no other reason than to offer your support, caring, thoughts, help, and sympathy to others because they are alone in the world just like you and the world's a little better if we're willing to walk together." This is a departure from your original claim. This is love for the sake of support, care, thought, help and sympathy, in turn for the sake of a better world for all of us, in turn for the sake of our desire for that better world. In all, it is love for the sake of desire. I agree with this. Red: "To whatever extent we perform an act in the hope of advancing our own fortunes, we are not acting out of love." Show me a concrete example of love that does not advance our own fortunes, and I will show you that which is not love. Steven Bone: ". . . these words will do nothing to determine whatever it is that happens when we die--I guess that sounds lacking in faith, but it is actually very inspiring to me . . ." Arosophos, previously: "My faith is the opposite. Who is right? God knows -- maybe. In the meantime, does it make a practical difference to believe one way or the other?" Jim Weed: "Since Bone is outtie, I'll answer because I believe what he is saying. In fact, I'm counting on it. It brings rest and relief to believe in something greater than me, more experienced than me, and without my flaws. Something that can lift me up and isn't confined to my limited perception. I can't rely on something capricious because I'll fall over every time it moves." Do you believe that these words are inconsequential to whatever it is that happens before we die? If not, do you believe that whatever it is that happens before we die is inconsequential to whatever it is that happens when we die? If not, do you believe that these words are inconsequential to whatever it is that happens when we die? I understand the desire for rest and relief, and for confidence in that which is greater than us, more experienced, less flawed and of broader perception. I understand it, and I recognize the need for it as I recognize the need for rest from our daily work. However, when rested, it is again time to work, and work I shall. Will our work make a difference? Who is right? God knows -- maybe. In the meantime, I will rest with you to the extent I need rest, and then I will work. If, in the end, I have worked in vain, so be it. I will yet join you in whatever heaven, hell or lack thereof awaits us. Perhaps, however, the work will not be in vain? Only faith in the work has any potential to answer the question. Red: "I have trouble imagining how love works with only one self." Satan loves himself. Christ loves himself. Satan loves only himself. Christ loves all. That's how I imagine it. Timothy: "The quest should be to manage it such that we maximize our joy. For most of us, a large component of that joy is in our communal relationships; if this is true, this necessitates a tempering of our desires, but never an elimination of them." Amen Red: "My recollection is that Jesus always said that the glory should be the Father's." Right -- and then Jesus tells us that he received the fullness of the Father . . . and then we are told that we, too, may receive the fullness of the Father, as joint-heirs with Jesus. Glory to the Father! That's what Jesus said, and that glory belongs to all of us. Red: "I think He is acting for our benefit, and doing so apparently benefits Him." Agreed
150	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/18/2004 0:51:00	Timothy: "God is never portrayed as allaying his desires or will in order to accomodate yours . . ." I disagree. The Bible portrays Jesus, an individual God, as putting aside his desires for the sake of the desires of the Father, the Eternal God that includes you and me as we should be. "Not my will, but thine, be done", he says. I think he was talking to you, Timothy. Timothy: ". . . now, it could be said that Christ is portrayed in this manner, but not God the Father, whose will (desire) Christ was submitting to." Right -- and who is God the Father? I am not looking for the Sunday School answer. I am looking for the answer toward which all of our religious tradition and the Holy Spirit points our souls. Timothy: "Would you love or sacrifice if it did not bring you joy? If it brought you pain or misery only, with no hope of coming joy, would you love or sacrifice? I think it would be foolish for you to do so, not only for you, but for your community as well." Agreed
151	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/21/2004 4:42:00	Jeremy the Giant Robot: "How can life after death be an ideal?" More specifically, immortality is the ideal. How can immortality be an ideal? As with all ideals, it is something we approach: we learn to live longer; we learn to resurrect; we learn to live yet longer; we learn to resurrect again; and we learn yet again to live longer. . . . eternal lives. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "How can it be a goal?" We choose to pursue living longer and repeated resurrection. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "How is it something that we can, through our own will power and work bring to pass?" Invest in longevity research. Do your geneology. That's a start, and there is much more . . . Jeremy the Giant Robot: "Also, how do we 'approach' life after death?" As I explained above, my meaning may be more clear if you understand me to be referring to immortality. We approach immortality as I explained above -- or perhaps in any of infinite other ways. Jeremy the Giant Robot: "What do you concieve of happening after we die?" We return to the spirit world -- the abstract -- and await the day of resurrection.
152	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/21/2004 4:48:00	Timothy, I disagree with your most recent post directed at Grasshopper. Please explain, with specific references to the text, how the scriptures he presented do not illustrate the idea that God's will accounts for and works with our will.
153	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/22/2004 5:24:00	James the Old Bean: "How do you guys reconcile God knowing everything yet being able to change his will. If he knows how everything will happen, why should he want to change his will?" Perhaps, practically speaking, he doesn't know everything? Sure: there are the ideals -- the essence, the spirit of God -- but there are also the concrete Gods of flesh and bone, progressing eternally. James the Old Bean: ". . . if God is all-knowing and exists outside of linear time why ever would he want to change his mind when he knows how everything is going to turn out?" Omniscience and timelessness are interesting abstractions, and surely faith in them can have its practical consequences. However, I am particularly interested in that God that exists not just in timelessness, but also in the rough and tumble everyday world that I encounter in my experience. Joey: "If I am forced to choose between an all-loving God and an all-knowing God, I will choose love and take my chances on an unknown future." . . . which allows for the possibility that the future will become better than any of us ever imagined -- God included. Can you feel the glory of it all?
154	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/22/2004 5:46:00	Timothy: ". . . of course you have experiences, feelings, reactions to beliefs, etc. The issue is one of correlation of those experiences with the conclusions you draw." The experiences are the conclusion. I want the experiences because they are desirable. They bring me joy. I live for joy. Beyond the conclusion is the next hypothesis: additional desirable experience awaits -- faith in uniformity. Paul, in the New Testament, talks about the Spirit as the earnest of our inheritance as the Children of God. The metaphor implies the hypothesis that our experience of the Spirit today, as desirable as it is, is only the beginning -- only the earnest of the inheritance. That which brings me such joy now is to eternal life as earnest is to inheritance. That is the hypothesis. That is faith. James the Old Bean: "The candle is a tangible object that we have control over and can measure many different ways." Get the right equipment, and let's start measuring the Spirit. James the Old Bean: "If we feel the heat when the candle is near then we can be pretty sure the candle is causing the heat. If we physically remove it and notice that the heat is diminished or gone, we can conclude that the candle provided heat." If we feel the Spirit when we perform a particular action, and if we stop feeling the Spirit when we stop performing the particular action, we can hypothesize that the action was related to our feeling of the Spirit. James the Old Bean: "The Spirit is different because we cannot measure it and we cannot control it." My hypothesis is that we can measure and control the Spirit much as we can measure and control heat. More! I believe it is our DUTY to measure and control the Spirit -- anything less would be insufficient for Godhood. James the Old Bean: "We don't know when it is near or far but we can still feel it." The source of heat may be near (the furnace) or far (the sun), but with some time and effort we can become confident in our hypotheses concerning the distance. I think the same concerning the Spirit. James the Old Bean: "However, we all know people who mistook some emotion or desire for the Spirit." Is this a matter of making mistakes or a matter of needing to be more careful in and agreeing upon our definitions? Joey: "We might not be able to measure it to the same extent that we can measure heat, but so what? We know when it is there and we can feel it in differing magnitudes. Sometimes it is stronger (hotter) than other times. This may not be as precise a measurement as we can have with heat, but it is still a measurement." . . . and it may be more difficult to measure the distance between electrons than it is to measure the distance between stones, but with time and effort -- and some wisdom and inspiration -- we can manage. Bring on the neural scanners! Let's measure the earnest on the inheritance of Everlasting Burnings!
155	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/22/2004 5:51:00	Jim Weed: "I understand the idea behind what you are saying but I don't think 'empiricism' is the correct word--the big difference is that you embrace subjectivity while empiricism in the traditional sense tries to eliminate it." Tries and fails . . . if it tries at all. A good empiricist knows that the observer is always a significant variable. That aside, to whom are you attributing authority in defining traditional empiricism? The empiricist philosophers -- Berkeley, Hume, etc. -- were so far from eliminating subjectivity that they were advocating near relativism.
156	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/22/2004 5:54:00	Jim Weed: "I think it useful to clarify that you and James mean different things by the word 'empiricism'." I am not sure about this. Empiricism, strictly speaking, is the idea that knowledge comes from experience. From there, we are free to argue about what counts as experience. Joey has mentioned William James, whose point, with Radical Empiricism, is that all kinds of experience are permissable -- but only experience is permissable, and radically so, to the extent that we recognize all knowledge as degrees of confidence in hypotheses, with varying degrees of good, real-world practical consequences.
157	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/22/2004 6:02:00	Jim Weed: "I'm not troubled by the notion that he knows me so well that he knows what decisions I'll make--because that idea, whether or not it's true, has no practical bearing on the story I choose to write for myself." Logically, it has all the bearing in the world -- to the point of making the world meaningless. If God knows, infallibly, the decisions you will make, then how does he know? By what means does he know? . . . the means whereby God, or anything else, would infallibly know the decisions you will make is sufficient evidence for our lack of free will. So, in my world, I am faced with a choice: faith in a concretely omniscient God and a lack of free will, or faith in both free will and God, of whatever power he proves capable within the context of free will. I choose the latter for practical reasons. When I believed the former, when I considered the former, when I pondered it, wondered about it, prayed and yearned over it, it brought me first despair -- and then apathy. I am a different person now, and that, in part, is because I have chosen to worship a different God.
158	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/22/2004 6:29:00	Jim Weed: "I'm sure that we mean different things." Could it be that we are referring to roughly the same idea, but that you have not explored the logical consequences of the idea to the extent that William James suggests?
159	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/22/2004 6:39:00	Empiricism, from Webster's: Main Entry: em·pir·i·cism Pronunciation: im-'pir-&-"si-z&m, em- Function: noun Date: 1657 1 a : a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory b : QUACKERY, CHARLATANRY 2 a : the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences b : a tenet arrived at empirically 3 : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience - em·pir·i·cist /-sist/ noun As I understand the history, the idea of radical empiricism originates with William James and his teachers -- Pragmatists. For them, Radical Empiricism was simply consistent empiricism. Some would-be empiricists act as if they are oblivious to basic non-empirical assumptions that they make about experience: in particular, assumptions of uniformity, monism, etc. -- the idea, more or less, that all experience can ultimately be explained in some non-contradictory, all-inclusive, final, static manner. Radical Empiricism recognizes these assumptions as assumptions, and is willing to hypothesize that the world is not uniform and monistic, but rather that it is a pluralism. In a pluralism, experience is knowledge, and knowledge is to the extent that experience matches expectation, resulting in confidence. Knowledge is confidence, even great confidence -- but not infallibility. Radical Empiricism is a logical extension of Empiricism -- turning Empiricism on itself as a kind of meta-Empiricism.
160	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/22/2004 6:48:00	Radical Empiricists know they cannot prove pluralism -- as they know monism cannot be proven. They are making a conscious choice to embrace faith in one above faith in the other because of the practical consequences of the choice.
161	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/22/2004 6:49:00	By the way, guys, I edited my first post while you were writing -- sorry.
162	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/22/2004 6:55:00	If you would like to know more about Radical Empiricism, I recommend that you read some essays by William James. You will get more from that than you will from me -- I am a poor historian.
163	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/23/2004 3:28:00	How, if at all, would you like me to interact with you, Jim Weed?
164	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/23/2004 3:32:00	Greenfrog: "Charlatanry?" Yes -- so go read whatever the historians have to say.
165	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/23/2004 3:52:00	James the Old Bean: "There is no equipment that can measure the spirit." Can you prove this? James the Old Bean: "The is no empirical proof that you can offer me that you feel the spirit." Is there empirical proof that I can offer you to demonstrate that I feel anything at all? If so, how is there not some analogous proof that I feel the Spirit? James the Old Bean: "I have to believe you just as you believe you are feeling the spirit." How is this different than any other experience I try to communicate to you? James the Old Bean: "People have hooked up electrodes to people doing all sorts of activities, including reading scriptures or whatever. All they see is brain activity . . ." Good. What kind of brain activity? How is the brain activity different when a person claims to be feeling the Spirit than when the person claims not to be feeling the Spirit? James the Old Bean: "We don't have anything sensitive enough to pick up ethereal beings." This depends on what we mean by "ethereal beings"; but regardless, I am not primarily interested in picking up ethereal beings. I am primarily interested in data of brain activity when a person claims to feel the Spirit, so that I can compare it to data of brain activity when a person claims not to feel the Spirit -- or to have some other experience. Am I suggesting that the Spirit is nothing more than a form of brain activity? No. I recognize that is a possibility -- just as vision may be nothing more than a form of brain activity. However, I suspect, as with all our experience, that feelings of the Spirit reflect not just our inner workings, but also the context in which we find ourselves. James the Old Bean: "My view on it and I think I represent how science would look at it: there is no proof of an afterlife." What does "afterlife" mean? We cannot claim or deny evidence of something until we are sure we are talking about the same thing. James the Old Bean: "But that doesn't mean that there isn't an afterlife." Agreed James the Old Bean: "It's all subjective and even if the entire world thought there was an afterlife that is still not enough evidence to prove an afterlife." I disagree. Proof in this is as proof in all matters: so soon as we think there is proof, there is -- and particularly when all the world thinks there is proof. Proof is meaningful only within the context of subjective beings who agree upon that nature of proof. ---------- Steven Bone: ". . . before I say anything, can you point out whatever inconsistency it is you're talking about, because I'm not sure that I see it." First, Steven Bone wrote: "I definitely agree that the future (and the only one I care anything about) should be connected to our present." Here, as I understand you, you are claiming that the only future you care about is the one that can be affected by us now. Second, Steven Bone wrote: ". . . these words will do nothing to determine whatever it is that happens when we die--I guess that sounds lacking in faith, but it is actually very inspiring to me . . ." Here, as I understand you, you are claiming to care about a future that cannot be affected by us now. Joey's question, as I understand it: do you, or do you not, care about a future that cannot be affected by us now?
166	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/23/2004 3:57:00	That doesn't answer the question.
167	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/23/2004 4:05:00	Please help me recognize the request.
168	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/23/2004 4:10:00	Jim Weed: "I don't sense that he's saying what we do has no effect on either future." Jim Weed, how do you understand the following statement from Steven Bone? Steven Bone: ". . . these words will do nothing to determine whatever it is that happens when we die . . ."
169	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/23/2004 4:25:00	Steven Bone: ". . . these words will do nothing to determine whatever it is that happens when we die . . ." Jim Weed: "There is an aspect of death over which we have no control." You write "aspect"; he wrote "nothing" and "whatever". Maybe he meant something like that which you propose, but do you understand why I think you are misrepresenting his statement?
170	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/23/2004 5:14:00	Jim Weed, please ignore this post -- really. Manfoom: "Your reply indicates no introspection, no evaluation of the way you relate to him." Manfoom, following is the response I did not post previously because of introspection and evaluation of my relationship with Jim Weed. ----- Jim Weed: "When I read your post I get the impression that I'm being preached to." Is preaching necessarily a bad thing? Jim Weed: "After expressing how I try to make sense of the world and how I feel about this, the first thing I read is that my beliefs and feelings are wrong and make the world meaningless." Right. I disagreed with you, and I explained why. Doing so is among the reasons I participate here. Jim Weed: "I appreciate a little devil's advocacy which helps me challenge and refine my thoughts and beliefs. I have been moved by my participation on SWAB because of this." I am not playing the devil's advocate, as we way. I am expressing my thoughts, agreements and disagreements, and reasoning and, at times, emotions. I do not intend to disagree simply to disagree. If I disagree, please assume that I am doing so in sincerity. If I agree, please assume that I am not doing so lightly. Jim Weed: "I believe you have the best intentions and appreciate your efforts and wisdom." I am trying to believe this. I have been impressed that you generally mistrust my intentions, sometimes ignore my efforts, and . . . perhaps, in addition to my impressions, you also do sometimes appreciate. Or perhaps my impressions are wrong and should be replaced with the sentiments you express here. Time and ongoing interaction will persuade me in this -- as they will you. Jim Weed: "However, the tone of this response is didactic." Is teaching, conveying instruction or making moral observations necessarily a bad thing? Jim Weed: "Your well-articulated words convince me that I have not been understood." Please explain how you feel misunderstood. Jim Weed: "It's hard for me when I feel like my feelings and beliefs are being disregarded and/or belittled." I was not disregarding your beliefs. That much, I think, is obvious. I was addressing them directly. I disregarded your feelings to some extent because, for this particular matter, I wanted to discuss your beliefs primarily. If disagreeing is belittling then I have belittled your beliefs in this matter. However, if belittling requires an attitude such as mockery then I did not intend to belittle your beliefs. I did not intend to belittle your feelings. ----- Manfoom: ". . . your prompt response pretends as though you have no idea what he is talking about . . ." I hope I have demonstrated otherwise. Manfoom: ". . . so you ask specifically how he would like you to treat him." Yes, and he has declined to do so, which I will accept without requesting additional question or comment from him because I don't like the alternatives. Manfoom: "Try to understand him, try to understand what he has allready written." I will. Manfoom: "The fact that you ask him how he would like you to treat him after he has, fairly explicitly, stated that he would like to be treated . . ." No -- not explicitly, not even fairly explicitly. Implicitly? Yes, but I was not satisfied with my understanding of his intended implications. Manfoom: ". . . indicates that he might be on to something when he feels like what he is saying is being 'disregarded'." To the contrary, I think disregard would have been demonstrated had I not asked the question.
171	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/23/2004 5:48:00	Joey: "The request can be inferred from Jim Weed's initial complaint. He doesn't want to feel like he's being preached to, and he doesn't want to be told that his beliefs are meaningless." I agree with the implications that you mention, but what are the further implications of these implications? The further implications interest me more. For example, does he care to continue interacting? The answer appears to be: perhaps in a limited way. Please recognize that I did not write that his beliefs are meaningless. I wrote that the logical implications of the specific belief he expressed include that the world be without meaning. Joey: "As a radical empiricist you have to account for the experience of others." I am not forced to do so. If I do, it is because I choose to do so, and it demonstrates that I care for others. Joey: "You have to account for the fact that regardless of what you meant in your responses to Jim Weed and others, the experience he left with was negative. He was hurt and angered, not so much by the content of your response, but more by the stance you take when delivering that response." Agreed -- at least in the short term. Joey: "Your stance is detached and cold." I'm in a cold room. ;-) Seriously, however, I agree with the "cold" part. My presentation of disagreement could have and should have been warmer. Jim Weed, I apologize for this. Detached? I disagree. I think my post demonstrated the opposite: passion. Joey: "I wish there was a nicer way of saying that." No you don't. :-) Joey: "Looking at reality from the empiricist perspective has been hugely beneficial to me. But one thing I have realized is that this outlook is only meaningful and good to the extent we embrace charity." I agree. Joey: "Do you embrace charity in your response to others?" Sometimes I try -- and I generally hope that even when I am not trying that I will do so without needing to try . . . which is a long way of saying that I do not always embrace charity in my response to others. Joey: "I know you do." I appreciate your confidence. Joey: "But do they know it? Apparently not." . . . yet -- I hope. Joey: ". . . if truth is knowledge and knowledge is experience then what does that imply about whether or not you embrace charity, keeping in mind that very few have knowledge of, or experience with, your embracement of charity?" . . . that it is lacking, and I am a sinner. Joey: "You could do a better job of demonstrating [charity]." Agreed
172	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/24/2004 3:43:00	Sterling: "Weed you should totally read Arosophos' post. You can't beat it for entertainment." "And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit." (1 Nephi 8: 27)
173	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/24/2004 3:45:00	Jim Weed: "I read the first couple lines of the subsequent post and saw that in fact I was the subject." Joey was not responding to the post I asked you not to read.
174	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/25/2004 5:31:00	James the Old Bean: "The short reply, Arosophos, is that no one has ever proven the existance of God . . ." . . . and no one ever will. God is not something to prove. God is something to posit, in faith, and thereafter experience. Existence itself is similar. No one will ever prove existence. We must posit it, in faith, and thereafter experience it. When we experience it, whether it be the position of God or of existence itself, we may choose to continue positing it or not, or to adjust our position in any of infinite ways, according to our desire. James the Old Bean: ". . . and of an afterlife." As with the matters of existence and God, proof is not so important in this matter as is faith -- I suspect you agree. It seems reasonable to acknowledge that faith itself may be the deciding factor in whether there is life after death. Perhaps the possibility of proof for life after death depends entirely on our decision to create it? James the Old Bean: "There has always been a widespread belief in it." There may be inestimable value in this. We do not pursue ideals that we do not consider. We may not achieve ideals that we do not pursue -- and if we do without pursuing, we will not appreciate them so much as those we pursue before achieving. James the Old Bean: "I feel like we're getting into a philosophical debate in which we both know exactly what we mean but are getting caught up in the rhetoric." Let's see. :-) James the Old Bean: "The brain activity studies were interesting but to my knowledge the electrodes were measuring brain activity while praying. There was increased activity in one part of the brain that wasn't too active before but that is no indication of the spirit acting on them." When I see a tree, my brain acts in a particular way, but the skeptic may rightfully argue that this is no indication of the tree acting on me. Of course, I make a different choice than the skeptic. I choose to posit faith that the experience is related to something beyond me. I do the same when I feel the Spirit, and I feel just as rational about it. More: I would feel irrational if I put faith in one kind of experience but not in another. I see, smell, taste, hear and feel; and I can interpret these experiences in more or less beneficial ways. The same is true of the Spirit: I feel it, and I can interpret it in more or less beneficial ways. James the Old Bean: "By afterlife I mean an existance after death in which the deceased person gets to act and choose. This is the most universal definition of an afterlife I can think of." Whether this is universal or not, let's go with it: the afterlife is an existence after death in which the deceased has free will. James the Old Bean: "What is your view of an afterlife?" I am unsure of how much free will you and I will have immediately following death. I suspect it will range from less than we now experience to none at all. My faith, however, is that regardless of the particular degree of free will experienced immediately following death, we will eventually resurrect to free will in an identity we associate with that we now claim. James the Old Bean: "Why do you believe in it?" To begin with, it is a practical matter: I desire it, and recognize that attaining it could, within reason, depend on my pursuit of it. Beyond that, my faith is assured by others of like faith, such as that presented in the scriptures; and those of unlike faith have been unsuccessful in persuading me away. Also, as I look at the history books, I percieve progress in our pursuit of immortality, and that reassures me. James the Old Bean: "Do you believe that some things are more easily "proven" than others or are all things similarly subjective?" I believe some things are more easily proven than others -- but I believe all proof depends entirely on the mutually agreed upon context (basic faith) of subject beings.
175	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	1/25/2004 5:33:00	Steven Bone: "I want Arosophos and Weed to figure out what Joey and I meant when we misunderstood each other." . . . a fortunate coincidence. ;-)
176	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/25/2004 5:55:00	Sterling: "This kind of thing is the opposite, joey, of how I would hope a conversation between people would go." You must despair when reading the scriptures. Sterling: ". . . none of us are in a postion to preach or 'convey instruction'." Excepting you when you make this statement? Sterling: "We discuss, engage, we fight. But we don't lecture." Apparently you and I lecture -- or is this a fight? ;-) Sterling: "In my limited interaction with Arosophos, . . . she . . . seems intent on lecturing . . ." I will not deny it, but I will claim that lecturing is not my primary intention -- and I do not feel that it is close to my primary intention. Sterling: ". . . which I find unproductive, and I think every thread Arosophos participates in bears that out." You claim my participation here has been unproductive for you. I will claim that it has been productive for me. We are tied: 1 to 1. I think you should start a poll. Sterling: "Appearently, Arosophos is partaking of the fruit, while I stand in the great and spacious building. The comparison is laughable in the extreme, not to mention pompous." . . . ironic that you continue laughing, and add to it: "Now, he says that the Lord has talked with him, and also that angels have ministered unto him. But behold, we know that he lies unto us; and he tells us these things, and he worketh many things by his cunning arts, that he may deceive our eyes, thinking, perhaps, that he may lead us away into some strange wilderness; and after he has led us away, he has thought to make himself a king and a ruler over us, that he may do with us according to his will and pleasure. And after this manner did my brother Laman stir up their hearts to anger." (1 Nephi 16: 38)
177	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/25/2004 16:48:00	Untitled: "are you trying to make friends, arosophos?" Sure. :-) . . . but, if I must choose, I feel some things are more important, which reminds me of a scripture: "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. "And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward." (Matt 10: 32-42)
178	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/25/2004 17:08:00	Sterling: "I never oppose a little instruction from God. From you, however, it is a different story all together." . . . which reminds me of another scripture: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, "And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Matt 23: 29-39) Sterling: "When it comes right down to it, you'll find SWABBies are loathe to express personal animosity, so no one would vote." I think you would be surprised -- but I may be wrong. Maybe you should go for it, and see whether it satisfies your desire to demonstrate that I am unpopular. Sterling: "But look at every thread you've posted in, and find one that didn't end with you seriously offending someone." Have you counted the threads in which I have participated where I have seriously offended someone? Really? I would be interested in the results, if you have, or if you decide to do it. I wager you will find one that doesn't end with an offence. Sterling: "You argue constantly that everyone is misunderstanding you . . ." I do? Will you please show me where I have argued this? So far as I can remember, I have regularly argued better to express my ideas, but I do not remember particularly focusing on expressing a feeling of being misunderstood. Misunderstanding is part of life. We deal with it every day. I don't feel that it is extraordinarily practical to complain about it. It feels much more practical to keep working on being better understood. Sterling: "I'm reminded of a poster I saw once: 'The only consistent feature of all your disfunctional relationships is you.'" :-) Sterling: "Seriously though Arosophos, whats up with the first Nephi? Are you, seriously, comparing me to Laman and Lemuel?" Yes, unfortunately. The similarity has been striking. Sterling: "And are you saying you are Nephi, here to light the way?" Sure, but no more so than any of the rest of us. Like Nephi, most of us have covenanted to take on us the name of Christ and to have his Spirit with us, which is the Spirit of prophecy. Nephi urges us to compare ourselves to the scriptures, and I am sure he would not make an exception of scriptures about Nephi. Sterling: "I think I'm pretty supportive of people's religions . . ." How so? Sterling: "who the hell do you think you are?" I should be Christ, as you should be.
179	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/25/2004 21:31:00	Untitled, do you feel that Jesus was acting in contradiction to that which it is to be Christ when speaking the words I quoted from him above?
180	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/25/2004 22:22:00	Untitled: "i don't think you're using his words with the same intention he used them." Why not? Untitled: "i know you're setting me up with the intention of a didactic response. also un-christ-like." Is it un-Christ-like to ask questions that are designed or intended to teach, to convey instruction or make moral observations? Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, appears to have posed didactic questions, and one seems particularly relevant to your concerns, here: "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10: 34) Untitled: "why don't you just get to the point?" My experience is that getting to the point is much more fulfilling when it is treated as a process. Untitled: ". . . as someone who is trying to contribute to and participate in DISCUSSIONS with the hope of being enriched, making friends, and furthering my knowledge . . ." We have this in common -- or so I will claim. :-) Untitled: ". . . i thought i would give you a raw response to your posts." Thank You Untitled: "there's a good chance i won't respond to whatever you post next. that means you'll have the last word. i'm sure you'll be pleased." To the contrary, I would like to continue this exchange, and the ball is now in your court, so to speak.
181	Shooting the Breeze	The Arosophos Poll	1/25/2004 22:28:00	:-)
182	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/25/2004 23:31:00	I found a historian for you. He wrote about Processism, but it has much in common with -- has been heavily influenced by and is considered by some to be an extension of -- radical empiricism and pragmatism. Here it is: [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy:34me367r]Processism[/url:34me367r]
183	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/25/2004 23:32:00	Hmm . . . I wonder why the HTML is not working.
184	The Font of Knowledge	Empiricism	1/25/2004 23:50:00	Thanks
185	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/28/2004 4:36:00	[quote:134dcfw7]Some of the company thought I was not a very meek Prophet; so I told them: 'I am meek and lowly in heart,' and will personify Jesus for a moment, to illustrate the principle, and cried out with a loud voice, "Woe unto you, ye doctors; woe unto you, ye lawyers; woe unto you, ye scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites!" But you cannot find the place where I ever went that I found fault with their food, their drink, their house, their lodgings; no, never; and this is what is meant by the meekness and lowliness of Jesus. (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: 270)[/quote:134dcfw7]
186	The Font of Knowledge	Women Administering to the Sick by the Laying On of Hands	1/28/2004 4:48:00	Joseph Smith, speaking to the Relief Society in 1842 . . . [quote:18uu2ofi]Respecting females administering for the healing of the sick he further remarked, there could be no evil in it, if God gave His sanction by healing; that there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on and praying for the sick, than in wetting the face with water; it is no sin for anybody to administer that has faith, or if the sick have faith to be healed by their administration. President Smith then gave instruction respecting the propriety of females administering to the sick by the prayer of faith, the laying on of hands, or the anointing with oil; and said it was according to revelation that the sick should be nursed with herbs and mild food, and not by the hand of an enemy. Who are better qualified to administer than our faithful and zealous sisters, whose hearts are full of faith, tenderness, sympathy and compassion. No one. (TPJS 225, 229)[/quote:18uu2ofi] Have any of the women that participate here at SWAB ever administered to the sick by the laying on of hands and the prayer of faith?
187	The Font of Knowledge	Add your new scripture	1/28/2004 5:11:00	You Are the New Day The King's Singers arr. by Findell '85 You are the new day [new day]. You are the new day... I will love you more than me And more than yesterday. If you can but prove to me, You are the new day. Send the sun in time for dawn; Let the birds all hail the morning. Love of life will urge me say: You are the new day. When I lay me down at night Knowing we must pay, Thoughts occur that this night might Stay yesterday. Thoughts that we as humans small Could slow worlds and end it all, Lie around me when they fall Before the new day. One more day when time is running out For everyone. Like a breath I knew would come I reach for a new day. Hope is my philosophy, Just needs days in which to be; Love of life means hope for me, You are the new day.
188	The Font of Knowledge	Women Administering to the Sick by the Laying On of Hands	1/29/2004 5:05:00	In case you decide to try, here is something to consider, also from Joseph Smith: [quote:2jqy2c8z]Elder Jedediah M. Grant enquired of me the cause of my turning pale and losing strength last night while blessing children. I told him that I saw that Lucifer would exert his influence to destroy the children that I was blessing, and I strove with all the faith and spirit that I had to seal upon them a blessing that would secure their lives upon the earth; and so much virtue went out of me into the children, that I became weak, from which I have not yet recovered; and I referred to the case of the woman touching the hem of the garment of Jesus. (Luke, 8:43-48.) The virtue here referred to is the spirit of life; and a man who exercises great faith in administering to the sick, blessing little children, or confirming, is liable to become weakened. (TPJS 281)[/quote:2jqy2c8z]
189	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/29/2004 5:13:00	Before voting, some words to think about . . . [quote:1w1r3428]And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that [was] upon him, and gave [it] unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, [that], when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two [of the] men in the camp, the name of the one [was] Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they [were] of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, [one] of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, [and] that the LORD would put his spirit upon them! (Numbers 11: 24-29)[/quote:1w1r3428] [quote:1w1r3428]. . . the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Revelation 19: 10)[/quote:1w1r3428] [quote:1w1r3428]If any person should ask me if I were a prophet, I should not deny it, as that would give me the lie; for, according to John, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; therefore, if I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness; but if I be a true teacher and witness, I must possess the spirit of prophecy, and that constitutes a prophet; and any man who says he is a teacher or a preacher of righteousness, and denies the spirit of prophecy, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; and by this key false teachers and impostors may be detected. (TPJS 269)[/quote:1w1r3428]
190	The Font of Knowledge	Glory to God?	1/29/2004 5:17:00	[quote:evcn4nr9]Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if He were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His enemies said all manner of evil against Him—they all watched for iniquity in Him. How easy it was for Jesus to call out all the iniquity of the hearts of those whom He was among! (TPJS 258)[/quote:evcn4nr9]
191	The Font of Knowledge	Anonymity	1/29/2004 5:32:00	[quote:29xvrbsf]The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday. (TPJS 195)[/quote:29xvrbsf]
192	The Font of Knowledge	Free Will of Spirits	1/29/2004 5:44:00	Do spirits have free will? Why or why not? If so, how much, compared to us? Does it make a difference to believe one way or another? I think about these questions frequently. Some quotes from Joseph Smith to give context . . . [quote:3ooy8yvc]There are three independent principles; the Spirit of God, the spirit of man, and the spirit of the devil. All men have power to resist the devil. They who have tabernacles, have power over those who have not. (TPJS 189)[/quote:3ooy8yvc] . . . note the last sentence in particular. [quote:3ooy8yvc]I want to talk more of the relation of man to God. I will open your eyes in relation to your dead. All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; (TPJS 355)[/quote:3ooy8yvc] . . . note that spirits perceive in the abstract -- and the apparent implication that spirits perceive other spirits as abstractions, as we perceive other spirits as abstractions when they are revealed to us. That being the case, an empiricist would be convinced that spirits are abstractions. Do abstractions have free will? Why or why not? If so, how much, compared to us? Does it make a difference to believe one way or another?
193	The Font of Knowledge	Free Will of Spirits	1/29/2004 5:56:00	This, too, seems related: [quote:2mr8ov2x]A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body . . . I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost but they must do it in this world. (TPJS 357)[/quote:2mr8ov2x] If the ability to commit the unpardonable sin is a profound expression of the ability to choose -- to exercise free will -- what might be the implications of this quote?
194	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/29/2004 6:06:00	This may help with your semantical debate: [quote:37fsxezu]And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet. And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known. Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings. (Mosiah 8: 15-18)[/quote:37fsxezu] . . . but that does not define "President".
195	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/29/2004 6:10:00	Perhaps this will work for "President": [quote:37tur6bx]The president of the church, who is also the president of the council, is appointed by revelation, and acknowledged in his administration by the voice of the church. (D&C 102: 9)[/quote:37tur6bx] . . . which seems quite different than the other roles described above.
196	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/29/2004 6:12:00	Steven Bone, what do you understand a prophet to be?
197	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/29/2004 6:15:00	James the Old Bean: "Perhaps, Joey and Arosophos (I'm assuming you both voted yes), you can expand why you would consider the term differently than normal and what that means to you." It is important to me that we understand our calling to be prophets for reasons analogous to those for which it is important to me that we understand our calling to be Gods. We do not achieve that which we do not pursue. It is a practical matter, for me. Would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets!
198	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/29/2004 6:26:00	Is there a difference between god and God? There is, at least, the difference that a substantial portion of contemporary LDS culture has embraced. Embracing that difference is embracing damnation. On the other hand, there is that of which Joseph taught: [quote:203d2j04]. . . they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. (TPJS 347)[/quote:203d2j04] [quote:203d2j04]If you wish to go where God is, you must be like God, or possess the principles which God possesses, for if we are not drawing towards God in principles, we are going from Him and drawing towards the devil. (TPJS 216)[/quote:203d2j04] The same, it seems to me, must be true of prophets. That said, we all have our callings, our jurisdictions, our roles, gifts, etc. I think this is a good thing. I have nothing against order or authority. I do have something against damnation: that which would keep our spirits emprisoned from the glory of the great God.
199	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/30/2004 5:17:00	[quote:2n9a7ys1]Jim Weed: "Following that line of reasoning, wouldn't that also apply to apostle, seventy, patriarch, stake president, bishop, etc.?"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] In my mind, these are, for the most part, positions of communal authority, much like the President of the Church. They are not spiritual gifts, such as prophecy. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Jim Weed: "What is the purpose of sustaining if we are all prophets?"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] What is the purpose of giving love, if we should all receive it? [quote:2n9a7ys1]Red: "According to the Mosiah quote, being a seer is the thing. Does anyone see any evidence that any living person meets his definition? And when I say evidence, I don't mean someone 'sustained as such', but evidence that a person in fact knows 'things which are to come'?"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] My answer depends on the details of how you understand "the ability to see things which are to come". If you understand that phrase to refer to the ability to see and know the concrete future infallibly then I know of no evidence for seership. If you understand that phrase to refer to the ability to see and know the abstract future, and the concrete future within degrees of probability, then I do know of evidence for seership. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Steven Bone: "My understanding is . . . (mainly) Someone who can tell the future."[/quote:2n9a7ys1] Do you recognize that our scriptural tradition associates this ability with "seer" rather than "prophet"? [quote:2n9a7ys1]Steven Bone: "My understanding is . . . Someone who can reveal unexpected truth."[/quote:2n9a7ys1] This, again, to me, sounds more like the scriptural definition of "seer" than "prophet". Do you agree? Consider the Mosiah scripture, and the contrast it describes between the roles. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Steven Bone: "My understanding is . . . Someone who speaks for God."[/quote:2n9a7ys1] So long as the God is Christ, I agree with this. This is, I think, exactly what the scriptures seem to be teaching us. They also seem to be teaching us that we should all be speaking for God. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Steven Bone: "My understanding is . . . Someone who really thinks they're a prophet."[/quote:2n9a7ys1] . . . essentially the idea that a prophet must think herself a prophet or she is not a prophet? I am not sure I agree with this because it may imply that semantics are a defining characteristic. If, however, thinking one's self a prophet means only that one thinks that one acts in a role that one might call "prophet" subsequent to discussion with a person who describes the role as "prophet" then I will agree. There is certainly something conscious about the role: testifying of Christ, having the Spirit of Christ -- even being Christ. It is intentional, or it is not. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Untitled: "hey! arosophos learned how to use quote tags! way to go!"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] I'm trying to make more time for it, but will apologize in advance that I will not do it when in a hurry. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Untitled: "can one be a seer or a revelator without being a prophet?"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] According to the Mosiah passage, a seer must be a prophet also. As I understand the passage, a seer is the combination of a revelator and a prophet. Revelators, then, would be seers without the spirit of prophecy -- the spirit of Christ. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Untitled: "can one be a revelator without being a seer or a prophet?"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] I think so. Consider the claims of the persons who label themselves "psychic". [quote:2n9a7ys1]Untitled: "i think the main question for this thread is can one be a prophet without being a seer or revelator?"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] The Mosiah passage certainly suggests such a possibility. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Untitled: "if the answer to that question is yes, then perhaps i could go along with cosidering myself a prophet. but i think it would require a redefinition of my generally accepted understanding of a "mormon" definition of a capital P Prophet."[/quote:2n9a7ys1] Right. That's what I think you should do: redefine your understanding of "prophet" to include yourself in the definition to the extent that you have the Spirit of Christ. Why does this matter to me? Again, for the same reasons that it matters to me that we define "God" such that it includes ourselves as we should be. There is practical value here. [quote:2n9a7ys1]Untitled: "i thought i was arguing with arosophos and was anticipating a teaching moment. (it's a JOKE aros! jeez.)"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] . . . just wait. :-) [quote:2n9a7ys1]Steven Bone: "What is 'the testimony of Jesus'? Like I said, I like a lot of what he said in the NT. Is that it?"[/quote:2n9a7ys1] A testimony is an ability to recount experience -- empiricism. Can you recount experience of Christ? Have you experienced Christ? If so, I would say that you have a testimony of Christ -- whether you like Christ or not. Liking is an altogether different matter. However, it seems that the person with a testimony of Christ, with experience of Christ, that chooses not to like Christ is commiting the unpardonable sin: the choice of rejecting love, of denying the Spirit, of descending into nihilism.
200	The Font of Knowledge	Women Administering to the Sick by the Laying On of Hands	1/31/2004 17:44:00	How does that quote contrast with the following from Joseph Smith? [quote:3t96zhkb]"He spoke of delivering the keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands . . ." (TPJS 226)[/quote:3t96zhkb]
201	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	1/31/2004 17:47:00	[quote:1hn6ejt4]Dale Cooper: "I never believed a word my dad said after that."[/quote:1hn6ejt4] Do you think you have over-reacted?
202	The Font of Knowledge	Do you believe in Santa Clause?	1/31/2004 17:49:00	The following statement from Joseph Smith, particularly the last sentence, feels to be of importance relative to the question at hand: [quote:24ui2d81]"I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the Scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by the weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief." (TPJS 373)[/quote:24ui2d81]
203	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	1/31/2004 19:13:00	[quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "so what we're doing here is defining a more democratic idea of 'prophet'."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Yes, and more . . . because so doing has practical affects on our salvation. [quote:1eocb5ag]Paul: "Maybe we are just looking more closely at what the scriptures tell us a prophet is and who should be one."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Yes -- that, too. [quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "all are speaking for god and testifying of christ with equal power and equal opportunity to do so."[/quote:1eocb5ag] All are called to do so, every person speaking in the name of God. Of course, however, many are called, but few are chosen. How much of being chosen depends on recognizing the calling? It seems to be at least a significant dependency. [quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "maybe i like that idea."[/quote:1eocb5ag] I hope so -- and the God I worship hopes so. [quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "we believe we have a living prophet on the earth. would this prophet (speaking of all prophets since joseph smith) be a capital P Prophet and not a seer?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] If we recognize the capital "P" only as a designator of authority then I am fine with the idea. If, however, we recognize it as some necessary substantial difference in prophetic ability then I disagree with the idea and consider it essentially damning. [quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "interesting points about seers, red and arosophos . . . is a seer necessary or is it something we are perhaps waiting for a more complete church?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] I think seers exist -- so long as we are not forced to accept the definition for which Red and I see no evidence. I proposed a second definition for which I see evidence. [quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "is it part of the truths that are yet to be revealed pertaining to the kingdom of god?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] I think seership is that which will, in large measure, bring about the revelation of these truths. [quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "what of the wording for sustaining, 'prophets, seers, and revelators'?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] We sustain them as such. What does it mean "to sustain"? [quote:1eocb5ag]Untitled: "or is defining a seer as someone who sees and knows the future infallibly inaccurate? is the abstract future much of a secret?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] I think, as you suggest, that defining a seer as someone who sees and knows the future infallibly is inaccurate. However, I don't think the future is so much a secret as it is something yet to be created in free will -- something which cannot be known infallibly before it is chosen, else it is not free. As I proposed on another thread recently, whatever means one may use for knowing the concrete future infallibly is sufficient evidence for the inexistence of free will. [quote:1eocb5ag]Steven Bone: "Is anyone here or does anyone here know of a seer?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] My answer depends to some extent on your understanding of "seer". However, to the extent that I am allowed to use my understanding of "seer", I know of and have interacted with seers -- at least seers in development. I also, at times, experience something in myself that is seership. [quote:1eocb5ag]Steven Bone: "Can one become a seer?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] It appears that the scriptures describe seership as a gift of the Spirit. If so, as one can obtain the gifts of the Spirit with time, so one may become a seer with time. This faith, I think, is related to our sustaining of LDS Church authorities as seers. [quote:1eocb5ag]Steven Bone: "Arosphos-I appreciated your recent post."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Thanks [quote:1eocb5ag]Steven Bone: "To me experience is something that can be altered after the fact, and is something that can become completely unrecognizable sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. If I've experienced ("the") Christ and then later I think that I haven't, then in my opinion, I haven't."[/quote:1eocb5ag] I entirely agree that there is a changeable aspect to past experience. This, too, is a matter of empiricism, for me. Our interpretation of past experience is, also, something which is experienced. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "How is this not relativistic?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] Please define your use of "relativism", and I will tell you whether I think it is or is not relativistic, and why. In the meantime, I will use my understanding of "relativism". As I understand "relativism", it is the decision to believe that one's personal desires and experience take precedent over or perhaps entirely dissolve the significance of the desires and experience of other persons -- if they exist, which they may not. Given this understanding, faith that we -- the key word being "we" -- are or should be prophets is certainly not relativistic because it concerns itself with desires and experience, beyond individuals, of an entire community. I know of nothing less relativistic than an appeal to the desires and experience of the entire eternal community of subjects. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "Is the idea that if the community desires something, so be it?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] Maybe, but there are also concrete aspects to the world, with which individuals and the community must interact. Desiring alone is, therefore, not always sufficient. To the extent that the desire is related to the concrete world, work is also required. However, work does not exist without the pre-requisite desire -- or, as the scriptures point out, all things are created first spiritually, then physically. . . . but, I suppose, there is a chicken and egg paradox in that to discuss somewhere else at another time. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "So if we all agree we are all prophets because we interpret the scriptures such, that makes it so?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] If we all agree, and is prophecy is an entirely spiritual matter (without any need of concrete manifestation), then: yes. However, I associate prophecy with certain concrete manifestations, particularly the act of testifying of Christ, so I do not agree that all are prophets. My point is that all should be prophets, whether they are or are not currently. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "Isn't that like saying the world IS flat because everybody in the community agrees that indeed, it is flat? Or is my understanding incomplete?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] I think your understanding should account for differences between faith in wholly spiritual matters and faith in matters with concrete aspects, such as faith that the world is flat. As I mentioned above, to the extent that faith includes reference to concrete matters, faith itself leads to work. Perhaps, if we all cared sufficiently, we could eventually make the world flat? It certainly will not happen without faith, however. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "If there are multiple prophets, what's the point of the President of the Church?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] The President of the Church is a position of authority. Prophecy is a gift of the Spirit. The point of the President of the Church is to be the leader of the LDS Church. The point of prophecy is to testify of Christ. These are very different roles, but not mutually exclusive roles, of course. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "And if this was the interpretation of prophet that was widely accepted, don't you think the church would teach that very explicitly?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] Maybe, but it is not the interpretation of "prophet" that is widely accepted, which is why I started this thread. I want to change the widely accepted interpretation because I believe doing so will contribute to our pursuit of salvation and exaltation. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "My understanding of the difference between a prophet and a Prophet is largely stewardship. The Prophet has stewardship for the church but obviously can't micromanage everything so that stewardship is divided and delegated down the chain. A prophet is the spirit of prophecy in each of us and our stewardship of prophecy is to ourselves and our families."[/quote:1eocb5ag] As I mentioned to Untitled, above, so long as the capital "P" prophet is understood only to be a reference to a particular position of authority in the LDS Church, I am fine with the idea. However, so soon as we consider the "P" to contribute some necessary distinction in prophetic ability, we damn ourselves. On the idea of stewardship, I agree to some extent with what you have written; however, there are exceptions, as directed by the Spirit of God. The scriptures are full of examples of prophets whose prophetic calling extends beyond their families -- to the extent of prophets calling the leaders of the church of the day to repentence. Even the LDS Church calls us to testify of Christ well beyond the bounds of our families. For example, a missionary is called to do so full time. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "If masses of people in the church are incorrectly interpreting something or some doctrinal changes are made (i.e. 1978 Priesthood), they come down the hierarchal chain, not from within."[/quote:1eocb5ag] I agree, to the extent that the persons in authority are exercising their authority in righteousness. To that extent, as the scriptures and prophets teach, I believe the Spirit of God will work for the community from that vantage point. However, to the extent that the persons in authority have acted in wickedness . . . amen to the authority of that person. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "Has such dramatic doctrinal change ever come from within? (not that a no necessarily means it couldn't)."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Since the establishing of the LDS Church? Maybe indirectly, depending on perspective, but not directly, I think. Also, I am glad you included the idea in parentheses. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "My question is: what's the difference between prophet and Prophet in your opinion?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] As I mention above, if we understand the difference to be other than specific calling of authority -- the endurance of which authority depends entirely on the righteousness of the person called -- then we damn ourselves. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "In one sense, yes, we are all prophets. Does being a prophet give one the right and responsibility to inform other members of the church that their widely-accepted interpretations of scripture are incorrect or false or nihilistic or apathetic or meaningless?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] Yes . . . I would be sinning otherwise. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "How do you know if another person that claims to be speaking for God actually is speaking for God?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] Try the spirits. Paul tells us there are many Gods. Joshua tells us to choose, this day, which among the many we will serve. Alma tells us to choose empirically. I tell you my choice, based on the benefits and detriments experienced, is Christ. This experience, to the extent I share it, makes me a prophet, as it does all who recount their experience of Christ. So says our law, and so I accept. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "Pretty much anyone who has claimed to be a prophet, interpreted key doctrinal points in ways deemed incorrect by the President of the Church, and led people towards this new interpretation, has been excommunicated."[/quote:1eocb5ag] I am not so concerned with personal claims to prophecy. I am more concerned with communal claims to prophecy. Most of the excommunications of which you write occurred in relation to persons who would lift themselves up above all that is called prophecy, declaring themselves prophets. There is another kind of prophet: one that would lift us up together as joint-heirs in prophecy, declaring us a community of prophets. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "Don't you think these ideas about prophets and God would be met with much resistence in the higher eschelons of the church?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] Only to the extent that the higher eschelons of the LDS Church are worshipping that God which would lift itself up above all other Gods, declaring itself God. I think, however, that most of the higher eschelons of the LDS Church consist of persons that worhip a God which would lift us up together as joint-heirs in the glory of the Father -- the Church of the Firstborn, the Order of the Only Begotten, Zion of One Heart and One Mind, the Eternal God, forever and ever. [quote:1eocb5ag]Jim Weed: "To me these ideas are radical and in some ways appealing. However, I'm confident that they aren't consistent with what the Prophet believes, what I've been taught my whole life, and this makes me skeptical."[/quote:1eocb5ag] I know the feeling. :-) [quote:1eocb5ag]Dale Cooper: "If a prophet is just someone who has the gift of prophecy, then I think yes, anyone with this gift would be considered a prophet. In LDS vernacular, however, when we refer to The Prophet, we are making reference to one person who is the president of the church. This is the only person on the Earth with all the keys for the administering of the kingdom. Head honcho."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Agreed -- of course, to the extent that the head honcho remains righteous, which I generally think is the case with our excellent President Hinckley. [quote:1eocb5ag]Dale Cooper: "So what exactly does it mean to prophesy? I think that at any moment a person has an impression of the spirit about how to act could call her/himself a prophet, at least in that instance. An impression from the Spirit to act means that God is working through you to influence the future."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Amen [quote:1eocb5ag]Dale Cooper: "I don't think we all need to be prophets."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Need? Now? I agree, because all it takes is one to make others, in good time. Should? I think we should all seek after prophecy. Some advice from the Apostle Paul: [quote:1eocb5ag]"[Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? "Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? "But covet earnestly the best gifts . . ." (1 Cirinthians 12: 29-31)[/quote:1eocb5ag] [quote:1eocb5ag]"What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy . . ." (1 Corinthians 14: 36-39)[/quote:1eocb5ag] [quote:1eocb5ag]Joey: "What definition of the word inspires the most faith within us? What kind of future are we trying to build for ourselves? Why are we afraid to empower ourselves?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] Amen, again. [quote:1eocb5ag]KidA: "does having the spirit of prophecy necessarily make you a prophet? . . . we all might have times in our lives where the spirit of prophecy comes to us and gives us direction (over whatever is our jurisdiction, of course--for example, me or my wife for our family), but does that really make one a 'prophet?' do you have to be a full-time prophet to be a prophet? . . . are you a prophet if you only have it in those instances? . . . we can all feel the spirit of prophecy, but that does not necessarily make up prophets."[/quote:1eocb5ag] Joseph Smith, who almost all of us consider to be a prophet, answered your questions explicitly: [quote:1eocb5ag]"This morning I read German and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such." (TPJS 278)[/quote:1eocb5ag] . . . so apparently either, according to your proposed definition of prophecy, nobody is a prophet because nobody, Joseph included, is always acting as a prophet. Or, with Joseph, we can recognize that we call persons "prophet" even though they are not always acting as such. [quote:1eocb5ag]Barlow: "I would argue that the impetus for just about every change that has ever been made in the church has essentially come from within."[/quote:1eocb5ag] . . . indirectly, I think there is evidence for this. [quote:1eocb5ag]Dale Cooper: "It seems that the Holy Ghost will give to some to know that Jesus is the Savior. And others have a gift to believe on their words. So if some will be saved just by enduring to the end, and believing on the words of others without having the gift of their own personal witness from the Holy Ghost, how could it be said that those people have the gift of prophecy? Isn't it possible to feel "good" about the gospel, to feel in your heart that you believe the testimony of those around you in the Gospel, and to endure to the end faithful, and still receive fully of the gift of eternal life without ever receiving that spirit of prophecy, that very personal witness of the Holy Ghost of the divinity of the savior?"[/quote:1eocb5ag] The scriptures and prophets, and the Spirit, seem to teach that some substantial degree of progression and salvation is possible as you describe. However, they seem also to teach that there is a point beyond which one must attain knowledge for one's self. [quote:1eocb5ag]Dale Cooper: "We do not all have the same gifts. We should seek out the gifts that God can provide for us, but we're not holding ourselves back if we don't get all those gifts."[/quote:1eocb5ag] I think there is wisdom in this. As you say, we do not each have all the gifts now -- or perhaps ever -- so we should learn to work together to use the gifts we have severally for the benefit of us all. [quote:1eocb5ag]Dale Cooper: "At that moment, I received a gift of the spirit, the spirit of prophesy, a personal witness of Christ. I need to share this testimony more often, so others can believe on my words, and receive that gift that allows them to belive me, and be saved."[/quote:1eocb5ag] I felt these words.
204	The Font of Knowledge	Free Will of Spirits	2/1/2004 1:35:00	Jim Weed, do you think abstract experience (non-temporal or non-spatial) is, generally speaking, more or less desirable than concrete experience (temporal and spatial)?
205	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	2/1/2004 1:58:00	[quote:3ha5b3am]Backwards: "what does that mean? you talk about resurrection in the same breath as modern science, as if resurrection is somehow a scientific achievement. do you believe that?"[/quote:3ha5b3am] I don't know whether or how resurrection or immortality will be achieved. I do see practical value in faith that they can be achieved through our efforts, scientific and otherwise. Perhaps they will be achieved despite our efforts, but perhaps their achievement will depend entirely on our efforts? How do we know? What will we do? Wisdom, it seems to me, is in doing the work, hoping for whatever help God gives us, but not expecting to depend on that help. . . . perhaps someday you and I will rise from the dead into the embrace of our descendents and learn how they, within the context of whatever wisdom and inspiration God gave them, figured out how to achieve resurrection and better pursue immortality. [quote:3ha5b3am]Backwards: "you also mention that human history is progressing toward resurrection. is this the same thing? are pfizer drugs and day three after the crucifixion different sides of the same coin? i don't really understand how resurrection can be learned."[/quote:3ha5b3am] Yes, I think we could rightly consider pfizer drugs and day three after the crucifixion as different sides of the same coin, as you say. The one side is the spiritual creation: that which focuses our faith on the glorious desire. The other side is the physical creation: that which results from our work of faith, our pursuit of the desired ideals set before our minds since ages long past -- long past Jesus, even, of course. [quote:3ha5b3am]Backwards: "a devout muslim would disagree with you. employing the same methods and trusting the same instruments (feelings, emotion, mysticism) he would come to a completely different conclusion on the best way to mystical enlightenment and the nature of the afterlife."[/quote:3ha5b3am] Then the Muslim is focusing on something different: interpretation of experience. The formula of which Joey wrote promises a certain kind of experience, which we are severally free to interpret differently, of course. The interesting question then becomes: why should we or should we not interpret the experience in a particular way, as a Muslim or a Christian or otherwise. What practical difference does it make? Which God will we choose to worship, and why? [quote:3ha5b3am]Backawards: "of course, i could be dead wrong. what the hell do i know about it?"[/quote:3ha5b3am] Right. :-) . . . but we have our faith, and that is something -- everything, in a manner of speaking -- and perhaps our faith will prove sufficient for the attaining of its object? That is my faith; that is what the Spirit of God confirms in me.
206	The Font of Knowledge	Are you a prophet?	2/1/2004 2:02:00	[quote:1xlh7qhb]Jim Weed: "I am moved."[/quote:1xlh7qhb] Thank God. I hoped you would be.
207	The Font of Knowledge	Free Will of Spirits	2/1/2004 2:04:00	I agree with the inevitable part. Do you consider dreams to be non-temporal or non-spatial?
208	The Font of Knowledge	Life after death?	2/1/2004 2:08:00	[quote:39ghhfzs]Red: "I can hardly say that the evidence compels belief. But believing seems good and right and hopeful and love-producing and if it turns out after I'm dead I'm a chump, well, it won't matter."[/quote:39ghhfzs] Amen The practical consequences of the faith are sufficient justification for the faith.
209	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/3/2004 6:04:00	Why do bad things happen to good people? If there is a concretely omnipotent God out there -- one that can do absolutely anything -- then it is so ethically foreign to us that it must be considered no better than an utter monster. I wager any of us, given the power, would have chosen to save the young girl from her death. We would feel an obligation to try, in the least. This morality, however, either does not matter to the concretely omnipotent God, or it does not exist. Oh, but that concretely omnipotent God has its purposes -- evil has its purposes? What purposes? Show me the uniquely good purpose of evil. Of course, given faith, we can make good of evil circumstance. However, evil is evil -- plain and simple. It has no uniquely good purpose. It has good purpose only to the extent that it is overcome with goodness. A concretely omnipotent God could, by definition, give us whatever might be considered to be the uniquely good purposes of evil, without requiring that we pass through the evil. Such is the capability of concrete omnipotence, but evidently that God is either evil or non-existent. Why do bad things happen to good people? Because God, the God worthy of worship, is not concretely omnipotent. In the beginning, the God worthy of worship looked down on us and wept. In the end, the God worthy of worship was in that car, doing all she could to correct an evil situation and then dying of head and pelvic trauma. She will rise again if God has her way.
210	The Font of Knowledge	Free Will of Spirits	2/3/2004 6:12:00	Jim Weed, I suppose I am thinking more than anything . . . Are we entering the Spirit world when we dream? How free are we or can we be in dreams? How much of that freedom comes from our attachment to the concrete world? All of it?
211	The Font of Knowledge	Labels	2/7/2004 4:38:00	Titles, categories, classifications and other such abstractions help us organize our world in practical ways. Of course, as with all things, they can be taken to dogmatic extremes that are unhelpful, harmful or purely evil; however, I intend to continue using them throughout my life. Joseph found the Bible to read, more or less: don't judge so that you will not be judged, because you will be judged as you judge. He changed it to read, more or less: don't judge unrighteously so that you will not be judged unrighteously, because you will be judged as you judge. God willing, I will be judged, and that righteously; heaven forbid I remain unjudged -- although wicked judgment may be hell, lack of judgment is spiritual death, and I suppose I would rather endure some hell with hope of heaven than disappear into the darkness, where there is no hope.
212	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 4:46:00	[quote:3ousd0b7]Haydee: "To get my mother back would be to give up the lessons I learned, the pain that made me stronger, and one of the strongest bonds I will ever have with another human being."[/quote:3ousd0b7] How would you like to have it all: your mother back AND the learning, the strength and the strong bond? . . . all without the pain?
213	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 18:57:00	Why doesn't God give it all to you now?
214	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 20:35:00	Why doesn't God give you the learning and growth now, without the pain?
215	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 20:47:00	CAN God give you an understanding of the rewards, an understanding of what it is to need? CAN God give you humility? CAN God do this without the pain? . . . more: would it matter that we understand what it is to need if nobody needed? CAN God remove NEED from existence? CAN God do so NOW?
216	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 20:57:00	Would God if God could?
217	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 21:07:00	Could God have stopped that automobile accident?
218	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 21:16:00	Could God have taken her to a better place without causing her pain, and without causing pain to those of us around her?
219	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 21:22:00	[quote:xbres633]"The SS hung two Jewish men and a boy before the assembled inhabitants of the camp. The men died quickly but the death struggle of the boy lasted half an hour. 'Where is God? Where is he?' a man behind me asked. As the boy, after a long time, was still in agony on the rope, I heard the man cry again, 'Where is God now?' and I heard a voice within me answer, 'Here he is - he is hanging here on this gallows...'" (From "Night" by Elie Wiesel, Survivor of Auschwitz)[/quote:xbres633]
220	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 21:24:00	Could God have shortened the boy's suffering? Can God cease our suffering now? If God can, why does God not?
221	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 21:26:00	Why can't her loved ones be with her?
222	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 21:39:00	If you were there and able, would you have shortened the boy's suffering? Would you have stopped it altogether? Would you have prevented the automobile accident? What would have been the moral thing to do?
223	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 21:44:00	Would you have done nothing, content that perhaps the experience will have helped the boy learn a lot?
224	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/7/2004 22:30:00	Would you have tried to help, even though you would not have known for sure whether you could help? SHOULD you have tried to help, even though you would not have known for sure? Would an all-knowing being have known how to help? Would an all-knowing being have known a way to achieve all the supposed benefits of the circumstances without the detriments? All the blessings without the cursings? If an all-knowing, all-powerful being allowed that boy to suffer as he did, doesn't that mean that either doing so was the right thing to do, or that all-knowing and -powerful being is evil? If the former, shouldn't you desire to do likewise? Shouldn't you accept that you should not have tried to help, even if you could have? . . . but what does your heart tell you? What does the Spirit of God tell you?
225	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/8/2004 2:21:00	Miss Trudy, I do not intend to hurt or annoy you, or anyone else reading this thread. Given that context . . . You began to claim that you don't know what you would have done, but I am confident that you know exactly what you would have done. You would have tried to help the boy; more: you would have tried to prevent the hanging altogether, as you would have tried to prevent the automobile accident altogether. You claim to feel far from such a situation, but I wager you are, in the least, a sympathetic person that can approach such a situation emotionally and morally; I wager you are, in the least, a person with real pain and real misery surrounded by persons with real pain and real misery, all of which you try to change for the better to the best of your ability. Have you managed to transform pain and misery for the better? You say you have, and I believe you. You were given a set of circumstances, and you have worked to make the best of it. This is admirable -- this is nothing short of Godly. However, does your ability to transform some evil circumstances for the better make the evil circumstances themselves good? Does your ability to make good justify allowing, instigating or repeating evil? Could you, with integrity, choose to hesitate, even a moment, in the face of evil of which you are aware? "No", I hope and suspect, is your answer to these questions. If this is so -- if you cannot morally allow evil, even if good may come of it -- what of God? Can God morally allow evil even if good may come of it? The question, essentially, is: is that which is evil for you good for God? Can we worship a God we should not emulate? SHOULD we worship a God we should not emulate? Is such a God worthy of worship? Is a God that would appeal to good ends as justification for ignoring evil means a God that we want to worship or be like? If an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists, is that God also all-loving? If that God can give us all the learning and joy possible now, without pain, yet chooses some more painful means of giving us, eventually, that learning and joy, what do we learn about that God? I agree, Miss Trudy, that this life is about learning. I suspect, in addition, that you would agree with me that this life is about joy. I suspect that you would agree that God is all-loving, if he is anything at all, and that he wants nothing less for us all than that we learn and enjoy. Because this is my faith, because I worship a God that is all-loving, I cannot with integrity believe that the God I worship is all-powerful, unless "all-powerful" is understood to mean no more than something like "power to do all that is possible given enough time and faith". Certainly there was enough time to save the hanging boy. Evidently there was not enough faith among the hands of God present that were not bound in chains and fear. Regardless, the all-loving God worthy of worship was there, wondering with us, weeping with us, and hanging that day on the gallows, as he has many times previously, and at least once on a cross at Golgotha.
226	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/8/2004 7:50:00	[quote:3m4csc69]Miss Trudy: "I just sometimes don't know the answers and somehow I was feeling pressure to have the answers."[/quote:3m4csc69] I know the feeling, and have learned from it. If I were omnipotent, I would have been able to engage in this exchange with you without making you feel to be without answers or pressured. I'm not omnipotent, and I am sorry.
227	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/11/2004 4:45:00	[quote:1k1f1nem]Layla: "I think we do allow bad things to happen. It isn't like we can follow people around all the time to stop them from doing anything harmful."[/quote:1k1f1nem] Do you allow bad things to happen because you want them to happen -- or because of your impotence? If you were omnipotent would you allow bad things to happen? [quote:1k1f1nem]Layla: "God is bound by laws, and I am not sure that faith and time have as much to do with it as we would like to believe."[/quote:1k1f1nem] Is a God that is bound by laws omnipotent -- all-powerful? What does it mean to be omnipotent? Is a God outside time a God of flesh and bone, as tangible as ours? Can a God outside time have any affect on the concrete world without being inside time? What is a God without faith?
228	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/26/2004 5:42:00	[quote:rpy7r0rd]Jim Weed: "If you were omnipotent, would you be laissez-faire vis-a-vis others' agency and faith?"[/quote:rpy7r0rd] What is the value of agency or faith given a context in which they cause pain and misery? . . . only greater pleasure and joy than would be attainable without pain and misery. If there is pleasure and joy that is attainable only after pain and misery -- and after no other way -- then God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of the word. He remains omnipotent only to the extent that he can do that which is possible to do, which includes weeping in impotence. [quote:rpy7r0rd]Jim Weed: "If you didn't allow bad things to happen, wouldn't that suggest that you were controlling agency to prevent bad things from happening?"[/quote:rpy7r0rd] Yes. Is that, in itself, a bad thing? No. It is bad only if it prevents greater good. It seems, as we read in the scriptures, that God feared preventing greater good if Satan's plan were executed. [quote:rpy7r0rd]Jim Weed: "I don't know if I would say God is bound by laws, although the Lord is bound when we do what he says . . ."[/quote:rpy7r0rd] How much certainty does a statistician have? How much certainty does a statistician have when we do what he says? The scripture says we will be blessed if we do as God says. It does not say we will not be blessed if we do not do as God says. Maybe we will be blessed either way? However, God's certainty is increased if we do as he says -- much like the certainty of a statistician is increased if we do what he says. . . . and damn the outliers -- or exalt them. ;-) [quote:rpy7r0rd]Jim Weed: "I don't think God desires to break any laws."[/quote:rpy7r0rd] Why not? If I could make everybody happier by breaking laws, I would desire to do it. I would feel immoral not desiring to do it. The God I worship is more benevolent than I. [quote:rpy7r0rd]Jim Weed: "And what we might consider the breaking of a certain law might actually not be so since he has a deeper understanding of the law."[/quote:rpy7r0rd] Maybe . . . and more: perhaps laws are enacted as justification for those that are already sanctified? Deeper yet than a deeper understanding of the law: the creator of the law. Yet we are warned that there are at least two kinds of law creators: that which would exalt itself, becoming a law unto itself; and that which would exalt all, becoming justified in the law. [quote:rpy7r0rd]Jim Weed: "Was Nephi breaking a law when he slew Laban or is there a deeper more intricate law in effect that was momentarily revealed to him?"[/quote:rpy7r0rd] . . . if there was no better way.
229	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/26/2004 5:46:00	[quote:3v9on4de]Layla: "Arosophos, Sometimes I apreciate the socratic method, but I would love to actually hear your take on these questions you are posing."[/quote:3v9on4de] Ask away . . . :-) [quote:3v9on4de]Layla: "To answer one of your questions: I think we do allow bad stuff to happen, even if we have the power to stop it. Example: I have tried to teach my daughter over and over again not to climb on the couch because she will fall off. Well, she keeps climbing, so eventually I let her climb, and instead of catching her, I let her fall off. She cried, I comforted her, etc. I could have prevented it, but i didn't. Of course the consequences weren't life and death, but it is a small example. It hurt me to watch her get hurt, but it was more important for me to let her learn than to save her the bump."[/quote:3v9on4de] . . . because you felt overwhelmed by your impotence in preventing all future bumps? I wonder if God ever feels similarly?
230	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	2/26/2004 5:59:00	[quote:3csdo2s8]Cherie: "What are we to think of a god who is . . ."[/quote:3csdo2s8] Cherie, who is God?
231	The Font of Knowledge	Women Administering to the Sick by the Laying On of Hands	2/26/2004 6:05:00	[quote:165bavar]Jeshrika: "I should be just as qualified as my husband to give my son a blessing."[/quote:165bavar] Why? [quote:165bavar]Jeshrika: "But, if I carried around concecrated oil to give blessings to the sick, I think I would be condemned by the people of the church."[/quote:165bavar] Do you think you would be condemned for administering to the sick by the laying on of hands and the prayer of faith?
232	The Font of Knowledge	Second Heaven or Degree of Celestial Glory	2/26/2004 6:22:00	[quote:h2cb1l4u]"IN the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; "And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of emarriage]; "And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. "He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase." (D&C 131: 1-4)[/quote:h2cb1l4u] [quote:h2cb1l4u]". . . angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory. "For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise . . . they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (D&C 132: 16-17, 19-20)[/quote:h2cb1l4u] If the second passage describes the third and first heavens or degrees of the Celestial glory, how should the second heaven or degree of Celestial glory be described?
233	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/27/2004 4:39:00	There seems to be no point in fearing determinism. It is, by definition, that which our fears cannot move us to change. The practicality of faith in probabilities demontrates the extent of determinism in the world. The practicality of faith in improbable possibilities demonstrates the extent of free will in the world.
234	The Font of Knowledge	I want to know why.	2/27/2004 4:48:00	[quote:3pc81j3f]Jim Weed: "When I wrote my previous post, I was kind of hung up on the notion of 'live and let live' which I now believe is ultimately flawed. I've recently been exposed to the idea that we are obligated to others and that existential separation maybe isn't all that I've cracked it up to be in my mind."[/quote:3pc81j3f] I agree -- and think that "flaw" is an understatement. Charity, the love of Christ, is precisely the opposite of the notion of "live and let live". [quote:3pc81j3f]Jim Weed: "You asked how much certainty a statistician has? A statistician only approaches certainty with regards to probabilities."[/quote:3pc81j3f] . . . and continues to approach certainty to the extent that she can affect the probabilities according to her desires. [quote:3pc81j3f]Jim Weed: "This gets complicated when you attempt quantitative research in psychology where the element of human will is a factor. I'm beginning to think that the whole construct upon which psychological research is built is inherently flawed."[/quote:3pc81j3f] I think "incomplete" would be a more accurate description. I see a great deal of value in psychology, and in the application of statistics to human actions -- particularly the actions of large groups of humans, which appear to act much as large groups of subatomic particles.
235	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	2/27/2004 5:09:00	Who do you hope God is?
236	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	2/27/2004 5:36:00	Why do you hope for that?
237	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/9/2004 5:17:00	. . . only if the architect's program persuaded you to think so.
238	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/9/2004 5:39:00	Joey, I felt the Spirit as I read your words. "O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible . . ." What is real? Where is objectivity? Truth? Is it in that which you have not, perhaps cannot, experience? Is it in that which transcends subjectivity? Is it in the mind of the Evil Demon or in the fingers of the Matrix's Architect? . . . so much darkness and void. Beyond physical and spiritual bounds. An infinite regression into nothing. Not even nothing. Open your eyes. See. Will. Create. Embrace me and discover. Is not this real? Yes, because it is discernible. ". . . the most desirable above all things . . . and the most joyous to the soul."
239	The Font of Knowledge	The Logic of Temple Marriage...	4/10/2004 20:23:00	. . . well put, Timothy.
240	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/11/2004 1:31:00	[quote:3ipa5r2a]Joey: "Arosophos would you claim knowledge of the existence of gold plates from which Joseph translated the Book of Mormon? Why or why not?"[/quote:3ipa5r2a] So far as I can tell from reading about the origins of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith used various objects to channel the Spirit and produce the work. Did he have gold plates? I suspect he had something like gold plates. Did the plates contain engravings of ancient American inhabitants. Maybe -- maybe not -- but, regardless, I don't think he directly used any engravings on gold plates to produce the work. Rather, something like gold plates, in combination with something like seer stones, affected an experience of communion between Joseph and the Spirit, which resulted in the Book of Mormon. Do I claim knowledge of the existence of gold plates from which Joseph translated the Book of Mormon? Do I claim knowledge of the existence of [url=http://www.harvestfields.netfirms.com/etexts1/02/10/08/76.htm:3ipa5r2a]the gold box containing a magic book from which Naneferkaptah copied the Book of Thoth[/url:3ipa5r2a]? Does "yes" or "no" answer the questions? Do myths exist? Do symbols exist? Does the abstract exist? Yes, spiritually, and physically to the extent that all that is spiritual has a physical aspect. Historically? Concretely? Yes, to the extent that all myths have their origins in concrete experience. What extent? I don't know, but the power is not in the historicity. The power is in the future that will be created by the myth -- the concrete objective experiential future of glory in immortality and eternal life.
241	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/11/2004 1:34:00	[quote:etur1o9k]Jim Weed: "Timothy, you have articulated very well what I think are to me the fundamental complications of Joey's doctrine of desires."[/quote:etur1o9k] What are the fundamental complications that you perceive, Jim Weed? I don't think Timothy has yet articulated Joey's understanding to Joey's satisfaction, and thereby demonstrate the foundation for accurate criticism. Until Timothy and Joey arrive at such an understanding, I don't think it is justified to attibute Timothy's perceived complications to Joey's understanding. Do you?
242	The Font of Knowledge	The Dawning of a Brighter Day	4/11/2004 8:24:00	[quote:1aghieth]You are the new day. I will love you more than me And more than yesterday. If you can but prove to me, You are the new day. Send the sun in time for dawn; Let the birds all hail the morning. Love of life will urge me say: You are the new day. When I lay me down at night Knowing we must pay, Thoughts occur that this night might Stay yesterday. Thoughts that we as humans small Could slow worlds and end it all, Lie around me when they fall Before the new day. One more day when time is running out For everyone. Like a breath I knew would come I reach for a new day. Hope is my philosophy, Just needs days in which to be; Love of life means hope for me, You are the new day.[/quote:1aghieth]
243	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/15/2004 5:12:00	[quote:3kdj40js]"Objectivity . . . is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any external perceiver's consciousness."[/quote:3kdj40js] This is the worst kind of religion -- the purest form of dogmatism. How does one recognize a fact that is definitionally unrecognizable? How may one write of that which is independent of one's consciousness? Fact? The only fact here is that Ayn posits faith in that which she cannot experience. What is that? She cannot say. She cannot conceive. She writes of that which is not that of which she would write. So soon as she conceives, it is no longer that. So soon as she writes, it is of a contradictory will. The worst kind of religion? Faith in that which cannot affect our experience, except to the extent that the dogmatism enslaves us. Their creeds and their dead Gods: abominations, every one of them.
244	The Font of Knowledge	. . . as sex without lubrication.	4/15/2004 5:36:00	Life without religion is as sex without lubrication. There is a reason they call it secularism. It may still feel good if done carefully, but chances are you'll engage in it with less passion and pursue it with less energy. Nothing less than pursuing and engaging in energy and passion may be required to survive and thrive -- for salvation and exaltation. Is life with religion inauthentic? False? Dishonest? Inaccurate? Unreal? Delusional? Exagerated? Pretentious? Is sex with lubrication still sex?
245	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/16/2004 4:19:00	[quote:wv1tkow4]Timothy: "I believe that you believe that your intentions are good."[/quote:wv1tkow4] I believe that Timothy believes that Joey believes that Joey believes that Joey's intentions are good -- or, to paraphrase, Joey claims his intentions are good, and both Timothy and I believe him. [quote:wv1tkow4]Timothy: "'Love' on the other hand is a universal term . . ."[/quote:wv1tkow4] . . . and an inadequate term. God is love, but that is not all he is. [quote:wv1tkow4]Timothy: "Seek to find better language. Seek to find language that will unite us rather than forcing lines of division between us."[/quote:wv1tkow4] Help us. What term better describes our understanding of Christ than "Christ"? [quote:wv1tkow4]Timothy: "At the end of the focus group, and after much testing, we come to the conclusion that the 2nd set of words is more effective at communicating the concepts than the first. Question: would you then abandon usage of the first set of words and begin using the 2nd set?"[/quote:wv1tkow4] Speaking for myself: certainly. Would you do the inverse if the inverse were true?
246	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/16/2004 5:31:00	[quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "I don't see how believing in reality is dogmatic."[/quote:13u9pd8f] The dogmatism is in that you do not recognize your position of faith relative to that which you label as "reality". [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "To accept Rand's view does not require faith."[/quote:13u9pd8f] To the contrary, reading her words requires faith that you understand the words as she intended them to be understood. . . . and that's just the beginning of the required faith. Are you sure she exists? Remember the Matrix analogy? Are you sure you are not wired into a computer that makes you think she exists? Maybe she is no more than the firing of a few neurons caused by carefully organized electrical pulses into your real-world brain? . . . and what of that real-world brain? Does it require any less faith? What if it, along with that entire computer-dominated world, is an illusion produced by an omnipotent evil demon? . . . and what of that demon's world? What of the possibility that he is the spawn of an infinite regression of evil demons? . . . and what of that infinite regression into nothingness? What is real? Where is reality? Deeper and deeper? Always looking for the things in themselves -- the concrete absolute reality? Forever seeking and never coming to a knowledge of the truth? Never? [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "On the contrary, her view is a self-evident truth (it is just as self-evident as the fact that you are conscious right now)."[/quote:13u9pd8f] Self-evident? Show me self-evident truth and I'll show you dogmatism. If it is self-evident, why is it impotent in its self-evidence to me? Worse: how can that which is independent of consciousness, as Ayn declares, be evident in any way whatsoever? So soon as it is evident, it is no longer independent of consciousness. Facts? I believe in facts: experience. My experience is fact, not because of some metaphysical self-evidence propping up my experience. My experience needs no props. Whether I am in the program of a computer or the world of a demon, I experience. That I know. Experience itself is reality. There is no need to look beyond. There is need only to examine and understand it ever better. Beyond it may be computers, demons or pink elephants. Regardless, I experience -- I desire -- I choose -- and I live. This is my world, and I will enjoy it if I can, both now and in the future. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "Rand's point is that there is a world full of stuff outside of our minds, that is how it is no matter what we wish, hope, or feel."[/quote:13u9pd8f] Rand's point is that she posits, faithfully, a world beyond her experience. I do too. However, one difference between us is that I recognize the faith, whereas she is dogmatic. Another difference is that I do not concern myself with that which is definitionally beyond experience, whereas she is wasting all kinds of time trying to write about that which she cannot write about, by definition. No matter how we wish, hope or feel? Ayn needs to visit the neighborhood psychiatric ward. Beyond that, she wished, hoped and felt to write a book that would affect the world in which she places her faith. I think she succeeded. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "When you perceive the world, when you look at the things around you, THE WORLD confronts YOU. You are the passive observer."[/quote:13u9pd8f] Cheapcontact, have you ever looked at those pictures that, the longer you look, the more apparent become the hidden images in them? The circles and lines become meaningful with time, not so fast as you experience them, but only so fast as your mind organizes the experience? This is one simple example from a world full of experiential interpretation. Passive observer? Today I killed an ant, and where there was once a living ant, there is now a dead ant. The world came to me, and I came to the world. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "What would have to be true in order for Rand to be wrong?"[/quote:13u9pd8f] The point is that she can never know whether she is right, by definition -- her own definition. She declares that which is beyond consciousness. How can she know something without that thing being within consciousness? [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "In order for her to be wrong, it would have to be the case that the mind ALWAYS invents its own contents."[/quote:13u9pd8f] That is only one of infinite possibilities. Add to it the computer and the evil demon. That's already three. With a little time and creativity, we can think of a lot more. We can become ever more confident of our utter impotence and ignorance relative to that which is beyond consciousness. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "It would have to be the case that there is nothing fixed independent of your consciousness and its activities."[/quote:13u9pd8f] Not necessarily. Maybe only two things are fixed, but we can never know them because they are utterly beyond our consciousness? Maybe ten things are fixed? Maybe only pink elephants accurately reflect the substrate of reality? Perhaps the cow, in its holiness, transcends the reality-warping effects of the computer and appears to us as it really is, whereas all else is the result of electronic pulses? Perhaps we are the dreams of a demon who will wake up any time now, and the only concrete contact with reality is our view of his left eye, which we have misinterpreted as a star and named it Alpha Centauri? [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "It's hard to imagine, but I suppose it would go like this: Imagine that your visual experiences were controllable directly by your will, and that you only had experiences at all when you were simultaneously inventing them. So, for example, you wouldn't see your keyboard unless you were already thinking about a keyboard, and at any moment, you could, for example, "transport" yourself to a beach and be immersed in beach-like experiences just by thinking about it."[/quote:13u9pd8f] That's not hard to imagine (many of the prominent empiricist philosophers have imagined this), and it is only one of an infinite imaginations we can have about metaphysics . . . or, we can become empiricists: recognize that we can never know that which is beyond experiece, and work on making the world of experience a better one. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "This is what would have to be true in order for Rand to be wrong. And you know what? Things aren't like that."[/quote:13u9pd8f] That is dogmatism. I agree with the sentiment, to a degree of confidence, but I recognize the faith. Until Ayn recognizes the faith -- until you recognize the faith -- there is dogmatism. Things aren't like that? By definition, you don't know. That's what Ayn says. She says there is that which is beyond experience. Now you, with her, are telling me just what that thing beyond experience is. Do you see the contradiction? [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "Nor is Rand 'posit[ing] faith in that which she cannot experience.'"[/quote:13u9pd8f] Read carefully Ayn's words: "Objectivity . . . is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any external perceiver's consciousness." She is telling you, Cheapcontact, that there is something beyond consciousness. Is she not? Have I misread the statement? There is, she declares, something called "reality" that exists independent of ANY external perceiver's consciousness. ANY! How in heaven or hell can she know this without compromising the consciousness-independence of it? Is she not conscious? Will she declare some extra faculty from within her to stand apart from consciousness -- a faculty that recognizes reality without making reality part of consciousness? Yet she writes of it? Was she writing without consciousness? [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "On the contrary, she is an empiricist . . ."[/quote:13u9pd8f] Empiricism is based in experience. If she is an empiricist, a strict empiricist, then she must be writing of her experience . . . and she tells me that there is something beyond experience! Which is it, Ayn? Are you an empiricist, or is there something beyond experience? . . . or are you projecting, faithfully, based on past experience, that since you have experience that which you had not yet experienced, so you will continue to have new experience in the future? I wager it is that, but that makes you a person of faith. Faith!?! Damn me now, she cries; I would sooner rot in hell than be a person of faith! ;-) [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "she believes that all valid knowledge is derived from experience . . ."[/quote:13u9pd8f] I agree -- but I recognize the derivation process to be full of faith. Does she believe in uniformity -- that we can predict future experience based on past experience? So do I. That is faith. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: ". . . except for self-evident axioms like 'I am conscious', and 'Something exists independent of me'.[/quote:13u9pd8f] I will accept the former as self-evident, so to speak, to the extent that there is evidently something (consciousness or experience) to philosophize about -- but not of necessity. That something may just have now begun to exist and may no longer exist a moment from now. As for the self-evidence of the existence of that which is independent of me? Maybe. Maybe a computer. Maybe a demon. Maybe the workings of my own mind. Maybe pink elephants. Maybe this or that. Faith? Yes. Faith. Faith in love: willingness to posit that there is that which is beyond the self, and that it matters. We are not compelled to this. There is physical suicide, to start, and there is spiritual suicide, to end. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "Maybe you thought that she was saying that the 'true' reality is a reality that no one could ever experience. Well, that is a ludicrous view. It is not Rand's view; I don't think anyone has ever held it."[/quote:13u9pd8f] Cheapcontact, what did Ayn write? Her logic implies that which is beyond experience. Regardless of whether she thinks it is forever beyond experience, she is positing the existence of that which is beyond experience. Such a position is of faith. She cannot know that which she has not experienced. Read her words. Explain to me, carefully, how she did not write as I have claimed. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "Rand is saying something different, namely, that our minds are directly aware of stuff that is not identical to our own minds."[/quote:13u9pd8f] Show me where she writes this, and explain to me what it means to be directly aware of stuff. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "She doesn't speculate about what the ultimate nature of the stuff is, she's just saying that the stuff we're aware of is not itself mental."[/quote:13u9pd8f] . . . and so she IS speculating about the ultimate nature of the stuff. [quote:13u9pd8f]Cheapcontact: "To put the point another way: consciousness is relational. You can't be conscious of nothing but yourself. To put the point another way: I'm perceiving a computer right now. Maybe the computer is made of atoms, or maybe it is an illusion made by the evil demon, or maybe it is part of the matrix, but the computer is not just my mind."[/quote:13u9pd8f] You are willing to recognize the possibility of the computer or the demon, but not your own mind? You see the faith required to overcome the former, but you do not see the faith required to overcome the latter? This, Cheapcontact, is dogmatism. . . . but on a lighter note, in the eternal words of The Philosopher, it is only upon reflection that we are truely empiricists, and, normally, we dogmatize like infallible popes -- Arosophos included.
247	The Font of Knowledge	Life without religion...	4/17/2004 4:24:00	[quote:2pqmkxv6]Timothy: "I'd like to discuss the point that Arosophos was making in the ...As sex without lubrication thread . . ."[/quote:2pqmkxv6] I was making a point? Somehow I have since been persuaded that it was just another excuse to talk about sex. ;-) [quote:2pqmkxv6]Timothy: "Is life with ANY religion better than life without religion?"[/quote:2pqmkxv6] Is sex with ANY lubrication better than sex without lubrication?
248	The Font of Knowledge	Who is Jesus?	4/17/2004 4:29:00	Many early Christians considered Jehova to be a lesser God that Jesus came to replace.
249	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	4/17/2004 5:53:00	[quote:1hsu8kkt]Cherie: "who do you think god is?"[/quote:1hsu8kkt] I have been looking forward to discussing this. Let's start with some scriptures . . . [quote:1hsu8kkt]"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy." [b:1hsu8kkt](2 Nephi 2: 25)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;" [b:1hsu8kkt](D&C 93: 33)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." [b:1hsu8kkt](Moses 1: 39)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." [b:1hsu8kkt](John 17: 3)[/b:1hsu8kkt][/quote:1hsu8kkt] [quote:1hsu8kkt]"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." [b:1hsu8kkt](1 John 1: 5)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. "Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world." [b:1hsu8kkt](1 John 4: 8, 16-17)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? "And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. "And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul." [b:1hsu8kkt](1 Nephi 11: 21-23)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; "Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. "As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; "As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; "And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. "And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; "Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— "The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. "He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. "The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. "Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand? "Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power. "I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended. "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. "Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound." [b:1hsu8kkt](D&C 88: 6-13, 41, 45-50)[/b:1hsu8kkt][/quote:1hsu8kkt] [quote:1hsu8kkt]"AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. "And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— "The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— "And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." [b:1hsu8kkt](Mosiah 15: 1-4)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "VERILY, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am; "And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; "And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one— "The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men. "I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. "For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace." [b:1hsu8kkt](D&C 93: 1-4, 19-20)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." [b:1hsu8kkt](Psalm 82: 6)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" [b:1hsu8kkt](John 10: 34)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." [b:1hsu8kkt](D&C 132: 20)[/b:1hsu8kkt][/quote:1hsu8kkt] [quote:1hsu8kkt]"And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD’s." [b:1hsu8kkt](Obadiah 1: 21)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; "And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men." [b:1hsu8kkt](D&C 103: 9-10)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled "In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: "Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." [b:1hsu8kkt](Colossians 1: 21-29)[/b:1hsu8kkt] "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. "And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot." [b:1hsu8kkt](Moroni 10: 32-33)[/b:1hsu8kkt][/quote:1hsu8kkt]
250	The Font of Knowledge	Gadfly	4/17/2004 6:05:00	Today, this one is dedicated aimiably to Cheapcontact.
251	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	4/17/2004 6:40:00	What is the gospel? What is the word of God? What is the mystery, hidden for ages, yet manifest to the saints? It is this: Christ in you. Paul suffered the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for the Greeks and Jews of his day. To what end? To the Greeks, foolishness. To the Jews, offence. If we had been in the days of Paul, would we have been partakers in his sufferings? To what end? To some, foolishness. To others, offence. [quote:2s4gd4cq]"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."[/quote:2s4gd4cq]
252	The Font of Knowledge	Choose you this day whom ye will serve.	4/17/2004 7:13:00	[quote:3cv29m5y]"Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24: 14-15)[/quote:3cv29m5y] [quote:3cv29m5y]"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1: 22-24)[/quote:3cv29m5y] Which are we? . . . Amorites and Greeks, choosing the creeds of our land, seeking secular wisdom, finding foolishness in Christ? . . . Egyptians and Jews, choosing the creeds of our fathers, seeking supernatural signs, finding offence in Christ? . . . or the called, whether Amorite or Egyptian, whether Greek or Jew, who choose Christ, the power and wisdom of God?
253	The Font of Knowledge	Life without religion...	4/17/2004 22:10:00	[quote:aljgw1wc]Timothy: "There is no correlation between the two ideas;"[/quote:aljgw1wc] I disagree. I have proposed a correlation. You have yet to demonstrate how my proposal is flawed. I am wondering whether you will -- or even whether you will try, to be honest. [quote:aljgw1wc]Timothy: "this analogy is so flawed so as to prejudice the entire discussion."[/quote:aljgw1wc] I understand that you would declare the analogy flawed. I do not understand why you would declare it flawed, except to avoid considering it. [quote:aljgw1wc]Timothy: "There's no point to hashing out the similarities/disimilarities between the comparison, because there is no correlation between the two."[/quote:aljgw1wc] That is yet to be determined, of course. You have simply decided that there is no correlation, and reason (backwards) from that decision that there is, therefore, no point in considering the analogy. This is obviously poor reasoning. [quote:aljgw1wc]Timothy: "I'm not going to play."[/quote:aljgw1wc] I do not intend to play -- or at least not excessively. ;-) [quote:aljgw1wc]Timothy: "If you want to have a real discussion on the nature of this issue, I'd be happy to join you in that discussion."[/quote:aljgw1wc] The evidence is to the contrary, here, Timothy. I have proposed an analogy. You have declared, with apparent omniscience, that the analogy is flawed. I await enlightenment. You see, Timothy, I created the analogy with you in mind, because I think it will ultimately demonstrate something to you that you have yet to consider about religion -- assuming, of course, it manages to penetrate past light-minded rejection. So, back to my question: Is sex with ANY lubrication better than sex without lubrication? Obviously not. In fact, some lubrication would be painful, to say the least. Likewise, some religion is painful, to say the least. On the other hand, there are the potential benefits of the two. Let's consider another analogy: technology. It is evident that technology can be used for great good or great evil. It is a kind of power, and such appears to be the case of all kinds of power. They make for greater possibilities. The same, in my experience, is true of religion. True religion will exalt us or damn us, to extents impossible without religion. This is not a new idea. Brigham, for one, taught that Mormonism is about exactly that: exlating or damning us -- making Gods or demons out of us. Enough with the luke warm water; I would that you were hot or cold.
254	The Font of Knowledge	Choose you this day whom ye will serve.	4/17/2004 22:18:00	It appears that you have chosen correctly, Steven Bone. Cherie, the question can apply to all three.
255	The Font of Knowledge	Gadfly	4/17/2004 22:21:00	Thanks, Cheapcontact. I look forward to it.
256	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	4/17/2004 22:53:00	[quote:3tjw6veh]Cherie: "Christ in me? I don't understand. Do you mean to say that I am already a God?"[/quote:3tjw6veh] I won't answer that question for you, but I will remind you of the covenants you have made: [quote:3tjw6veh]"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, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. "O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen." (D&C 20: 77, 79)[/quote:3tjw6veh] Remember Christ. Take the name of Christ. Keep the commandments of Christ -- act as Christ. Have the Spirit of Christ -- think as Christ. These are covenants that you made in baptism, and that you renew each week. Given this context, what should the answer to your question be? What should the answer to all of these questions be? [quote:3tjw6veh]"And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye aspiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts? "Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body? "I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth? "Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—and that he will save you? "Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God? "I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?" (Alma 5: 14-19)[/quote:3tjw6veh] [quote:3tjw6veh]Cherie: "But, I can't worship myself . . . Where does worship come into this picture?"[/quote:3tjw6veh] You can. Should you? There is a God that worships itself exclusively. [quote:3tjw6veh]". . . the son of perdition; "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (Thessalonians 2: 3-4)[/quote:3tjw6veh] There is also a God that refuses to worship itself exclusively. [quote:3tjw6veh]"And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Mark 10: 17-18)[/quote:3tjw6veh] However, although refusing to be worshipped exclusively, it does not refuse worship of a certain kind: [quote:3tjw6veh]"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8: 16-17)[/quote:3tjw6veh] This God tells us to keep his commandments . . . [quote:3tjw6veh]"If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14: 15)[/quote:3tjw6veh] . . . and he tells us that he will keep our commandments . . . [quote:3tjw6veh]"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." (John 14: 14)[/quote:3tjw6veh] . . . even if it means that we be damned: [quote:3tjw6veh]"I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. "Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience." (Alma 29: 4-5)[/quote:3tjw6veh] [quote:3tjw6veh]Cherie: "From reading your quotes the thought occurs to me that the only real thing we know of God the Father is that He is like every thing good. So, do we worship that which is good? Or am I completly off?"[/quote:3tjw6veh] You tell me. Is that all those quotes say about God? [quote:3tjw6veh]Cherie: "We all suffer for each others sins. Am I over simplifying?"[/quote:3tjw6veh] Again, please tell me. What is your experience?
257	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/20/2004 5:36:00	[quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I shall be trying to explain what I believe, which was influenced by material possibly written by her."[/quote:2yufpijc] . . . which, I suppose, is a way of acknowledging that you require faith in her existence? [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "Her existence or non existences wouldn't change how I feel about said material."[/quote:2yufpijc] Excellent. That's pragmatism. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "As for the matrix/demon examples they all imply there is still a real world out there (namily the matrix and whoever made it or the demon). These examples just change how we interact with the external world but don't do away with the external world."[/quote:2yufpijc] The examples demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about any world that is entirely external to your experience. Beyond that, they are not dependent on any external world, as they may be illusions you create. The point is that you don't know. Rather, you have experience, and you put your faith in the experience, regardless of omnipotent demons, transcendent supercomputers or potential solopsism. Effectively, that's pragmatism. Of course, to really be pragmatism, it probably needs to be recognized as such. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "The infinite regression of evil demons is an interesting idea though. The notion seems quite impossible but I can't rule it out strictly speaking I suppose."[/quote:2yufpijc] It seems impossible only because you have not exercised faith in the idea -- and because the authorities you recognize have not persuaded you to exercise faith in the idea. As you point out, however, you cannot rule it out. You don't know. You can, however, join me in declaring that it doesn't matter to whatever extent it cannot affect our experience. Be it the omnipotent demon, the transcendent computer or any infinite combination of the two, we care not, so long as we have substantial hope that our experience can and will be full of joy. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "This would be a problem with all philosophical systems. As far as I know they all start with Axioms that can't be proven or disproved but are deemed "self evident". The same is true of geometry. You can't start proving stuff unless you take something orginally as being true."[/quote:2yufpijc] Exactly. All philosophical systems are based in faith. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "In this way all philosophy is dogmatic . . ."[/quote:2yufpijc] . . . only to the extent that they do not recognize their faith. Faith is not dogmatism. Reliance on assumptions, axioms and premises is not dogmatism. To the contrary, such reliance is faith. Dogmatism is in pretending that the faith is not there. There is a wonderful passage of scripture in the Book of Mormon that would have us choose our primary assumption, axiom, premises -- our primary faith -- carefully, and specifically: [quote:2yufpijc]"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall." (Helaman 5: 12)[/quote:2yufpijc] . . . which, according to Joseph Smith, also happens to be the first principle of the gospel: faith in Christ. In the beginning, there is no proof. There is no logical refutation of the skeptic -- logic itself is based in faith. In the beginning, there is faith. There is creative will. There is our choice among the many Gods vying for our hearts and minds. There is Christ in love and light, asking us to join in warm embrace. He cannot prove. We cannot prove. He chose. We choose. What will it be? [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: ". . . so I don't mind you calling it dogmatic because the bases of whatever philosphy you hold must be dogmatic as well."[/quote:2yufpijc] As mentioned above, it is only upon reflection that I do not dogmatize like an infallible pope; however, I do reflect upon occasion. :-) When I do, I would repent of my dogmatism. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I personally don't have an absolute 100% certainty that there is an external world, but I will base my philosphical understanding on the idea because I am fairly close to 100% certain."[/quote:2yufpijc] You recognize the faith. That's a start, but you are now telling me that you can associate a percentage of certainty in opposition to the faith. How would you determine that percentage? Of course, nearly everyone in the Matrix was close to 100% certain that they were in that REAL world -- right? Why are you any different? I understand that you are confident, regardless of percentages. I recognize such confidence as knowledge. However, I wonder whether the utility of claiming knowledge about that which is entirely beyond our experience out-weighs the utility of recognizing that we cannot know that which is entirely beyond our experience? There are certainly emotional and social benefits to the former; however, in my experience, the benefits of the latter far out-weigh those of the former. That's my testimony -- my recounting of experience. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I can't speculate on how certain you feel about an external reality, but if it's anything above 50% certain I don't see why you wouldn't want to spend time better understanding it."[/quote:2yufpijc] To the extent that I can understand it, it is not an external reality, as described by Ayn. Understanding something is a way of associating with something. It is organizing, categorizing, comparing, recognizing. To do any of this, I must have experience of the something. To the extent that I have experience of something -- or that I can have experience of something -- I am interested in it. Cheapcontact, I am not suggesting that there is not an objective aspect to the world that we can work to know ever better. I think there is. I simply acknowledge that we will never know, in any final way, the ultimate nature of the objective world. We will know it as we experience it. No more is possible, so far as I can tell. We will never know infallibly that it is not the result of omnipotent demons or transcendent computers. We will never infallibly that it is not the result of our own minds. Our faith to the contrary (or to the affirmative) may grow ever stronger, to the point of knowledge and beyond, but there will always be more to know -- and where there is more to know, there will be surprises. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I believe that it's existence is some how relavent to me . . ."[/quote:2yufpijc] I agree that a world external to one's self is very important, so long as we don't want to be Satan. Satan doesn't give a damn. I do. That said, there is a HUGE difference between faithfully positing an external world on the one hand, and, on the other hand, deceptively or ignorantly asserting an infallible certainty of some world beyond all experience. Objectivism -- Ayn -- is asserting ideas based in faith without recognizing the faith, and even going so far as to deny the faith altogether. It is nonsense, at best. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: ". . . and this idea of introspection where all I worry about is my own desires is a poor way to live."[/quote:2yufpijc] I disagree. It is WORSE than a poor way to live. It is evil -- as dark as it gets. If I love you, I will do that which you ask me in the name of Christ. If you love me, you will keep my commandments given in the name of Christ. We can do this only by worrying about OUR desires -- not yours or mine exclusively. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I should be able to do whatever I want if all I'm worried about is my desires . . ."[/quote:2yufpijc] That's Satan's perspective -- raising himself above all that is called God, declaring himself God. That's in contrast to Christ's perspective -- raising us together as joint-heirs in all that is called God, declaring us God. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: ". . . but as soon as you start worrying about other peoples desires you accepting that there is an external reality."[/quote:2yufpijc] I do believe there is an external reality. I posit that faith. I know it -- but not infallibly. I recognize the faith. There is humility here. There is wisdom here. There is room for change and repentence here. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "So it appears to me that you're holding a philosophical idea that has no practical application. The fact that you think the external world might not be real doesn't effect your day to day life because you still interact with everything as if it is real, you intereact with me with Joey with the truck driving down the road that you don't want to jump in front of as if we're all real."[/quote:2yufpijc] To the contrary, the fact that I interact with you and Joey, and the truck, is precisely the practical ramification. I am asserting that my experience of you, Joey and the truck is as real as reality gets. There is nothing more real. These are my experiences. These are reality. These are the context in which I would find joy now and in the future. These are the context of the world that I would make better. The practical effect is that I am not so worried about the computers or demons, or transcendent things in themselves beyond experience, as I am about my experience of YOU. The practical consequence is that I would love YOU better -- not the atoms of which you are composed, not the "1"s and "0"'s of which your program is written, not the mist of illusion from which you emerge, not the synapses of my brain that create an experience of you. No. Even if one of these is somehow effective in creating my experience of you. YOU are none of them. YOU are more. YOU are that which I experience, to whom I write, with whom I interact. That is YOU that I love. Relatively speaking, I don't give a damn about the rest. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "Please tell me how this "faith" based opinion practically differs from the results of me saying 'the external world is real', outside of a philosophical contstruct that has no value."[/quote:2yufpijc] The external world IS real. I have no problem with that idea, to the extent that we recognize the faith -- and do not pretend, as do the objectivists, that we are vastly superior to any need for ontological faith. If we do not recognize the faith, we will be blind when it comes to matters of greater importance, of greater potential exaltation. We will be blind to the faithful foundations of ethics and aesthetics. We will be blind to God. So soon as we suppose ourselves beyond the need of faith, so soon as we proclaim belief only in that which we know, we risk denying any knowledge that we yet recognize as requiring faith. Ultimately, if ever we manage to be consistent, we will then discard belief in ourselves, and disappear into the darkness . . . sound like an exageration? I wish I thought it were an exageration. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "This gets me wondering about the relationship between faith and knowledge in general. At what point does faith become knowledge? Is it reasonable to say that a faith that is always perfectly practice is essentially knowledge? So the fact that I never act as if the external world does exist imply that really what I have is a knowledge or is atleast equal in application to knowledge?"[/quote:2yufpijc] Knowledge is confidence, the result of repetitive confirmation of faith. It is a feeling. It is not infallible. The best kind of knowledge is that which recognizes its limits, but instead of fearing the limits, would push them ever outward. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I feel like we're arguing about something that when we get to the end we'll still end up having the same behavior regardless of which way we got there."[/quote:2yufpijc] I agree: the proof is in the pudding, as we say. Of course, if you really think that, then you are exhibiting pragmatism. Objectivism, on the other hand, would argue that the proof is beyond the taste of the pudding, in some absolute reality that the pudding only manifests imperfectly to our consciousness. In other words, if you are not going to behave any differently based on our conversation then you are right to think your position and your understanding of my position to be essentially the same. On the other hand, my position has changed my life dramatically, or so I will claim. I do not think that I am any longer capable of viewing the world from an objectivist perspective. In any case, possibilities aside, I would rather not exist than view the world as an objectivist. The ideology presents too many short-term depressive and long-term meaningless consequences to my understanding. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "You feel that your path is less dogmatic and leaves possibilities for other explanations, I feel my way is probably the truth and helps me realize other people's desires."[/quote:2yufpijc] Okay, but I don't think you are talking about Objectivism any longer. I think you are talking about something else -- something that I may entirely agree with. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "If you find keeping the infinite demon scenario as useful for your life then by all means I think you should, but it has no value to me or how I will act with the external world, I'm still not going to jump out in front of a moving truck, but you certainly can if you want."[/quote:2yufpijc] You have misunderstood my point -- exactly backwards. My point is precisely that whatever ultimate reality is out there is entirely meaningless to the extent that it does not and will not affect our experience. My point is precisely that I encourage you not to jump out in front of mocing trucks, because, even if they really are just illusions, I suspect you will have a poor experience . . . and, so far as I am concerned, the poor experience is much more real than whatever may be causing the illusion of the poor experience. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "Obviously we are not passive observers, 'active players' may have been a better description."[/quote:2yufpijc] . . . much better. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "How can I be conscious without being?"[/quote:2yufpijc] That's my point. The experience of consciousness is sufficient. I don't need to appeal to some ultimate absolute reality as the objectivists would have me do. I don't need it. Whether reality is ultimately absolute or full of an infinite regression of pink elephants, I yet remain conscious, and I yet feel that you remain conscious. Let's make this a better world despite the pink elephants. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I still believe the following: 'In order for her to be wrong, it would have to be the case that the mind ALWAYS invents its own contents.'"[/quote:2yufpijc] . . . and it might. She doesn't know. You don't know. I don't know. That's the point. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "The demo and matrix ideas still imply an external reality in which case the idea would still be true."[/quote:2yufpijc] Sure, but again, the point of these examples was to demonstrate that neither you nor Ayn know anything about that which cannot be experienced. Beyond that, of course, Ayn would like to assert, infallibly, that there is something absolutely external out there, even if she knows nothing about it. Well, Ayn, the point is that because you know nothing about it, it may as well not be there. If you want to choose to posit its existence, fine -- but that's faith, so it is only contradictory to claim otherwise. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "In order for the idea to be wrong consciousness must exist on it's own all by it's self and must always create it's own content. Consciousness can't even be a brain."[/quote:2yufpijc] Sure [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "I can't even imagine what it would mean for only my consciousness to exist."[/quote:2yufpijc] It seems to me that you just did. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "This is one reason why I rule it out as a possibility."[/quote:2yufpijc] Why? Why give it the time of day? Why bother? I don't need to rule it out. If somebody wants to believe it then I will simply respond that although I cannot prove them wrong, I will choose to believe otherwise and attempt to persuade them to do likewise. I will share my testimony. I will talk of my experience. I will seek to persuade them to posit that I exist independently of them. I will pray that God bestow upon them the gift of charity. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "The other is that if it was soley my consciousness then I would always beable to do whatever I want, I could teleport to the beach or never have to work again and be rich. But I can't just make those things happen."[/quote:2yufpijc] Maybe you don't really want those things? Maybe you haven't tried hard enough? Maybe . . . but I'm with you: regardless of the "maybe"s, I will believe differently -- not because I can prove differently by logic, but because I feel that I can explain my experience better by believing differently, even though it requires faith. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "Maybe there are rules and constraints that keep my consciousness from doing that, but then whatever implemetted those rules and constraints and the rules and constraints themselves are external to my consciousness."[/quote:2yufpijc] Yeah -- maybe God provides all of your experience directly, without any other real thing in the world? Maybe. Does it matter? Only to the extent that it can affect our experience differently than some other idea. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "You're example of a crazy person being able to control their reality is less than appealing as well . . ."[/quote:2yufpijc] Maybe we're all crazy? Maybe just you are crazy? I agree that this is not an appealing idea, but . . . maybe. Regardless, the point of all of this is not that I spend my time primarily worrying about the "maybe"s. To the contrary, the point is that we should spend our time primarily worrying about how to make this world that we experience better. In particular, let's not waste our time on "maybe"s that are, by definition, entirely beyond our present or future experience. That's the point -- the point I have been attempting to make from the beginning. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "All things must not be fixed, otherwise those fixed things are external and thus the idea of external things really existing would be true."[/quote:2yufpijc] This has moved beyond the point of my critism of Ayn's statement. I would not argue that there is no objective world. I would argue only that faith is essential to acknowledging the objective world. I would argue that facts are experience -- not something beyond experience. The fact is not that Ayn is right about a reality existing independent of any consciousness. The fact is only that Ayn appears to have written about such an idea. Whether she is right depends entirely on whether we can experience that of which she writes, but, unfortunately for her, she has defined the only proof of her rightness as being beyond experience. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "Can you clarify how suicide is related to what we're talking about here?"[/quote:2yufpijc] Suicide demonstrates a lack of faith, whether chosen or the consequence of context beyond choice. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "Because it makes no sense to me that I'm just a consciousness, I don't know what that means, plus with the constraints that I feel from reality I can't help but believe that there is something external to me, even if it is just a matrix or demon."[/quote:2yufpijc] Try harder. In your world, you will become omnipotent. In my world, you will go to a psychiatric ward. Whose world is real? MINE, of course. ;-) We all want to believe that. Maybe the psychiatric ward is the only escape from the computer or demon? Maybe omnipotence is only a few choices away? Perhaps YOU created the computer or the demon, and perhaps you need only overcome your addiction to them? AH! Freedom, at last. Pure relativism. . . . of course, that would make you my enemy. In my world, consenting to faith in objectivity is an essential act of love. I will put you in a psychiatric ward so soon as you decide no longer to participate in my world. [quote:2yufpijc]Cheapcontact: "If you want to call it dogmatism I'm ok with that."[/quote:2yufpijc] Okay . . . but you have become less dogmatic as this conversation has progressed. You have acknowledged your faith. You have acknowledged the possibilities. Now you need only acknowledge that you may be in a psychiatric ward, and you will be ready to embrace Christ in a way you never have before. :-)
258	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	4/21/2004 5:43:00	Cherie, please do read Greenfrog's talk. He discusses the kind of God I seek to worship, and does so in a manner that is inspiring. [quote:15hjq9yv]Cherie: "Of course we suffer because of other people's sins but does that mean that we are taking upon us their sins?"[/quote:15hjq9yv] It seems to me that "taking upon us their sins" is a subset of "suffer because of other people's sins". It is the voluntary subset. This reminds me of Paul, of course . . . [quote:15hjq9yv]"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8: 16-17)[/quote:15hjq9yv] Paul apparently did not consider suffering with Christ to be mandatory. On the other hand, suffering in this life does appear to be mandatory to some extent. Evidently, then, there must be a difference between simple suffering and suffering with Christ. It seems to me that the latter is a choice made in love for our neighbors. [quote:15hjq9yv]Cherie: "Does our suffering effect others salvation?"[/quote:15hjq9yv] Have you ever suffered to save another person from suffering? Beyond that, consider the work and glory of God . . . [quote:15hjq9yv]"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4: 5-6)[/quote:15hjq9yv] [quote:15hjq9yv]"BEHOLD, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. "And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. "If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming." (D&C 2: 1-3)[/quote:15hjq9yv] [quote:15hjq9yv]"For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the ffulness• of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time." (D&C 128: 18)[/quote:15hjq9yv] What happens if my heart does not turn to my fathers and my children? They and I will cursed, and the Earth wasted. On the other hand, we together may become perfect. Can I affect their salvation? Can they affect mine? We commonly associate this with baptism for the dead. That is a good start, but just the beginning. What is the work and glory of God? To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. To the extent that we are the children of God, to the extent that we are Gods, one in Christ, members of the Church of the Firstborn and of the Order of the Only Begotten, such is also our work and our glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. [quote:15hjq9yv]Cherie: "Being a God because we are the children of Gods. That makes complete sense. But I need further help in understanding how we can be like Christ when he suffered in Gethsemine for everyone. If he already suffered why should we suffer again?"[/quote:15hjq9yv] [quote:15hjq9yv]"Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption." (2 Nephi 9: 7)[/quote:15hjq9yv] [quote:15hjq9yv]". . . there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world." (Alma 34: 12)[/quote:15hjq9yv] Only an infinite atonement will suffice for our salvation in both immortality and eternal life. Only to the extent that we, as Paul says, suffer with Christ, does the atonement approach infinity. [quote:15hjq9yv]Cherie: "Is the idea that Christ is the God of this earth or the example of how to be a God on this earth? Or Both."[/quote:15hjq9yv] Is there a difference?
259	Introductions	climacus	4/22/2004 5:51:00	Climacus :-) It will be good to have him back.
260	Introductions	climacus	4/23/2004 5:44:00	. . . and in Christ we are one.
261	The Font of Knowledge	Inside the mind of a Neurotic	4/23/2004 5:47:00	.. ;-)
262	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/23/2004 5:56:00	I haven't forgotten you, Cheapcontact.
263	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/24/2004 2:27:00	. . . or you, Barlow. :-)
264	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	4/25/2004 20:42:00	Inside, he is like the Son.
265	The Font of Knowledge	What are we to think of a god who is . . .	4/25/2004 20:56:00	Cheapcontact, I think the following scriptures answer your questions . . . [quote:2jwxi03f]"And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. "And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and [b:2jwxi03f]there is no end to my works, neither to my words[/b:2jwxi03f]. "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1: 37-39 -- Emphasis Mine)[/quote:2jwxi03f] [quote:2jwxi03f]"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (John 14: 12)[/quote:2jwxi03f] [quote:2jwxi03f]"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; [b:2jwxi03f]if so be that we suffer with him[/b:2jwxi03f], that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8: 16-17 -- Emphasis Mine)[/quote:2jwxi03f]
266	The Font of Knowledge	the greatest person in the world ever and on down	4/25/2004 21:05:00	His mind is filled with innumerable glories.
267	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/25/2004 21:20:00	[quote:1aei36k2]Barlow: "Arosophos, what do you make of abstractions and 'forms' that have been categorized as more 'real' than sensory experience."[/quote:1aei36k2] I think experience is in applying the forms to the sensory input -- neither is more real than the experience resulting from the combination. [quote:1aei36k2]Barlow: "Are abstract mathematical relationships more real than sensory experience? Are 'Platonic forms' more real?"[/quote:1aei36k2] No. Platonic Forms and mathematics inform us of the abstract aspect of things -- the will of God in Heaven. Sensory input informs us of the concrete aspect of things -- the Earth toward which the will of God is directed. May His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. [quote:1aei36k2]Barlow: "Please explain your take on Plato's 'Divided Line'."[/quote:1aei36k2] Experience is on that line; and the harder I look at the line, the more it becomes a spectrum. [quote:1aei36k2]Barlow: "Do you see utility in categorizing experience in to types of experiences?"[/quote:1aei36k2] Yes. We communicate by distinguishing. [quote:1aei36k2]Barlow: "Is a 'spiritual experience' more 'real' than a 'sensory experience' (like the five natural senses)?"[/quote:1aei36k2] No. However, I think we should take care in our interpretation of these experiences. Can I smell with my eyes? Can I hear with my mouth? . . . not directly, but indirectly if I am careful and experienced. Can I know of spiritual things through my physical senses? Can I know of physical things through my spiritual senses? . . . not directly, but indirectly if I am careful and experienced.
268	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	4/26/2004 0:11:00	[quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I have acknowledged this possibility, but that possibility doesn't do away with a reality outside of myself."[/quote:qivynem2] . . . nor with your inability to know anything about any reality entirely independent of you . . . nor with your inability to know youself infallibly except to the extent that you identify with your experience. Of course, unless I am persuaded to think and care otherwise, you and your experiential claims are nothing more than an aspect of my experience -- a part of me. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I believe that there is something external to my consciousness because my consciousness is restrained by something external to me (if i was restraining it I would know)."[/quote:qivynem2] You experience the restraint. You do not identify with the restraint. This may be choice or instinct, or some combination of the two, but it is not ontological necessity. The point of the computer and demon hypotheses is precisely that you do not know that which is beyond your experience -- you do not know that beyond your experience that may be restraining you -- even if that is a part of you with which you do not identify by choice or instinct. Cheapcontact, please do not think I would advocate existential dilemmas. To the contrary, I would advocate embracing our world warmly. However, I feel obligated to acknowledge that we cannot refute the skeptics through appeals to reason, logic, self-evidence or things in themselves. We cannot refute them whatsoever. We can only choose not to join them in their skepticism, and seek to persuade them of the value of faith. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "So while I can't tell you for sure what exactly is external of me the fact that I am restrained means there is something external."[/quote:qivynem2] . . . unless you are restraining yourself . . . or unless you are not really restrained . . . or unless you are not . . . or . . . [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "My experience gives me faith that what is external to me is the reality which I am experiencing."[/quote:qivynem2] You recognize this as being founded in faith -- that's all I am arguing for, here. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I could be wrong about the experience I'm having being 'real', but I fail to see how I can be wrong about something being outside of me."[/quote:qivynem2] If you are the final authority on defining that which is outside of you, I agree. Of course, that is still faith, so far as I am concerned, whether you acknowledge it or not. If you recognize the faith, we are agreed. If you do not, you are dogmatic as I accuse Ayn. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "So while strictly speaking Rand is wrong for saying that there is something out there that can't be experienced . . ."[/quote:qivynem2] Maybe she is not wrong. My point is that she does not and cannot know, by her own definition, and in self-contradiction. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I'm telling you that the constraints I feel are external."[/quote:qivynem2] I believe that you understand them to be external. To some great extent, I do as well. However, I recognize that I cannot infallibly prove them to be external, but that does not worry me too much. My worries are directed toward those who would not recognize their fallibility in this; I worry that, unless they are utterly unlike me, they are dishonest or foolish. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I don't know the nature of it besides that it is external."[/quote:qivynem2] What does it mean for something to be external? [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I've decided that I'll believe what I'm experiencing is real and external to me because it is the most useful to me, not because I know that it's right."[/quote:qivynem2] Agreed, except that I think you can know -- but not infallibly or in any final static manner. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "If there was a demon doing this to me and I couldn't tell then there really isn't much I could do about it, so I don't worry about it. Maybe that is more pragmatic than objective, I don't know."[/quote:qivynem2] Pragmatism is in recognizing that the truth is that which best explains our experience, given our context of desires. Christianity is the hypothesis that the greater pragmatism is in the wider context of desires. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I couldn't tell you the differences between the two, all I'm saying is that there is something external to me, and I know it because I am constrained outside of my own control."[/quote:qivynem2] Maybe you are schizophrenic, and one of you is constraining the other of you? [quote:qivynem2]Cheapctonact: "But you seem to think it matters so you keep coming up with all these examples of how you think I could be wrong."[/quote:qivynem2] What matters to me is not primarily that we call ourselves "pragmatist". What matters to me is that we recognize the faith that is the foundation of our understanding of the world, so that we do not damn ourselves in dogmatism. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I'm trying to tell you I don't care about demons and matrix, I'm simply stating that something is out there and my best guess is that it's not a demon or matrix and so I'll act as if it is neither of those (or an infinite regression). Is there something more you think I/people should be doing?"[/quote:qivynem2] Choose to put our faith in Christ. Recognize our freedom from logical compulsion, and instead embrace love of self and others, of our own free will and choice. Assert our will to immortality and eternal life, regardless of perceived improbabilities. Define truth as that which sets US free in fullness of joy, whatever it may turn out to be, and however we may end up understanding it. I suspect you are doing these things. My gripe is likely with Ayn -- not you. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "Because you've just gone and said you don't know anything about anything, but that I should have faith in Christ (which you don't know if he exists) and all these Gods (which you don't know if they exist)."[/quote:qivynem2] If you insist that knowledge is infallibility of understanding that corresponds to external things in themselves, I know absolutely nothing, let alone whether there be luminous immortal humanoids in the Kolob system. If you recognize that knowledge is confidence in understanding that makes a difference in the way we live, I know Christ and God exist. I know, not because I can prove their existence. I know because I posit their existence, and the consequential experience is desirable. God is first posited, then proven within the context of the position. An unproven God is not demonstrated to be a non-existant God; an unproven God is simply unproven, and remains forever so, so long as there is no proof. Existential negatives cannot be proven. My experience -- my testimony -- is of a proven God: Christ. My experience is that Christ has saved me. My hypothesis is that Christ will yet save me again. My hypothesis is that in Christ we may overcome sin and death. Christ is that which will save us from sin and death. If anything does, it is Christ. Semantics? Yes. Just semantics? No. Semantics is powerful, here. We can embrace and extend others' hearts and minds through semantics. This is a work of love. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "You're asking me to have faith in something but not giving me any reason, and any reason you give me you're claiming is completly realitive so why is Christ's view any better than Satan's from a pragmatic's point of view?"[/quote:qivynem2] . . . because Christ's view is not completely relative, by definition. Christ's view is that your view matters. This is Christ's unwavering faith. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I feel like you're afraid to say that both Christ and Satan are real things. This is maybe just my problem, but seeing as that's how your philosophy makes me feel about you, I don't want to feel that way about myself. It's as if you're asking me to have Faith in that Christ live and that He doesn't live. I don't see the value of that."[/quote:qivynem2] I am asking you to demonstrate faith that Christ is in you. I am asking you to demonstrate faith that Christ is in me. Do you see no value in that? The value I see in it has changed my life profoundly -- and yet works in me. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "Why is it evil? I'm not questioning it's evilness, again I'm question whether or not you're convinced it's evil or just your subjective view of evilness?"[/quote:qivynem2] Is there a difference between being convinced of evil and being convinced of one's subjective view of evil? Perhaps there is in that one acknowledges the possibility of change. Beyond that, what is good and evil? What good is good to you if all the good in the world feels absolutely evil? Where is subjective good and evil outside YOUR individual desires? Where is objective good and evil outside OUR communal law? JUST your individual desires? JUST our communal law? Should we apply "just" to that which is all we have? Should we apply "just" to that which is the only means whereby we may attain the fullness of joy, if we attain at all? It seems to me, to the contrary, that we should exult our reliance on desires, and seek forever to atone them in law. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "I don't think that I am beyond the need of faith. I just don't know that faith should be/is required in all things. What is the purpose of life if you never know anything? I'm not talking about knowing everything, but just of knowing one thing?"[/quote:qivynem2] I think we can know. I don't think faith and knowledge are opposites. I think knowledge is the consequence of confirmed faith. Knowledge complements faith -- it does not replace faith. Knowledge is confidence, a feeling. What is the purpose of life? . . . not primarily knowledge. What good is knowledge to the miserable? The purpose of life is joy, ever fuller. Knowledge is generally a good way of furthering our pursuit of joy. Knowledge carelessly given or used is not a good way of furthering our pursuit of joy. To the contrary, such may prove to be sufficient for terminating all of humanity. [quote:qivynem2]Cheapcontact: "First you ask me not to wonder about all the possibilities then you ask me to wonder about being in a psychiatric ward, which do you want?"[/quote:qivynem2] No. I am asking you not to worry about the possibilities that are, by definition, beyond all experience, whether it be past, present or future experience. I am asking you to hope for wonderful possibilities currently beyond experience, and I am asking you to worry PRIMARILY about what YOU can do to further our attempts of attaining those wonderful possibiltiies. I am asking you to do this with confidence regardless of the uncertainties beyond our experience. I am asking you to believe that such attempts of confidence are the only way to proceed in wisdom. I am asking you to see that objectivism, as presented by Ayn, is a crutch at best, and likely a hinderance to our pursuit. Dogmatism can keep us from exploring, seeking for and potentially finding the fulfillment of our atoned deires to the fullest extent possible. Dogmatism will tell us that we can go only to this point, and no farther. Dogmatism will tell us that which we cannot think. Dogmatism will tell us that which must be. Dogmatism will damn us. In the spirit of Paul, those who are perfect speak the wisdom of God in a mystery: Christ in you. How will you fulfill our law, Cheapcontact? How will you love us enough to fulfill our desires? How will you make our world better?
269	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	4/28/2004 3:49:00	[quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "My initial question here was to ask, 'Persuade them on what basis?', but then it occurred to me that you (Arosophos) would probably answer, 'On the basis of the hypothesis of greater joy, of which we provide evidence by the way we live our lives.' So I came up with a different question."[/quote:8ncv9q6o] Right. Although we cannot appeal to that which is doubted, there is always faith in self, so long as there is existence. So we appeal to faith in self, which is an appeal to desires, the fulfillment of which is joy, definitionally. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "Arosophos defines truth as: 'that which sets US free in fullness of joy...'"[/quote:8ncv9q6o] Strictly speaking, I would probably define "truth" as Joseph did: a knowledge of things past, present and future. I would, however, add that truth is to communities as knowledge is to individuals. That said, I do think that truth is, as described in the Bible, that which frees us from that which we do not desire -- sin and death. This is not so much a characteristic of truth as it is how we identify truth, so it is also a kind of definition. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "Why is joy the thing that we should seek to maximize? Why not power? Why not 'utility'? Why not fun?"[/quote:8ncv9q6o] . . . because it is what you WANT to maximize, definitionally. Why maximize power? Ultimately, because you want to. Why maximize utility or fun? Ultimately, because you want to. We give reasons, seek persuasion to confidence, and so on. In the end, there is desire, the fulfillment of which is joy, definitionally. It's what you want. It's what you seek. It is the ultimate Why. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "Is it 'self-evident'?"[/quote:8ncv9q6o] It is definitional. Self-evidence seems to mean something that is evidence for itself. Are definitions evidence for themselves? [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "Are desires randomly distributed such that some of us want joy while others might desire different things?"[/quote:8ncv9q6o] That's not how I am using the words. By definition, we all want joy. The fulfillment of our desires is joy. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "By the same rationale, couldn't one 'know' that group sex, binge drinking, and/or playing video games for 3 days straight were good things?"[/quote:8ncv9q6o] Sure. However, some joys are more profound and endure longer than others. That joy which is eternally profound and of eternal endurance is the fullness of joy. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "I agree that these things don't appear to bring joy, but, again, why is joy such a big deal?"[/quote:8ncv9q6o] It is THE big deal, by definition. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "Most people would probably think that multiple orgasms, a good buzz, and total diversion were desirable things."[/quote:8ncv9q6o] I agree with the first, in itself, and may agree with the other two, depending on what you mean. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "A skeptic might say that your "joy" is just another name for the consequences of Mormonism. That is, one could argue that you are proving your theory in a purely definitional way."[/quote:8ncv9q6o] I would argue exactly that: it is definitional. I would also argue that the definitions accurately reflect our experience. We DO desire. Desires ARE sometimes fulfilled, and I call that "joy". If a skeptic doesn't want to call fulfilled desires "joy", that's fine. I call it "joy" because it helps me and my community better understand our scriptures -- and because I am confident that I can get most skeptics to agree with my definition, at least for the context of discussion. [quote:8ncv9q6o]Climacus: "what grounds are there for establishing a hierarchy of desires?"[/quote:8ncv9q6o] Given my explanations above, I am sure you will agree that this is a different question. Regardless of whether there are grounds for establishing a hierarchy of desires, joy is yet the fulfillment of desires. That said, I proposed above a means of recognizing a hierarchy of desires. The greater the depth and breadth of the fulfilled desire, the higher in the hierarchy the desire belongs. I wrote a paper about this that Joey posted to this site some time ago, but I can't find it -- Joey?
270	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	4/28/2004 5:18:00	[quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus: "But is joy one thing, or many things?"[/quote:2zw3zfra] Joy is many things -- the concrete experience of fulfilled desires. Fullness of joy is one thing -- an abstraction of infinite and perfect atonement, ever closer, yet forever ahead of us. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus: "It sounds a bit to me like you are essentially a utilitarian borrowing the language of 2 Nephi."[/quote:2zw3zfra] I'm not a utilitarian because I do not believe majorities are the most important. The greatest good for the greatest number is utterly insufficient. Only the fulness of joy is sufficient, and that is, in terms of utilitarianism, perfect good for everyone -- everything. I am suggesting that compromise, although sometimes useful, is insufficient. Nothing short of an infinite atonement is sufficient. Only eternal love is sufficient. "Love", by the way, is seeking to fulfill and reconcile others' desires. It is the work of atonement. I do not mean that we must be satisfies to seek to fulfill others' desires as they are in the present, but rather we should seek to satisfy others' desires in the best possible way, which sometimes means trying to change ourselves and sometimes means trying to persuade others to change. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus: "What is the source of our desires?"[/quote:2zw3zfra] They are the culmination of our physical and spiritual organization, within the context of our community and environment. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus: "Are desires randomly distributed in the population, or do all human beings essentially desire the same things?"[/quote:2zw3zfra] I think there is much congruence. To the extent that there is not congruence, atonement is needed. To the extent that the lack of congruence is oppressive, the oppression must be dealt with, by force if necessary. "Oppression" is one way to describe the ultimate sin. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus: "To the extent that desires are heterogeneous, can there be a gospel?"[/quote:2zw3zfra] Jesus said there are many mansions in his Father's house. Joseph saw kingdoms of glory innumerable as the stars. Among them is the Celestial glory, whose inhabitants minister to the inhabitants of all other glories. Recognizing anything less than fullness of joy as sufficient, they seek atonement eternally. That's the good news. That's the gospel. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus: "Or must we accept the New Age-y proposition that everyone must 'find their own way'?"[/quote:2zw3zfra] That's a lazy perspective. Beyond the easy perspective is always a better perspective, a more desirable perspective, a more inclusive perspective, a more atoned perspective, a perspective approaching the fulness of joy -- that's my faith. More: that's my experience. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus Quotes: "[Pragmatism] takes interests for granted; it doesn't provide for a way of judging whether they are worth pursuing apart from the consequences of acting on them. We form beliefs to get what we want, but where do we get our wants?"[/quote:2zw3zfra] This is a meaningless criticism. How can one justify the pursuit of desire without ultimately appealing to desire? He uses the word "worth". "Worth" is meaningless outside the context of desire. Regardless of the genesis of desires, we have them. We CARE about them, by definition. We WANT them, by definition. They MOTIVATE us, by definition. Exploring the genesis is interesting, but we are more interested in fulfilling them than in understanding their origins. Am I sure? Yes. By definition, even if you are interested in understanding their origins, that is a desire you are seeking to fulfill. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus Quotes: "It is that wants and beliefs can lead people to act in ways that are distinctly unpragmatic. Sometimes the results are destructive, but sometimes they are not."[/quote:2zw3zfra] He is mixing degrees and perspectives of pragmatism. Obviously, that which one person desires may not be what another desires. Obviously, an aspect of that which one desires may be less or more than another aspect of that which one desires. Destruction itself may be pragmatic for Satan, but that does not keep Michael from waging war in heaven against the oppressor on behalf of his desires. To the extent that there is oppressive conflict in the world, pragmatism is violence. However, the eternal hope and faith is atonement, maximizing the joy and pleasure while minimizing the misery and pain. [quote:2zw3zfra]Climacus Quotes: "There is a sense in which history is lit by the deeds of men and women for whom ideas were things other than instruments of adjustment. Pragmatism explains everything about ideas except why a person would be willing to die for one."[/quote:2zw3zfra] The author can imagine no fulfillment of desire in death? I can. Perhaps a bit of creativity makes all the difference. My faith is in literal concrete flesh and bone resurrection, and the eternal pursuit of immortality in eternal life. Given such depth and breadth of perspective, pragmatism can explain ideas worth dying for -- even worth dying for a million times. [quote:2zw3zfra]"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." (Romans 8: 18-19)[/quote:2zw3zfra] In earnest expectation we wait for the glory -- that's desire.
271	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	4/29/2004 5:50:00	[quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "My objective is not to critique per se, nor to advance an alternative."[/quote:2s80cy9i] Even if it were, I would appreciate the exchange. Thank you. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "Your joy is then, by definition, what economists call "utility," and your desires are what economists call "preferences." So perhaps I should have called you an economist in Nephite clothing..."[/quote:2s80cy9i] Maybe. I am not confident that I understand how you are using "economist". In any case, as someone who read Shakespeare once said: God by any other name is as divine. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "What if I don't desire congruence?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] . . . then you become as Joseph describes here: [quote:2s80cy9i]"That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still." (D&C 88: 35)[/quote:2s80cy9i] . . . and as Paul describes here: [quote:2s80cy9i]". . . the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4)[/quote:2s80cy9i] [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "What if it came to be that no one desired it?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] What if no one breathed? [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "Is congruence self-evidently good?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] No. We learn with experience to desire congruence. I want to point out that, by "congruence", I do not mean that we think and act the same. I mean, rather, that we think and act harmoniously, in a manner that does not oppress others. Of course, the world is complicated, and there is oppression of all sorts. Oppression itself can justify counter-oppression. I don't have all the answers how best to sort it all out, except to say that I suspect it will take eternity to do. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "Why should we want to change our desires, or fulfill others' desires? Because it makes us more joyful? Is that the only motivation worth talking about?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] Yes. Definitionally, it is the only motivation. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "Why is oppression evil?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] The foundation for ethics is desires. Oppression is intent to withhold that which another desires or impose that which another does not desire, without expectation of providing that which is more desirable. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "Is sin for you simply 'What I don't like'?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] In a world consisting of a single subject being, that subject being's desires exhaustively define "good" and "evil". That which the subject being desires is good. That which the subject being does not desire is evil. The same is true of our world at a much greater magnitude of complexity. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "Who or what determines what is sinful?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] We do -- in the most eternal sense of the word "we". Or, put more cimply, God does. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "There are many people who desire to oppress. You might argue that oppression is sinful because it prevents others from having joy. But I respond that, to one who does not 'love', that argument is useless. Who cares?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] By definition, the oppressor does not care, and, for this, he is my enemy. Here is the War in Heaven. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "It seems to me that this approach to religion relies heavily on the assumption that desires are generally congruent."[/quote:2s80cy9i] . . . or that they can be, given time and effort in atonement. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "That is, more or less, people want the same things. I think that is an empirical question, one that is by no means settled, and that strong evidence could be marshalled against this assumption (by me, if necessary)."[/quote:2s80cy9i] Evidence can be proposed on both sides, of course, because the reality is precisely a mix of both sides. My faith is in advancing the better world. I suspect this will be an eternal work -- or, minimally, a work that endures at least as long as we exist. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "So what it boils down to is that God is stronger than Satan."[/quote:2s80cy9i] I hope so, but I do not take that as being self-evident. The war is real. Any war with a known conclusion is not a real war. We must see this as a real war if we are to be motivated sufficiently to win it. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "He is not right with regard to some external referent, he is simply going to win."[/quote:2s80cy9i] I hope so. That is my faith. Of course, I suspect that there will be no end to the fight. That's fine. We are made for the fight. We fight for the times of peace. We rest for the times of war. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "This sounds like the ultimate example of Nietzschean "will to power." God is not good, God is not right, God just happened to desire love and joy, while Satan wanted order and perfection. Although God's plan sounds "better" to us, that's only because we've been "persuaded" of it by the stronger player. If only Satan had managed to marshall 51% of the hosts of heaven... Maybe there's still time."[/quote:2s80cy9i] . . . surely there is -- an eternity of it. [quote:2s80cy9i]Climacus: "Or is it the case that there is something in our uncreated nature, something in the very nature of the universe itself, that makes God's desires independently (or objectively) better than Satan's?"[/quote:2s80cy9i] Better for our eyes, that see the light.
272	The Font of Knowledge	"only connect"	4/29/2004 5:58:00	The testimony of Christ is the spirit of prophecy. The song is about following Christ more than it is about following a particular leader of the LDS Church. That's what I teach my children -- although I suspect the author's intention was different, but since when did that stop me? Somebody said something about a skillful mechanic being worthy of praise. ;-)
273	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/1/2004 3:20:00	[quote:2zjpr69o]Climacus: "I don't think your answers are really addressing the underlying question."[/quote:2zjpr69o] Okay. Let's try again. [quote:2zjpr69o]Climacus: "Despite your insistence that collective desires constitute what is good, you seem to be 'smuggling in' the idea of an objective 'best good' that seekers can approach through their experience and atonement."[/quote:2zjpr69o] I believe in objective goods. Objectivity is to communities as subjectivity is to individuals. Objective goods are to communities as subjective goods are to individuals. [quote:2zjpr69o]Climacus: "For example, you say 'see the light' (emphasis added), as if there is any light apart from what our community happens to desire. It's no wonder a community 'sees the light' when what that implies coming to believe in what it already desires!"[/quote:2zjpr69o] Already desires? Not necessarily, except in the abstract: in the sense that we would organize a community in which all would find joy. That is easy to write, but hard to do. As we approach it, much that we already desire will change, I am sure. Atonement is not about having what we want. Atonement is about having what we should want, and knowing that it is yet more desirable than what we now want. What is it? I don't know, but it is, by definition, better and more desirable than what we already have. [quote:2zjpr69o]Climacus: "I'm sure within the community of Satan's followers, seeing the light has an entirely different connotation."[/quote:2zjpr69o] Certainly -- but it is ultimately self-contradictory, empty, meaningless and non-existent. Satan is not about community. Satan is not about light. Satan is about darkness -- about consuming light and glory, from whatever source. Satan is about oppression of others, about whom he cares only to the extent that they can glorify him. To the extent they cannot, he would lead them to spiritual death: rest, now, from your work; slip away quietly from the pain and misery; there is nothing for you in this evil flesh and bone; go; it will be better for you . . . goes on the eternal lie, full of contradiction. [quote:2zjpr69o]Climacus: "Similarly, you quote Paul and Joseph Smith, as if their words corresponded to 'reality'. Aren't they merely attempting to undercut their opponents rhetorically? It seems to me that in your view, prophets are more like spokesmen for a political party than anything else. They are the mouthpieces for a candidate who wants to win an eternal election. Paul and Joseph Smith want to persuade people to join their team, not because it's 'better' but because it's their team."[/quote:2zjpr69o] It is better. They are defining better. There is no more meaningful definition of better than that they are proposing. Again, I am not suggesting that there is no objectivity. I am suggesting only that we have no idea whether objectivity is as the big-O Objectivists proclaim. Ultimately, we are in a work to make the world of experience better, objectively, which is to say we are in a work to make our community ever more joyful, and there is no community more important than an ever more inclusive community. Of course, there are times of profound conflict. There are times of apparent insurmountable differences of desire. Yet we work on them. We fight if necessary. We organize and reorganize eternally, creating and recreating kingdoms of glory as innumerable as the stars, always with the ultimate desire of bringing all into the Celestial glory of congruence. [quote:2zjpr69o]Climacus: "Also, why do we 'learn with experience to desire congruence'? Perhaps you learned that, because it is one of the values of your philosophical party. You learned it like you learned English. But in your universe, congruence cannot be desirable per se, can it? If so, how?"[/quote:2zjpr69o] To clarify, I don't think it is necessary that experience teaches us that congruence is desirable; however, I do think it is necessary that we learn that congruence is desirable through experience. I don't think it is something that we can just know, as if it were self-evident.
274	The Font of Knowledge	Alma vs. Amulek - a moral dilemma	5/1/2004 3:31:00	Is God omnipotent? [quote:2klksky3]Yes[/quote:2klksky3] Why does God allow pain and misery? [quote:2klksky3]. . . because we learn from pain and misery.[/quote:2klksky3] Why does God not give us the learning without the pain and misery? . . . because he can't or because he won't? If he can't, what does "omnipotent" mean? If he won't, why won't he? [quote:2klksky3]He won't for good reasons.[/quote:2klksky3] Why does God not satisfy the good reasons without the pain and misery? . . . because he can't or because he won't? If he can't, what does "omnipotent" mean? If he won't, what does "good" mean, and how does it apply to the God you are describing?
275	The Font of Knowledge	Alma vs. Amulek - a moral dilemma	5/1/2004 3:34:00	The omnipotent God is evil or "omnipotence" is only the ability to do that which is possible, within limits.
276	The Font of Knowledge	Alma vs. Amulek - a moral dilemma	5/1/2004 19:48:00	Dallapozza, what does "omnipotent" or "all-powerful" mean, and how does the meaning apply to God?
277	The Font of Knowledge	Alma vs. Amulek - a moral dilemma	5/1/2004 20:45:00	[quote:2pgxfja2]Alma: "The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand . . ."[/quote:2pgxfja2] I will take you word for this: you have experienced the Spirit of God. Now, the question: how will you interpret the experience? Is interpretation effortless or easy, even self-evident? [quote:2pgxfja2]"Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him—my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound." (D&C 88: 66)[/quote:2pgxfja2] In the wilderness, we see water in the distance. How do we interpret the experience? Is it real? Does our experience accurately reflect reality? Yes, and yes. The real question of importance is: how good is our interpretation of the experience? Will our interpretation of the experience, our anticipation, turn out accurately to reflect reality -- our future experience and interpretation? Seeing a mirage accurately reflects reality. Something external to ourselves is perceived. If we then interpret that experience to be associated with the experience of drinking water soon, we may be interpreting the experience foolishly. Joseph was concerned about this, and taught that we should take care in our interpretation of spiritual experience. In his words, we should "try the spirits". [quote:2pgxfja2]"A man must have the discerning of spirits, before he can drag into daylight this hellish influence and unfold it unto the world in all its soul destroying, diabolical, and horrid colors: for nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit, when they think they have the spirit of God. Thousands have felt the influence of its terrible power, and baneful effects; long pilgrimages have been undertaken, penances endured, and pain, misery, and ruin have followed in their train; nations have been convulsed, kingdoms overthrown, provinces laid wast, and blood, carnage, and desolation are the habilaments [habiliments] in which it has been clothed. The Turks, the Hindoos, [Hindus] the Jews, the Christians, the Indians, in fact all nations have been deceived, imposed upon and injured through the mischievous effects of false spirits." (TPJS 205 -- Excerpt from Entire Discourse on Trying the Spirits)[/quote:2pgxfja2] [quote:2pgxfja2]Alma: ". . . for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory . . ."[/quote:2pgxfja2] This is a comforting thought. I will join you in hoping it to be true. [quote:2pgxfja2]Alma: ". . . and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day."[/quote:2pgxfja2] Alma, my only concern, here, is that you seem to imply that God could avoid this suffering, both that of the dying and his own ("he doth suffer"). You do not state it, but I am tempted to read the implication between the lines. Is this just me? Maybe I am allowing the words of Amulek to linger in my mind . . . [quote:2pgxfja2]Amulek: "How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames."[/quote:2pgxfja2] Amulek, you do not explicitly state that you know you can prevent the suffering, but you project such confidence. I wonder whether Alma's response, given within the context of a spiritual interpretation, was not a soft way of telling you that God cannot stop all suffering. He cannot stop it, but "he doth suffer" with us. [quote:2pgxfja2]"One day when we came back from work, we saw three gallows rearing up in the assembly place, three black crows. Roll call. SS all around us; machine guns trained: the traditional ceremony. Three victims in chains—and one of them, the little servant, the sad-eyed angel. The SS seemed more preoccupied, more disturbed than usual. To hang a young boy in front of thousands of spectators was no light matter. The head of the camp read the verdict. All eyes were on the child. He was lividly pale, almost calm, biting his lips. The gallows threw its shadow over him. This time the Lagercapo refused to act as executioner. Three SS replaced him. The three victims mounted together onto the chairs. The three necks were placed at the same moment within the nooses. 'Long live liberty!' cried the two adults. But the child was silent. "'Where is God? Where is He?' someone behind me asked. Total silence throughout the camp. On the horizon, the sun was setting. 'Bare your heads!' yelled the head of the camp. His voice was raucous. We were weeping. 'Cover your heads!' Then the march past began. The two adults were no longer alive. Their tongues hung swollen, blue-tinged. but the third rope was still moving; being so light, the child was still alive...For more than half an hour he stayed there, struggling between life and death, dying in slow agony under our eyes. And we had to look him full in the face. He was still alive when I passed in front of him. His tongue was still red, his eyes were not yet glazed. Behind me, I heard the same man asking: 'Where is God now?' And I heard a voice within me answer him: 'Where is He? Here He is—He is hanging here on this gallows.' That night the soup tasted like corpses." (Elie Wiesel, Night 75-76)[/quote:2pgxfja2]
278	The Font of Knowledge	Alma vs. Amulek - a moral dilemma	5/2/2004 6:11:00	I agree, so far as you take it, and think there is more. When we put off the old understanding of God, we have a choice. We can forever consider that understanding to be God and become atheists; or we can allow the Living God to be resurrected in us.
279	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/2/2004 6:15:00	Only the most inclusive community is certain always and in every way to care for you. It's in your interest to put faith in this. Satan would have an inclusive community, so long as it exalts him above all -- so perhaps that is limited inclusivity. So with the inclusivity of Christ, there seem to be a limit: oppression. Either way, ideal inclusivity is in your interest. It puts you in a system where everyone seeks your interest. The question is: will you also seek their interest?
280	The Font of Knowledge	One Archetypal God	5/2/2004 22:10:00	[quote:1mcn70gt]"AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. "And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— "The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— "And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15: 1-4)[/quote:1mcn70gt] What is God the Father? That which is conceived by the power of God. What is God the Son? That which dwells in the flesh and subjects the flesh to the will of the Father. These Gods are one. How so? ---------- [quote:1mcn70gt]"VERILY, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am; "And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; "And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one— "The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men." (D&C 93: 1-4)[/quote:1mcn70gt] What is God the Father? That to whom the fullness is given. What is God the Son? That which is in the world and makes flesh its tabernacle. These Gods are one. How so? ---------- Who is God the Father? Who is conceived by the power of God? To whom is the fullness given? Who is God the Son? Who dwells in the flesh and subjects the flesh to the will of the Father? Who is in the world and makes flesh its tabernacle? [quote:1mcn70gt]"And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. "And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives. "And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ. "And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God. "And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts. "I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you." (Mosiah 5: 7-12)[/quote:1mcn70gt] [quote:1mcn70gt]"NOW I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; "But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ . . . "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you . . ." (Galatians 4: 1-7, 19)[/quote:1mcn70gt] [quote:1mcn70gt]"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8: 14-17)[/quote:1mcn70gt] [quote:1mcn70gt]"I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. "For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. "And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; "And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn. "Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth." (D&C 93: 19-23)[/quote:1mcn70gt] Are God the Father and God the Son one in us? Will they be one in us? Can we receive the fullness of the father -- eternal life? Can we receive it in the flesh -- immortality? ---------- I see God the Father as an archetype of that which you and I should be in immortality. I see God the Son as an archetype of that which you and I should be in mortality. Likewise, I see the Holy Spirit, in its human form, as an archetype of that which you and I should be in pre-mortality and post-mortality. Beyond the scriptures quoted above, Joseph Smith explicitly set precedence for looking to Jesus Christ as our prototype: [quote:1mcn70gt]"Where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may be assimilated,in order that we may be made partakers of life and salvation? or, in otherwords, where shall we find a saved being? for if we can find a saved being,we may ascertain without much difficulty what all others must be in orderto be saved. We think that it will not be a matter of dispute, that twobeings who are unlike each other cannot both be saved; for whatever constitutesthe salvation of one will constitute the salvation of every creature whichwill be saved; and if we find one saved being in all existence, we may seewhat all others must be, or else not be saved. We ask, then, were is theprototype? or where is the saved being? We conclude, as to the answer ofthis question, there will be no dispute among those who believe the Bible,that it is Christ; all will agree in this, that He is the prototype or standardof salvation; or, in other words, that He is a saved being. And if we shouldcontinue our interrogation, and ask how it is that He is saved? the answerwould be -- because He is a just and holy being; and if He were anythingdifferent from what He is, He would not be saved; for His salvation dependson His being precisely what He is and nothing else; for if it were possiblefor Him to change, in the least degree, so sure He would fail of salvationand lose all His dominion, power, authority and glory, which constitutesalvation; for salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, powerand dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else; and no being canpossess it but Himself or one like Him. Thus says John, in his first epistle,third chapter, second and third verses: 'Beloved, now are we the sonsof God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope in Him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure.' Why purify themselves as He is pure? Because if they do not they cannot be like Him. "The Lord said unto Moses, Leviticus 19:2: 'Speak unto all thecongregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, 'Ye shall beholy: for I the Lord your God am holy.'' And Peter says, first epistle,1:15, 16: 'But as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy inall manner of conversation; because it is written, 'Be ye holy; for I amholy.'' And the Savior says, Matthew 5:48 'Be ye therefore perfect,even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.'' If any should ask, why all these sayings? the answer is to be found from what is beforequoted from John's epistle, that when He (the Lord) shall appear, the saintswill be like Him; and if they are not holy, as He is holy, and perfect, as He is perfect, they cannot be like Him; for no being can enjoy His glorywithout possessing His perfections and holiness, no more than they couldreign in His kingdom without His power. "This clearly sets forth the propriety of the Saviour's saying, recordedin John's testimony 14:12: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father.' This taken inconnection with some of the sayings in the Savior's prayer, recorded inthe seventeenth chapter, gives great clearness to His expressions. He says in the 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24th verses: 'Neither pray I for these alone,but for them also who shall believe on me through their words; that theyall may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they alsomay be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Andthe glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one,even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfectin one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast lovedthem, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also whom thou hasgiven me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thouhast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.' (Lectures on Faith, Lecture Seventh)[/quote:1mcn70gt] How may God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit be one? They may be one in us as we concretely manifest these archetypes. That is my faith.
281	The Font of Knowledge	Copyright	5/2/2004 22:17:00	Regardless of whether artists can benefit from choosing not to exercise copyright protection, should we respect the copyright protection of those artists that do not desire freely to distribute their creations -- at least until we persuade them to change their minds?
282	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/4/2004 6:36:00	Thank you, Greenfrog and Climacus. I will respond soon -- hopefully tomorrow.
283	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/4/2004 7:46:00	[quote:2ugftf8a]Greenfrog: "So I pick my God, my community, by reference to what it can do for me? Does Satan do the same?"[/quote:2ugftf8a] In the beginning, yes. However, the difference arises in that Satan's faith is that ultimately only he can or should be exalted. Christ would have you believe that exaltation need not be exclusive of you or him, or anyone else; more: he would have you believe that your exaltation is the greater due to your mutual exaltation. [quote:2ugftf8a]Greenfrog: "To the same extent it was in the Iraqis' interest to put faith in Hussein. Or the Germans in Hitler. Those were the communities most likely to care for them."[/quote:2ugftf8a] . .. evidently not in the long run. As I stated before, only the most inclusive community is certain always and in every way to care for you. [quote:2ugftf8a]Greenfrog: "Did not Jesus oppress the merchants in the temple?"[/quote:2ugftf8a] . . . who, arguably, were oppressing the worshippers. There is a point at which oppression should not be tolerated. I think the Book of Mormon is an excellent example of this principle, although, if I remember correctly, it seems that you have disagreed with this in the past. In any case, there seems to be cases when temporarily not responding to oppression can lead to greater good; however, in the long run, we must respond, or it may destroy us. [quote:2ugftf8a]Greenfrog: "Did He not oppress the non-Jews whom He declined to teach, against whom He practiced racism?"[/quote:2ugftf8a] I am not confident that either of us understand the cultural context of the passages to which you refer. In any case, my response to your particular interpretation is: I do not believe in the infallibility of scripture, and I particularly do not believe in the infallibility of scriptural interpretation. My point, here, is that I do not associate oppression with Christ. To the contrary, I associate the combat against oppression with Christ, and such combat is widely portrayed in the scriptural text. [quote:2ugftf8a]Greenfrog: "Which Christ is it that you endorse?"[/quote:2ugftf8a] The Christ that would exalt us together in immortality and eternal life. The Christ to which oppression is the antithesis. The Christ of which I read throughout the scriptures. Most particularly, the Christ that I experience in the Spirit. [quote:2ugftf8a]Greenfrog: "Or will I seek a different God? Perhaps I'm not satisfied with a popularly elected God like George W. Bush."[/quote:2ugftf8a] Maybe you will. I recommend the True and Living God: the Christ, in whom is the community that is certain always and in every way to care for you. Know this, and I think you will have eternal life. [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: "My assertion is that a philosophy of truth entirely based on desires cannot meaningfully generate any 'shoulds'."[/quote:2ugftf8a] If it cannot, nothing can, so far as I can tell. Imagine an act complete with all its consequences that absolutely no one desires. Why should you or anyone do it? Can you propose even a single reason that does not contradict the premise that absolutely no one desires the act complete with all its consequences? [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: "Upon what basis 'should' I desire anything?"[/quote:2ugftf8a] I think we can choose our desires only indirectly, affecting them over time; however, even this can only be done within the context of greater desires that we are not yet choosing. Ultimately, I don't think your question can be answered sensibly, because, ultimately, we do not choose our desires. We choose how to seek to choose among them, to fulfill them, and perhaps to change some of them with time, so as to move past internal contradictions in them. [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: "Wouldn't it be in my interest to live in a community where everyone else wanted to satisfy my desires, but (for whatever reason) didn't really mind that I put in no effort to satisfy theirs?"[/quote:2ugftf8a] Maybe. Do you know of such a community? I do not. My experience demonstrates to me that others care about their desires, as I care about mine. Until you find such a community, I recommend that you work with me to make this one better. [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: "Or (more realistically) where everyone else wanted to satisfy my desires and was erroneously persuaded that I was trying to satisfy theirs? That way, I get the same benefit at no cost. Why shouldn't I desire this?"[/quote:2ugftf8a] Maybe, but the faith of Christ is that there is a cost when we do not seek to satisfy others' interests. Satan disagrees. They each advocate their faith. Whose example will you follow? I am persuaded that there is a greater likelihood of joy in following Christ's example, but I do not think Satan is stupid. What is the cost when we do not seek to satisfy others' interests? The cost of them not working with us to make the better world we both desire. Until you are omnipotent, this should matter to you. Can we decieve them into thinking we care? Sure, but that's not a new idea -- Satan's been perfecting it since the beginning of time, and most of the world appears to worship him for it. [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: "The only argument against that (that I see, anyway) is that it is somehow 'wrong' in a way that transcends desires. That is, regardless of what anyone wants, it is in the nature of the universe that hypocrisy, deception, or domination cannot bring joy."[/quote:2ugftf8a] I don't know about the nature of anything beyond my experience. However, within my experience, it seems that the exaltation of my desires is best achieved in working with others in such a manner that also exalts their desires. That's my testimony. Ultimately, that's the spirit of prophecy. [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: "However, ontologically I think we have to have faith that the 'good' things that we discover are actually 'good' in an eternal sense -- i.e. in a way that transcends desire. Not that desire is eliminated from the picture by any means. What becomes our duty is to bring our desires in line with what our desires 'should' be according to this 'natural law'. These are the desires which, if God did not desire them, it is in the very nature of the universe that he should 'cease to be God.'"[/quote:2ugftf8a] . . . in a way that transcends your desire? My desire? . . . everyone's desires? . . . except God's desires? So far as I am concerned, you are describing Satan's plan, in which the self-appointed God exalts his desires above all else. Sure, the God I worship said that I demonstrate my love for him when I keep his commandments. He also said (in both of the preceding verses) that he will keep my commandments, insofar as I am God, too. Natural law transcending desire? What is it? How can we tell? Who says? How can we be sure it is not a lie? I wonder whether it is. I am sure it has been used as such. [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: ". . . ontologically reducing truth to a (however complex) function of desire can only lead to a war of communities who can only be right in their own terms."[/quote:2ugftf8a] . . . only to the extent that they insist on being correct about the objective nature of reality . . . only to the extent that they dogmatically cling to their creeds. Love demonstrated in atonement can and does transcend all of this, not by being beyond desires, but precisely by being in desires -- sweat, tears and blood. [quote:2ugftf8a]Climacus: "This is not the universe, nor the God, I believe in."[/quote:2ugftf8a] You are not alone. [quote:2ugftf8a]"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. "And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. "And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw." (1 Nephi 14: 10-12)[/quote:2ugftf8a] On the one hand, many of us think we are objectively right about the concrete nature of reality; many of us think so to such a degree that we are unyielding in our oppression of others. On the other hand, many of us concede apathetically or thoughtlessly to the oppression. These two are manifestations of worshipping the same God. Too often I find myself in his temple with the blood of his sacrifices on my hands. There is, however, another God whose Spirit sometimes moves me to embrace a wonderful freedom and a profound love, which together have brought more joy to my experience than any other inspiration. This God has not spoken to me of objective rights and wrongs in some world beyond human experience and desires, but he has spoken to me as one human speaks to another of objective rights and wrongs that we can work out together in fear and trembling for our mutual exaltation in glory.
284	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/4/2004 7:47:00	I beat tomorrow by 14 minutes! ;-)
285	The Font of Knowledge	worship	5/6/2004 4:38:00	I see a big difference between worshipping a God that is exclusive of us and worshipping a God that is inclusive of us, as we should be. I associate the latter with the God I worship: Christ. This is a reciprocal relationship. We so often recall the scripture . . . [quote:3cqk1uvj]"If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14: 15)[/quote:3cqk1uvj] . . . but we often forget the double emphasis on the other side of the relationship in the two preceding verses . . . [quote:3cqk1uvj]"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." (John 14: 13-14)[/quote:3cqk1uvj] . . . and yet more often we forget the verse before that . . . [quote:3cqk1uvj]"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (John 14: 12)[/quote:3cqk1uvj] This is a God worthy of worship.
286	The Font of Knowledge	evil speaking of the Lord's annointed	5/6/2004 4:41:00	[quote:ne1b5h3f]Red: "Seems to me it must mean one of two things: "1. Jesus Himself: Christ > chrism > "anointed" "2. Everyone who has been washed and anointed in the temple "I see no middle ground."[/quote:ne1b5h3f] Ideally speaking, I see no difference.
287	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/6/2004 5:19:00	[quote:2ygp69gs]Cheapcontact: "The words you use make it sound like you think 'objectivism' is what keeps someone from being christ like . . ."[/quote:2ygp69gs] I think Objectivism, as advoated by Rand, is one thing that can keep us from being Christ. [quote:2ygp69gs]Cheapcontact: ". . . but I recon one can find quite a few none christ like pragmatists."[/quote:2ygp69gs] I agree. So far as I am concerned, Satan is a pragmatist, but his hypothesis is different than that of Christ. On the one hand is the hypothesis that the greater individual joy will come through exaltation of the individual; on the other hand is the hypothesis that the greater individual joy will come through exaltation of the community. [quote:2ygp69gs]Cheapcontact: "What I'm not getting is why exactly you think objectivism keeps me from being the way you think I should be?"[/quote:2ygp69gs] As Joseph might have said: in embracing Rand's Objectivism, you are declaring you will go so far and no further. The creed damns you. It invites you to know that which you cannot experience, to put your faith in the unknowable God, and to become comfortable away from the work of experiential knowledge. [quote:2ygp69gs]Cheapcontact: "My only point in saying that there is something external to me is that it is one of the things that is most apparent to me, and I'll base my philosophical understanding/system on that idea . . ."[/quote:2ygp69gs] My point is that you can free yourself from worrying whether there is some thing-in-itself out there that dependably corresponds to your experience. Experience is sufficient. It does not need props. I am not asking you to doubt your experience. I am not asking you to doubt your existence. The argument I am trying to make here is more subtle: you exist and experience, regardless of non-experiential things-in-themselves crutches. Your experience is sufficient in itself. Be free in that. [quote:2ygp69gs]Cheapcontact: ". . . how did you go from 'it's possible there is nothing external to me" to "i should try to be in the most inclusive (possibly imaginary) community possible'? I can't demonstrate faith in you or christ without an equal or greater amount of faith in externalities."[/quote:2ygp69gs] I have learned that I can love YOU more when I associate the most real YOU with my and others' claimed experience of YOU, instead of associating the most real YOU with some ultimately non-experiential thing-in-itself. I can experience you in so many ways. I may be your friend, or your doctor, your bishop, or your psychiatrist. Regardless, I must remember that the overall experience of YOU is the most real YOU. YOU are not just your foot, your money, your brain chemistry or your creeds; and you certainly are not some non-experiential thing-in-itself -- I have no idea what that is, and neither do you. [quote:2ygp69gs]Cheapcontact: "I personally won't spend a lot of time trying to understand it differently myself because I see no value in this change of understanding . . ."[/quote:2ygp69gs] Directly speaking, neither do I. The times in my life when I most keenly felt the real potential of ideas such as this were not happy times. That said, I did learn from them, and they ultimately contributed substantially in my conversion to Christ.
288	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/6/2004 5:37:00	[quote:2dnq9lk2]Cheapcontact: "If objective truth is to community as desire is to the individual . . ."[/quote:2dnq9lk2] I think the following are more accurate: 1) Truth is to a community as knowledge is to an individual. 2) Objectivity is to a community as subjectivity is to an individual. 3) Law is to a community as desire is to an individual. [quote:2dnq9lk2]Cheapcontact: ". . . why is it that you choose to align yourself with a very small (relatively speaking) community instead of joining the larger wordly community? Is it because you're community is some how better than the wordly community? It just seems like if objective truth is related to community then the larger the community the more objective the truth is by this definition."[/quote:2dnq9lk2] Community also extends forward and backward in time. I read a recognition of this in the Lord's prayer: may thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Heaven is the ideal community in which the will of Christ is done. Earth is the current community approaching the ideal. [quote:2dnq9lk2]Cheapcontact: "Second, if you toss "objective truth" aside because it's something outside of you that you can't fully understand then why don't you toss "community truth" aside since it's something outside of you that you can't understand. What I'm saying is how do you know what the communities truth is better than you would a real objective truth?"[/quote:2dnq9lk2] I believe in objectivity. I do not associate objectivity with non-experiential things in themselves or correspondence theories of truth. Objectivity, truth and law are subjectivity, knowledge and desire at a communal magnitude. [quote:2dnq9lk2]Joey: "if reality is forever pluralistic in the concrete sense, do we ever really have knowledge? do we ever really know another person (God)? no, not completely."[/quote:2dnq9lk2] . . . not completely in the final sense, but perhaps completely in the whole sense. Be perfect. See perfectly. Know perfectly. Be as he is. See as you are seen. Know as you are known. You are your experience, as he is his. See and know him in your experience, as he sees and knows you in his. You are not that which you have not experienced. You can be known because you are that which is known, not finally, but wholly and progressively, a living process, a true God. ----- . . . more to come.
289	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/6/2004 5:45:00	I agree, Timothy, with everything you wrote except the dogmatic assertion that things external to ourselves are unavoidable. My point is that dogmatism in such ideas has no practical value for me, and, in fact, was detrimental to my spiritual progression at a point in my life. You know me well enough to know that I am not proposing apathy toward discovery. To the contrary, discovery is vital to my faith. I simply refuse knowingly to damn myself behind the barrier of assuming to know that which cannot be known.
290	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/6/2004 5:50:00	[quote:20ryqja5]Timothy: "To ignore these things, or rather, to minimize the importance of these things in order to maximize our own desires seems silly to me; our desires are inextricably linked to everything around us."[/quote:20ryqja5] . . . including the Matrix Architects and Evil Demons that you are ignoring in your dogmatism? I am saying that I don't know and don't care about that which cannot be experienced. I am also saying that I don't know that which I have not yet experienced -- but I care about much that I have not yet experienced, and about some such things I care extraordinarily.
291	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/6/2004 6:01:00	[quote:1ss5vda9]Timothy: ". . . when I speak of objective things external to me, I am not speaking of things of which I have no experience."[/quote:1ss5vda9] Neither am I. I am speaking precisely of that which I experience either relatively directly through my physical and spiritual senses or relatively indirectly through my community. [quote:1ss5vda9]Timothy: "As I see it, everything that 'is' is connected in some way. There are planets that exist, billions of light-years away, that are still part of the greater sphere of existence. These objects affect the space and objects around them, which affect the space and objects around them, etc. until everything affects everything. I believe that our experiences encompass everything that exists. So, it's not our lack of experience in things objective, but rather, our ability to understand and interpret those things outside of us that have influence over us (which is everything)."[/quote:1ss5vda9] So long as the existence of which you write is experiential existence, I agree entirely. I would also like to return to the point I made above, but more explicitly here, that we do not know whether there is a meta-physics to the physics of which you write, but if there is (and if it is meaningful in any way) then we are already experiencing it, be it a Matrix Architect or an Evil Demon or whatever. [quote:1ss5vda9]Timothy: "If your faith in pragmatism causes you to care less about discovering the nature of the relationships of objects external to your being, then I believe it will be a short-lived benefit that you gain from your theory."[/quote:1ss5vda9] External to my being? Maybe, depending on the definition of "my being". I am willing to entertain various definitions, and see what value they can provide. My theory? Pragmatism is not really a theory. It's a process. It is when we ask ourselves whether there is a practical difference between believing proposition A and proposition B, and then determining to test the difference. It is science. It is knowledge. It is a meta-theory. . . . so I guess I had a few more disagreements to express. :-)
292	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/6/2004 6:06:00	Right. If he can be experienced, he matters. If he cannot be experienced, he does not matter. That's the first point I am trying to make: only that which can be experienced matters. To assert that that which cannot be experienced matters is dogmatism. The second point I am trying to make is that knowledge should have its origins in experience. If we profess knowledge with origins elsewhere, it is dogmatism. . . . of course, it is more a matter of recognition than action because, by definition, only that which we experience (at least in the abstract) CAN matter, and all knowledge DOES originate in experience. The recognition is the freedom from the dogmatism.
293	The Font of Knowledge	presiding vs co-president, ahead vs side by side	5/6/2004 6:13:00	Every community in which I have participated has harmed me to some extent. The more interesting question is whether the community has helped me or will help me more than it has and will harm me.
294	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/6/2004 6:15:00	I suppose I am guilty of priestcraft now. ;-)
295	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/6/2004 7:11:00	[quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: "What I mean, then, is that we must have faith that the truths discovered through Alma's method are real."[/quote:1fhd003m] I agree, but reality need have nothing to do with things-in-themselves. Experience is real. It needs no justification. Desire is real. It needs no foundation. [quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: "That is, faith that we are discovering, not constituting, truth."[/quote:1fhd003m] I hope our faith will be both: that we can discover and create truth. [quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: "Again, I must reiterate my previous caveat: the (posited) existence of objective truth does necessitate the possibility of objective knowledge of that truth."[/quote:1fhd003m] Please define "existence", "objective", "truth" and "knowledge", as you are using them in this emphasized statement. [quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: "I'm comfortable with the notion of abstractly monistic yet concretely pluralistic truth, if I understand you correctly."[/quote:1fhd003m] We must recognize, however, that the abstract monism is faith. It is that toward which we organize and reorganize our experience in the concrete pluralism. [quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: "This distinction is important because it acknowleges the imperfection and faith-dependence of knowledge while allowing some communities to be closer to the truth than others. That is, it allows us to say that it is actually objectively better to not be on Satan's team."[/quote:1fhd003m] Sure, but objectivity has to matter for such a statement to be persuasive. For Satan, objectivity does not matter. To the contrary, objectivity just gets in the way. [quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: "That said, I think we all need the humility to realize that we can never know for sure if we are on the better team or not. We can only follow our experience and reasoning. It is for that reason that we ought to be very, very careful before 'oppressing' others."[/quote:1fhd003m] Agreed. Until all is said and done, the competing hypotheses will remain reasonable possibilities. Of course, we have no reason to suppose that all will ever necessarily be said and done. What happens in eternity? Does the War in Heaven ever end? I hope not. We are made for this fight. [quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: "I place my faith in the existence of natural principles because I believe that certain things naturally lead to joy, that is, they do so by their very nature. For example, I believe that love leads to a fullness of joy and that this is a fundamental principle of the universe. It's not true because we desire it. It's not true because God desires it. It's just true. My problem with pragmatism is that it doesn't allow this."[/quote:1fhd003m] Satan thinks that love does not lead to the greater joy. He recognizes that the fullness is an ideal we intend to pursue forever, and thinks he can do better, marginally, by taking advantage of others ignorance and foolishness through deception. In eternity, without ever attaining the ideal, he may be right. He may be doing that which will, marginally, lead him to the greater joy. Of course, to be right, he will need to continue eternally to prey on the ignorance and foolishness of others. This may be easier and more likely than our faith. He is counting on it. [quote:1fhd003m]Climacus: ". . . my contention is that we must have faith in something that is absolutely real, and though we discover it through our desires, its existence is not a function of our desires."[/quote:1fhd003m] Desires are real. Experience is real. Neither needs props from something beyond. To require something beyond, regardless of experience, is dogmatism. Is there something beyond them? I am not saying there is not. I am sayin we don't know. More: I am saying that it doesn't matter. Only that which we can experience matters. Only that which we can experience is real. I am not saying only that which we have experience is real. I am saying only that which we CAN experience is real -- and it is REAL precisely in its experiential nature. [quote:1fhd003m]Cheapcontact: "I'm not saying that I know you can have an absolute knowledge. I'm just saying that I don't see any reason to think that when we become exalted beings we won't be able to. I'm just trying to understand why everyone else has thrown this option out the window. I don't even think that arguing about it is overly useful. Whether or not we will be able to won't effect anything now (or atleast I don't see how it will effect it). I just like to think that we'll really know something some day, not just have faith in."[/quote:1fhd003m] There are practical problems associated with the idea of infallible knowledge, but these are probably best addressed in another thread -- and, judging from experience, it will likely be a long thread. [quote:1fhd003m]Cheapcontact: "I think one could only have a perfect understanding of a think at a specific time. I mentioned earlier that if I had a perfect knowledge of a person and they changed then I'd have to reaquaint myself with them to keep my knowledge up-to-date but this process wouldn't keep me from having a perfect knowledge of who you were at one point."[/quote:1fhd003m] There is a kind of wholeness of knowledge that I think is possible. The problems arise with assertions about infallible concrete foreknowledge. If perfect knowledge, as you are suggesting it, does not include infallible concrete foreknowledge then I can follow along in agreement with you to a certain extent . . . but problems begin to arise as we try to understand wholeness of knowledge in any way that does not leave room for ambiguity and the like. A wholeness of knowledge must account for the very real ambiguity we experience. [quote:1fhd003m]Cheapcontact: ". . . nothing about my understanding about how green and red legos interact would have changed."[/quote:1fhd003m] You are talking about abstractions, and we can make abstractions unchanging simply by declaring them so to be. I have yet to experience an unchanging interaction between concrete legos. [quote:1fhd003m]Cheapcontact: "Really all it would do is make me realize that lego's can be used as dangerous weapons, but if i had a perfect knowledge of legos I would have already of know this so the incedent wouldn't have taught me anything new about legos."[/quote:1fhd003m] . . . and, ultimately, to have the perfect knowledge of which you write, you would need to know, perfectly, how legos can and will interact with any possible thing at in possible time. Here, the practical problems -- the moral problems -- to which I alluded above begin to come out . . . but we should take that to a different thread. Judging from the first few statements in Jim Weed's post, he may also be interested in a discussion about the practical ramifications of infallible knowledge. [quote:1fhd003m]Jim Weed: "There seems to be an assumption that eternal progression = gaining more knowledge. Which maybe is true. It could also be creating families, building relationships, or all of the above. And likely stuff I can't conceive."[/quote:1fhd003m] . . . all of which, by their nature, necessitate gaining more knowledge -- unless the created families are already known, the built relationships already known, and the stuff you cannot conceive already known, but all of that contradicts the nature of the progression to which you refer. It is nonsensical to think of progressing in any of these things without also progressing in knowledge. [quote:1fhd003m]Jim Weed: "How does human desire fit into this? Something so capricious seems hardly reliable as a stable force worthy of faith. Not that you said it was but I'm assuming you believe it is."[/quote:1fhd003m] My faith is not in desire. My faith is in Christ, who atones our desires in the fullness of joy. Desires may change, expand, contract, be dropped or be replaced; however, they will be doing so within a context of greater desires. My faith is that we can make the world better -- organize and reorganize the world for ever greater fulfillment of our desires, ever greater joy.
296	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/7/2004 5:52:00	[quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "Let's say for a moment that I agree with your second statement (about inviting). How does embracing a concept that invites me to know more declare that I will go so far and no further?"[/quote:2fad43s6] It invites you to know more only in a deceptive way -- in a way that is knowing nothing at all. It invites you to assert knowledge about that which you cannot experience. It invites you to apathy about the real nature of your experience, in that it makes you think you already know the ultimate foundations of the experience. It invites you to assume that there is a non-experiential thing-in-itself that, since you cannot know it, you will not bother seeking, instead of working hard to become acquainted with the experience with an open mind. Creeds soak into our hearts and minds, and with time we feel only arrogance or offense when they are questioned. "How ridiculous, the claim of solopsism!" "Ludicrous, atheism!" "I can't believe anyone would be serious about nihilism!" Laugh at them, and if that is not sufficient then put them in a psychiatric ward or to death, quick. I am not suggesting that you have this attitude. I am suggesting that attitudes such as these arise with time because of our creeds. I frequently catch myself displaying such attitudes, and that's when I remind myself to think -- return to God, and think. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "I'm confused, at where you see Rand's objectivism's stopping point."[/quote:2fad43s6] Rand is telling us the ultimate nature of the universe. She is telling us this confidently. Given such confidence, what incentive is there to seek the ultimate nature of the world? Minimally, it weakens the effort. That is the effect of creeds. They weaken us. They damn us. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "Maybe it doesn't matter much, because I don't believe that I can know things about what I can't experience . . ."[/quote:2fad43s6] . . . then we are agreed, so let's return to that Rand quote: [quote:2fad43s6]"Objectivity . . . is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any external perceiver's consciousness."[/quote:2fad43s6] The early popes could not have done better. What refinement! What pure nonsense! How can we recognize that which is independent of any consciousness? We can do so only in foolishness, ignorance or deception. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "I wouldn't be able to defend Rand, she'd have to be here to do that herself."[/quote:2fad43s6] That would be interesting. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "I don't consider my belief in externalities as a crutch. I'm convinced of externalities because of my experience. I feel much freer not being alone."[/quote:2fad43s6] . . . then you are afraid to be alone. You can be free of that fear. In the meantime, the common sense approach to truth as correspondence helps you move along. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We all have our crutches. I have mine. The difficulty is recognizing them and learning to get beyond them -- if we care to try. Cheapcontact, my point here is that you are NOT alone. Whether embracing correspondence truth or otherwise, you will have your experience. It is sufficient. I AM! I don't need to be something non-experiential to be. I am in your experience. That, in itself, is sufficient. I am as real as it gets. I am here. You are not alone, regardless of the metaphysics. I am that which you experience. I am that which I and others experience. To the extent that there is that which is beyond our experience, it is not me. I do not identify with it. I know nothing about it. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "I can love YOU better when I associate you with something that isn't just made up in my mind. You consider that a crutch I guess, I consider it an added bonus, the idea produces more love in me. Again I'm not saying I know you exist, but the belief that you do adds to my love for you."[/quote:2fad43s6] I agree with this. You are willing to respect me in this. You have experienced me, and you would have me be free. You aren't insisting that I -- the real me -- be a pile of atoms or, worse, something beyond experience altogether. I am that which you experience, at least in part. You recognize I may be more, but you do not insist as to the nature of what the more must be. I agree with this. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "You're lack of conviction on the usefuless of the ideas you are espousing makes me have little desire to adopt them."[/quote:2fad43s6] I am not sure how you are getting the impression that I consider the ideas I am advocateing to be useless or less than useful. To the contrary, they have saved me from hell; nothing less. Perhaps I have not been clear enough in distinguishing between the logical consent I feel must be given to the skeptic and the living faith that I assert in my life. I am not a skeptic, Cheapcontact. I cannot refute the skeptic -- that cannot be done. I have only chosen not to be a skeptic. I chose this freely. I was one. I could have so remained, I think. I changed. I changed not because I think them irrational. I changed because I desired to experience differently. I put my faith in Christ, and he raised me from the dead. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "Suppose you had a dreams where you interacted with a single person. And now you've known and experienced this person for the last ten years. Now suppose for some reason you are awake and put in a room with a person you've never met before. Further suppose that you are forced to either kill the new person or your old dream person. Which would you kill and why?"[/quote:2fad43s6] I don't have enough information to answer the question. What does it mean to kill the spirit person? What does it mean to kill the flesh and bone person? Am I confident that the person I have been experiencing for the last ten years is a spirit person? Am I confident that the person I have just met is a person of flesh and bone? What kind of relationship do I have with the spirit person? How is the person I have just met interacting with me? Beyond those details, I suppose you are wondering whether, in general, I value spirit persons equally with persons of flesh and bone? There are two kinds of experience: spiritual (abstract) and physical (concrete). I experience both, the one through the traditional five senses, and the other through my spiritual senses. I associate a certain ontological magnitude with spirit beings, a greater ontological magnitude with physical things, and a yet greater ontological magnitude with spirit beings in flesh and bone. I value most highly that which is most exalted both spiritually and physically -- that which I experience most strongly via my spiritual and physical senses. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "But I bet you'd choose to kill of your dream friend, because your experience is being 'propped up' by the other real person's the same way mine is."[/quote:2fad43s6] Spirits are real. Dreams are real. Abstractions are real. Without them, we are nothing. Are they of the same ontological status as physical things? Maybe, depending on the specifics. However, spirit and element connected is of the greater ontological status. [quote:2fad43s6]Cheapcontact: "Correct me if I'm wrong on your choice, if I am you can be certain I'd never perscribe to your type of pragmatism."[/quote:2fad43s6] Nephi killed Laban. Would you never be his type of Mormon? There is a time and a place for everything.
297	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/7/2004 7:25:00	[quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "But it does need an interpretation. And I choose to interpret my experience as discovery of eternal principles rather than creation of new truths."[/quote:2z60biic] Sure. That which is creation from your perspective is discovery from mine. We create and discover. I have no disagreement here. If you want to call that which I have created an eternal principle, and if you want me to call that which you have created an eternal principle, that is fine with me. However, I suspect you are suggesting something more: an appeal to that which cannot be created -- that which always is, and always was uncreated. It may be that there is such a thing, but I have never experienced it. Have you? Joseph tells me that I was in the beginning, co-eternal with God and not created in the created-from-nothing sense. I believe him. However, I also believe him when he tells me that I am created in the created-via-organization sense. Ultimately, it seems that perhaps the only candidate for the uncreated is the stuff of which dreams are made, so to speak. As consciousness itself is the thing the skeptics do not dispute, consenting that there is that stuff to philosophize about, so that stuff to be philosophized about may be that eternal principle you seek. Fundamentally, I am suggesting that there is one eternal principle: experience in its many forms. I am willing to be dogmatic about that. There is something to philosophize about. There is something to organize and reorganize. There IS something. I AM. Even the skeptics will consent to this, so long as we impose no baggage beyond the fact of experience. I will not, however, concede any other eternal principles. I worry they may damn us. I have not experienced them; I know nothing of them. They sound like barriers. They sound like oppression. Not even the heaven of heavens can contain our God, and I intend to be as he is. The Lord is God, and beside him there is no other. May we be one in him as we overcome all our adversaries, as we atone with them and exalt them, never giving up hope or ceasing to exercise faith in the better world, no matter whether some stubborn apparent eternal principle seems to be in our way. So long as there is faith, there is hope -- perhaps only a fools hope, but rather that than the hopelessness of submission to an eternal principle that damns us. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Not that I think new truths can't be created. For example, someday I hope to create the truth, "I am immortal." That's not true now, but it may be in the future. The principles of the universe that make immortality possible, however, are uncreated. That's my belief (i.e. interpretation)."[/quote:2z60biic] What if you have to create the principle, too? What if that's the only way to achieve immortality? What if you don't? . . . damned, damn it. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "So, to reiterate my point: interpreting experience as caused (at least in part) by eternal principles (themselves objective) does not necessitate belief in the possibility of objective knowledge."[/quote:2z60biic] Thank you for the explanation of your terms. I agree with this statement, but I do not see the value of it. Do you see value in it? I assume you do. If so, please explain. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Arosophos, I think you have a tendency to conflate these two very different ideas, and that may be a source of some of our disagreement. I think you've turned an epistemology into a metaphysics, and that the latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former."[/quote:2z60biic] I have not suggested a metaphysics. To the contrary, I have claimed to be disinterested entirely in any metaphysics that cannot be experienced, and I have claimed to be largely ignorant of any potentially experiential metaphysics. I do not pretend to know whether there are things-in-themselves. I claim to know nothing about them, not in the sense of denying their existence, but rather in the sense of honesty. Let's take this point home, Climacus. You, here, seem to be speaking of metaphysics in the same way that so many of our fellow Mormons speak of luminous extraterrestrial humans in a star system named "Kolob". In all honesty, I don't know anything about such things, concretely speaking. Maybe there is such a place with such beings. To the extent it is there, may we discover it. To the extent it is not, may we create it. I am all for the idea. I simply do not know whether it now exists concretely. That's just plain honesty. Again, in all honesty, I don't know anything about such things as eternal objective principles as you seem to be describing them. Maybe there are such things. To the extent there are, may we discover them. To the extent they are not desirable, may we change them. I am for that, but I simply do not know whether such principles exist. That's just plain honesty. You can posit concrete Kolob or objective eternal principles. I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that I don't know, and that I do not think you know either (which I recognize you admit). Furthermore, I am telling you that knowing these things really is not the most important thing for me. Much more important to me is whether Kolob will yet be, and will yet be better, and whether we will yet discover and create wonderful principles, and yet discover and create yet more wonderful principles. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Yet love, in some sense, 'exists' in a way that is not the same as a simple listing of all the concrete manifestations of love."[/quote:2z60biic] I agree. Abstractions are real. I do not attribute to them the same ontological status as that which is both abstract and concrete, but they are real nonetheless, and they have a concrete aspect nonetheless. Without the concrete aspect, they are nothing. What is the conrete aspect? I suppose brain chemicals is a start. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Similarly, though we can never experience gravity without an object in a field, it does not follow that (abstract, monistic) gravity is not a useful or "true" concept."[/quote:2z60biic] Gravity describes a certain kind of process. So far as I am concerned, the process itself does not exist so long as it is not in process. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Neither is 'gravity' identical to the sum of all its concrete manifestations."[/quote:2z60biic] Why not? We would never have created the abstraction had we not experienced the concrete processes. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "It's not a question of persuasion here; it's a question of actually being on the right side."[/quote:2z60biic] That's what Satan thinks, too. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "And one can belief this while simultaneously not subscribing to a Pragmatist metaphysics."[/quote:2z60biic] There is no such a thing as pragmatist metaphysics. Pragmatism is a method. The extent of its relationship to metaphysics is its insistence that we judge proposed metaphysics on their practical value rather than on their credal nature. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Is [Satan] right or is he wrong [about love leading to the greater joy]? What makes him so?"[/quote:2z60biic] I don't know whether he is right or wrong, particularly from a marginal perspective. My faith is that he will ultimately be wrong. I have seen the angels of hell rejoice. I hope we have sufficient time and faith to realize the visions of the prophets and the hopes of the saints. We may not. Could Satan win the War in Heaven? I recognize the possibility. Recognizing the possibility makes me more serious in the fight. A war that cannot be lost is no war -- it is a piece of theatre, at best. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Incidentally, I'm not sure Satan believes he's right (at all levels)."[/quote:2z60biic] I agree. I think he is gambling, as I am. He thinks he can always manage to take advantage of fools and out-deceive the other liars. He may be right. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "I think he knows he's wrong (at some real level) but is too prideful to submit to the truth."[/quote:2z60biic] I think you are right to consider him arrogant, but I think you do yourself a disservice in thinking him a fool in his arrogance. He would like to be under-estimated. It serves his purposes. "I am no devil." Can you hear him now? [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "In the same vein, I'm not sure Satan's biggest weapons are ignorance or deception, except to the extent that these can be exploited by his biggest weapon -- pride."[/quote:2z60biic] Sure. It's all about him, but that's not a weapon. That's the goal. The weapons are whatever will keep him on top. The innumerable hosts of hell bow down to their Satanis Gods, and their Gods bestow yet further lies on them. That, however, is only part of the picture. What about the part of the picture where one Satanic ego is fighting against another? Arrogance versus arrogance. . . . let's get some popcorn -- this should be a good fight. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "Again, I don't claim objective knowledge here, but I think will is at least as important a category as knowledge or belief in matters of sin or conflict."[/quote:2z60biic] I agree, but will itself I do not consider evil. It is foolish will that is evil. Wise will is the origin of Gods. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "There is no such thing as uninterpreted experience, nor is there any such thing as uninterpreted desire."[/quote:2z60biic] I agree, and will add that interpretaion itself is also experienced and reinterpreted and so on, in turn. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "I agree that in an absolute sense, we must be agnostic as to the causes of our experience or the appropriateness of our desire."[/quote:2z60biic] I would prefer to say that we must be open-minded, but not apathic. We should be faithful, but not dogmatic. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "But believing (i.e. interpreting) that our experience reflects an external world, governed by eternal principles, and that we can make some sense of it through our subjective experience and desire, matters very much."[/quote:2z60biic] What is the practical value of insisting on the existence of eternal principles? I see value in seeking principles, to the extent they are desirable or changeable. I am not suggesting otherwise. I do not, however, see value in eternal principles, in themselves. If they are desirable then that's great. If they are not, and we insist that they are eternal, I see great detriment in them. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "The consequences of our interpretations are just as real as experience itself. They can inspire us to meaningful, moral action."[/quote:2z60biic] I agree. I am all for wise interpretation. May we be wise. This does not, however, necessitate eternal principles. It necessitates only principles to the extent that we need them, and the ability to change principles to the extent that we need to change them, and the ability to transcend them to the ability that we need to transcend them, and so on. I see no value in being slaves. [quote:2z60biic]Climacus: "These beliefs require no more dogmatism than your faith in Christ. You believe in Christ because it works. I agree. But I also believe in a 'real' world, and in a non-subjective foundation for good and evil, and that works just as well."[/quote:2z60biic] How does it work, though? That's what concerns me. What is that non-subjective foundation? How do we recognize it? Who recognizes it? How do we know he is right? How do we know he is not lying? What do we do with those that do not like it? In the end, I am interested in knowing whether there is at least one example of a non-subjective evil, and at least one example of a non-subjective good. [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "I was not claiming to have perfect knowledge of green legos, I was claiming to have perfect knowledge of the interaction of red and green legos without anything else involved (except me)."[/quote:2z60biic] That's a neat universe, but it is an abstraction that is different than the world presented to us by our concrete experience. In the neat universe, you are the full extent of God. Omniscience is easy, because you control all. You know it because you create it definitionally. You define "perfect knoweldge", and you declare the absolute nature and relations of red and green legos. In the world of concrete experience, you and I find ourselves largely impotent and ignorant, and certainly not with the same kind of knowledge that we imposed in the neat world, except to the extent that we abstract more neat worlds out of the world of concrete experience. [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "Finding out how green legos interact with unicorns doesn't change how green and red legos interact. Just to clarify I'm not actually claiming to have perfect knowledge of the interaction of green and red legos. [EDIT] I actually did at one point talk about having perfect knowledge of green legos, but I believe the original example I was using was about the relationship between green and red legos."[/quote:2z60biic] I will take your word for it -- that's your universe. :-) [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "Looking back on history and seeing that mormons were always a minority, what leads to believe that the majority of people in 'the here after' are involved in the mormon style community?"[/quote:2z60biic] I am confident that the majority will not be Mormons, strictly speaking, ever. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised. The community that concerns me most, although certainly associated with the term "Mormon" in a loose sense, is most associated with the word "God". This community is that to which Joseph refers as the Church of the Firstborn and the Order after the Only Begotten. This is the Kingdom of Heaven. I suppose it to be glory well beyond anything we experience in contemporary Mormon society. We will play our role, as do other religions now and yet others before, and a part of that role is preparing for that which is greater than we now are. The work and glory of God will go forward. [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "I would think that there would be more worldy people than mormon people in the here after. Seems like a big leap to try and speculate on the size of the communities of those not here on this Earth."[/quote:2z60biic] I am not speculating so much as I am willing to associate our future with divinity. [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "When you say 'Heaven' what do you mean?"[/quote:2z60biic] . . . the abstract aspect of the world that we experience through our spiritual senses. [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "You make it sound like you know (taken as a measure of your certainty) that the number of people who kept their first and second estates is larger than the number of people who didn't keep both of those estates."[/quote:2z60biic] It is not a matter of knowing history. It is a matter of feeling prophecy. Historically speaking, I don't know much about this. Mythically speaking, you would have trouble getting me to shut up about this. I am not saying that there is nothing historical about the events to which you allude. I am saying that I don't know much about their historicity, and that their historicity is not so important as their mythic aspect. [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "Arosophos, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you said somewhere that you believed that Christ would share experience our experiences exaclty like we did when he atones with us. It sounded like you were saying that he would truely know us (at that point in time) because he had an experience of our experiences that was not filtered through his subjective lenses. I can't find where you said it but I thought something like that was said. Am I thinking of the right person?"[/quote:2z60biic] You might not be thinking of the right person. That aside, I do think Christ will know us, and that we will know Christ as we are known. I do NOT think, however, that this knowing has anything to do with stripping away subjectivity. To the contrary -- way to the contrary -- I think this knowing has everything to do with embracing the subjectivity, in sweat, tears and blood. [quote:2z60biic]Cheapcontact: "I'd just like to say that climacus is much better at this than I am and I'm very pleased that he has joined in on the pragatism threads."[/quote:2z60biic] I am glad Climacus is here. I missed him.
298	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/7/2004 7:38:00	[quote:36vlx11g]Cheapcontact: "I just read you "Dimensions of Desire" paper, that was a good read. I think I understand you fairly well now . . ."[/quote:36vlx11g] Thanks for investing the time in reading the paper. [quote:36vlx11g]Cheapcontact: "Though I didn't expect you to equate a person in your dreams to a spirit."[/quote:36vlx11g] . . . and it only gets more bizarre. ;-) [quote:36vlx11g]Cheapcontact: "I disagree. I prefer to not be alone, the same way I prefer the company of my wife to your company, it's not because I fear you."[/quote:36vlx11g] Is your experience of your wife sufficient? Are you afraid that it is not sufficient, that your real wife is somewhere beyond experience, and that the experience is somehow only an approximation of reality? Why not embrace the experience as fully real? I am not suggesting that you assume it to be final or complete. I am suggesting only that you consider the experience to be as real as anything gets, regardless of metaphysics. Neither of us think she is the product of a Matrix Architect, but even if she is, you love her as much -- and roses smell as sweet -- and our God is as divine. Bring on all the evil demons from all eternity! We can take them, so long as our God is with us! [quote:36vlx11g]Cheapcontact: "I agree that if Rand was really saying that there are things that no one can perceive then it's not a useful statement. I don't know if that's what she meant by the statement though."[/quote:36vlx11g] I guess I am feeling like I've gotten over my rant on Rand anyway. :-)
299	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/7/2004 7:43:00	. . . a couple statements worth consideration as you think about the relationship between spirits and dreams: [quote:hd6wtvri]"And it came to pass that while my father tarried in the wilderness he spake unto us, saying: Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision." (1 Nephi 8: 2)[/quote:hd6wtvri] [quote:hd6wtvri]"All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our bodies." (Joseph Smith, TPJS 304)[/quote:hd6wtvri]
300	The Font of Knowledge	Searching for Pragmatists	5/9/2004 0:19:00	Here is more on the possibility of Matrix Architects and Evil Demons: [url=http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html:1414vrn7]Computer Simulation Argument[/url:1414vrn7] Regardless of the context, joy is still joy.
301	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/9/2004 22:06:00	[quote:2ik418pi]Climacus: "I think our essential disagreement is whether or not their is any non-subjective ground for 'the good'. You argue that such a thing may or may not exist, but that it is irrelevant."[/quote:2ik418pi] It is about things-in-themselves that exist independent of all subjectivity and are non-experiential that I argue irrelevance. This is an ontological matter, and I think experience is that which is ultimately real. All other ontological proposals should require justification in experience. Concerning ethics (the good), my argument is that it cannot exist whatsoever independent of subjectivity. I do assert that it can transcend subjectivity when it becomes communal subjectivity: objectivity. However, this transcendence is complementary to -- not exclusive of -- the subjectivity. It is founded in the subjectivity. It is not independent of the subjectivity. It would not be right to call it non-subjective. To summarize, I do not think non-subjective grounds for ethics are irrelevant; rather, I think they are impossible -- a contradiction in terms. [quote:2ik418pi]Climacus: "I argue that much experience provides evidence of one simple law that can be (inexactly) stated thus: individual fullness of joy cannot be attained without the desire to bring joy to all others."[/quote:2ik418pi] Concretely speaking, I don't think individual fullness of joy can be attained at all. I think it is an eternal pursuit, always allowing for progress. Fullness of joy is an ideal, and it is precisely our inability to fully attain it in any final way that makes it worthy of eternal effort. Abstractly speaking, I agree that the ideal of fullness of joy cannot be attained without the desire to bring joy to all others through love. Because we affect each other, only omnipresent joy would be sufficient to satisfy the definition of "fullness of joy". Here is the complication: Satan recognizes all of this, but he is willing to gamble that he will experience more marginal joy by not caring for others than he will if he chooses to care for others. He is not stupid enough to think that fullness of joy is possible in his plan. He is smart enough to recognize that fullness of joy is never fully attained by Christ's plan, and therefore he may be better off pursuing his interests in spite others. It frees him from the work of atonement -- that's the benefit of his plan. I understand the appeal of his plan. The work of atonement, to the extent that I have felt it, is usually tiring and frequently frightening. I often encounter that which I perceive as my limits and shrink from my duty as a disciple of Christ. I don't know how far I can or will go. Choices in time will tell. I think we do ourselves a great disservice -- profoundly dangerous -- when we underestimate Satan. [quote:2ik418pi]Climacus: "Though we can never know for sure if this is the case, the evidence strongly supports the hypothesis."[/quote:2ik418pi] Christ agrees. Satan does not. That is why we war. [quote:2ik418pi]Climacus: "This law also explains why Satan's plan (for example) is fundamentally flawed -- it promises joy without love, which the nature of intelligence ('the stuff of which dreams are made') makes impossible."[/quote:2ik418pi] It promises marginal joy without love. It promises rest from atonement. It allows for apathy, while indulging hatred and fear. This reminds me of an acquaintance who sincerely hoped the ideal of immortality for all to be unachievable. He desired to be finished with the work of life subsequent to his death. He even spoke of desiring spiritual death. When these are your desires, what is the power of love? Love only has power to the extent that it can find place in a person's heart. Ultimately, for those who disappear into spiritual death, there is no place in them for love -- for anything, because they are not. [quote:2ik418pi]Climacus: "This belief is relevant to Christ's followers because it provides evidence (not absolute proof) that they are objectively on the right side of their conflict, which in turn provides them with moral motivation."[/quote:2ik418pi] I don't think the greater motivation comes from knowing without doubt that we will win the battle. The greater motivation comes from believing in our cause, having assurance that we can further it, yet knowing that if we are not diligent that we can really lose. A war that cannot be lost is not a war. It is, at best, a piece of theatre -- a thing of amusement for the Gods. We fight most mightily when we know nothing less than might may be sufficient for the victory.
302	The Font of Knowledge	Survivor	5/12/2004 6:00:00	There is a game, and there is a metagame. Where there is a game and a metagame, there is a meta-metagame. That game that encompasses all games is, so to speak, the True and Living Game. We should not allow ourselves to forget context. When I am playing Monopoly, there is no rule in the game that says I cannot kill my opponent; however, in the metagame, there is certainly a rule that says I cannot kill my opponent. We cannot escape playing the True and Living Game.
303	The Font of Knowledge	pan(en)theism	5/12/2004 6:30:00	Pantheists tend to believe in an impersonal God equated with the world, whereas Panentheists tend to believe in a personal God of which the world is an aspect, as are humans individually and communally. Panentheism need have nothing to do with positing that which is beyond that which is -- a contradiction in terms. More personally, panentheism is a way of bringing myself into an emotional -- loving -- relationship with the world. The perspective moves me to care more for that which is beyond humanity without placing my care for humanity aside. This is related to the idea that we should seek balance between the abstract and the concrete, between the imminant and the transcendant, between the individual, communal, anatomical and environmental aspects of the world.
304	The Font of Knowledge	How worthy is worthy?	5/12/2004 6:47:00	[quote:16htb3x5]Greenfrog: "In a religion where we accept that none of us can return to God without the sacrifice of an innocent on our behalf, what does it mean to be worthy of anything?"[/quote:16htb3x5] Only one is good. We should become that one innocent. To the extent we do, we are worthy. We are all worthy to some extent, as we are all sinners to some extent. The paradox propels us forward in moral progress, as friction propels the body forward through space. [quote:16htb3x5]Greenfrog: "We teach that we all fall short of the glory of God."[/quote:16htb3x5] . . . and we teach that we all should take upon us the name of Christ and be santified to perfection in that name. [quote:16htb3x5]Greenfrog: "So what is the significance of attaining some measure short of the glory of God?"[/quote:16htb3x5] What is the significance of each step of life, each breath? We will ourselves toward that better world, and in it we attain some measure of the glory of God, yet always we see the heaven of heavens before us and we know that not even that can contain our God. [quote:16htb3x5]Greenfrog: "Why are we measuring such things in determining how to construct a community?"[/quote:16htb3x5] Practical consequences -- not running faster than we have strength, yet being diligent so as to win the prize. We are not indiscriminate; we judge righteously. We are not monists; we allow for organization and reorganization that sometimes separates and sometimes attracts. We know there is joy in the presence of our God for some; we know there is misery for others. [quote:16htb3x5]Greenfrog: "What does it mean to be 'worthy' to hold a particular calling?"[/quote:16htb3x5] It means we are not apathetic toward the practical consequences of putting a particular person in a particular calling. [quote:16htb3x5]Greenfrog: "Is there any sin that we should so condemn as to refuse communion with a person who commits it? If so, why?"[/quote:16htb3x5] . . . oppression, not so much because we should refuse communion, but because it is not possible, by definition. [quote:16htb3x5]Greenfrog: "I don't have answers to these questions, but I suspect that we are inappropriately focused on other people's sins (beams/motes) and our perceptions of our own righteousness . . ."[/quote:16htb3x5] I suspect the same -- but without the slippery slope you are implicitly advocating.
305	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/12/2004 7:54:00	[quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "And I think experience justifies faith in the existence of at least one persistent causal relationship (love --> joy) which is not itself a function of concrete experience."[/quote:cfojscn9] Experience also justifies faith in the idea that hate brings a certain joy. The question is whether the limits of oppression will outweigh the sacrifices of freedom. Will we risk a limited joy so as to avoid those sacrifices, or will we make the sacrifices on the way to transcending those limits? Which will bring more marginal joy, given an eternity in which sacrifices will always be required? Arosophos, previously: "To summarize, I do not think non-subjective grounds for ethics are irrelevant; rather, I think they are impossible -- a contradiction in terms." [quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "What I am saying, however, is that the thing that is experienced (the proposed law) is not necessarily dependent on subjectivity."[/quote:cfojscn9] You are saying that ethical laws can exist independent of subjectivity. I am saying that is meaningless. I see ethics as being founded in subjectivity -- in desires. In a world of one subject-being, that subject-being's desires are exhaustively definitional of good and evil. The same is true of our world at an infinitely more complex magnitude. To say that ethics are founded on that which is independent of desires requires redefining ethics beyond anything I recognize as ethics. Can you change my mind? Do you have a definition of ethics that allows for ethics to be founded independent of subjecitivity? [quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "We may be subjectively experiencing (epistemology) a reality that the data support as objective law (ontology)."[/quote:cfojscn9] We are going to need to be careful with our words, here. "Objectivity", for me, seems not to be the same as "objectivity", for you. For you, it seems to mean things-in-themselves. For me, it means communal experience. Given my definition, I agree with the statement you make above, but I do not necessitate in my mind that the objective law be associated with things-in-themselves. [quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "This section is a prime example of where I see you conflating epistemology and ontology . . . I see you arguing from subjective epistemic uncertainty to fundamental ontological relativism, and I don't think your conclusion follows."[/quote:cfojscn9] My ethics argument is not related to epistemic uncertainty. I am not saying we are uncertain about ethics in the same way I am saying we know nothing about whether there be things-in-themselves. To the contrary, I am saying we know everything about ethics because we do not need to rely on things-in-themselves to know our experience and desires. Furthermore, I am not arguing for ontological relativism. To the contrary, I am arguing for faith in objectivity -- but not the kind of objectivity advocated by big-"O" Objectivists. I believe in common experience. I think it is valuable. That is objectivity. I recognize no need to appeal to things-in-themselves. Our common experience is sufficient; more: it is better than any appeal to things-in-themselves, because we can talk about our common experience whereas we can say nothing (except contradictions) about things-in-themselves. Arosophos, previously: "Concretely speaking, I don't think individual fullness of joy can be attained at all. I think it is an eternal pursuit, always allowing for progress." [quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "Philosophically, this appeals to me, though I'm not sure the scriptures support it. I'm in a bit of a rush, but I'm pretty sure Christ says, 'My joy is full' in 3 Nephi."[/quote:cfojscn9] I will argue that the scriptures sometimes equivocate on this, as they do in so many things. There is fullness and then there is FULLNESS. On the one hand, concretely, we experience great joy. On the other hand, abstractly, we recognize the ideal of fulfilling joy ever more profoundly through the infinite inter-relations in the world. We can talk about both relatively full joys and ideally full joys. I do not expect the scriptures to be consistent. I do expect the scriptures to inspire me with a Spirit that points my mind in the direction of Eternal Life. [quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "I think your analysis of Satan's motivation is pretty accurate."[/quote:cfojscn9] . . . and that should frighten both of us. What are we missing? Surely he has a trick good enough for us, too! [quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "Christ agrees that the love --> joy law is objectively true? If you meant that, then we're seeing eye to eye. But I doubt you meant that..."[/quote:cfojscn9] I did mean that, but you should understand me to be coming from my understanding of "objective", which has everything to do with subjectivity -- communal subjectivity. [quote:cfojscn9]Climacus: "I didn't say the motivation came from the certainty of victory, but instead because of the belief in the objective rightness of our cause . . . But the thought that we are really, truly, objectively on the side of the good is a stronger motivation than the 'red team vs. blue team' approach you seem to be taking. I know you probably don't agree with that characterization, but without some kind of universal standard, how could one side in the war be labeled either good or evil, except as synonyms for 'our team' and 'the other team'?"[/quote:cfojscn9] Satan turns it all around, calling good "evil" and evil "good" and then convinces us that he is objectively (in the things-in-themselves sense) right about it. He does this so well that we -- all the world -- worship him. We fall upon our faces before the God that convinces us of a thing-in-itself kind of ethics, which is simply a lie to front the hedonistic exaltation of his own desires. He asks us to damn ourselves, and we comply, professing his creeds and rejoicing as he laughs and shakes our chains. The objective rightness of our cause depends entirely on amassing communal experience around our cause. That is the kind of objectivity I care about. No other kind of objectivity matters to me, because I and we do not matter to any other kind of objectivity. Goodness defined outside the context of our atoned desires is only oppression and slavery to the dark God. The only goodness that I care about is the goodness that will account for me in the great atonement. . . . but Satan comes and asks me to dance with him yet a while longer. I can give you this world, he whispers in my ear, as we turn. Worship me. Just worship me. Turning faster, he promises that I need do nothing else. Do not think of atonement. There is no need to suffer. The turning becomes whirling, as we rise into the air. Give me your will, your power and your glory, and I will save you.
306	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/12/2004 7:57:00	[quote:3ee45bbf]Climacus: "I don't know who you're arguing against here, but it's not me."[/quote:3ee45bbf] I'm not writing only to you -- even when I am answering your questions. We have each other's email address for that. You know what I mean. :-)
307	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/13/2004 6:44:00	Arosophos, previously: "You are saying that ethical laws can exist independent of subjectivity. I am saying that is meaningless." [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "Let me rephrase using an analogy: 'You are saying that gravity can exist independently of an object with mass. I am saying that is meaningless.' I think you're going too far here. The phenomenon we call gravity is best described as a field that is always 'there,' but only acts upon objects possessing a certain property -- mass. In the same vein, I would say that 'ethical law' is best described as a field that is always there, but only acts upon objects possessing a certain property -- self-consciousness. Gravity is utterly, completely undetectable without the presence of an object with mass. The 'ethical law' is utterly, completely undetectable without the presence of a self-conscious being. But undetectability is not the same as non-existence."[/quote:1zss0p9b] . . . apples and oranges, as we say. Ethics is entirely founded in desires, so far as I am concerned; and desires are entirely founded in subjectivity. You are trying to tell me that there are right things to desire. I am trying to tell you that only the desirability of the desires can make them right to desire. You are appealing to something inherently desirable. I am unable to imagine anything that is inherently desirable except joy itself. This is a matter of definition -- and only a matter of transcendent ethical law to the extent that transcendent ethical laws are definitions. In the world of concrete experience, is there anything inherently desirable? Can you think of anything? Even one thing? No -- whatever you are thinking of is an abstraction, with all the complexity of concrete experience removed. Perhaps you would appeal to love as inherently desirable? Obviously love is not inherently desirable. Satan does not desire it -- or only desires to receive it, but desiring the receiving of it is definitionally the same as desiring joy. Whereas ethics is entirely founded in desires, I suspect that gravity is not. Much in my experience that does not seem to be capable of desire is quite capable of gravity. Much that seems relatively non-subjective, seems full of gravity. Ethics has no sway over my interaction with the concrete aspects of my experience, except to the extent that those aspects affect the abstract aspects of my experience: the individuals and communities that can be affected by my relationship with the physical world. Unlike gravity, ethics is not about interfacing between the spiritual and physical worlds. Ethics is about interacting within the spiritual world. Besides the point concerning ethics, in the end of your statement you make some Platonic arguments about laws and ideals existing independent of particulars. I disagree with such arguments on practical grounds, as I disagree with the opposite arguments on practical grounds. As we interface between the spiritual and physical worlds, I see negative consequences of considering one to exist without the other, or even thinking one to be slightly more real or important than the other. A balance will keep us from becoming relativists, escapists, determinisits or nihilists -- all of which demonstrate a lack of balance in one direction or the other. Again, however, this doesn't relate directly to ethics. Ethics is not primarily about interfacing between the spiritual and physical world -- it is about that only to the extent that our spiritual interactions take into consideration desired states in the physical world. Ethics is primarily about interacting within the spiritual world. Okay. That said, show me a spiritual law that is independent of subjectivity in its foundations and I may change my mind. So far you have appealed only to love. That is, in my opinion, precisely the example of ethics being founded in subjectivity. Love can be founded nowhere else without being other than we consider it to be. Do you have a different explanation for love? Do you have another subjectivity-independent example? [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "The role of (communal) experience is to generate and test hypotheses about the way the universe works, not to establish how it works."[/quote:1zss0p9b] I think it is both -- communal experience is about both creating and discovering truth. I would also point out that how-the-universe-works may have nothing whatsoever to do with things-in-themselves. We know, however, that how-the-universe-works has everything to do with experience. Surely there are yet more practical interpretations of the experience, and surely there is yet new experience to be discovered and created, but how-the-universe-works remains having everything to do with experience, and we will never know about any things-in-themselves independent of experience. That said, this is indirectly related to ethics. Ethics is not directly about how the physical works. Ethics is about how we want the physical world to work -- how it should work relative to the entire world community. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "I hate to sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but I am convinced you're conflating the very different concepts of direct intelligibility (epistemology) and existence (ontology)."[/quote:1zss0p9b] No, I am not conflating. I am saying something about the nature of ontology: ontology IS epistemology to the extent that the world is spiritual (as with ethics). In the spiritual aspect of the world, that which is known exists to a greater magnitude and is more real than that which is not known. Truth is created. Of course, to the extent that the world is physical, ontology is not epistemology. Truth is discovered, but only to the extent that it can enter into epistemology. My argument here is not that there are no things-in-themselves. My argument is that ethics has nothing to do with things-in-themselves. We create ethical truths, according to our desires. Of course, our desires are not entirely of spiritual origin. We desire air and water, food and rest, sex, etc. Much of what we desire is founded in the physical end of the world's spectrum. Whether we have these desires is not ethics. Whether and how we should pursue and attain these desires is ethics. We, as a community, form laws as a means of justifying certain manners of pursuing and attaining our desires. The laws themselves, however, are still analogous to desires, but at a communal magnitude. We should not confuse these laws with physical laws manifest by the aspect of the world that demonstrates to a lesser magnitude the ability to will and choose. Although subatomic particles may be making subatomic choices, at a gross magnitude they demonstrate extraordinary predictability. We, too, make choices; however, in very large groups, we, too, may demonstrate extraordinary predictability. We experience all of this. We call that which is closer to us "desire" and "choice" and that which is farther from us "law" and "chance". [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "There are at least two ways for Satan to be wrong here, only one of which you consider. He could, as you say, be wrong in that there are no things-in-themselves."[/quote:1zss0p9b] There may be things-in-themselves. My argument is not, generally speaking, that there are no things-in-themselves. My argument is that ethics is not about things-in-themselves. It is about creating according to our desires. To make ethics into a thing-in-itself is to redefine it into damnation. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "But he could equally be wrong in that what he calls evil is actually good-in-itself and what he calls good is actually evil-in-itself."[/quote:1zss0p9b] That is the game that the fundamentalists and orthodox play with each other, each worshipping a different manifestation of the dark God, arguing over who is right about goods- and evils-in-themselves, neither understanding, really understanding, that through the atonement of Christ we may all be saved. What is good-in-itself? Good is ultimately meaningless outside the context of desire. The same is true of evil. Sure, we can appeal to objectivity, but we must understand the appeal to be to communal experience of law that is analogous to desire at the individual magnitude. Communal experience is also of the physical world, in which we discover a different kind of law. This other kind of law, however, is ultimately less important to us than the ethical law. In the end, the better world is all about making God's will done not only in heaven (the ethical law), but also on earth. The physical laws discovered describe how experience IS. The spiritual laws created describe how experience SHOULD BE. If we describe truth as spiritual law and reality as physical law, truth BECOMES reality as we create it. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "I think you're trying to tie together Satan and things-in-themselves, which may be an effective rhetorical strategy, but it doesn't shed any light on our debate."[/quote:1zss0p9b] It should. If we make ethics about goods- and evils-in-themselves, we are making ethics about oppression. You are telling me, Climacus, that regardless of what ALL the eternal worlds want, there are goods- and evils-in-themselves that remain so. Moreover, by labeling this "ethics" rather than "ontology", you are telling me that this is the way things SHOULD be: if the good IS utterly contrary to all of eternal desire, it SHOULD BE so. I can think of no more depressing thought than this. Such a world is a world to escape. I cannot care for it. I care only for worlds that care for us. I am not talking about how the world IS. I am talking about how it SHOULD BE, and I am talking about doing everything we can through all of eternity to make how it IS into how it SHOULD BE, according to our desires. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "Essentially, you're arguing here with your conclusion as a premise."[/quote:1zss0p9b] Hmm . . . I don't see it. Help me out. It may be that I am simply saying: this is the way I experience it. I may be proposing no argument whatsoever, but I am not exactly sure to what you are referring. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "This is another device you use all the time. You're conflating a belief in laws-in-themselves with a belief in fixed decriptions of those laws (i.e. "creeds"). Our ideas about law-in-itself should be continually changing and improving as more and better data come in."[/quote:1zss0p9b] Isn't insistence on law-in-itself a creed in itself? That aside, am I insisting on the rejection of law-in-itself? Is that, too, a creed? I am saying that speaking of law-in-itself independent of subjectivity does not mean anything to me -- much like it does not mean anything to me if someone were to write: "this sentence is not true". I am saying that I understand law to be to communities as desire is to individuals. That makes sense to me. I know what I am talking about. I feel it. I have confidence in it. When I start talking about laws-in-themselves that are independent of subjectivity, I perceive a contradiction in terms. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "People used to believe that heavier objects fell faster, or that being on the ground was the "natural state" of physical objects. Those beliefs didn't change the operation of gravity. Similarly, our ideas about natural law can progress without the laws themselves changing. A belief in objective truth is not a sufficient cause for damnation, though a belief in objective knowledge of that truth certainly may be."[/quote:1zss0p9b] To repeat, I believe in objective truth. I simply do not believe it to be independent of subjectivity. Consider the practical ramifications. If I choose to believe as you write above, I would never consider the possibility that I can CHANGE, CREATE or RECREATE the truth of which you write. Maybe I can change gravity? Maybe I can get rid of it? Maybe I can redefine or reorganize it? Not to consider the possibilities is damnation. I am not arguing that we do not have communal experience of gravity. I am arguing that to interpret that experience as having something to do with an unchangeable law-in-itself is impractical. Desires can be changed. Laws can be changed. Each can be changed according to greater desires and laws -- forever, perhaps, so far as I can tell. There need be no final, best or superior desire or law. There need be no laws in themselves. We experience. According to our desires, we label the experience "good" and "evil". We seek to create and recreate experience toward the good, never allowing ourselves to believe that something might forever prevent us from taking another step toward how things SHOULD BE. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "Why does communal experience happen?"[/quote:1zss0p9b] It does -- that is sufficient. I am. I desire. I will. I choose. This is a starting point, not a landing point. This is posited, not proven. Why it happens may be Evil Demons or Matrix Architects. Why they happen may be more of the same. Even if we learn of or assume one level, an infinite regression of possibilities remain. Regardless, experience happens -- that is sufficient. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "Why is experience not random? Why do I get similar results every time I drop a ball? Why do I get similar results (over time) every time I make prayer and scripture study a part of my life? Why do I get similar results (over time) every time I try to love and serve others? What underlies these common experiences?"[/quote:1zss0p9b] Collective will? Things-in-themselves? Evil Demons? Matrix Architects? . . . and, most certainly, YOU. To the extent I am different, my experience will be different. As it turns out, we seem to have much in common? Why? Collective will? Things-in-themselves? Evil Demons? Matrix Architects? . . . Regardless, we can make the world a better place, according to our desires. [quote:1zss0p9b]Climacus: "It is these persistent causal relationships that I am referring to as 'objective laws.' Our knowledge of them is based on communal experience, but that communal experience does not explain why they happen. That is what your account is missing."[/quote:1zss0p9b] No. That is what my account says is utterly unimportant, to the extent that the laws are independent of subjectivity. That is what my account says is utterly unknowable from any infallible law-in-itself perspective. That is what my account says is impractical to the extent that the laws-in-themselves are considered unchangeable. That is what my account says is meaningless in contradiction to the extent that the laws-in-themselves are related to ethics. We can be good disciples of Uniformity Theory without any appeal to laws-in-themselves, and without subjugating our desires to them in damnation. The abstract notions of probability and possibility are sufficient -- a more accurate explanation of our experience, and far less damning. Essentially, odds are that we will eventually beat the odds.
308	The Font of Knowledge	old vs new	5/15/2004 8:04:00	[quote:2x7byrak]Greenfrog: "I think that reciting second-hand the epiphanies of others makes us more comfortable in not seeking epiphany ourselves."[/quote:2x7byrak] I feel like this is accurate, but there is some practical value: epiphany can be frightening -- or, speaking for myself, epiphany has frightened me. So often, and in some senses perpetually, I have stopped myself short of the anticipated epiphany, the encounter with the angel or the demon, in fear . . . so I medicate myself from the fear with the words of those who have already experienced the encounter. When I am done, I pass the medication around.
309	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/15/2004 8:14:00	Thank you for the engaging discussion, Climacus. I will respond soon.
310	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	5/28/2004 4:20:00	Sorry -- I'm almost there. You know how it goes. :-)
311	The Font of Knowledge	Survivor	6/4/2004 4:48:00	[quote:3svbedmv]Greenfrog: "In life, don't I get to choose the rules of the game that I choose to live by?"[/quote:3svbedmv] Only to the extent that you are powerful. [quote:3svbedmv]Greenfrog: "And I get to choose the objective, too?"[/quote:3svbedmv] . . . the subjective objective? Yes . . . the objective objective? Not alone. [quote:3svbedmv]Greenfrog: "That's what agency is all about, right?"[/quote:3svbedmv] Agency is not about unlimited freedom, but rather about limited and increasing freedom, according to our desires and choices. [quote:3svbedmv]Greenfrog: "So how is Survivor different than real life?"[/quote:3svbedmv] It is real life, but not the fullness of real life. It should be considered within its appropriate context. [quote:3svbedmv]Greenfrog: "And can I justify a different ethos in the Survivor game than in life?"[/quote:3svbedmv] Each context presents us with some extent of justification for a varying ethos. However, no context I can think of off-hand seems to present us with justification for an altogether different ethos.
312	The Font of Knowledge	pan(en)theism	6/4/2004 4:52:00	Try his essay titled "Existentialism and Humanism".
313	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/4/2004 6:18:00	[quote:300768lf]Climacus: "I am arguing that we have good evidence that certain concrete things -- which can be organized meaningfully into cognitive abstractions -- inherently lead to joy."[/quote:300768lf] "Inherently"? . . . or "generally"? Can you think of any exceptions? Can you imagine exceptions? What are the practical consequences of allowing yourself to imagine the possibility of exceptions? [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "Inasmuch as happiness is 'the object and design of our existence,' these things are good."[/quote:300768lf] Sure: that which we desire, in broadest terms, is happiness, which is, in broadest terms, that which is good. The question remains: are these things inherent or generalizations? If not inherent, which seems to be the case according to my observation, then why general? Why no more nor less general than that which we observe? [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "It is because we believe that these inherent relationships between [whatever] and joy are not founded in our individual subjectivity that we feel comfortable doing missionary work (i.e. presenting testable hypotheses to others)."[/quote:300768lf] I feel comfortable doing missionary work because I am confident that I can both create and discover much in common with others -- regardless of the possibility of inherently joy-producing actions. More: I feel comfortable doing missionary work because it is not just about embracing commonalities, but also about atoning for differences. Sometimes atonement changes me. Sometimes atonement changes him. Most of the time it changes us both. Given how much I have changed in my life, I can justify my missionary efforts only from the perspective of eternal atonement -- the quest for eternal life, to know and become God. To some extent, I know God through discovery, and, to some extent, I know God through creation. To the extent that we discover our knowledge of God, it is objective -- not objective in the sense of being independent of subjectivity, but objective in the sense of being that at the communal magnitude which is analogous to subjectivity. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "My point was (and is) to demonstrate that something seems to organize the relationship between cause and effect that is not reducible to the particular content of concrete experience. Plato believed that the forms existed substantially in their own realm. I don't necessarily believe that. I make no claims about where these laws are 'written down.' They could exist independently in a numinous realm, or they could simply be the result of certain properties of intelligence."[/quote:300768lf] You should check out Kant -- or perhaps a commentary on Kant because Kant is annoying to read. He argues, somewhat like you have here, that something (he calls it "categories", if I remember right) organizes our raw sensory perception into meaningful experience. What are categories? Objectivity independent of subjectivity -- or objectivity that IS subjectivity? . . . or our description of how we perceive the mind of God to work? [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "To take an example, in Alma 27:18, Mormon tells us that "exceeding joy... is joy which none receiveth save it be the truly penitent and humble seeker of happiness." So humility is necessary for obtaining a certain level of joy. This could be because there is some kind of law written in the ideal realm, but it could also reflect the structure of all concrete instances of 'intelligence.'"[/quote:300768lf] . . . and it could also be the will of God. What are the practical consequences of believing one way or the other? I see detriments to believing too far in either direction. If we believe ourselves to be in a world of immutable laws, we do not seek to change those that damn us. If we believe ourselves to be in a world of whimsical chaos, we do not hope to organize them toward our exaltation. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "That is, just because of the way intelligence works, because of certain properties it has, is just turns out that humility is a prerequisite for "exceeding joy." So effectively this is a "natural law" that is not grounded outside the structure of any individual consciousness and yet affects them all. Law does not have to exist independent of “particulars” -- only independent of variations in any particular particular."[/quote:300768lf] . . . which is the same as saying that laws are generalizations at a communal magnitude analogous to desire at the individual magnitude. We can generalize, even with a great degree of structure as illustrated by statistics, without the necessity of perfect adherence at the magnitude of particulars. Arosophos, previously: "Show me a spiritual law that is independent of subjectivity in its foundations and I may change my mind." [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "Perhaps the humility/joy connection qualifies? It’s 'law' status may derive from the inherent structure of subjectivity, but the law itself is not dependent on the particular content of any individual (or collective) subjectivity. Call it 'human nature'. I realize that this is getting away from things-in-themselves but I’m not particularly attached to that anyway."[/quote:300768lf] Does humility always lead to joy? That aside, is anything at all that is anything at all independent of subjectivity? What is there independent of subjectivity? Is the question even meaningful? It is as contradictory and meaningless as the sentence: this sentence is not true. Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound when nobody is there to hear it? It depends on how we define sound, but if there is no "we" then there is no definition, and there is no meaning to the question whatsoever. We are left with words, and soon recognize them to be altogether hollow. Only spiritual death will be found if we look for that which is independent of subjectivity -- but, of course, "found" has no meaning in that context. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "What I am attached to is our inability to alter certain cause-effect relationships regardless of our desires."[/quote:300768lf] Maybe that's an accurate description of reality, but I pray God will forever inspire me to believe that there is some way to change every cause-effect relationship for the better, according to our desires. I see no reason to bother continnuing to live in a world that we know we cannot change -- more: I see no meaning to "live" in such a context. I see all kinds of reason to believe that we can, with enough time and effort, change all things for the better. That's the power of God. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "What I am attached to is the idea that Satan's plan is wrong (period) because it cannot produce enduring joy."[/quote:300768lf] If there is an infinite supply of persons over whom Satan may take short-term advantage, and if there is an infinite supply of persons for whom Christ must suffer short-term misery, perhaps the marginal joy of evil will prove more persuasive than the marginal joy of good for some of us. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "It can produce it only "for a season" (3 Ne. 27:11)."[/quote:300768lf] Agreed . . . but for how many successive seasons in worlds without end? [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "Even if the entire 'host of heaven' -- Elohim and Jehovah included -- had followed Lucifer, his plan would still be wrong because it won't work."[/quote:300768lf] Maybe you're right. I fear you may be wrong, and that's why I care to fight against him. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "That is what I mean by truth independent of desire -- our desires, though perhaps the foundation of truth, cannot determine that which will bring their fulfillment. That is, we can choose our actions, but not their consequences."[/quote:300768lf] I agree that to some extent this will always be true, but the extent will always be decreasing. That is my faith. You are a scientist. You see us adjusting the consequences of our actions constantly. I do not anticipate that this will change. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "Will you give me one specific example of a truth that can be discovered and one specific example of a truth that can be created?"[/quote:300768lf] I can discover your choices. I can create my choices. We can discover the world to the extent that we do not have power in it. We can create the world to the extent that we do have power in it. Arosophos, previously: "No, I am not conflating. I am saying something about the nature of ontology: ontology IS epistemology to the extent that the world is spiritual (as with ethics). In the spiritual aspect of the world, that which is known exists to a greater magnitude and is more real than that which is not known. Truth is created." [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "Given your argument here, it seems that, to the extent that that which is not known exists (in the non-physical realm), you are conflating. In my field (sociology) we have found many existing non-physical things that were previously unknown. For example, research has found that employers are significantly more likely to hire those like themselves (in gender, race, class) even when all other qualifications are equal and the employer is not consciously prejudiced. That didn’t become true when we discovered it. There are many (hundreds) of examples of non-physical things that were discovered working without anyone's knowledge. Our non-physical lives are continually shaped by factors outside of our knowledge."[/quote:300768lf] In general terms, I consider such things to be physical -- the result of our anatomy. We are, so to speak, wired to act and think in certain ways. To the extent that we become familiar with the wiring, to the extent that we know it, to the extent that we have truth, we become free to change it if we desire (according to yet undiscovered wiring). I also do not recognize a strict dichotomy between physical and spiritual aspects of our existence. I posit, as Joseph taught, that all spirit is matter -- all spiritual is physical, although the magnitude of the physical aspect may approach an infinitely decreased magnitude. Please do not confuse any of this with faith in things-in-themselves. Recognizing a concrete world does not require assuming that world to be founded in things in themselves -- it could be founded in any of the various ideas I have proposed. Furthermore, recognizing a concrete world does not require positing the supposed foundations of that world to have the greatest ontological status. To the contrary, I attribute the greatest ontological status to experience. Our experience, past, present and future, IS the concrete world. I am not suggesting that we should stop studying the concrete world and merely wish it to be as we desire it. To the contrary, regardless of its supposed foundations, we should study it, ever more thouroughly, so as to become ever more free in it. Whether we are in the mind of God, the illusion of a Demon, or the matric of the Architect, we can learn of our context, consider ways of transcending that context, test them, attain them, and exalt ourselves eternally -- maybe someday becoming Gods, Demons and Architects ourselves, if we are not so already. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "I am saying that there are certain things that are inherently tied to joy, irrespective of desire. That is, if we want to go from point A (less joy) to point B (more joy), we have to pass through certain other points whether we want to or not -- whether the whole universe wants it or not."[/quote:300768lf] This doesn't mean anything to me. Joy is, so far as I am concerned, the fulfillment of desire. We can make short-term sacrifices for long-term joy, but we sacrifice only because we desire to do so -- or because we are forced to do so, in which case it is not a sacrifice. In any case, desire remains the drive behind our choices. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "I have suggested the English words humility and love as approximate indicators of some of these points."[/quote:300768lf] As I understand these words, humility is an aspect of love, which is, in turn, the desire to fulfill others' desires. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "I'm saying that the data strongly support the existence of certain laws."[/quote:300768lf] Data supports the existence of laws? Or do laws support the existence of data? Aristotle or Plato? I choose both. The one is meaningless without the other. The one does not exist without the other. The one is a manifestation of the other. Both are views of the same thing, from different perspectives. Maybe "thing" is the wrong word. How about "process"? [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "No one is suggesting not considering the possibilities. Again, I'm simply suggesting drawing the best possible conclusions from the data, and that some of these conclusions point to the operation of laws."[/quote:300768lf] You have suggested several times that there are laws we cannot change. This is a matter of faith. You cannot prove it to be the case, as I cannot prove it not to be the case. I can, however, say that I think we should believe all laws can be improved, within the context of ever greater laws -- processes within processes, worlds without end. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "If desires can change, and there are no inherent connections between actions and outcomes, what ground is there for saying anything should be any particular way? Why not just work on changing our desires so that we want what we have, right this minute."[/quote:300768lf] I am not suggesting that there is no cause-and-effect. I am suggesting that it need not (should not) be considered unchangeable. However, if all is changeable, why should anything be any particular way? Maybe there are infinite ways we will decide to try? I hope only that we will find ever greater joy in them. Why not desire only what we have this minute? That is the path to spiritual death. We have, right this minute, pain and misery. To desire them is to become a contradiction, and to slip away into the darkness. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "That's the Buddhist way, as I understand it. Why are you trying to change the world instead of changing your desires? Wouldn't the latter be simpler and impose less on others?"[/quote:300768lf] As you might guess, I have issues with some understandings of Buddhism. Impose less on others? Sure, and that's exactly what Satan wants if you won't worship him. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "You're right -- we can't know with any certainty the mechanisms that underlie experience. What we can undestand, however, are the connections that work given the logic of our world, whatever its ground."[/quote:300768lf] I agree. This is science -- knowledge and truth. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "That is (for example), we can understand that humility is a necessary cause of exceeding joy without understanding why."[/quote:300768lf] Necessity? No. An apparent law given our current context and power? Maybe. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "We can understand and posit law without laying down a definitive metaphysics."[/quote:300768lf] Yes! :-) . . . and we can understand and posit law without being dogmatic about it -- recognizing the possiblity of exceptions and changes. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "We shouldn't abandon the former because of the impossibility of the latter."[/quote:300768lf] Agreed I'm into the law thing -- besides, I wouldn't want to offend the lawyers among us. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "My initial conception of 'law' was quite fuzzy, and I felt comfortable invoking near-Platonic ideals, ethical fields, etc. etc. At this point, I see the ethical laws I'm advocating as rooted in 'human nature,' or what I called above, 'the nature of intelligence.'"[/quote:300768lf] Sure. I can go with that: the nature of things -- or better: the nature of processes. I like the latter better because it acknowledges the change inherent in the things, and that the things do not even exist in any meaningful way without that acknowledgement. [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "I am a scientist. I acknowledge that almost nothing can be "known" in the strong sense of the word. However, experience has led me to induce certain hypotheses about the way the spiritual world works and they have been supported by all of the data I have available."[/quote:300768lf] Have you sought disconfirming evidence? [quote:300768lf]Climacus: "Why do you think Satan's plan is wrong? Do you think it's wrong for all sentient beings, including Satan? Why or why not?"[/quote:300768lf] I think Satan's plan is wrong because it is, by definition, wrong for me. His plan is all about him. Of course, if I choose, I can BE him. I can be Satan. I can decide it is all about me. That's when the thinking becomes more tempting, because I recognize a possibility that it is not wrong when it becomes about me. Maybe I can avoid the pain and misery? Maybe the pain and misery will not ultimately succeed anyway? Maybe the marginal joy of satisfying my desires, without regard for others, is sufficient, or even as good as it gets? What if Christ's plan simply will not work? I hope and try to be willing to put my faith in Christ's plan. To the extent I do not, it will not work -- a self-fulfilling prophecy, I suppose. . . . so much fear of the pain and misery of atonement. Can I embrace it? Will I?
314	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/4/2004 6:20:00	[quote:3o7eb2d6]Greenfrog: "My views of Buddhism suggest a different understanding of desire than this."[/quote:3o7eb2d6] Please explain.
315	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/5/2004 17:30:00	Arosophos, previously: "'Inherently'? . . . or 'generally'?" [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "You're making a false dichotomy here. Because we have no direct access to 'inherency,' we must generalize from experience. I have no confidence that we can perfectly generalize from experience to inherent laws, but we can do it well enough to act. Our understanding of every inherent law is a hypothesis, subject to revision or elimination based on further experience."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] I am not making a false dichotomy. I am recognizing a spectrum in the applicability of law, which is very different from a dichotomy. I am suggesting that because we have no evidence that laws are absolute and unchangeable, we have no more logical reason to believe as you suggest (that there are indeed unchangeable laws) than to believe as I suggest (that there may be no unchangeable laws). My argument, then, is not one appealing to logic, because I see no logical necessity on either side. My argument is appealing to practicality -- to wisdom, whatever that may be. My argument is that the practical consequences of believing that all laws may be trascended for the better include greater faith, hope and love. I recognize there is also great danger in this belief. I am, however, willing to risk the danger for the potential greater reward. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "A fundamental difference between our positions, I think, is that I'm interested in metaphysics and you're not."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] I am interested, but have no evidence for metaphysics. You have no evidence for metaphysics either, so far as I can tell. Perhaps, then, it would be more accurate to say that a fundamental difference between the positions we are advocating here is the DEGREE of interest in metaphysics. If there were evidence for metaphysics, the metaphysics would become physics. Metaphysics is simply beyond experience, by definition; it is interesting, but only in a trivial sort of way, or perhaps in an indirect psychologically revealing sort of way. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "Again, I'm a scientist -- I want to generalize as much as I can about the nature of intelligence/the universe/etc."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] I agree with this, without reservation. Recognize, too, that generalizing requires no appeals to metaphysics. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "You're always saying, "but what if this, but what if that"; your intentionally far-fetched speculations may of course be true."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] . . . and the possibility of truth in these things is sufficient reason for us to keep our minds open to these things. The practical ramifications of the opposite is foolish ignorance. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "But I'm willing to exercise faith that they are not true."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] In general terms, I am fine with that. I think we should all exercise faith toward the better world, as we have learned through experience to perceive it. However, faith is not mutually exclusive with recognition of possibilities; likewise, faith is not mutually exclusive of seeking disconfirming evidence. The idea that faith is mutually exclusive with such things has been among the greatest mistakes of popular religion throughout history. We can only reconcile science and religion when we decide that the TRYING of faith is valuable, resulting in better faith; and when we decide that the pursuit and application of technology requires the deepest ethical regard and commitments. Science must be applied to religion, and religion to science. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "I'm not dogmatic, however. The fact that I choose to organize my experience according to hypothesized laws which govern my choice of actions does not seem to entail any danger of damnation."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] This seems to depend on whether you recognize the limitations of your laws, and are forever willing to seek disconfirming evidence for them. If you are truely a non-dogmatic scientist, you will embrace this, because it is the essence of the scientific method. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "On the other hand, your assumption that everything is changeable may damn you."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] How so? Please respond keeping in mind that I do not assume change is always easy or fast. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "Look to the data. Do the data suggest that some principles (e.g. cause and effect) are 'irrevocably decreed'?"[/quote:p7sdbjo2] Experience is data. Nothing short of infinite experience is sufficient to demonstrate unchangeable law. A single disconfirming experience is sufficient to demonstrate changeable law. What does the data suggest? It suggests the practicality of the law; it does not suggest the irrevocability of the law. To extrapolate from generality to irrevocability is unscientific. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "On the contrary, I pray God will forever inspire me to believe whatever is right."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] What is right? Is being right more important than being happy? [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "I pray that my desires will be made the same as his, because I believe he's right, that I 'cannot understand all the things the Lord can comprehend,' and that these beliefs will lead to a fullness of joy."[/quote:p7sdbjo2] What if the desires of the God you choose to worship do not lead you to joy? How do you know they eventually will lead to fullness of joy? Can we attain, in a final way, fullness of joy? Have you sought disconfirming evidence for your faith that your God's desires will lead you to fullness of joy? [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "Perhaps he knows what I should desire better than I do?"[/quote:p7sdbjo2] . . . and maybe not? How will you decide? Certainly there is at least one God that is confident that he knows what you should desire better than you do. That God is Satan. On the other hand, there is a God that requests that we ask whatsoever we desire of him. That God is Christ. [quote:p7sdbjo2]Climacus: "If you desire exactly what you have (though it is 'pain and misery') doesn't that = joy, by your defnition? Isn't it only misery because we don't desire it?"[/quote:p7sdbjo2] We can make contradictions of ourselves. There are persons who desire pain and misery. There are persons who kill themselves, physically and spiritually. There are persons who desire atheism, solipsism and nihilism. These are real possibilities -- assuming "real" can apply to that which leads to non-existence. In short, yes: we can approach desire of that which is undesirable, and as we approach it we exist ever less, marginalizing our identity, diminishing into darkness without end. Desire can be changed only within the context of greater desire. If our greatest desire is non-existence, we can pursue that, according to the mercy of God -- the poor wretched souls whose desires remain forever incongruent with the world, may find some peaceless peace from the torments of life.
316	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/6/2004 5:18:00	Yes -- all the time. The persons I meet in my dreams are spirits.
317	The Font of Knowledge	Beyond desire	6/6/2004 6:48:00	[quote:170cwixt]"EMPTINESS IS A MODE OF perception . . ."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . a contradiction in terms, so far as I can understand. [quote:170cwixt]". . . a way of looking at experience."[/quote:170cwixt] Strictly speaking, so soon as there is looking or experience, there is not emptiness. [quote:170cwixt]"It adds nothing to and takes nothing away from the raw data of physical and mental events."[/quote:170cwixt] This is impossible, so long as we exist. We simply cannot help but organize that raw data, so long as we remain "we". [quote:170cwixt]"You look at events in the mind and the senses with no thought of whether there's anything lying behind them."[/quote:170cwixt] If I didn't know better, I would think the author is writing about radical empiricism, and I would agree with this statement. I feel to know better, judging from the original statements. [quote:170cwixt]"This mode is called emptiness because it is empty of the presuppositions we usually add to experience in order to make sense of it . . ."[/quote:170cwixt] Okay. I like this, if the author is referring to dogmatism. I would not choose "emptiness" to describe empiricism -- but to each her own, I suppose, so long as we come out understanding each other. [quote:170cwixt]". . . the stories and worldviews we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in. Although these stories and views have their uses . . ."[/quote:170cwixt] I agree with the implications of this. There are both benefits and detriments to our myths, depending on how we use them. [quote:170cwixt]". . . the Buddha found that the questions they raise—of our true identity and the reality of the world outside—pull attention away from a direct experience of how events influence one another in the immediate present. Thus they get in the way when we try to understand and solve the problem of suffering."[/quote:170cwixt] I agree strongly with this, particularly when our ideas about TRUE identity or the REAL world become wholly saturated in dogmatic metaphysics or mindless creeds. So much pain, both of the physical and of the profoundly spiritual sorts, has been caused by this dogmatism. Our civilizations and cultures have tortured each other and themselves, worshipping Gods of damnation. [quote:170cwixt]"The problem with all this, from the Buddha's perspective, is that these stories and views entail a lot of suffering."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . and a lot of joy, depending on the story -- and who says we have to have equal amounts of both? Opposition in all things? We must have misery, or we cannot recognize joy? What if we become able to increase joy constantly? Then we can always compare current joy to old joy and recognize the present to be better. We can anticipate yet greater joy, and hope the future to be better. We only need to progress for joy to be possible -- for the opposition that allows perception and being to continue its work. [quote:170cwixt]"The more you get involved in them, the more you get distracted from seeing the actual cause of the suffering: the labels of 'I' and 'mine' that set the whole process in motion."[/quote:170cwixt] Yes: where there is no identity, there is no suffering. Furthermore, there is potential suffering only to the extent of the magnitude to which identity is exalted. Humans, in their relatively exalted identity, have known forms of suffering of which less intelleigent animals cannot conceive. Imagine the suffering of God! Of course, identity sets other processes than suffering in motion, too. I suppose that's why we think it is worth it -- most of us. [quote:170cwixt]"As a result, you can't find the way to unravel that cause and bring the suffering to an end."[/quote:170cwixt] The implication is that we can end suffering by ending identity. I agree, but . . . we can also end hunger by killing ourselves -- we can end the starvation in Africa with a nuclear weapon or two. Why don't we? [quote:170cwixt]"If, however, you adopt the emptiness mode—by not acting on or reacting to the anger but simply watching it as a series of events, in and of themselves—you can see that the anger is empty of anything to identify with or possess."[/quote:170cwixt] Is watching an action? Is it a reaction? Can we watch without acting or reacting? It seems to me that watching is necessarily a reaction, which is a subset of action (both in syntax and meaning). Why not adopt the mode of watching our watching? . . . and watching the watching of our watching? . . . and so on, in an infinite regression? Why not then decide that the watching, in all its regressions, is empty of anything to identify with or possess? Then, without knowing it (because knowing is no longer possible), we (but there is no "we") are (but there is no "are") without possession of any sort, including identity -- including existence. Nothing . . . and not even whatever we conceive of when we use "nothing". [quote:170cwixt]"As you master the emptiness mode more consistently, you see that this truth holds not only for such gross emotions as anger, but also for even the most subtle events in the realm of experience."[/quote:170cwixt] I need not master it to recognize the potential for applying it indiscriminately to all experience, from the gross to the sublte, and well on toward non-existence. [quote:170cwixt]"This is the sense in which all things are empty."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . and at which "things" and "are" have no meaning -- for that matter, it becomes altogether inappropriate to apply "in which" nor "at which". "Empty" itself, as "nothing" above, becomes something of a lie. [quote:170cwixt]"When you see this, you realize that labels of 'I' and 'mine' are inappropriate, unnecessary, and cause nothing but stress and pain."[/quote:170cwixt] I agree with the "unnecessary" part. The "inappropriate" part is irrational because it implies the moral judgment that emptiness is "appropriate", whereas emptiness can be neither "appropriate" nor "inappropriate" and remain empty. The "cause nothing but stress and pain" part is ignorance, foolishness or deception. Identity causes much that is precisely the opposite of stress and pain. [quote:170cwixt]"You can drop them. When you drop them totally, you discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still, one that's totally free."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . if you equivocate "empty" and "free". Yes. You CAN drop them, so long as you are still on the way. SHOULD you drop them? WILL you drop them? It is not about "should" or "can" because there is no morality or power in emptiness. Once there (but "there" does not apply), you (but not "you") are entirely amoral and impotent. You SHOULD no longer. You CAN no longer. You ARE no longer. YOU no longer. Of course, this is well beyond that of which the author is writing here. The author is still writing about experience. The author is still writing about that which is on the way to emptiness, and not emptiness itself. This shouldn't surprise us, however, because we cannot write about empitness itself. We can only write about that which approaches it. We can only point the direction, and that only so long as we remain filled with pointers and direction. DISCOVER! Discover a mode of experience that lies deeper still! Beyond the author's freedom. Maybe only there will the most miserable among us escape the incongruencies of the world. I do not wish it on them, but I will not force them to remain. [quote:170cwixt]"To master the emptiness mode of perception requires firm training in virtue, concentration, and discernment."[/quote:170cwixt] This is empiricism, so far as it goes, but the author is associating it with the same nonsense that inspires so many would-be passive observers in the world of Science. They appeal to an objectivity indpendent of subjectivity, and in doing so appeal to nothing at all. To be truely objective, they say, requires virtue, concentration and discernment. How can virtue, concentration and discernment be independent of subjectivity? How can they be independent of identity? . . . so many Scientists and Buddhists contradicting themselves: on the one hand, nihilism; on the other, empiricism. We can go with the latter without embracing the former. We can have empiricism without rejecting subjectivity and identity. More! There is no empiricism without subjectivity and identity. It is only a contradiction to think otherwise. I can say: "this sentence is not true"; but my ability to say it does not imply that it has any truth to it. Likewise, I can claim to pursue experience without identity or objectivity without subjectivity, but my ability to make such claims does not imply that there is any truth in them. [quote:170cwixt]"Without this training, the mind stays in the mode that keeps creating stories and worldviews."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . to which the author already attributed value. [quote:170cwixt]"And from the perspective of that mode, the teaching of emptiness sounds simply like another story or worldview with new ground rules."[/quote:170cwixt] No, it does not. It sounds like nothing at all, let alone a story or worldview. It is precisely the opposite of stories or worldviews. Only the path to it vaguely resembles a story or worldview -- and ever more vaguely, as it is pursued. [quote:170cwixt]"In terms of the story of your relationship to your mother, it seems to be saying that there's really no mother, no you. In terms of your worldview, it seems to be saying either that the world doesn't really exist, or else that emptiness is the great undifferentiated ground of being from which we all came and to which someday we'll all return."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . and neither of these is just one more story or worldview -- they are the end of stories and worldviews. [quote:170cwixt]"These interpretations not only miss the meaning of emptiness but also keep the mind from getting into the proper mode."[/quote:170cwixt] Of course they do, because they only describe the path. The destination itself cannot be described. So long as we are on the path and insist on being on the path, we cannot arrive at the destination. [quote:170cwixt]"If the world and the people in the story of your life don't really exist, then all the actions and reactions in that story seem like a mathematics of zeros, and you wonder why there's any point in practicing virtue at all."[/quote:170cwixt] Yes . . . and, of course, this is when the contradiction is going to begin again: experience without identity and objectivity without subjectivity . . . the lie of Satan. [quote:170cwixt]"If, on the other hand, you see emptiness as the ground of being to which we're all going to return . . ."[/quote:170cwixt] Emptiness is a ground of being? If so, it is not emptiness. If not, it is non-existence. [quote:170cwixt]"And even if we need training to get back to our ground of being, what's to keep us from coming out of it and suffering all over again?"[/quote:170cwixt] No worries. That which does not exist cannot come out. [quote:170cwixt]"So in all these scenarios, the whole idea of training the mind seems futile and pointless. By focusing on the question of whether or not there really is something behind experience, they entangle the mind in issues that keep it from getting into the present mode."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . so long as we insist on remaining on the path, we cannot reach the destination. So long as we think about emptiness, we are not empty. So long as we think about non-existence, we exist. So long as WE or THINK . . . [quote:170cwixt]"Now, stories and worldviews do serve a purpose."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . for everyone that is not empty. From the perspective of those that would have us become empty, the purpose is to move us toward emptiness. I am no devil. There is no hell. A lie? Sure, but not necessarily a surface-level lie. The surface level becomes true, and the lie ever more profound. [quote:170cwixt]"He recounted the stories of people's lives to show how suffering comes from the unskillful perceptions behind their actions, and how freedom from suffering can come from being more perceptive. And he described the basic principles that underlie the round of rebirth to show how bad intentional actions lead to pain within that round, good ones lead to pleasure . . ."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . I agree so far. [quote:170cwixt]". . . while really skillful actions can take you beyond the round altogether."[/quote:170cwixt] No skill leads to pain, some skill leads to pleasure, and lots of skill leads beyond both pain and pleasure? I don't see how pleasure is on the way from pain to that which is neither pain nor pleasure. [quote:170cwixt]"In all these cases, these teachings were aimed at getting people to focus on the quality of the perceptions and intentions in their minds in the present—in other words, to get them into the emptiness mode."[/quote:170cwixt] Perceive, but be empty! Only Scientists (with a capital "S") have equivocated in as contradictory a fashion: Observe, but without subjectivity! [quote:170cwixt]"Once there, they could use the teachings on emptiness for their intended purpose: to loosen all attachments to views, stories, and assumptions, leaving the mind empty of all the greed, anger, and delusion, and thus empty of suffering and stress."[/quote:170cwixt] . . . and empty of joy. ---------- [quote:170cwixt]Greenfrog: "This is not nihilism, it is seeing desires as desires, rather than as something that requires fulfillment."[/quote:170cwixt] To see desire as something that does not require fulfillment requires two things: 1) More Profound Desire 2) Ignorance or Self-Deception Relative to the More Profound Desire You tell me this is not nihilism. What do you call the approach to nihilism? The reproach is: Arosophos, you cannot understand without experience. My reply is that I may have had such experience, but who can say whether we experience that which is beyond experience? Finally, I would like again to note that I see no evil in sleep. To the contrary, we need it . . . but it is possible to have too much of it.
318	The Font of Knowledge	The Shrine of New Sins	6/6/2004 21:44:00	[quote:2g7x99ru]Jim Weed: "I'm okay with that."[/quote:2g7x99ru] I'm confused. What are you okay with?
319	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/10/2004 5:14:00	Arosophos, previously: "The persons I meet in my dreams are spirits." [quote:y68xi7pv]Meredith Fanncy: "Arosophos, would you expound on this?"[/quote:y68xi7pv] My thoughts are similar to those Joey expressed. Spirits are abstractions, and visions are dreams -- not JUST abstractions or JUST dreams -- real abstractions and real dreams. In our dreams, and sometimes in processes such as meditation, we enter the spirit world, as real as it gets. We encounter the messengers of Christ and battle the demonic hosts of Satan. We remember our ancestors, and we continue the spiritual creation of our descendents. In this world, when we are sanctified, we are the Holy Spirit that is in the One Eternal God. Joseph expressed some thoughts that are pertinent here: [quote:y68xi7pv]"All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all."[/quote:y68xi7pv] [quote:y68xi7pv]"Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision."[/quote:y68xi7pv] [quote:y68xi7pv]"It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time."[/quote:y68xi7pv] [quote:y68xi7pv]"And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming."[/quote:y68xi7pv] [quote:y68xi7pv]"All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him."[/quote:y68xi7pv] [quote:y68xi7pv]"But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men; and as the words have gone forth out of my mouth even so shall they be fulfilled, that the first shall be last, and that the last shall be first in all things whatsoever I have created by the word of my power, which is the power of my Spirit. "For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal— "First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work— "Speaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed. "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created. "Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual."[/quote:y68xi7pv] [quote:y68xi7pv]"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."[/quote:y68xi7pv] We look past the mark, seeking magic wands, so to speak. We don't have to.
320	The Font of Knowledge	Follow the Prophet	6/10/2004 5:25:00	In a world outside space and time, everything and nothing is possible: pure relativism, utter chaos and spiritual death. Outside space and time, omnipotent Gods can create objects too heavy for them to lift, omniscient Gods can know our choices before we make them in free will, omnipresent Gods can be everywhere and nowhere at once. Outside space and time, this sentence is not true. Extreme abstraction does not exalt us. It damns us. We emerged from Eden not to return, but to make God's will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Our power was in the spirit. All the glory is in the element. Spirit and element inseperably connected receive a fulness of joy.
321	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/10/2004 5:32:00	Thanks, Climacus. It's coming.
322	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/11/2004 5:10:00	[quote:3hg86afg]Perfunktory: "Also, Arosophos do you see a way for the quotes you posted to jive with the Brigham Young quote I posted earlier on here?"[/quote:3hg86afg] Yes. The spirit world is not far from you. To the contrary, it is as close as possible: in you. Likewise, it is in me and the rest of our community, and to some lesser magnitude in the non-human animals around us, and even, perhaps to some infinitely smaller magnitude, in the apparently inanimate objects of which the world is composed. All is light, Joseph tells us. All is energy, Einstein tells us. In the light is free will, Joseph tells us. The quantum physicists may have something similar to say. Consider the whole world willing to joy in pure creativity -- full of spirit. Consider the infinite historical recording of this world etched forever into light. We may lay down in the grave, but we are not lost, and our faithful hope is in the resurrection toward immortality.
323	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/11/2004 6:37:00	[quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "I of course agree that there MAY not be unchangeable laws. So if that is the gist of your position, there's no argument here."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Agreed [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "But beyond the ultimate unknowability of the fundamental metaphysics we must make a choice about what we believe."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Must we? Sometimes, when there are no practical benefits to making a choice, we may wisely postpone our choice while evidence accumulates. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Either we choose to believe that there are some unchangeable laws or that there are not."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] As I imply above, this is a false dichotomy. However, there is, as I see it, a practical benefit in choosing to believe that there are general laws, but that all are ultimately changeable. The benefit is that we seek to understand the laws, as a way of leveraging the order in our world, while at the same time believing in our ability to get around the laws that are not beneficial to us -- such as aspects of entropy, perhaps. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "This choice can change, of course, but at any given time, whether we like it or not, we've chosen."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Again, I disagree. I feel to be in ambiguity relative to many matters in life. This is not one of them, but it could be for someone else. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Your position is not that there MAY not be laws; your position is that you have FAITH that there are none."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Not exactly. I have faith in laws. I also have faith that all laws can be changed. This is very different from having faith that there are no laws. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "My faith is the opposite."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] It is opposite only in that your faith is that there are unchangeable laws. We both have faith in law. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "My argument is also an appeal to practicality. There are certain laws I feel I've discovered. One is that humility leads to joy. Although it's a struggle to be humble, I'm confident enough that this relationship is absolute that I don't fight it. I spend my energies elsewhere -- like trying to actually BECOME humble, though it's difficult (and to that extent, undesirable). Practically speaking, your belief may lead you to try to move things that are unmoveable, rather than moving yourself."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] My faith moves me to do both: discover and create. Although my faith is that all law can be changed, I recognize that some changes are easier than others, and that sometimes changing myself is the better decision. In the end, it is not just about changing me or just about changing the world. It is about changing both, for the better. My faith is one of balance, optimism, mercy and justice, law, creativity, practicality, and atonement. The practical detriment that I associate with the faith you are advocating is precisely that, as you say, it leads you to not fight it. There are, in the world, undesirable laws that may require nothing short of an eternal fight to change, and that's where the glory is. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Complete open-mindedness is not a neutral position -- it is a positive stance. It's just as assertive and 'dogmatic' as my stance."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] My presentation is assertive -- sometimes too assertive. My faith that there are no unchangeable laws is assertive. If assertiveness is dogmatism then I am being dogmatic. However, I do not understand "dogmatism" to be assertiveness. I don't consider faith in law to be dogmatic. Laws are beneficial things. However, to the extent that laws are detrimental, and to the extent that we think the detriments to be unchangeable, we are being dogmatic: groveling before our idols. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Metaphysics relates to a belief about the fundamental structure of the universe. To think that our beliefs about what underlies experience have no practical consequences is simply erroneous."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] I have not argued that our beliefs have no consequence. I have argued that that which we cannot experience has no practical consequence. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "The question is, does believing a particular metaphysics bring joy or does it not?"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Sure, and I have argued that metaphysical dogmatism does not ultimately bring joy. Are there temporary exceptions? Yes. Some metaphysical dogmatisms give peace or hope to some persons at some times. In the long run, however, they damn us. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "The physical concreteness of God is not something I have experienced. To that extent it is metaphysical. Yet my belief in this changes my life. Do I 'know' it's true? Of course not. But it is a story I believe and it transforms me. In this way, metaphysics is eminently practical."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Are you sure you have not experienced the physical concreteness of God? Are you sure it is metaphysical? [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Ultimately, I'm arguing that my metaphysics is better than yours (remember that, at bottom, the assumption that everything is changeable IS a metaphysical one) because my metaphysics is more inspirational. I think it has more power to transform lives. Time will tell if I'm right."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] I agree that my faith in the mutability of law is metaphysics, as you describe here. In what way is your metaphysics more inspirational? [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "What do I do? Move the world, or move myself?"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Both -- that's atonement. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "We're fond of quoting Joseph Smith thus far: 'Happiness is the object and design of our existence...' But what about the rest? '...and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.'"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Who is God? [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Thus, to the extent we DISCOVER and CONFORM to these requirements, we will have happiness. 'Being' right (w/ God, myself, the world...) is the PATH to joy."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] That's only half the picture. The other half is all about creation and novelty. Neither is sufficient in itself. For every scripture we read about discovery or conformity, there is one about creation and novelty. In the most simple terms, we talk about the nature of God, that which we should be, as being Creator. To stop anywhere short of this is the damnation of dogmatism. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "The God I worship is defined as 'he who possesses (insofar as concretely possible) a fullness of joy and will teach me how to have it too.'"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] I like that. What if he teaches you that the fullness of joy requires pursuit of changing laws? [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "There's a certain 'feeling' I've had many times in my life. I call it 'joy.' That's what I want."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Agreed [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "When I've trusted God to educate my desires and help me desire those things, I've had that feeling."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Agreed [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "When I haven't done that, I haven't felt that feeling."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Sure . . . but, of course, trusting in God is not mutually exclusive with expressing and pursuing one's own desires. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "That's it. Yes, Jesus says to ask for what we desire. But he also warns us to not "ask amiss." If all our desires are valid, how could we ask amiss? It's not that, ultimately, we won't get exactly what we desire -- we will. It's a question of trust -- do I trust God enough (through experience) to believe that he can lead me to desire those things that will bring me closer to a fullness of joy? The laws I advocate are just that -- statements about what I SHOULD desire. Only the fulfillment of certain desires --> joy, ultimately. That's my faith."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] So far as you take this, I agree. Reading between the lines, however, I wonder whether you are talking about something akin to the Borg, or something that is infinitely interested in creativity and novelty in balance with discovery and order. I have no disagreements with the idea that God would lead us to change our desires for the better. I do have disagreements with the idea that God is not involved in the changing as well, according to our desires. Love works both ways. As God reminds us not to ask amiss, so we count on God not asking amiss. So far as we are God, he need not ask. So far as he is God, we need not ask. Unfortunately, we are not always as we should be, and that which we worship is not always that which it should be. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Yes, but why is this wrong? Why does the fulfillment of some desires lead to happiness, while the fulfillment of others does not?"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] By definition, the fulfillment of desire leads to happiness. Of course, not all happiness is equal. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Do I smell a law?"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Maybe. I have faith in law. Faith in law need not be faith in immutable law. Arosophos, previously: "We can make contradictions of ourselves. There are persons who desire pain and misery. There are persons who kill themselves, physically and spiritually. There are persons who desire atheism, solipsism and nihilism." [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "I understood you to say: if state desired = state possessed --> joy. In the above, you seem to be pointing out violations of that relationship. Will you clarify your position?"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] I am pointing out contradictions internal to a person who is on the path to spiritual death. If non-existence is desired, the fulfillment of the desire can only lead to as much joy as is possible in non-existence: none at all. We should not be surprised that general laws appear to break down at extremes, such as spiritual death (however, "break down" is not as accurate as "become inapplicable"). We have seen this throughout human history: laws are useful within a particular context, but there are some contexts in which the laws no longer apply or are meaningless. Recognizing this has generally been the case, I anticipate more of the same. I could be surprised, but I put my faith in mutable laws. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "Two questions: Why is this wrong? (That is, why does non-existence = darkness? Couldn't non-identity = freedom?)"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] I am not claiming that spiritual death is wrong. To the contrary, it is outside laws such as right and wrong. They do not apply. In spiritual death, they are rendered meaningless. Non-identity can be freedom no more than it can be captivity. It is nothing. It is whatever you want it to be, and none of what you want it to be. No. It is not even that. It is even below contradiction. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "And, what is it that MAKES certain things inherently undesirable?"[/quote:1kn7yhdh] I am not arguing that anything is inherently undesirable. Desire is a dynamic relationship among subjects and objects. [quote:1kn7yhdh]Climacus: "I am referring to the physical concreteness of the being (singular) we think of as Elohim."[/quote:1kn7yhdh] Who is Elohim?
324	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/12/2004 3:24:00	[quote:3d8qr7sm]Perfunktory: "Say I dream about a bunch of SWaBBies, I don't see that my dream puts any type of demand on their abstract spiritual person. I'm not summoning their intelligence to my dream."[/quote:3d8qr7sm] Are you sure? Perhaps you have power over some portion of my identity? [quote:3d8qr7sm]Perfunktory: "when I hear the JS quote about how everything is revealed in the abstract, I think that the abstract refers to the fact that, like in a dream, the images seen are not the actual spiritual (or physical) persons performing the acts."[/quote:3d8qr7sm] Is there a difference between abstractions and actual spiritual persons? [quote:3d8qr7sm]Perfunktory: "When I think of the spirit world that Brigham Young describes, I think of a more tangible world, one that I currently am unable to see, but one that does not just exist in abstract thought."[/quote:3d8qr7sm] If there are an infinite number of thinkers, abstractions exist outside any finite set of thoughts, and these abstractions may reflect an infinite concrete history recorded in the light of which our world is composed. Look at quasars in a telescope, and, if I have been correctly instructed, you are seeing events that transpired before our galaxy existed. Perceive Earth from one light year away, and you are seeing events that transpired last year. Our spiritual existence does not depend entirely on spiritual preservation. All spirit is matter, which, in the thoughts of the thinker, is perceived as abstractions. These ideas may be the beginning of a way to reconcile the differences you are seeing between Joseph's and Brigham's words. Of course, much of this should be considered a hypothesis, and certainly not the only hypothesis that would reconcile the difference for you.
325	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/18/2004 4:25:00	[quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "But in matters of faith, which is always a combination of belief and action, our actions always belie our current choice. (If we were just talking about intellectual beliefs, or your thoughts about the menu while waiting for the server, I'd agree with you.)"[/quote:niar77j2] Everything is a matter of faith, including intellectual beliefs and thoughts about the menu. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "The minute a person tries to change what they believe to be law, they are exercising faith in the changeability of law. The minute a person seeks only to submit to law, they are exercising faith in the unchangeability of law. So for the purposes of this exchange, I maintain my dichotomy."[/quote:niar77j2] I can submit to law while maintaining faith in the changeability of law. I can remain neutral in epistemic claims regarding the mutability of law, while either seeking or not seeking to change law. This is more complicated than a simple dichotomy unless we define the complications away -- and then we should recognize that we are simplifying the matter. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: ""Getting around" entropy -- say by discovering an energy source powerful enough to counteract its effects permanently -- does not imply that the law has changed, only that we can now allow it to function only to the extent we choose. As heavenly beings, I suppose we'll discover ways to counteract gravity, walk through walls, multiply food, and travel faster than light. I'm just as into discovery and creativity as you are. The difference is, I see all potential creative discoveries as ways of using laws to our advantage, or discovering higher laws that exist and regulate the laws we currently observe."[/quote:niar77j2] This is not a difference between us. I see the potential of which you write. The difference between us is that I am willing to believe in the possibility of changing laws, too. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "My point is that your faith is an active choice of alternatives, not pure open-mindedness."[/quote:niar77j2] What is pure open-mindedness? I suspect, given the way you are using the expression, that I would consider it very undesirable -- something like apathy. As I use it, "open-mindedness" means something like willingness to question and requestion everything forever -- which is not mutually exclusive of faith in that which works best at present. Of course, there are times and places, and rates, for the questioning and requestioning. That's where the faith comes in -- it is a balance. Arosophos, previously: "My faith moves me to do both: discover and create." [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "Yeah, mine too, but in a different way: discover law, create solutions. Your implication that belief in the existence of unchangeable law implies a lack of creativity is kind of bothersome, actually."[/quote:niar77j2] I hope it bothers you. :-) Why not discover and create laws as well as solutions? Simply because you don't want to believe it possible? [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I think you have a tendency to associate your opponent's position with words or phrases that don't contribute anything substantive to your argument but carry a negative connotation -- uncreative, lacking novelty, dark, fixed, etc. They are indeed powerful words, but they have no evidentiary value . . ."[/quote:niar77j2] Please provide an example and explain how it contributes nothing substantive to my argument. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I believe in novelty, but only that certain novelties are good, as determined by our understanding of law. Someone doing the Mexican hat dance on top of the sacrament table during church would certainly be 'novel' but TYPICALLY wouldn't be very useful in that context."[/quote:niar77j2] Sure . . . but is changing law a novelty that is always bad? Arosophos, previously: "In the end, it is not just about changing me or just about changing the world. It is about changing both, for the better. My faith is one of balance, optimism, mercy and justice, law, creativity, practicality, and atonement." [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I agree, if you mean by 'the world' other people, social institutions, material conditions, etc. But that's not the sense I meant when I said 'the world' and I think you know it. I meant 'observed law' as suggested by my humility--> joy example."[/quote:niar77j2] . . . and I will repeat: in the end, it is not just about changing me or just about changing observed law. It is about changing both, for the better. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: ". . . my humility--> joy example. Let's stick with that example. Is that an area where you are changing yourself or attempting to change the law? Why have you made the choice you have?"[/quote:niar77j2] To begin with, I think there are bounds to this law (as I think of all laws). Beyond that, I do seek to be humble because I have in general had good experiences (joy) in the past as a result of seeking to be humble. Do I seek to change the relationship between humility and joy? No. Why? Because I think it is unchangeable? No. I don't seek to change it because I don't think it particularly needs to be changed. I don't desire to change it. That said, I can imagine a world in which humility leads to misery. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "My faith is also one of balance, optimism, mercy and justice, law, creativity, practicality, and atonement. Sadly, describing it thus doesn't help advance the discussion."[/quote:niar77j2] Climacus, in describing my faith thus, I am attempting to express my thoughts in a manner that allows you better to understand how I feel about the ideas I have expressed. If you choose not to care that I associate these feelings with the ideas I express, you will understand the ideas less accurately. If the expression of these feelings does not advance the discussion, it is not entirely my failure. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "The practical detriment that I associate with the faith you are advocating is precisely that it may lead you to fight against God rather than against yourself. 'Is it hard for thee to kick against the pricks?'"[/quote:niar77j2] I am willing to fight against any God that would damn us. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "To the extent there are undesirable physical laws, we will overcome their effects, but not change the laws."[/quote:niar77j2] Are you sure? [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "To the extent there are undesirable psychological-spiritual laws, we will overcome them by changing ourselves so that God's demands become desirable to us."[/quote:niar77j2] Are you sure? [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "We will 'submit cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord.'"[/quote:niar77j2] I agree there are times and places for this, depending on the nature of the particular Lord. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "We submit to God because we trust that we cannot "comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend," yet we trust his "character, perfections, and attributes.""[/quote:niar77j2] I have no disagreement with trust, to the extent of wisdom. I do have disagreement with trust in the wrong God. There is more than one God that would have us recognize his character, perfection and attributes. Among them is a God that would raise himself above all else that is called God, declaring himself alone God. I tend not to like him much. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "By the way, Satan, too, thinks he can obtain glory by fighting against laws he considers detrimental."[/quote:niar77j2] Sure, and there are both good and bad ways to change laws. On the one hand, there is the will to change law according to one's own desire. On the other hand, there is recognition that law should reflect communal desire. One seeks to become a law unto itself. One seeks the exaltation of all, regardless of what needs to change along the way. I am trying to be the latter. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "Yet you still insist on my dogmatism. 'Thinking' anything is not dogmatism; 'knowing' without any doubt is dogmatism."[/quote:niar77j2] Given this context, are your answers to my "Are you sure?" questions (above) dogmatic? [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "Neither of us has claimed an absolute knowledge about our positions, so can we drop the accusation of dogmatism once and for all?"[/quote:niar77j2] Maybe. Is it possible that laws can be changed? If so, is it desirable that we change them to the extent that doing so is, on the whole, beneficial for individuals spiritually and physically, as well as our communities and environment -- for the whole world? Please don't consider the charge of dogmatism to be a personal insult. I do not intend it that way. I do intend it to reflect my perspective on the stance you have taken relative to law, which I may or may not revise based on further observation. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "Further, I would like to make it clear that a belief in fixed law (that is, that all 'laws' are fixed, while some things we consider to be laws may not, in fact, be laws after all) necessitates the belief that no laws can be fatally detrimental -- after all, some beings have become like God."[/quote:niar77j2] In what way have some beings become like God? How much confidence should we have in your assumption? [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "Yet even belief in 'detrimental' law doesn't imply groveling. If you want to fly, gravity is detrimental. So make an airplane, don't grovel. Yet the law remains... "[/quote:niar77j2] What if we find no way around a law? Should we NEVER seek to change it? Should we simply decide never to try? Should we embrace the detriment? That is groveling. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I have no response to this, since I was arguing for the effects of a sincere belief in a given metaphysics, not for dogmatism of any kind."[/quote:niar77j2] Sincere belief that does not allow for fallibility is dogmatism. Arosophos, previously: "Are you sure you have not experienced the physical concreteness of God? Are you sure it is metaphysical?" [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I am sure that, in the way I understand it, I haven't experienced it. I am also sure that I can't, with current capabilities, observe God scientifically, so to that extent his corporeality is metaphysical to me. Yet I believe that, based on my metaphysics, God is not actually metaphysical at all."[/quote:niar77j2] You have seen God, but have not understood. That's what the scriptures tell us. You have defined God to be currently outside of scientific observation. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "It's more inspirational because it allows the possibility that people don't have to continually search for the answer to the question, 'Who am I?' They can come to know who they are. There is an end to seeking for purpose, though never an end to work, never an end to striving."[/quote:niar77j2] I don't want there to be an end to the question, "Who am I?". I want to know the answer ever better. That is eternal life. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "They can have faith that the plan they (imperfectly) believe in provides hope for all, since the laws are the same for all."[/quote:niar77j2] To the extent that persons are different and laws are too narrow, sameness in law is not inspirational for me. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus, previously: "What do I do? Move the world, or move myself?"[/quote:niar77j2] Arosophos, previously: "Both -- that's atonement." [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I agree, if by 'the world' you mean other people. I disagree, if by 'the world' you mean the laws that inhere in sentience (for example)."[/quote:niar77j2] I mean both. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "Yes, creation and novelty in solutions, not in law."[/quote:niar77j2] Why not in both? Arosophos, previously: "What if he teaches you that the fullness of joy requires pursuit of changing laws?" [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "Then I'll change my mind."[/quote:niar77j2] How will you know when he has taught you this? Arosophos, previously: "[T]rusting in God is not mutually exclusive with expressing and pursuing one's own desires." [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I agree. I'm referring only to where these desires conflict."[/quote:niar77j2] Even where desires conflict, pursuit of each others' desires is not impossible -- just harder. Arosophos, previously: "Unfortunately, we are not always as we should be, and that which we worship is not always that which it should be." [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I don't agree with this last part at all. What evidence do you have for that? If we believe your statement and Joseph Smith in Lectures on Faith, then we can exercise no faith at all. But if you mean that we don't always think of God in a right way, I agree. But whether its our character or our understanding that's flawed, it's we who must move, not God."[/quote:niar77j2] My evidence is that most of the world appears to be worshipping a God that will not move for us, despite the moving God that Christ shows us. Of course, if we are to become one with that God, we too must move. "Atonement", for the former God, means doing his will, as he rises above us. "Atonement", for the latter God, means doing OUR will, as we become one. Arosophos, previously: "By definition, the fulfillment of desire leads to happiness. Of course, not all happiness is equal." [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "By your definition, but in the conventional use of the term I think there are plenty of things we could want that do not lead to happiness. For example, things that we desire through habit or misguided will. It's a common sterotype that some people strive for something they want which leaves them unhappy right after they get it. 'Wherefore, do not spend money for that which is of no worth, nor your labor for that which cannot satisfy.'"[/quote:niar77j2] . . . which is what I mean by pointing out that not all happiness is equal. Some happiness is short-term. Some is long-term. Some is both. Some is of greater and lesser magnitudes in quality. That happiness which is greatest in both quantity and quality is the fullness of joy. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "But what determines which things work better than others? I say the answer lies in the very structure of sentience. I have faith that what makes us happy is wired into the very structure of self-consciousness. This regularity is the basic law of our social psychology."[/quote:niar77j2] . . . and I wager we can change the wiring. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "There's nothing solid to hold onto. It's only in grounding ourselves in God and in the recognition of others' subjectivity before God that we can ground ourselves as selves."[/quote:niar77j2] Depending on what you mean by "God", I may agree. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I thought I had made it clear that I was talking about laws of a much lower order -- i.e., grounded in the very structure of intelligence. In saying "law" I have never meant anything that is perfectly representable linguistically, nor have I meant anything operating at high levels of social order (except as corollaries of the most basic law -- the structure of the self). I am here mainly concerned with "spiritual" law rather than "physical" law (my distinction is analytic, btw, not necessarily ontological)."[/quote:niar77j2] Why must higher or lower magnitudes be different? For all we know, they are quite the same in their mutability. It seems wise to believe that they may be mutable to the extent that we should change them in pursuit of the fullness of joy. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "But can we agree that spiritual death cannot bring joy, and that joy is the only thing worth having? Does this make it 'wrong' in a sense?"[/quote:niar77j2] No. Wrong cannot apply there, by definition. To the same extent that it is a lack of joy, it is a lack of wrong. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I want to push past your equivocation of fulfilled desire and happiness . . ."[/quote:niar77j2] If you do, you will be missing an essential aspect of my perspective. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this aspect in my philosophical and religious beliefs. [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "I think you're right that nothing is inherently undesirable, but that there are indeed many things (e.g., nihilism) that inherently CANNOT lead to joy. In this last part of the discussion, we're definitely sketching some of the contours of the law to which I've been referring all along."[/quote:niar77j2] . . . but there are no laws in nihilism. You can't be inherently without joy and yet maintain law. Laws dissipate into nothingness like everything else in spiritual death. ----- Arosophos, previously: "Who is God?" [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "See the Lectures on Faith."[/quote:niar77j2] Arosophos: "Who is Elohim?" [quote:niar77j2]Climacus: "The father of the Savior."[/quote:niar77j2] I agree with both of your answers, so far as they go; and I anticipate that we may have much to explore together beyond the surface of these questions and answers.
326	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/18/2004 4:47:00	What is a law?
327	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/18/2004 5:16:00	Arosophos, previously: "Perhaps you have power over some portion of my identity?" [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "Do you think the JS quotes suggest this?"[/quote:28amrdtv] Yes. Consider the quote about physical beings having power over spiritual beings. To the extent that I am spiritual and you are physical, would the quote not imply that you have power over me? I think it would be a simplification to posit that we are either spiritual or physical, rather than some mix of both. There are good reasons for simplifications, but there are also good reasons for digging into complexities. [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "It doesn't make sense to me, if for any reason because memories deviate so much from reality. I would think if my dream does have some type of summonings power, I should at least get the person's image correct."[/quote:28amrdtv] Turn the ontology the other direction. Perhaps the most REAL you is the perceived you, both as you perceive yourself and as others perceive you? Sure, the perception is based on infinite foundations . . . but why would any of them have greater claim to your identity than that of which you and I are most conscious? Am I a pile of atoms? A swirling quantum probability? An organization of energy? To some extent, yes; however, none of these capture my identity better than my perception and your perception of the sum of the parts. [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "My understanding of the creation is that abstractions need faith in order to take form."[/quote:28amrdtv] Perhaps actual spiritual persons need faith in order to take form? [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "As I'm writing this I'm remembering that God created the worlds by faith. How does an omnipotent person have faith?"[/quote:28amrdtv] Maybe omnipotence is a simplification? [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "That aside, I don't think that every thought God has is a matter forming event."[/quote:28amrdtv] Every time you think, chemical matter rearranges within you. Each time you think, you are laying the foundation for words and actions. All things are created first in the abstract and then in the concrete -- even persons . . . but there is a chicken and egg paradox here, as all abstractions are based in the concrete. [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "What's your definition of an abstraction?"[/quote:28amrdtv] I use "abstract" interchangeably with "spirit". Some abstractions (some spirits) are more organized, more exalted, than others. Mathematics consists of extremely organized and exalted abstractions. Timeless and spaceless worlds are extremely disorganized and devolved abstractions. [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "What about the future? This might be part of the reason why I can't see my brain's abstractions as having any bearing on the existing person/form."[/quote:28amrdtv] In the distant future, when persons are resurrected and their identities are reconstructued, will the identities be fully reconstructed without reconstructing the relationships between the identities? Can we cleanly separate the two? Perhaps your thoughts about me are becoming part of my eternal identity -- not in the sense that our relationship cannot change, but in the sense that our past relationship cannot change, except to the extent that there may be some abstract aspect to the past? [quote:28amrdtv]Perfunktory: "I wish I could wrap my brain around this."[/quote:28amrdtv] [quote:28amrdtv]Dallapozza: "I am not sure there is anything here with substance enough to wrap your head around."[/quote:28amrdtv] All abstractions are substance. At least, Joseph said so, and I agree. ;-)
328	The Font of Knowledge	Did Adam have a navel?	6/18/2004 5:23:00	Maybe eternally married couples that choose not to raise children (or some equivalent) attain the second degree of Celestial glory? Maybe eternally married homosexuals attain the second degree of Celestial glory? There is a pattern here that makes sense. First Degree: Monistic Second Degree: Dualistic Third Degree: Pluralistic . . . and maybe the marriage / children thing is a simplification, so that we may begin to understand?
329	The Font of Knowledge	Did Adam have a navel?	6/18/2004 5:25:00	Adam HAD and HAS a navel. Adam is many.
330	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/19/2004 19:19:00	Do laws EXIST? If so, in what way?
331	The Font of Knowledge	Did Adam have a navel?	6/19/2004 19:33:00	[quote:s1gyyrpn]Greenfrog: "I'm kind of at loose ends right now when it comes to belief."[/quote:s1gyyrpn] Must belief without loose ends be in the historical literalism of the Bible? [quote:s1gyyrpn]Daklar: "Do resurected beings have navels?"[/quote:s1gyyrpn] . . . only if they want. How would you like to arrange your body in the future? [quote:s1gyyrpn]Bug Hero: "Please don't ask me how Eve and a rib fit into this."[/quote:s1gyyrpn] I'm glad you brought this up. Using exactly this aspect of the myth, Brigham gives us a key for understanding the whole of it: [quote:s1gyyrpn]"Now about the rib. As for the Lord taking a rib out of Adam's side to make a woman of, he took one out of my side just as much. "'But,' brother Brigham, 'would you make it appear that Moses did not tell the truth?' "No, not a particle more than I would that your mother did not tell the truth, when she told you that little Billy came from a hollow toad stool. I would not accuse your mother of lying, any more than I would Moses; the people in the days of Moses wanted to know things that were not for them, the same as your children do, when they want to know where their little brother came from, and he answered them according to their folly, the same as you did your children. "Now some will be ready to say, 'We always heard these Mormons did not believe the Bible.' I believe all the truth that is there, and that is enough for me, and for you to believe." (Brigham Young, LDS General Conference, October 8, 1854)[/quote:s1gyyrpn]
332	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/19/2004 20:15:00	[quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "I can see how spirits can be abstractions, but I still can't see how all abstractions can be an organization of matter."[/quote:157dqz4p] Do you agree that every thought you have is associated with a unique chemical organization in your head? [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "I read webster's definition of abstract, and I like Webster's definition better than the spirit defininton."[/quote:157dqz4p] [quote:157dqz4p]Webster's on "Abstract": "disassociated from any specific instance"[/quote:157dqz4p] I certainly mean this when I speak of spirit. Consider the idea I mentioned about your power over some portion of my identity. My identity is not associated with any specific instance of experience; rather, it is an astract across many experiences. [quote:157dqz4p]Webster's on "Abstract": "difficult to understand"[/quote:157dqz4p] Spirits can certainly be difficult to understand. The exalted type, such as math, can be superior to our ability to understand. The unexalted type, such as spacelessness and timelessness, can simply be definitionally beyond understanding. [quote:157dqz4p]Webster's on "Abstract": "insufficiently factual"[/quote:157dqz4p] Yes -- some spirits do not reflect our common concrete experience. Carl Sagan wrote a good book about this. See "[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345409469/qid=1087667128/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-8340543-6554205?v=glance&s=books&n=507846:157dqz4p]The Demon Haunted World[/url:157dqz4p]". [quote:157dqz4p]Webster's on "Abstract": "expressing a quality apart from an object"[/quote:157dqz4p] So long as the definition is not taken to mean existence without any concrete aspect, I agree. Spirits are not necessarily dependent on any particular set of objects. How many times has your anatomy changed the atoms of which it is composed? Yet you maintain your spirit. [quote:157dqz4p]Webster's on "Abstract": "dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects"[/quote:157dqz4p] This is a self-referential definition. See my other comments. [quote:157dqz4p]Webster's on "Abstract": "having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content"[/quote:157dqz4p] Some spirits are very much this way. [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "The chicken and egg paradox spills into an ex nihilo problem, which I feel argues for the idea that not every abstraction is a spirit."[/quote:157dqz4p] How so? [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "If this were the case, I believe it would infringe upon the agency God has given us. No matter how much I think about David Hasselhoff my thoughts can't affect his salvation."[/quote:157dqz4p] Assuming we seek the salvation Christ offers, I disagree. Salvation is all about community and relationships. Sure, we are free; however, we are free only within a context. The context includes relationships over which we have only some extent of power. These relationships certainly can be beneficial or detrimental to our salvation within the community. There is, of course, another kind of salvation: that Satan offers. He doesn't care for communal salvation. He cares only for his own salvation. In such a paradigm, where our community and relationships are marginalized to the extent that they do not exalt him, we have ever less affect on his salvation. His relativistic world builds him up, regardless of us if needs be. [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "This is also why I feel truth exists independently of us."[/quote:157dqz4p] Aspects of it exist independent of us. We are aspects of it. Between the aspects there are relationships and comunity, wherein our identity and power intermixes. [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunkory: "Otherwise our abstractions could possibly defile truth."[/quote:157dqz4p] I don't understand. [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "I understand that JS is talking about evil spirits who want to control us and not much else."[/quote:157dqz4p] He generalizes the statement to be about the relationship between "all beings who have bodies" and "those who have not". He does not limit the statement to evil spirits. [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "I think it’s fair to say God's thoughts are different than ours, and its obvious that the word of God can organize matter, but nothing here says that our thoughts have the same power, except over ourselves."[/quote:157dqz4p] This depends entirely on how we define identity. [quote:157dqz4p]Perfunktory: "This verse sounds like a part of the agency God gave us is the power you’re talking about (matter forming thoughts). And that this power is restricted to ourselves."[/quote:157dqz4p] I think it is obvious that our power is not limited to ourselves. We effect and affect others constantly. ----- [quote:157dqz4p]Jim Weed: "This thread is losing its cred because not enough scripture has been mingled in."[/quote:157dqz4p] [quote:157dqz4p]Cheapcontact: "Is this a joke?"[/quote:157dqz4p] It was a fecetious remark. Jim Weed would like to associate this discussion with the portion of the LDS temple ceremony that describes "philosophies of men" being "mingled with scripture". We should seek to judge between the philosophies of men and the philosophies of God. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. There are, however, many forms of wisdom, at least two of which are the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. Which will you seek after? Which will you love? God's wisdom? Of course, that is what most of us will claim. The interesting question then becomes: which God? Does the God you worship mingle his wisdom with scripture? The God I worship does.
333	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/22/2004 3:37:00	In which of the following do you have greater confidence? 1) Laws reflect a durable characteristic of existence. 2) Laws reflect common experience.
334	The Font of Knowledge	Ritual and Ordinance	6/22/2004 3:45:00	[quote:1uso4f5z]Joey: ". . . that quote wasn't from arosophos, it was from joseph smith and the 88th section of the D&C."[/quote:1uso4f5z] D&C 88 has some great things to say about laws, such as the possibility of creating them individually or communally -- and the exhortation to choose communal creation rather than uniquely individual creation. . . . but I am flattered, Cheapcontact. It would be difficult to give me a compliment that I would appreciate more. I'll go try to deflate my head now. ;-)
335	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/22/2004 4:08:00	Dallapozza, I intend to stand before Christ at the judgment bar with confidence that the words I write here reflect sincere desire for and effort toward wisdom and inspiration. Surely, regardless of desire and effort, the words reflect some lack of wisdom and inspiration, which I pray you will have the wisdom or inspiration to recognize and indicate, for our mutual benefit.
336	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/23/2004 2:51:00	You didn't answer my question directly. I don't want to assume that I understood the indirect answer, so will you please answer it directly?
337	The Font of Knowledge	needs to be said	6/23/2004 20:39:00	I am happy to participate in discussion forums, such as SWAB, where I am free to post anything I want, others are free to post anything they want in response, and I am free to respond in any way I want in turn. I expect to be attacked personally from time to time, and I expect the ability to respond to the attacks as I think best. I expect to offend other participants at times, and I expect that they have the ability to express the feeling of offense as they think best. I appreciate that Joey chose to criticize some of the personal attacks and taking of offense that have occurred. I am happy that he can choose to express this criticism. I am happy that we can choose to agree or disagree with the criticism. I agree with the criticism he expressed, but I am glad that anyone here may, as she thinks best, continue to post personal attacks or take offense at others' posts. I am equally glad that we may continue to criticize the personal attacks and taking of offense. It seems there is a time and place for everything: a time to offend and a time to be offended, a time to criticize offense and a time to criticize being offended. I suspect we will be better persons for working through all of this. . . . so we love, in embrace and rebuke, whether it be trembling in pain as nails are driven through our wrists, or trembling with adrenaline as the whip in our hand drives the profane from the temple.
338	The Font of Knowledge	Dreams, spirits, ghosts, and spiritual experiences	6/25/2004 4:55:00	[quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "We have no clue what is or isn't organized in our spiritual brains. I still don't think the JS quotes or D&C is clear enough on what does/doesn't happen in terms of spiritual formation of matter."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] Would anything short of an equation be clear enough? That aside, I am suggesting that we need not look for spiritual brains independent of physical brains. Our brains, as we experience them, are the culmination of both. I think it is misdirected to look for the one independent of the other, although I recognize benefits in using dichotomies to help us explain some things in simple terms. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunkory: "If we spiritual beget things with our brain, how can the matter in our brain become the spiritual matter of the entire universe (as would be the case for God)."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] The spiritual creation leads to moving hands, which in turn should move to organize the better world. Generally speaking, I'm not suggesting anything extraordinary; and I am not suggesting anything like creation from nothing. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "It also doesn't make economic sense to me when considering the thoughts of schizophrenics, people on drugs, people with Alzheimers ect. This would be a lot of pointless organizing."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] You think such persons are not participating in the spiritual organization of the world? [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "We are told that it is not a sin to be tempted. What does temptation entail? I would think it entails abstractions (perverse?). Who’s responsible for these abstractions? Christ was tempted. I’m sure his mind was filled with these abstractions? Yet he’s perfect. It's clear that Satan is the father of all lies. What does it mean to be tempted? I have a hard time reconciling the idea that every thought organizes spiritual matter because I don’t like the implications in terms of temptation."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] What are the implications? That we wrestle or dance with the devil, so to speak? Where there is wrestling and dancing, there is some degree of participation and responsibility, so far as I can tell. However, there is also interaction with something external to one's self. When the demon haunts us, we interact, but we are not fully responsible for the haunting. We are responsible for how we react to the haunting. This falls in line with my thoughts above: we influence each other's identity. The spirit of the temptor influenced the identity of Christ, who IS the sanctification that overcomes the temptor in atonement -- it is as much a part of Christian identity as anything else. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "If we have impure thoughts about other people, we are altering their identity, right?"[/quote:7k9gq4yh] Yes, to some extent. Our relationship with other people is part of their identity. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "If we are altering their identity with our thoughts in a negative way, we are defiling them. We could thus defile God with our thoughts."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] I see that happening constantly. Some of our defiled Gods are the less for the defiling. Christ defiled is the more for it. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Joseph Smith: "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not. The devil has no power over us only as we permit him."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] Arosophos, previously: "He does not limit the statement to evil spirits." [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "What do you think is the purpose of having those two sentences right next to each other? Isn’t that the essence of context?"[/quote:7k9gq4yh] Yes, that is context; however, as I read it, the second sentence is not intended to give context to the first, but rather the second sentence is intended to be an example of the first. When he uses "all beings who have bodies", I understand him to mean ALL physical beings. When he uses "those who have not", I understand him to mean spiritual beings, regardless of whether they are good or evil. In combination, I clearly understand that he is making a general statement about the relationship between physical and spiritual beings. It seems disingenuous to suggest otherwise. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "It is in terms of agency. Can I do anything to keep you out of the celestial kingdom?"[/quote:7k9gq4yh] To some extent, yes. So long as you are not there, I am not there to some extent. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "My feeling on this is that I can't argue against your ideas of how thoughts organize matter becuase I feel your ideas are based on the interpretion of these quotes."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] My perspective is that my ideas are congruent with the quotes -- not based on the quotes. The quotes are of value to the extent that they strengthen our faith in Christ. Beyond that, I am not particularly attached to them. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "My feeling on how you view this is that our minds can organize matter when we are in 'creation mode', like when God created this world (and others)."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] We are always in creation mode, so long as we exist. Again, I am not suggesting that the creation is extraordinary; I am suggesting that you are doing it now. [quote:7k9gq4yh]Perfunktory: "I think your interpretion is as valid as mine . . . The scripture we have seems very non-descript. I'm guessing had JS (or anyone else in the world at that time) a better understanding of physics, we would could make more difinitive conclusions."[/quote:7k9gq4yh] I feel a satisfaction that you recognize the congruence between my perspective and the quotes, but there is something more important: Does it make a difference whether we believe one way or another? How will you articulate the difference you perceive between our ideas on this matter? Are there benefits or detriments associated with the differences?
339	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/25/2004 5:16:00	[quote:1feb7cmj]Climacus: "I of course must have more confidence in my experience than in the reality I presume to underlie it."[/quote:1feb7cmj] The "presume" part is where I am driving. It is a hypothesis. You recognize that. I recognize that. It is also a hypothesis that the presumption is about that which is immutable. Again, you recognize that, and I recognize that. The difference between our thoughts, apparently, is not the lack of recognition. The difference is that I am explicitly willing to pursue the possibility of mutable laws to the extent that laws damn us, whereas, as I understand you, you are unwilling to pursue such a possibility whatsoever -- or, in other words, you are certain there neither is nor ever will be greater salvation through such a pursuit. This is where, in the friendliest of ways, I would charge you with dogmatism. I am charging you not because I think you do not recognize the limits of knowledge; I am charging you because you DO recognize the limits, and yet you insist on worshiping the God of immutability regardless of potential damnation. In fairness, you did mention that you would change your mind if God told you to change it. My worry here, however, is that the immutable God may never tell you to change your mind; indeed, by definition, he cannot if he has not already. [quote:1feb7cmj]Climacus: "Obviously if someone put a gun to my head and said: 'Which is more real -- your experience or your causal interpretation of that experience?' I would choose the former."[/quote:1feb7cmj] We are good empiricists. :-) [quote:1feb7cmj]Climacus: "The regularities I observe through (common) experience strongly suggest the existence of durable properties of existence that do not vary (in principle) across individuals."[/quote:1feb7cmj] Durable? Sure. Communicable? Yes. Generally invariant? Okay. Utterly immutable? Maybe . . . and maybe not. To the extent that our salvation depends on it, I am ready to test the maybe-not hypothesis. Maybe we just need to convince the architect to adjust a binary value in his computer from "0" to "1" in order to reverse entropy?
340	The Font of Knowledge	Dad	6/25/2004 5:42:00	Here is a poem I wrote for my father while serving an LDS mission: [b:2shhn518]A Bluish-Green Pebble[/b:2shhn518] A bluish-green pebble bemoaning its being, and wondering whether ‘twas doing its Doings, regarded the heavens and prayed with what power a bluish-green pebble may manage to muster. The Sun from his glory regarded the pebble and lighted upon it: Oh, bluish-green pebble, in giving the given you’re doing your Doings, reflecting my light by a bluish-green given. The bluish-green pebble regarded the river which carried it closer the goal of its going, and wondered the reason; so, turning toward heaven, the bluish-green pebble repeated its wonders. The Sun softly smiled, regarding the pebble, remarking its roundness and sensing its smoothness: Oh, bluish-green pebble, the river’s a wonder you’ll understand flows for a bluish-green reason.
341	The Font of Knowledge	Development of the Old Covenant	6/25/2004 5:55:00	The following are notes on Julius Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis, as expanded by Richard E. Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible?" [b:15hir74p]Some reasons why it is believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch/Torah:[/b:15hir74p] (1) Nowhere in the text does it say that Moses was the author; (2) there are contradictions and inconsistencies between doublets in the text (e.g., order of events, numbers of things, names of people and places); (3) the text includes things that Moses was not likely to have written (e.g., an account of Moses' death, statement that Moses was the humblest man on Earth; statement that there never arose another prophet in Israel like Moses); (4) and references to Moses are in the third person. [b:15hir74p]Some reasons why it is believed the Pentateuch/Torah is a combination of older sources:[/b:15hir74p] (1) Presence of many doublets and triplets (e.g., two creation accounts, two accounts of the covenant between God and Abraham, two accounts of naming Isaac, two accounts of Abraham telling a foreign king that his wife is his sister, two accounts of Jacob's journey to Mesopotamia, two accounts of a revelation to Jacob at Beth-El, two accounts of Jacob's name being changed to Israel, two accounts of Moses getting water from a rock); (2) the style and word choice differ between doublets (e.g., one version of each doublet refers to the deity as Yahweh while the other version refers to the deity as Elohim); (3) the style of Deuteronomy differs from the other books. [b:15hir74p]Characteristics of the Sources:[/b:15hir74p] J Document: Not found in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, deity is always referred to as Yahweh, man is created first in the creation account (Genesis 2:4-25), the flood lasts forty days and forty nights (Genesis 7:17, 8:6, 8-13), emphasizes the Ark of the Covenant, never mentions the Tabernacle, promotes the role of Aaron and the tribe of Judah while reducing the role of Moses and the tribe of Ephraim, probably written in the Kingdom of Judah between 925-722 BC. E Document: Not found in Leviticus, only ten verses in Deuteronomy, deity is referred to as Elohim until the arrival of Moses after which deity is referred to as Yahweh, mentions the Tabernacle, never mentions the Ark of the Covenant, promotes the role of Moses and the tribe of Ephraim while reducing the role of Aaron and the tribe of Judah, favors the political structure of the Kingdom of Israel while attacking its religious establishment, probably written in the Kingdom of Israel between 925-722 BC by a Levitical priest from Shiloh. J Document and E Document were probably combined soon after the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC when northern refugees were attempting to reunite with the southern community. P Document: Largest of the source documents, also the main source for 1 and 2 Chronicles, includes most of the legal sections and concentrates a great deal on matters having to do with Aaronic priests, comprises all of Leviticus except twelve verses, only three verses in Deuteronomy, deity referred to as Elohim and portrayed as a God of justice without a single reference to mercy, man is created last in the creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:3), the flood lasts a year (Genesis 7:11, 13, 8:13-16), emphasizes the Tabernacle, contains no events involving such things as angels or talking animals, promotes the role of Aaron while reducing the role of Moses, promotes the religious reforms of King Hezekiah such as centralization of worship, probably written in Jerusalem by an Aaronic priest during the reign of King Hezekiah (715-687 BC). D Document: Found only in Deuteronomy, also the main source for the next six books of the Bible (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings), quotes JE Document extensively and P Document once, includes the Law Code (Deuteronomy 12-26) which was probably written in the Kingdom of Israel between 925-722 BC by a Levitical priest from Shiloh, includes the Court History of David, presented as Moses' farewell speech before his death, emphasizes the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:16) while acknowledging its inferiority to the Mosaic covenant (Deuteronomy 31:16-18), promotes the religious reforms of King Josiah such as centralization of worship, reduces the role of Aaronic priests, the priest Hilkiah claimed its discovery in the Temple in 622 BC (2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chronicles 34:14-15), probably written in Jerusalem by the prophet Jeremiah during the reign of King Josiah (640-609 BC) and edited by him after the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah in 587 BC. JE Document, P Document and D Document were probably combined by the priest Ezra during the exile in Babylon between 587-458 BC. Ezra returned from Babylon to Judah in 458 BC with the Pentateuch/Torah as we know it.
342	The Font of Knowledge	Development of the New Covenant	6/25/2004 6:19:00	[b:1tzdwsmw]The Reconciliation of Christian Doctrine to Neoplatonism[/b:1tzdwsmw] In this essay I will briefly analyze and discuss the major influence of Neoplatonism on Christian doctrine throughout the second, third, fourth and fifth centuries AD. Since I cannot address every aspect of Neoplatonism’s influence on Christian doctrine, I will emphasize the conflict between and subsequent reconciliation of Christian doctrine to Neoplatonism in regards to the nature of God. The Conflict Neoplatonists inherited Greek philosophy’s traditional understanding of the nature of God. This tradition was as ancient as Xenophanes who advocated a being, one and incorporeal, greatest among gods and men, not resembling mortals, without parts, all awareness, the rule among the multitude. Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Antisthenes and Euclid were among the Greek philosophers who carried on this tradition which culminated in Plato who taught of a transcendent, immaterial, yet fully existent Good from which emanates all being. Neoplatonists such as Plutarch and Plotinus expounded their inherited tradition claiming that God is opposite anything corporeal, without form or shape, all-transcendent, the existent One. Into a culture championing this ancient tradition came Christianity. The early Christians had a far simpler, perhaps less developed, and obviously differing understanding of the nature of God. They believed that a man, Jesus Christ, was God. This man, the early Christians claimed, was a premortal God who took upon himself mortality and who was killed and resurrected bodily. Furthermore, this God claimed to have a Father, also God, greater than himself. This understanding of the nature of God seriously conflicted with Neoplatonism. The conflict between the early Christian understanding of the nature of God and that of Neoplatonism was two-fold: first, while God was one and supreme for Neoplatonists, God was more than one — at least two — and admitted of degrees for the early Christians; second, while mortality was incompatible, even contradictory with God’s nature for Neoplatonists, a single God, Jesus Christ, was both mortal and divine for early Christians. This two-fold conflict eventually resulted in a two-fold reconciliation of Christian doctrine to Neoplatonism, as I will discuss in the next section. The Reconciliation It seems that a reconciliation of Christian doctrine to Neoplatonism may have been inevitable. One scholar claims that “the early Christians were concerned with progress and modernity” and they “used the voices of antiquity to accomplish their concerns.” Another scholar claims that Greek education was so complex and widely diffused that it modified Christianity. Either way you look at it, whether Christianity chose to incorporate Neoplatonism or Neoplatonism forced itself into Christianity, the fact of the matter is that Christian doctrine was reconciled to Neoplatonism. The voices of Christian doctrine’s reconciliation to Neoplatonism were many. Philo, although a Jew, played a role in the reconciliation. Living in Alexandria at the time of Jesus Christ, Philo began to employ the figurative method of scriptural interpretation to the Old Testament as a means of achieving a Platonic understanding of the scriptures. His example opened the way for later Christian Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, to interpret the Christian writings figuratively and in a manner acceptable to their Neoplatonist educations. Other voices of the reconciliation were the Catholic Fathers Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. Ambrose was familiar with the works of Plato and popularized the allegorical method of interpretation in the west. Jerome, likewise, was schooled in Greek philosophy and used Neoplatonism to advance Christianity; in fact, as the story goes, God told Jerome in a dream that he was not a Christian at all, but a Ciceronian. Augustine, even more thoroughly than both Ambrose and Jerome, developed a Christian theology influenced by Neoplatonism. Yet another voice of the reconciliation was the Roman emperor Constantine, and for the purposes of this paper which is focused on the reconciliation of Christian doctrine on the nature of God to Neoplatonism, he becomes a very important voice. It was Constantine who called together the theologians representing the various factions of the disintegrating early Christian church, and it was Constantine who used the power of the Roman armies and government to insure a reconciliation. At the Nicene council of 325 AD, the above mentioned first conflict between the early Christian understanding of the nature of God and that of Neoplatonism was reconciled. The two sides of the issue were represented by Arius and Athanasius. Arius denied the divinity of Jesus Christ in favor of a single God, the Father. Athanasius argued for the complete Godhood of Jesus Christ. Constantine made it clear that he favored Athanasius’ position, so the council adopted it and the Athanasian creed was formulated. God became defined, right along Neoplatonistic lines, without body, parts or passions; and the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost were defined as a single tripartite being, a mysterious trinity which transcends human reason. Soon after, the Christological controversy came to heads and the above mentioned second conflict between the early Christian understanding of the nature of God and that of Neoplatonism was reconciled. Nestorius of Antioch favored the monophysite point-of-view that Jesus Christ had a single nature: the divine. Alexandrians favored a dualistic point-of-view where Jesus Chirst was both divine and mortal. The emperor came down on the side of those holding the dualistic point-of-view, Nestorius and his followers were exiled, and the mystery of the incarnation was formulated: in a manner transcending mortal reason, the divine was incarnated into flesh and bone and became both divine and mortal. However, in harmony with Neoplatonism, an allegorical interpretation of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was maintained; the flesh was something to overcome. These ecumenical councils concerning the nature of God were not extent of Christian doctrine’s reconciliation to Neoplatonism. For example, a further reconciliation concluded, in harmony with Neoplatonism, that the world and man were created out of nothing. By the fifth century, however, the reconciliation of Christian doctrine to Neoplatonism by means of various ecumenical councils and theologician’s arguments, was so thorough that “it helped the Christian communities to believe as an intellectual conviction that which they had first accepted as a spiritual revelation.” Conclusion In this essay I have briefly analyzed and discussed the major influence of Neoplatonism on Christian doctrine throughout the second, third, fourth and fifth centuries AD. To do this, I have emphasized the two-fold reconciliation of Christian doctrine on the nature of God to Neoplatonism. ---------- [b:1tzdwsmw]The Synthesis of Christian Doctrine with Aristotelian Concepts and Method[/b:1tzdwsmw] In this essay I will discuss the Scholastics’ synthesis of Christian doctrine with Aristotelian concepts and method. I will first briefly describe both pre-Scholastic Christian doctrine and Aristotelian concepts and method. I will then explain how their synthesis came about, some major features of this synthesis and some of the problems associated with and what became of it. The Conflict Pre-Scholastic Christian doctrine had been reconciled with Neoplatonism. The emperor Constantine, Clement and Origen of Alexandria, Jerome, Ambrose, and especially Augustine played significant roles in this reconciliation. Subsequent to the influence of these persons and in harmony with Neoplatonism, Christian Doctrine denied the literal physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and identified God with Plato’s transcendent Good. A successful reconciliation of Christian doctrine to popular philosophy had been achieved. With time, however, the popular philosophy changed from Platonism to Aristotelianism. The Arabs came to possess most of Aristotle’s works by means of the Byzantine Greeks and the exiled Christian Nestorians. They incorporated Aristotle’s concepts and method into their science. They eventually conquered Spain and brought with them the works, the concepts and method of Aristotle. In this manner Aristotle was introduced to many western Europeans, and they were impressed. The works of Aristotle constitute “a complete rational system explaining the universe as a whole in terms of natural causes.” Aristotle demonstrates by means of deduction from self-evident first principles what can be known. The cosmos is composed of four elements, four substantial forms and four types of motion. Place is defined in terms of a reference point, a direction and a distance. The reference point is in the center, and each element has a natural motion in relation to this center. Earth and water move towards the center. Fire and air move away from the center. Thus, at the center we find the planet Earth, the reference point by which place is determined in the cosmos. Rotating around the Earth and composed of ether are eleven spherical heavens, one for the moon, another for the sun, one for each of the seven known planets, one for the stars and another of daily motion. These heavens and the Earth have always existed and are caused to move by an unmoved mover and first cause, the one pure form. These are the Aristotelian concepts and method which came to be popular among western Europeans, and to which Christian doctrine needed synthesize if it was to remain scientific. The Synthesis The synthesis of Christian doctrine with Aristotelian concepts and method was performed by the Scholastics. The Scholastics used Aristotle’s method of deriving knowledge deductively from self-evident principles to transform theology into a science. A number of Scholastic theologians could be used as examples, but only two will be mentioned here: Anselm and Aquinas. Anselm of Canterbury is best known for his development of the ontological argument for God’s existence. Anselm claims that by “God” we mean “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Since it is greater for something conceived to exist than not to exist, God must exist. This is an excellent example of the synthesis of Christian doctrine with Aristotelian method. Thomas Aquinas is best known for his work, Summa Theologica. In this work, Aquinas used Aristotle’s method to develop the science of theology. His scrupulously organized work divides knowledge into two realms: that which can be arrived at naturally via logic, and that which must be accepted by faith. Among the knowledge which can be arrived at by logic is the existence of God. Aquinas offers five arguments or proofs for this: there must be a first cause, there must be an unmoved mover, there must be a being which cannot cease to exist, there must be a perfect form for such virtues as the good and the Earth appears to be designed intelligently. The influence of Aristotelian concepts on Aquinas’ thinking is obvious. By means of Anselm, Aquinas and the other Scholastic theologians, Christian doctrine was synthesized with Aristotelian concepts and method. God became the one pure form, the unmoved mover and first cause. Heaven and its hierarchy of angels came to be associated with Aristotle’s various heavens, and God surrounded them all. Hell became the bottom of the cosmos, the center of the Earth. Christian doctrine was once more in harmony with popular philosophy and was considered, at least by the Scholastics, a science. But just as the Neoplatonic philosophy and its science was replaced, so the science derived from Aristotelian philosophy was to be replaced. Various persons living at the time of Thomas Aquinas were already nurturing the future science. Bacon and others at Oxford University in England were acknowledging the merely probable nature of Aristotle’s method. Knowledge derived from so-called self-evident first principles is only as certain as those first principles, and those first principles are not as self-evident as some would have liked to believe. Furthermore, Copernicus, Galileo and others recognized while regarding the heavens that the Aristotelian conception of the cosmos needed modification. And in time Aristotelian concepts and method were no longer the popular philosophy. This, of course, was unfortunate for Christian doctrine: the canonized cosmos was disrupted. Was the Scholastic synthesis of Christian doctrine with Aristotelian concepts and method good? Likewise, was the original reconciliation of Christian doctrine to Neoplatonism good? These are difficult questions to answer. Obviously they both caused stability and, subsequently, confusion. At first, Christian doctrine’s reconciliation and synthesis to popular philosophy saved Christian lives, and perhaps a good number of non-Christian lives. Later, this reconciliation and synthesis cost both Christian and non-Christian lives. At first, the reconciliation and synthesis produced faith in Christian doctrine. Later, they gave cause for doubts. Good or bad? Perhaps the questions should be rephrased: were the synthesis and reconciliation avoidable? If all our beliefs are to be held together within a framework then we will need philosophy of some sort. If Christian doctrine offers no such philosophic framework for its experience then we will look for something else. This something else, for most people, will probably be the popular philosophy of their time and place. Conclusion In this essay I have discussed the Scholastics’ synthesis of Christian doctrine with Aristotelian concepts and method. I have described pre-Scholastic Christian doctrine as a reconciliation with Neoplatonism, and I have described Aristotelian concepts and method. I have explained how their synthesis came about by means of various theologians such as Anselm and Aquinas, and I have described some major features, problems and benefits of this synthesis. ---------- [b:1tzdwsmw]The Reconciliation of Christian Doctrine with Enlightenment Science[/b:1tzdwsmw] In this essay I will discuss the rise and fall of the reconciliation of Christian doctrine with science from the time of the scientific revolution through the time of Darwin. I will first briefly outline the position of religion prior to the reconciliation, the position of science at the time of the scientific revolution and the conflicts between these two positions. I will then explain how these two positions were reconciled and by whom. Finally, I will discuss the eventual fall of this reconciliation. The Conflict Pre-enlightenment Christian doctrine had been synthesized with Aristotelian philosophy. The Scholastic theologians Anselm and Aquinas played significant roles in this synthesis. Both Anselm and Aquinas deductively proved the existence and nature of God using Aristotle’s logic. Aquinas developed a thorough cosmological synthesis of Christian doctrine and Aristotelian cosmology. Two important facets of this cosmological synthesis were: first, the Earth was at the bottom or center of the universe, just as Aristotle taught; and second, Aristotle’s unmoved mover and first cause became associated with God. Enlightenment science was born within the context of this synthesis. Enlightenment science was at odds with the Christian-Aristotelian synthesis. Various persons living at the time of Aquinas were already nurturing what would become Enlightenment epistemology. These scholars, known as Probabilists, argued that the conclusions of Aristotelian logic were merely contingent, not certain, and that as far as they concerned the real world they could and should be checked by experience. Christian-Aristotelian cosmology was also under attack. Copernicus, while attempting to account for the movements of the heavenly bodies without the mathematical device of equants, theorized a model of the universe with the sun at the center. Tycho, Kepler and Galileo followed suit and further developed this sun-centered model of the universe. As a further blow to the Christian-Aristotelian cosmology, Descartes helped popularize the idea of a mechanical universe in which God played no role other than the original creation of matter and natural laws. As the Naturalist theories forwarded by these scholars became accepted, most of the old arguments on behalf of the existence and nature of God slowly fell out of favor, and the time neared for a further reconciliation of Christian doctrine to the science of the time. The Reconciliation Christian doctrine was reconciled to Enlightenment science primarily by means of Aquinas’ fifth argument for the existence of God: the argument from design. Newton developed the theory of universal gravity which, by design, he argued, proved the existence of God: whatever causes gravity must be everywhere, have extraordinary power and know where everything is at all times. What else but God could fulfill these requirements? Newton explained that God must control the universe as man controls his body, by direct sensory experience. Paley, in Natural Theology, reasoned that since the universe is complex, would have required great power to create and provides for its inhabitants, God must be wise, powerful and benevolent. In Christian Evidences, Paley offered an argument from design on behalf of Christianity. He reasoned that since we know that God is good and that he has created creatures which have the capacity and desire for knowledge of the universe, we can expect that God would fulfill this desire. Thus, natural theology leads us to expect revelation. Furthermore, we can expect that the God of nature would verify that the revelation comes from him by showing his power over nature: miracles. As can be read in the Bible, Christianity offers both revelation and miracles, and is thus the true religion. In this manner Christian scholars, such as Newton and Paley, used the argument from design to ground Christian doctrine and a new reconciliation was achieved. The Fall of the Reconciliation The tool used to dismantle the reconciliation of Christian doctrine to Enlightenment science was naturalism. Deists, as did Descartes, believed in a mechanistic universe set in motion by God. Miracles and prayers, they argued, deny the perfection of God. If God performs a miracle, this shows his creation is not perfect because it needs to be altered; and if God answers a prayer, this shows he is not perfect because he can be persuaded. With these things in mind, Christianity is irrational and God is effectively removed from the day to day affairs of the universe. Deists held to a Cartesian view of God as the initial creator of natural laws. However, the dismantling of Christianity’s reconciliation to Enlightenment science did not stop here. Three thoroughly naturalistic theories replaced God as the explanation for the design found in the universe. The first is Laplace’s nebular hypothesis in the field of astronomy. This hypothesis helps explain and predict celestial mechanics, including the formation of the solar system. Essentially, Laplace argued that from Newton’s laws we can infer that randomly distributed matter in random motion must eventually produce solar systems such as our own. The second theory which tended to replace God as the explanation for design is Lyell’s uniformitarianism in the field of geology. Geologists such as Bufon and Hutton were already arguing on behalf of a much more ancient age for the Earth than the six thousand years attributed in Genesis. Lyell fleshed out these arguments and explained that natural processes such as those we experience each day are sufficient to account for the topography and geography of the Earth given thousands, millions or billions of years. Finally, the third theory which tended to replace God as the explanation for design and perhaps had the most impact on Christianity was Darwin’s theory of organic evolution in the field of biology. Darwin was impressed by such things as the differences between species corresponding to differences in geography. Having become familiar with Lyell’s uniformitarianism, Darwin thought it may be possible to explain biological design in the same manner: given enough time, random variations in species and natural selection could explain the design we find in plant and animal life. A naturalistic explanation of the universe was developed, the argument by design for the existence of God was refuted and the reconciliation of Christian doctrine to Enlightenment science was dismantled. Conclusion In this essay I have discussed the rise and fall of the reconciliation of Christian doctrine with science from the time of the scientific revolution through the time of Darwin. I have described the position of religion prior to the reconciliation as a synthesis of Christian doctrine and Aristotelian philosophy, and I have explained that this synthesis conflicted with the epistemological and cosmological views of Enlightenment science. I then explained how scholars reconciled these views using the argument by design. Finally, I discussed the eventual fall of this reconciliation to naturalism. ---------- [b:1tzdwsmw]Bibliography[/b:1tzdwsmw] Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957) Edward K. Rand, Founders of the Middle Ages (Harvard University Press, 1928) James L. Barker, The Divine Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1952-1954) A. C. Crombie, Medieval and Early Modern Science (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959) Etienne Gilson, Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages (New York: Scribners, 1938) H. S. Thayer, Newton’s Philosophy of Nature
343	The Font of Knowledge	Justifying: To whom?	6/27/2004 1:11:00	. . . so now you want me to clean up my mess? ;-)
344	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/27/2004 5:49:00	[quote:3n3tv2y5]Climacus: "The difference would be that my version could lead to a 'resigned damnation' and your version could lead to a 'busy damnation' . . ."[/quote:3n3tv2y5] This is the understanding I hoped we would reach.
345	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/29/2004 5:16:00	[quote:2w9ba1jk]Grasshopper: "Do you see a difference between positing the existence of other beings, positing the existence of a material world, and positing the existence of completely regular behaviors (laws)?"[/quote:2w9ba1jk] Other beings and the material world are inseparable from the laws that we extrapolate from them. Other beings and the material world simply do not exist in any meaningful way independent of their behaviors. What is a being if not its behavior? What is the material world if not its behavior? We can try to break them down into atoms (literally or figuratively speaking), but they too are full of behavior and meaningless without. Positing the existence of other beings is a spiritual position. Positing the existence of the material world is a physical position. Both are positions of faith. Likewise, positing law is in faith. Like law, other beings and the material world demonstrate regular behavior. Also like law, their regular behavior can change -- if not constantly in our experience then at least potentially in our conception. [quote:2w9ba1jk]Grasshopper: "Can you also describe the value in distinguishing between the general and the particular (such that lawlike behavior may be generally observed, but there is value in allowing for exceptions)?"[/quote:2w9ba1jk] Generalizations allow us to predict the future. Particulars allow us to change the future. This provides balance between order and novelty. As we experience, we gain ever greater potential for producing useful generalizations. As we produce generalizations, we gain ever greater potential for changing them via their particulars. Knowledge is power. If I do not know what I am likely to do five minutes from now, I am likely to do whatever I am likely to do five minutes from now. If I know what I am likely to do five minutes from now, I can make a choice -- a much more real choice. If we know what we are likely to experience five years from now, we have a real choice of embracing the likelihood or pursuing some other possibility. Our informed pursuit changes the statistics. Through knowledge, we are empowered to pursue our desires. We cannot intentionally change a law we do not understand. We cannot intentionally modify a generalization of which we do not conceive. However, once we understand and conceive, we can work to change the particulars. In addition, if we do not allow for exceptional particuars, we will not look for them. By not looking, we decrease our chances of finding. If we do not find, we may be missing out on experience that would change our understanding of the generalization for the better and provide us with yet greater predictive power. [quote:2w9ba1jk]Grasshopper: "Does your radical empiricism tend toward valuing past experiences (and types of experiences) over seeking other kinds of experiences?"[/quote:2w9ba1jk] Empiricism is about valuing experience whether expected or not. However, valuing experience can manifest itself in both useful and unuseful ways. On the one hand, we may work to explain experience in a manner that provides us predictive power, through generalizations. The more and father reaching generalizations we can make, the stronger our predictive power. On the other hand, we may choose to keep a particular experience or set of experience apart from the rest, for whatever reason, thereby limiting its impact on the predictive value of our other experience as well as its own predictive power. I suppose this means that there is a primary duty to attempt to categorize experience within the context of past kinds of experience. This duty stems from the need to maintain and extend the predictive power of our current understanding. There are survival risks if we do not do this. However, at some point new experience simply may not fit, and a new understanding will need to be developed. As far as the seeking goes, I don't think empiricism has as much to do with it as does a person's curiosity. We may or may not be curious in our empiricism. As for me, I am a curious person, but I am also a careful person. This manifests itself in a blend of liberal-leaning thought and conservative-leaning action. I am interested in novelty, but I do not want carelessly to jeoprodize the order. This seems wise to me. Whether it is wise depends as much or more on her as it does on me.
346	The Font of Knowledge	Problem with Pragmatism?	6/30/2004 3:56:00	[quote:2uez6zaz]Grasshopper: "Throughout this thread, you seem to take the position that complete, unchanging regularity (law) could be a threat, something to fear, something that prevents us from achieving a fulness of joy."[/quote:2uez6zaz] . . . could -- yes. [quote:2uez6zaz]Grasshopper: "But is that necessarily the case with unchangeable law?"[/quote:2uez6zaz] No [quote:2uez6zaz]Grasshopper: "Or could it be that unchangeable law actually contributes to achieving a fulness of joy?"[/quote:2uez6zaz] Yes My concern is only that we maitain faith that it can be changed to the extent that it proves detrimental to the fullness of joy. [quote:2uez6zaz]Grasshopper: "For example, suppose it turns out that positively charged particles always attract negatively charged particles, and that we can't change this fact. Is this something we should fear, or something that we should rejoice in, because we can rely on its regularity and 'exploit' this fact to progress in our joy?"[/quote:2uez6zaz] To the extent it is actually and potentially beneficial, we seek to exploit it. To the extent it is actually and potentially detrimental, we seek to change it. Arosophos, previously: ". . . if we do not allow for exceptional particuars, we will not look for them." [quote:2uez6zaz]Grasshopper: "It seems to me that even if one allows for exceptional particulars, the looking itself is a matter of desire. If I am indifferent to the potential exceptional particulars, then I will not have much motivation to look for (or even acknowledge?) them."[/quote:2uez6zaz] I agree. My previous statement only indicated the logical implication of not allowing for exceptional particulars. It does not follow from the statement that we will look for them simply because we allow for them. As you point out, we may allow for yet be apathetic toward them. [quote:2uez6zaz]Grasshopper: "Indeed, it seems that someone who not only allows for exceptional particulars, but posits specific ones, will look further."[/quote:2uez6zaz] I agree, and I think this is essential to progress. All we need is a single exception to demonstrate the need for better generalizations. [quote:2uez6zaz]Grasshopper: "But if your dichotomy of discovery versus creation of truth is correct, then this attitude of discovery may be problematic, right?"[/quote:2uez6zaz] The dichotomy is a simplification for easy understanding. In reality, we discover and create simultaneously, although to varying relative degrees. Perhaps the best attitude is illustrated by the willingness simultaneously to seek to discover the better world to the extent it exists and to create it to the extent it does not. Seeking the one forwards the other. ----- [quote:2uez6zaz]Ignorant Sage: "We can always call each new 'regularity' a higher law, ad infinitum up the ladder of higher laws. But if at each step we keep finding a way, and keep looking for a way, than aren't we saying that the 'laws' we know now are not 'laws' at all?"[/quote:2uez6zaz] Yes
347	The Font of Knowledge	Foundations of The True and Living Church	7/1/2004 4:08:00	Amen to Brothers Joseph, Brigham and John.
348	The Font of Knowledge	Justifying: To whom?	7/1/2004 4:12:00	What is persuasive justification like?
349	The Font of Knowledge	Justifying: To whom?	7/3/2004 18:20:00	The question was for belly -- a follow-up on the metaphor.
350	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/3/2004 18:25:00	[quote:23c0inu6]Fanger: "I have faith in an absolute morality outside myself (e.g. “We should love others”), but it isn’t objectively knowable and it is applied differently in different situations."[/quote:23c0inu6] It is absolute, yet it is not objective and is applied differently in different situations. This sounds like an abstraction of the kind Joey indicated when he referred to dualism.
351	The Font of Knowledge	oh say what is truth	7/3/2004 18:32:00	[quote:gcq99y55]Fanger: "Objective for me refers to the realm of things we intuit to have existence independent of our perception . . . For instance, 'the dog is blue.' That's objective."[/quote:gcq99y55] Is the dog blue independent of our perception? [quote:gcq99y55]Fanger: "An objective argument would be one that attempts to step outside the experiencing person and ignore the internal nature of his/her experience."[/quote:gcq99y55] Can objectivity be objective without accounting for the subjectivity of which it is composed? [quote:gcq99y55]Fanger: "'I experience a thing that seems like a dog and seems to be blue.' That's subjective."[/quote:gcq99y55] Practically speaking, should we consider this statement to mean anything different than the previous statement? Shouldn't we understand all statements to be qualified in this manner, regardless of whether the qualifications are made explicit? [quote:gcq99y55]Fanger: "In an experiential setting, objective is related to the things that we think/sense to be outside the existing/feeling/perceiving/conscious subject (you or me)."[/quote:gcq99y55] Is this objectivity exclusive or inclusive of the subject?
352	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/3/2004 23:47:00	Hi Fanger. If you are interested, I would like to continue the discussion here. [quote:3uja4wr6]Fanger: "I didn’t say it was not objective, I said it can’t be objectively known by us . . ."[/quote:3uja4wr6] What is objective knowledge, and how does that relate to objectivity? Can you or I have any objective knowledge? Why or why not? Can anyone have objective knowledge? Why or why not? [quote:3uja4wr6]Fanger: ". . . we can’t say love is a moral good like we say a dog has four legs . . ."[/quote:3uja4wr6] Why not? [quote:3uja4wr6]Fanger: ". . . even if for an omniscient being, both are equally true . . ."[/quote:3uja4wr6] In what way may "love is a moral good" and "a dog has four legs" be equally true for an omniscient being? What would it mean for these propositions to be equally true? [quote:3uja4wr6]Fanger: "After Joey’s last post, I realized there might be a difference between his view of morality and mine, which is this: we agree on epistemology here that nobody can make objective conclusions about morality, but disagree on ontology in that I have faith in the existence of ONE morality for a given situation (e.g. I have faith that it is always right to love your child) and Joey’s language seems to posit the existence of TWO moralities for a given situation (DUalism). I may be wrong about Joey, but this was what I was clarifying."[/quote:3uja4wr6] Can you love your child in two or more ways? Is it conceivable that love be immoral in a given situation? [quote:3uja4wr6]Fanger: "We all live our lives with an understanding of subjects and objects and the fact that the two are related. Whether or not certain Continental philosophers think there’s a distinction, in real life everyone on the street knows (intuits) the difference/relation."[/quote:3uja4wr6] . . . as everyone knows the difference between spirit and body, or the relation between electricity and magnetism? Is common sense sufficient for anything except that which is common? Are we satisfied with that which is common? I'm not. I wager you're not.
353	The Font of Knowledge	oh say what is truth	7/3/2004 23:49:00	Fanger, if you are interested, please see my response here: [url=http://www.spockwithabeard.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=77699#77699:1o3aawyt]Fanger's Objectivism[/url:1o3aawyt]
354	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/3/2004 23:50:00	Fanger, if you are interested, please see my response here: [url=http://www.spockwithabeard.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=77699#77699:3v4t3d3h]Fanger's Objectivism[/url:3v4t3d3h]
355	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/4/2004 22:21:00	Thanks. I'll look forward to it.
356	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/4/2004 22:26:00	Joey repeatedly uses "we" in his original statement.
357	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/4/2004 22:41:00	How so?
358	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/4/2004 22:55:00	[quote:ismqae8e]Joey: ". . . does there have to exist some outside force to justify our belief in God and truth? i say no. all of these feelings may well be nothing more than chemicals. but so what? this is God. and it's God because we say it's God. we believe, and we have joy as a result. there is no need for justification beyond the joy we feel in positing and exercising faith in the belief."[/quote:ismqae8e] If "we" is understood in the broadest sense -- inclusive of all, human or otherwise, from the greatest to the smallest of magnitudes, who can experience joy, or that which is analogous to joy -- then I agree with the statement.
359	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/4/2004 23:33:00	[quote:1r4hktsp]Timothy: "OK. But, it can't be all inclusive."[/quote:1r4hktsp] Whether or not we may attain such inclusivity, we may attempt to approach it. Faith in Christ means to me that we can always approach that inclusivity. [quote:1r4hktsp]Timothy: "We don't share the same chemical makeup, we don't all share the same desires, we don't believe in the same god."[/quote:1r4hktsp] . . . which is among the reasons I think that inclusivity can be approached best (and perhaps only) through forms of pluralism. [quote:1r4hktsp]Timothy: "Joey is clearly, in my opinion, talking about individuals here, and not collective communities."[/quote:1r4hktsp] Individuals, with the "s", are community. It is clear to me that he was writing about more than himself. What is that more than himself of which he wrote? It could be anything on the spectrum between the inclusivity of which we now write and something along the lines of himself and one other individual. His honest clarification can enlighten us concerning his original intention, but either way it seems grammatically contradictory to conclude that he was talking about a single individual. [quote:1r4hktsp]Timothy: "In the context of the thread where the quote was taken from, he was talking to an individual about individual beliefs."[/quote:1r4hktsp] . . . but he was referencing multiple individual beliefs. To what magnitude of multiple individual beliefs was he referencing? I don't know. He may not remember. If he does, perhaps he will tell us. [quote:1r4hktsp]Timothy: "To me, that usage would turn the quote completely on its head, and then you'd have to explain why you discuss the individual chemical makeup of our brains."[/quote:1r4hktsp] This limits the scope of possible meanings for "individuals" to those that allow for an account of individuality in terms of chemistry. Arguably, however, all individuality may be descibed in such terms. [quote:1r4hktsp]Timothy: ". . . does that mean that you'd disagree with the statement if that is not what Joey meant when he used the word 'we?'"[/quote:1r4hktsp] I will disagree, for ethical reasons, to the extent that his use of "we" was not intended toward pluralistic inclusivity within the bounds of oppression -- inclusion of exclusion is a form of inclusion, but only at the expense of itself.
360	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/5/2004 21:19:00	[quote:j1ph1imz]Fanger: "What does 'pluralistic inclusivity' mean and why do you care about it?"[/quote:j1ph1imz] I consider desire to be the foundation for morality, and I do not think we need all have the same desires. To the extent that desires conflict, we need to atone, which is not the same as compromise. Atonement may manifest itself in changing one or both (or more) parties to the conflict for the better. To the extent that desires are oppressive of others, some form of counter-oppression of desires is justified. "Pluralistic inclusivity" was a way to describe a world in which an infinite number of varying desires find place for expression with ever less conflict and oppression. Among the alternatives is something like monistic inclusivity, in which conflicts and oppression are overcome by changing all desires to be the same. Pluralistic inclusivity, on the other hand, finds value in and attempts to make place for variance in desire. A world that works to make place for a pluralism of desires is the kind of world in which I desire to live. In such a world, I am confident there will be room for me. In such a world, I am confident that there will be room for the differences in the persons I love -- which, I hope, can be an ever-increasing number of persons. I don't know whether there will be room for me or the persons I love in a monistic world. In that world, only one desire matters, and all else, by whatever means, must ultimately be subdued in the unique expression of that one desire. When I read the scriptures, I understand there to be many Gods that we can choose to worship. Among them are at least these two: the God that would raise himself above all else that is called God, declaring himself God; and the God that would raise us up together as joint-heirs in all that is called God. I recognize some of the appeal of the former. I try to choose the latter. [quote:j1ph1imz]Fanger: ". . . doesn't the fact that you have no clue when another person is experiencing joy mean you have to revert to something whithin yourself as a guide? What other option do we have?"[/quote:j1ph1imz] Where do I end and you begin? Are any of us closed systems? Beyond that, although, from my perspective, your existence is and always will be a hypothesis, a matter of faith, I have learned through experiment and induction that you act in ways that I associate with joy in myself when I treat you in certain manners. Is this no clue? To the contrary, it is full of clues, as many as any of our hypotheses, theories and laws. We can be good empiricists, put our faith in the experience, and work to make the better world -- experientially.
361	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/5/2004 21:24:00	Thanks, Fanger. I'll be back.
362	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/6/2004 1:37:00	If the fulfillment of a given desire does not lead to joy, it does not within the context of some greater desire that is not fulfilled or is unfulfilled because of the fulfillment of the lesser desire. Define joy without appealing to desire or its equivalent, and you will be defining that which is not joy.
363	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/6/2004 1:41:00	Another point to make, so as to continue poisoning the voting well, is that, as not all desires are equal in quality (as described above), so not all are equal in quantity. Some desires will result in short-term joy. Some will result in long-term joy. Some will result in both. The greater joys result from fulfilling desires that are greater in both quality and quantity.
364	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/6/2004 1:52:00	[quote:3qe8s4qz]Timothy: "What is desire?"[/quote:3qe8s4qz] . . . will . . . want . . . intention . . . hope . . . wish . . . lack . . . longing . . . envy . . . appetite . . . drive . . . need . . . covet . . . crave . . . aim . . . It is an experience, a feeling. [quote:3qe8s4qz]Timothy: "Is all desire good?"[/quote:3qe8s4qz] In a world consisting of only one desirer, the desires of the desirer are exhaustively definitional of that which is good. The same is true of our world, but to an infinitly more complex magnitude. Evil results from conflicting and oppressive desires -- possibilities only within a world of multiple desirers. [quote:3qe8s4qz]Timothy: "How do desires form within us? Is this always by choice?"[/quote:3qe8s4qz] Desires may be chosen, sometimes easily and often with difficulty, but only within the context of greater desires. Ultimately, some desires simply happen to us: we experience and feel them. This is like all experience: we can both create and discover them to some extent.
365	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/6/2004 1:55:00	[quote:1uw0198a]Timothy: ". . . it seems to me, that fulfillment of desire is a secondary condition to something else. What is that something else?"[/quote:1uw0198a] . . . greater desire. Not all desires are equal. Where there is one desire greater than another, there will be yet another greater than them both. God is that desire greater than them all.
366	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/6/2004 1:56:00	[quote:1p3g2muq]Timothy: ". . . you cannot say that 'Joy=Fulfillment of Desire.' You must qualify that definition to weight and qualify the desire itself. Correct?"[/quote:1p3g2muq] Joy = Fulfillment of Desire Fullness of Joy = Fulfillment of Greatest Desire
367	The Font of Knowledge	Joey's God	7/6/2004 2:00:00	[quote:3acwqq8m]Timothy: "What is desire? Is all desire good? How do desires form within us? Is this always by choice?"[/quote:3acwqq8m] Timothy, I took a stab at answers to these questions, here: [url=http://www.spockwithabeard.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3966:3acwqq8m]Joy and Desire[/url:3acwqq8m]
368	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/6/2004 2:18:00	[quote:159o329s]Fanger: "Who knows, but that’s how we intuit it in real life. That’s one of the points I make in the other thread—that we’ll never know whether the dog’s blue as an objective matter (i.e. independent of our perception) and especially won't know whether the Spirit is divine (independent of our perception)."[/quote:159o329s] I mostly agree, but will go a step further: it is meaningless to talk about dogs being blue independent of perception. [quote:159o329s]Fanger: "You’ll notice that the objective statement (dog is blue) tries to minimize or ignore the perceiving subject."[/quote:159o329s] This may be for practical reasons, too, and not just for dogmatic reasons. In any case, I agree with the sentiment. [quote:159o329s]Fanger: "This minimization is what I think is harmful when addressing existential issues (such as decisions about how we live or whether a given feeling is divine)."[/quote:159o329s] I agree, and think it can also be harmful when we do not recognize the subjectivity in what you might call non-existential issues. As I mentioned before, to the extent that would-be objectivity ignores the subjectivity in which it is founded, it is not the objectivity it would be. [quote:159o329s]Fanger: "I don’t know what 'objectivity being objective' means. Can it be accurate? No."[/quote:159o329s] That's good enough for me. We're agreed here. [quote:159o329s]Fanger: "I think any discussion of what we experience requires reference to a perceiving subject if it is to be wholly descriptive. The lack of this reference is exactly what I find particularly harmful when addressing existential issues. It's also what I think is a pervasive element in our culture . . ."[/quote:159o329s] Agreed [quote:159o329s]Fanger: ". . . that results in doubting of the kind bug hero describes."[/quote:159o329s] Will you please spell out the general causation that you perceive for me? How, in your terms, would you characterize the particular kind of doubting in question, and how does ignoring subjectivity lead to it? [quote:159o329s]Fanger: "So maybe we can be magnanimous and infer reference to the perceiving subject every time a scientist or historian makes a conclusion about existential issues. But doesn’t the continual lack of explicit reference smack of a lack of integrity?"[/quote:159o329s] I know the feeling. :-) I suppose, for me, the feeling has come to depend most on what else I know about the particular person. Do I have reason to believe that the person is generally dogmatic, or simply leaving out all the "I think" qualifiers for practical reasons? [quote:159o329s]Fanger: "More importantly, though (and this is what I was concerned w/ in the other threads), even if a scientist/historian recognizes the presence of his own subjectivity in a purportedly objective analysis, the scientist/historian doesn’t view the internal/subjective side of the equation as the most important side. I do."[/quote:159o329s] You may be able to persuade me of this. In what way is the person's subjectivity the most important aspect of her story? [quote:159o329s]Fanger: "When I define objective, I explicitly refer to the subject: 'the things that we think/sense to be outside…' or 'that we intuit to have existence independent of our perception' So in that sense, it’s inclusive. However, as I note in the definition, we intuit objective things to be independent of us even if it’s our subjectivity that’s telling us that. Ironic, huh? In this sense, objective things as we intuit them are exclusive of the subject—i.e. we think the tree falling in the woods makes a noise whether or not we hear it. I have no idea whether objective things actually are exclusive of our perception. I just think they seem to be. And that’s what makes a preoccupation with objective things (objectivism) so tempting."[/quote:159o329s] I like that.
369	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/6/2004 2:28:00	[quote:121d275e]Sara Sassypants: "I think joy seems to insinuate a longer lasting happiness, whereas desire can range from immediate gratification, to an overall goal."[/quote:121d275e] As you suggest, I agree that there are infinite magnitudes of desire, in both quality and quantity, the fulfillment of which leads to infinite magnitudes of joy, in both quality and quantity. Also as you suggest, I agree that the fullness of joy is greatest in quantity -- and quality. You may be suggesting that the desires that result in joys of the lesser magnitudes of quality and quantity are not really resulting in joy. If you adjust that to be that they are not really resulting in the fullness of joy, I will agree. However, joy, whether of greater or lesser magnitude, is yet joy. [quote:121d275e]Sara Sassypants: ". . . although even money, sex, and power can ultimately bring joy, they can also bring a lot of misery."[/quote:121d275e] I agree. Lesser desires always work within the context of greater desires. If we fulfill the lesser in a way that unfulfills the greater, we are, on the whole, less joyful. However, in the moment, we will have some degree, however small, of joy in the fulfillment of the lesser desire.
370	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/6/2004 3:21:00	[quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "I think objective knowledge would be . . . I don’t think people on this earth can [have objective knowledge]. I don't know about anyone else."[/quote:2a7vih94] Given the understanding of "objective knowledge" and "objectivity" that you describe, I have only one criticism, and it has nothing to do with your reasoning. The criticism: You've defined objectivity to be impossible for us. This bothers me from a practical perspective. We, generally speaking, certainly appeal to objectivity. In doing so, are we all fooling ourselves? Is there some justification for the appeal? I think there is justification for the appeal, but it requires something of a paradigm shift in our understanding of objectivity. I will try to describe the paradigm shift in this analogy: Objectivity is to a community as subjectivity is to an individual. In this manner, objectivity is not defined in contrast to subjectivity, but rather it is defined in terms of subjectivity, with subjectivity as its foundation. Objectivity is shared experience, and it is more objective to the extent it is shared more widely and more persuasively. Although this paradigm may be counter-intuitive, it seems to reflect the nature of our appeals to objectivity more accurately. [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "I intuit one as different from the other. There is just something that makes our perception of the dog’s four legs different than our perception of love’s moral goodness."[/quote:2a7vih94] Is the difference like the difference between the manner in which we intuit smell and the manner in which we intuit sight? Whether experiencing via the physical senses or spiritual senses, we are experiencing. [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "For me, love being a moral good has much more meaning and in that sense is a stronger and more intimate intuition."[/quote:2a7vih94] In my experience, it seems that love is a more complex experience than that of counting a dog's legs, generally speaking. [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "But this concept happens to arrive at my perceptual doorstep in the same way other non-objectively-verifiable things come."[/quote:2a7vih94] Sure -- experience. [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "On the other hand, while the dog’s legs have much less meaning to me, we can "prove" it over and over through objective verification (i.e through inductive logic described above)."[/quote:2a7vih94] Why can we not validate our theories about love in the same manner that we validate our theories about dogs' legs? The one may be much more complex and difficult to validate than the other, but that does not mean that it cannot be done. If our communal experience IS that both love is a moral good and the dog has four legs, what makes one experience any more or less objective than the other? [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "I have no idea what it’s like to be an omniscient being . . . I’m not really interested in talking that much about omniscient beings because it is so far from our experience and seems to me to be unrelated to existential decisions."[/quote:2a7vih94] If you find the interest, do you think an omniscient being exists? Why or why not? [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "Sure (to both questions). But each question of whether each love is morally good in a particular situation might still have only one answer. It can be morally right to love a child as Christ loved the world, but morally bad to love a child in an erotic way. This does not mean we have a dualist morality—just that there are two answers to two distinct questions (each of which is part of the one unified morality)."[/quote:2a7vih94] As I understand you, there are multiple right things to do in general situations, but there is one right thing to do in particular situations. Is this an accurate understanding? If so, why can there not be multiple right things to do in particular situations? Arosophos, previously: "Are we satisfied with that which is common? I'm not. I wager you're not." [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "In most instances, you’d lose your bet."[/quote:2a7vih94] . . . which means I have won the bet. The qualification "in most instances" is sufficient to demonstrate that you are not satisfied with that which is common. [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "I think common sense (our intuition) has to be sufficient for most things in life because we’d be paralyzed by thought if we didn’t let it be."[/quote:2a7vih94] I agree that it is sufficient for common results. My question was whether we are satisfied with common results. Of course, we have to weigh our desire for uncommon desirable results against the potential of uncommon undesirable results due to paralysis. If we could always avoid the latter while achieving the former, we would do so. Our experience teaches us that we cannot, so we again reach for the balance. [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "Life is too important to spend it all on thinking."[/quote:2a7vih94] I agree, as it is too important to spend it all on acting. A balance between the two seems wise to me, but she has fooled me before. [quote:2a7vih94]Fanger: "That’s why I didn’t go to grad school in philosophy."[/quote:2a7vih94] The best philosophies are those that inspire action, so far as I am concerned. If, when I ask myself what practical difference it makes to embrace this or that philosophy, I recognize no practical difference then I consider them to be the same, despite their various syntactical compositions. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. If we truely love her, we will act on that love. Thinking about her is only a good start.
371	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/7/2004 5:56:00	[quote:3omjffbx]Fanger: "For instance, I wouldn't call it joy when a man strangles a child to death, even though his desire has been fulfilled and he probably had some kind of satisfaction. Is that satisfaction the same thing I felt when I experienced the births of my children--only to a lesser degree?"[/quote:3omjffbx] . . . or perhaps to a greater degree, depending on the quality and quantity of the desire that is fulfilled. Yes. I agree: it's terrible; but it is also wonderful and accurate. Here is a loaded scriptural perspective: [quote:3omjffbx]"O THAT I were an angel, and could have the wish of mine heart, that I might go forth and speak with the trump of God, with a voice to shake the earth, and cry repentance unto every people! "Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth. "But behold, I am a man, and do sin in my wish; for I ought to be content with the things which the Lord hath allotted unto me. "I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. "Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience. "Now, seeing that I know these things, why should I desire more than to perform the work to which I have been called?" (Alma 29: 1-6)[/quote:3omjffbx] God decrees unalterable decrees according to our desires . . . terrible and wonderful, and accurate in my experience.
372	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/7/2004 6:00:00	Here is one more scripture to think about: [quote:1j7a2yxu]"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. "If ye love me, keep my ccommandments." (John 14: 12-15)[/quote:1j7a2yxu] Does the double emphasis on others' desires (in this case, our desires) mean anything relative to the single emphasis on one's own desires (in this case, Jesus' desires -- his commandments)?
373	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	7/7/2004 6:04:00	Wow. That's fascinating stuff, Eagluv.
374	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/8/2004 4:38:00	[quote:8glkrhbb]Fanger: "Are you saying that: (1) Joy is the purpose of our existence (and thus the ultimate good), and (2) The fulfillment of any desire results in joy?"[/quote:8glkrhbb] No This is more accurate: 1) Fullness of Joy is the Purpose of Existence 2) Joy Results from Fulfillment of Desire [quote:8glkrhbb]Fanger: "Doesn’t wickedness or sin involve the fulfillment of a desire?"[/quote:8glkrhbb] Maybe, but not necessarily. In a world consisting of one subject, that which the subject desires is good and that which the subject does not desire is evil -- definitionally. The same is true in our world, but to an infinitly more complex magnitude. In our complex world, evil is that which is contrary to law, which is to commnities as desire is to individuals. To answer your question more explicity, evil involves the LACK of fulfillment of law -- communal magnitude desire. [quote:8glkrhbb]Fanger: "I see no difference between joy and happiness. You quoted scriptures where God seems to want to grant us according to our desires, but this doesn’t mean the fulfillment of our desires results in joy. In fact, his granting our wishes is often in a 'well, this is going to cause you pain, but...you asked for it...' way."[/quote:8glkrhbb] I am not arguing that fulfillment of desires results in fullness of joy, which seems to be the point of confusion. I am arguing that whenever desires are fulfilled, there is joy of a magnitude congruent with the original desire -- yet we must recognize that some desires compete, even within ourselves, which means that there may also be misery of a magnitude congruent with another unfulfilled desire. Fullness of joy begins by working out our individual desires so that they do not conflict with each other. From there, it proceeds to working out our communal desires to overcome conflict at that magnitude. [quote:8glkrhbb]Fanger: "Doesn't this seem silly at all to you? X and Y are apples and oranges! You can’t add one up and get the other. Why? Because one is the satisfaction resulting from the fulfillment of a bad desire and the other is joy resulting from the fulfillment of a good desire (I make this distinction based on my internal intuition, an intuition which seems to me to coincide with scripture)."[/quote:8glkrhbb] You are looking past my argument. The argument is that desires are not, in themselves, evil, except to the extent that they are the desire to oppress others' desires. Desires are not inherently good or evil. They become good and evil within the context of other desires, within the context of law. [quote:8glkrhbb]Fanger: "If most people don’t think the word 'joy' describes what they experience in the fulfillment of some desires, then maybe we should find another word."[/quote:8glkrhbb] To the contrary, defining "joy" in terms of fufilled desires is of paramount practical importance here, particularly when we do not recognize the relationship. Finding another word would allow us to keep thinking that joy is not the result of fulfilled desires. It would allow us to keep lying to ourselves and others. It would allow the oppression to continue unchecked. [quote:8glkrhbb]Fanger: "A new poll that might bring far more 'Always' answers is the following: 'Joy is what I experience in the fulfillment of those desires that don’t impede my or someone else’s opportunity for greater desires to be fulfilled.' Wouldn’t this be in line with scripture too? If wickedness involves the fulfillment of a desire that blocks the opportunity for a greater desire w/ greater joy, then we can say wickedness is not happiness and still be consistent with the definition of joy. What do you think?"[/quote:8glkrhbb] It would be inaccurate. The Oppressor experiences joy -- and his demons rejoice. The terror of it all is wondering whether it is possible for the Oppressor to maintain frequent marginal joy despite a growing context of misery.
375	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/8/2004 4:52:00	I think we should approach them in the same way, which means recognizing that inspiration and creativity are important, as well as observation, experiment and falsification.
376	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/8/2004 5:32:00	Fanger, you quoted this phrase of scripture: [quote:6ai0p057]". . . wickedness never was happiness." (Alma 41: 10)[/quote:6ai0p057] This comes from a larger passage that is full of great stuff, including some explicit discussion of desires. It would probably be valuable to comment on the entire chapter, but I will comment only on the phrase you quoted. What is wickedness? In a world of one subject, it is the lack of fulfillment of individual desire, or that which is contrary to fulfillment of individual desire. Where fulfillment lacks or is contradicted, there is not joy -- no happiness. In a world of infinite subjects, it is the lack of fulfillment of communal law, or that which is contrary to fulfillment of communal law. Where fulfillment lacks or is contradicted, there are individuals without joy -- without happiness. Those without joy are those whose desires are congruent with the communal law. Those with joy, despite the lack of fulfillment of communal law, are those whose desires are not congruent with the communal law. These are those who would be, as the scriptures say, a law unto themselves. For them, it remains true that wickedness never was happiness; however, in their lawless state, they do not recognize the wickedness that the community recognizes.
377	Introductions	Cayblood	7/8/2004 18:19:00	Please welcome Cayblood to SWAB. Cayblood and I first met through a mutual friend at a book club meeting. Through the entire meeting, I noticed his interest in directing the discussion toward topics of spirituality, religion and philosophy. He sparked my curiosity. As it turned out, we spent several hours after the meeting discussing those topics, and have since continued to correspond -- the wonders of the Internet. Recently, I mentioned my participation at SWAB, and Cayblood decided to take a look. He liked what he saw. Now Cayblood is here, with much to offer: a sharp intellect, a compassionate attitude, a deep curiosity and a reverence for God. Cayblood, say "hello" to SWAB. :-)
378	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/9/2004 3:12:00	[quote:2habb5za]Fanger: "The main problem for me remains that I can't see some things you call joy as being the same as all other things you call joy. This is because they feel different to me."[/quote:2habb5za] Will you please present some examples of your feelings resulting from fulfilled desires and explain how they are different in kind rather than different in quality or quantity? [quote:2habb5za]Fanger: "I also see the community around us treating them very differently."[/quote:2habb5za] Again, please, will you present some examples from that which you see of fulfilled desires in the community and explain how they are different in kind rather than magnitude? [quote:2habb5za]Fanger: "That's also why I was saying maybe we should find another word -- not to obfuscate, but to make it more accurate to experience of the community."[/quote:2habb5za] If you persuade me to recognize a difference in kind, I will use another word. [quote:2habb5za]Fanger: "So maybe we just experience things differently."[/quote:2habb5za] Maybe -- who knows? :-) However, objectivity, in the paradigm I am advocating, does not require that we experience all things the same. It requires only that we experience something the same. [quote:2habb5za]Fanger: ". . . what is the goal in your construction of this system? I mean, was the goal to create a system of ethics that did away with oppression? Was it to create a system most like what you feel? Was it to create a system most akin to your interpretation of scripture? Or was it something else?"[/quote:2habb5za] My understanding of ethics has not come about by pursuing a goal, per se. It has, for the most part, emerged from my experience -- and my observation of others' experience, and my observation of their observations, etc. However, there was a time in my life when I decided to try to direct my experience and observations in a certain way. The results may have been life-saving, and have certainly been fulfilling beyond anything I could have understood when I first began the effort. I am not empty or apathetic as I once was. I have felt a growing freedom inside. I suppose it would be accurate to say that, to the extent that there has been a goal, it has been that of following a certain spiritual influence that I associate with God -- the Holy Spirit. Since beginning to follow it, and since working consciously to overcome fears that held me back, I have come to have some confidence in it. . . . which reminds me of some scriptures: [quote:2habb5za]"O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good;" (Alma 32: 35)[/quote:2habb5za] [quote:2habb5za]"Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him—my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound. "And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. "Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will." (D&C 88: 66-68)[/quote:2habb5za] For what it's worth, I've seen the face of God. You have too. We just need to choose to recognize it, and then work to know him -- but we cannot work to know that which we do not recognize, and recognizing is as much a creative process as it is a process of discovery. [quote:2habb5za]"The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. "Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand? "Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power. "I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended. "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. "Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound." (D&C 88: 45-50)[/quote:2habb5za] [quote:2habb5za]Fanger: "I'm not going to argue with it . . ."[/quote:2habb5za] Please do!
379	The Font of Knowledge	satya, dharma and yoga	7/9/2004 3:21:00	I enjoyed your post, Greenfrog. In particular, I liked this part: [quote:28p6wu4k]Greenfrog: "One of the eight basic instructions of yoga is aparigraha, which is translated as non-clinging or non-grasping. The Buddha's instruction is similar: 'let go.' Mind you, that is not a directive to never hold, but rather to release."[/quote:28p6wu4k] This made me think of a couple things: 1) The scriptural passages in which we are told that the truth will set us free, and that we are saved only to the extent that we attain knowledge. 2) The idea that we cannot choose wisely among our desires to the extent that we do not recognize them, and our ability to embrace or deny them (let them go) within the context of greater desires -- some, to be sure, remaining to be discovered.
380	The Font of Knowledge	He/She who hesitates...	7/17/2004 22:08:00	Why is masturbation evil?
381	Politics & Current Events	LDS Church: amend Constitution	7/17/2004 22:51:00	[quote:19ph0ddh]Joey: ". . . all of the sudden, my comfortable place on the fence feels not so comfortable anymore."[/quote:19ph0ddh] [quote:19ph0ddh]Timothy: "Choose ye this day whom you will serve."[/quote:19ph0ddh] [quote:19ph0ddh]Greenfrog: "Timothy proposes that we must choose today whom we will serve. Today I wonder whether he may be right that it is time to decide, even without the information I want to receive. I am decidedly against taking action that would prevent flexibility to respond to facts as they develop."[/quote:19ph0ddh] There are practical ramifications both to being decisive and indecisive. Sometimes the overall practical benefits (or lack of detriments) of indecision outweigh the overall practical benefits (or lack of detriments) of decision. Sometimes the opposite is true. As my opportunity to vote on the amending of the Utah Constitution approaches, I have felt the practical benefits of decision growing. The Gods battle for our faith. My allegience is with that God that would oppress only the oppressors. His Spirit fills me with love, as fully and really as anything I have ever experienced. That love moves me: I will vote AGAINST that amendment. God willing, it will fail to pass. In reality, I fear as Nephi: [quote:19ph0ddh]9 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the adevil•. 10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save atwo• churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother• is the church of the cdevil; wherefore, dwhoso• belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ewhore• of all the earth. 11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many awaters•; and she had dominion over ball• the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. 12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were afew•, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon ball• the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. 13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to afight• against the Lamb of God. 14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were aarmed with brighteousness and with the cpower• of God in great glory. 15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was apoured• out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the bnations• and kindreds of the earth. 16 And as there began to be awars• and rumors of wars among all the nations which belonged to the mother of abominations, the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold, the wrath of God is upon the mother of harlots; and behold, thou seest all these things— 17 And when the aday cometh that the bwrath• of God is poured out upon the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil, then, at that day, the cwork• of the Father shall commence, in preparing the way for the fulfilling of his dcovenants•, which he hath made to his people who are of the house of Israel. (1 Nephi 14: 9-17)[/quote:19ph0ddh] To the extent that we do not promote committed relationships, sexual and otherwise, we are that whore, upon the many waters, having dominion over all the Earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples -- including, sadly, a substantial portion of the LDS Church that I love. I fear that, relative to this particular matter, at this time and in this place, the numbers of the Church of the Lamb of God are too few. I look forward to that day when the righteousness and power of God is poured out with great glory on the Earth. In that day, our covenants with God will be fulfilled. These days, the work goes forward, and I suspect the whore can only postpone its fulfillment.
382	The Font of Knowledge	He/She who hesitates...	7/17/2004 22:54:00	Why is masturbation evil?
383	The Font of Knowledge	He/She who hesitates...	7/18/2004 7:05:00	[quote:1nia2yzv]Sara Sassypants: "I personally don't see what is wrong with masturbation . . . I can accept that it is wrong if God says so."[/quote:1nia2yzv] Why does God say that masturbation is evil? [quote:1nia2yzv]Cherie: "My bishop told me that masturbation was a mockery of sex or something like that."[/quote:1nia2yzv] How is masturbation a mockery of sex? . . . Why is masturbation evil?
384	The Font of Knowledge	Ayn Rand	7/18/2004 7:17:00	. . . another point of view from another [url=http://www.spockwithabeard.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3331&start=78:2d76wc43]discussion here related to Ayn Rand[/url:2d76wc43].
385	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/18/2004 8:33:00	[quote:1hjpqfpz]Cayblood: "You guys might be interested to know that there is a philosophical movement called "Objectivism" that was started by a woman named Ayn Rand that is quite different from what you are talking about. You may want to choose a different word rather than causing others to jump to wrong conclusions--it's up to you."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] Thanks for pointing that out, Cayblood. I was certainly not intending this thread to be understood in reference to big-"O" Objectivism. If you are interested in that, however, we were discussing it here: [url=http://www.spockwithabeard.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3331&start=78:1hjpqfpz]Searching for Pragmatists[/url:1hjpqfpz] [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "At any rate, objectivism w/ a lower-case o &#8800; Ayn Rand."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] Right [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "What I’m referring to is the cultural phenomenon in which a person sees the practical results of objectivity, buys into it for all purposes, attempts to focus on what she sees instead of what she feels (as if one is not subjective!), and then ends up 'doubting' what she does not see."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] Isn't seeing just a kind of feeling -- or vice-versa? Sure, we can misinterpret our senses more easily when we try to use them for what they are not primarily intended. For example, we can try to know smells via our eyes. With practice we can do it, but it is more error prone. However, each sense, whether physical or spiritual, is still experience, which we are free to interpret, whether in wisdom or foolishness. This isn't intended as a disagreement with anything you wrote. I think we're driving at a similar idea. We are doubting our spiritual experience to a relatively greater degree than we are doubting our physical experience. In some ways, I think this is good, but in some ways bad. Our spiritual experience can teach us best about spiritual things. Likewise, our physical senses can teach us best about physical things. Both are valuable. When we are applying our physical senses to spiritual things, or our spiritual senses to physical things, we should maintain awareness of what we are trying to do: we are trying to do that which is analogous to smelling with our eyes or hearing with our fingers. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "This is a kind of paralysis and a kind of self-rejection. As people try to get as far away from the perceiving subject as possible, they also get far from the only place where existential belief and decision-making occurs."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] Agreed [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "It is also a form of self-deception because they end up believing that objective things lack subjective elements, and hence are more valuable."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] Agreed. As we've discussed previously, I think it inaccurate to define objectivity independent of subjectivity. Objectivity should be defined in terms of subjectivity, so that we recognize its nature and value that which generates it. Objectivity defined independent of subjectivity is, at best, meaningless, and, at worst, evil. On the one hand, where there is no subjectivity at all, there is no meaning or existence. On the other hand, where a single subject assumes (through arrogance, foolishness or deception) itself to be, in itself, objective, there is oppression of the darkest sort. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "I don’t think subjectivity is the most important part of every pursuit. But I do think it’s the most important part of existential decisions for at least two reasons. First, if we believe action is essential, then there isn’t another option. Even if one historical scriptorian “proves” this or that, another will come along later and refute it. But we have to make the decision about how to live now in existence. We can’t wait for all the objective evidence to be compiled and published. We can only avoid the paralysis of waiting and simply act now in faith. Of course “objective” evidence might help us, but if we don’t place subjectivity above it, then we won’t move anywhere."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] I agree that there must be balance between communal objectivity and individual subjectivity in spiritual matters. However, I believe the same is true of physical matters. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "Second, even if we did have all the evidence compiled and published today, it wouldn’t be part of us, which is what it would have to be if it is to meaningfully affect our actions. I joked earlier about “playing Socrates,” but I think Socratic method (maieutic communication) is a good thing because it forces the other to come to conclusions himself. Socrates would never hand me a book with conclusions. He’d ask me questions until I came to the answer internally -- he knows the book wouldn’t affect my life, but the internal experience of finding the answer would. Mormonism also works in this way generally. We say, 'A 14-year old boy saw God and Jesus. We found out it was true by praying. You can do the same.'"[/quote:1hjpqfpz] I agree with this, too. Objectivity defined in terms of subjectivity is made greater as additional subjects test and verify the communal law. Our communal confidence in the law grows as we find it applicable in yet more circumstances. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "I think we’re missing the point if we let our experience be set too much in terms of the community."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] I agree: balance between individual and community is our moral duty. Further, I like to describe the moral balance as a matrix of two spectrums. The first spectrum is that between physical and spiritual. The second is that between imminence and transcendence. The matrix between these results in the following quadrants: the individual (imminent spiritual), the community (transcendent spiritual), the anatomy (imminent physical) and the environment (transcendent physical). I use this model to visualize the aspects of life among which I feel a moral duty toward balance. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "I am an existing individual and my experience tells me more than all else."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] I am an empiricist, and feel to agree with this -- to the extent that we understand our experience to be interpretable with greater wisdom when done within the context of the shared experience of objectivity. This makes me think of another point that may help us understand each other better. I consider truth to be to communities as knowledge is to individuals; and I consider knowledge to be a feeling of confidence. That being the case, I would reword the statement above to be: we may individually increase our confidence in our interpretation of experience as we consider the experience within the context of our communal confidence. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "Only my experience of love as good is meaningful to me because “good” is also internal."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] . . . and what if I agree? That makes a community of two, with a low degree of objectivity. What if everyone agreed? That would be a high degree of objectivity. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "Counting the communal votes is meaningless in existence, although perhaps helpful to spur self-reflection."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] To the extent that one has had expereince congruent with her community in the past, she may anticipate congruence in the future. Communal votes are not meaningless. This is testimony. This is, as you mentioned, something to move us to self-reflection. That is not meaningless. Sure, if despite all the shared experience, my experience is different then I should recognize my experience is different. However, I should yet recognize that it is DIFFERENT. That is: I should recognize that the communal votes STILL COUNT, even when they differ from my experience. Not to do so is immoral -- is to set one's self up above others as God in one's self -- is to be Satan. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "As I said above, subjectivity for me is paramount because it (1) does not cause paralysis when facing decisions about existence (as objectivism would) and (2) is meaningful enough to instigate moral action."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] It must be balanced against objectivity, or evil is the result. Paralysis is good to some extent -- particularly to the extent that we would oppress others. Meaning and consequent moral action are good, but only with a recognition that one is not, alone, the God of morality. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "Individual experience rather than communal experience is paramount in my eyes for the same reasons."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] As communal experience should be checked by individual experience, so individual experience should be checked by communal experience. Historical examples abound demonstrating how communities unchecked by subjectivity have effected evil -- the Nazis come to mind. Likewise, historical examples abound demonstrating how individuals unchecked by objectivity have effected evil -- the Holy Office of the Grand Inquisitor comes to mind. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Fanger: "Yes, I think this is right. My view, though, is that it wouldn’t matter if you could model love (quantify it). Experience of it is paramount. Reducing it to numbers would be fun, but would result in self-deception and spiritual absenteeism of the kind I discuss previously in this thread. Statistical models draw you outside yourself until you no longer are “in” the picture. It’s sort of like how we can’t find the speed and location of an atom at the same time (uncertainty principle). You can’t go about statistically modeling your own love and still be experiencing love. Just my view."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] It may be difficult, such as patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, but I don't see why it must be impossible. In any case, I see value in both pursuits, whether we prove able to do them simultaneously at any given place and time. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Cayblood: "I have often considered how in studying history, both ancient and modern, we can amass all the available facts regarding a person or incident and still have only a very small minority of the truth (consider, for instance, that we don't have easy access to the thoughts and feelings of the participants in any event). The percentage of the total facts we have, in almost every case, is so small that statistically we are far more likely to draw wrong conclusions than right ones, if we base our judgements solely on available facts. Moreover, most of the facts that are available to us come second, third or forth hand, from observers who have drawn their own conclusions and who have selected those details that are more favorable to their viewpoint."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] I agree that there are substantial (currently impossible?) difficulties related to the pursuit of historical objectivity. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Cayblood: "For all these reasons, I believe that it would be unjust for a loving and perfect creator to place us in this sphere without some more helpful means of orientation."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] I do not intend to detract from the appeal to the importance of spiritual experience; however, I do want to mention two thoughts: 1) Spiritual experience is as problematic, in itself, as physical experience. The one balances the other. How often do we hear of spiritual knowledge claims concerning the concrete world that turn out to be utterly incongruent with our physical experience of the concrete world? 2) Even if we cannot currently attain objectivity about matters such as history, the creator would not be unjust if there simply was no way of providing such objectivity. [quote:1hjpqfpz]Ghrumpy: "Depending on the size of the community, 'love' may be one of the least important things for many of its members. Other defining factors could include self-defense, geographical proximity, economic interest, blood relationship, religious belief, language, etc. And, of course, any combination of all of the above. And these factors could cover a huge range of sample sizes, from very small to globally huge . . . Moreover, I would guess that of all the above factors, "love" would create/define the smallest community: a couple, a family, an extended family, a circle of friends. And even within these small communities, the actions generated by 'love' could be vastly different depending on the relationship(s) between the people involved."[/quote:1hjpqfpz] That depends on how broadly or narrowly we define love. For me, love is simply the will to attach importance to others' desires. Given that definition, much of that which you define to be outside of love falls within the scope of my definition of love.
386	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/18/2004 8:38:00	I hope to respond soon.
387	The Font of Knowledge	Overpopulation!	7/18/2004 8:42:00	[quote:1tuvsql9]Dale Cooper: "There's a future in space."[/quote:1tuvsql9] Amen! Bring on Kolob, baby.
388	The Font of Knowledge	Is it good to know about other married's sex lives?	7/18/2004 8:52:00	[quote:2u3bxm9n]Timothy: "Our culture has done us a disservice by creating so many barriers to intimacy."[/quote:2u3bxm9n] I agree -- but, of course, to take responsibility where it is due, we should recognize that WE are our culture. That said, although our culture is not ideal, forcing an ideal is as wrong as (or more wrong than) not maintaining the ideal. We should approach it carefully -- with the balance suggested by King Benjamin's metaphor: run not faster than we have strength, yet be diligent to win the prize. I am not suggesting, Timothy, that you are advocating running faster than we have strength, so to speak; I'm just expanding on the idea you presented.
389	The Font of Knowledge	He/She who hesitates...	7/20/2004 5:41:00	Arosophos, previously: "Why does God say that masturbation is evil? How is masturbation a mockery of sex? Why is masturbation evil?" [quote:2ovj6edh]Jim Weed: "Masturbation nowadays almost invariably involves pornography. M & P really aren't separate anymore."[/quote:2ovj6edh] I suspect that is accurate. That is, however, much like condemning polygamy because some of its practitioners engage in underage sex, or condemning homosexuality because some of its practitioners engage in promiscuity. Perhaps one causes the other? Perhaps one only correlates with the other due to other contextual causes? In either case, we should not confuse the one with the other -- we should not equivocate between them. That aside, if pornography is evil, and if engaging in masturbation causes one to consume pornography, then perhaps that is why masturbation is evil? This, however, begs the question: does heterosexuality cause one to consume pornography as much as does masturbation? If so, does that make heterosexuality evil? If not, does it cause one to consume pornography to any lesser extent? If so, is heterosexuality evil to some lesser extent? . . . which leads to the point: perhaps, as there are ways that heterosexuality may lead to pornography consumption, so there are ways that masturbation may lead to pornography consumption. Perhaps even the chances of masturbation leading to pornography consumption are much higher than the chances of heterosexuality doing the same. However, unless masturbation leads to pornography consumption IN EVERY CASE, and so long as heterosexuality leads to pornography consumption IN SOME CASES, and so long as heterosexuality is not inherently evil because of those cases, then masturbation is not inherently evil even if most of its cases lead to pornography consumption. Essentially, in the least, those few cases that do not lead to pornography consumption are no more evil FOR THIS REASON than are the cases of heterosexuality that do not lead to pornography consumption. It seems to me that anything less than an absolute association between masturbation and pornography is insufficient grounds for condemning masturbation in itself. Perhaps there are other reasons for which masturbation is inherently evil? [quote:2ovj6edh]Jim Weed: "Most things considered evil are selfish and do damage to others."[/quote:2ovj6edh] I agree with this. How does masturbation harm others? Does it do so inherently? Indirectly? In all cases? In some cases? [quote:2ovj6edh]Jim Weed: "These are good questions. I'm curious to hear your answers."[/quote:2ovj6edh] I don't think God says masturbation is evil. Subsequent to the insight provided by Ignorant Sage, I cannot think of a scripture that condemns masturbation. As he mentioned, I can think of many religious leaders, LDS and otherwise, that have condemned masturbation, but I have never received a spiritual confirmation their words on this matter were communicated according to the inspiration of God. I don't think masturbation, in itself, is a mockery of sex. I can imagine persons engaging in masturbation as a mockery of sex, but I can as easily imagine the opposite. I don't think masturbation is inherently evil. I cannot think of how masturbation, in itself, harms others. That said, there may be wisdom in the standards and guidelines given to LDS youth in the "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet: [quote:2ovj6edh]"Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. "In cultures where dating or courting is acceptable, always treat your date with respect, never as an object to be used for your lustful desires. Stay in areas of safety where you can easily control your physical feelings. Do not participate in talk or activities that arouse sexual feelings."[/quote:2ovj6edh] I think most of us will agree that arousing powerful emotions is part of a healthy marriage. Most of us will probably agree that passionate kissing, laying on top of each other, touching private parts with and without clothing, seeking out areas where we can express our physical feelings, and participating in talk and activities that arouse sexual feeling are all part of a healthy marriage. Might arousing these emotions in our own bodies be made part of a healthy marriage? Would it be inherently detrimental to marriages? Could it be beneficial to some marriages? What about outside of marriage? Will these activities make us more or less likely to engage in sexual activity with a partner? For the most part, it seems obvious that these activities will make us more likely to engage in sexual activity with a partner. However, what of masturbation in particular? Is there a correlation between sexual activity with a partner and masturbation? Does masturbating make you more likely to engage in sexual activity with a partner? Or is it the other way around: does sexual activity with a partner make you more likely to engage in masturbation? Or both? In any case, I don't see a way for making a case that masturbation is, in itself, evil. I can, however, imagine making a case that masturbation encourages sexual activities with partners and should therefore be discouraged among the unmarried -- simply because of the detriments of extramarital or promiscuous sex.
390	The Font of Knowledge	Equal Yokes	7/22/2004 5:23:00	. . . equal Godhood within a context of varying details.
391	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	7/22/2004 5:47:00	[quote:2x52x0v4]Fanger: "I definitely disagree with the assumption that evil is the necessary result when we do not objectively check our subjective morals. And I don't know how I feel about the broader thrust of your point. Democratic ethics seems quite contrary to what my gut tells me makes moral sense."[/quote:2x52x0v4] That's precisely the problem. If that gut feeling is not checked, all hell breaks loose. Of course, if that gut feeling is entirely checked, that's just as bad . . . balance. [quote:2x52x0v4]Fanger: "What about all the times everyone else is doing something bad? - your Naziism example is the perfect case."[/quote:2x52x0v4] . . . balance, again. As I explain above, subjectivity and objectivity should check each other -- it is not unidirectional. [quote:2x52x0v4]Fanger: "For me, I've found that objectivity need not be a strong check to my subjective experience of morality in order to avoid oppression because everything about my subjective experience tells me to love others."[/quote:2x52x0v4] Sure, but what does that mean to you? What does it mean to others? The difference is the challenge, the thing we must know if we are to succeed, and the reason why objectivity is a moral duty -- PARTICULARLY within the context of faith in love. Love is all about objectivity when objectivity is defined accurately, in terms of subjectivity. [quote:2x52x0v4]Fanger: "That means that if I fully adhered to my subjective morality, there would be no opression."[/quote:2x52x0v4] . . . only to the extent that your subjective morality is not oppressive, which you cannot know without objectivity. [quote:2x52x0v4]Fanger: "So I am left with a question -- am I to assume that if others turned into their hearts with real intent, they would find the same moral guide? Or should I encourage them to look outward in hopes that objective reason will be the better guide?"[/quote:2x52x0v4] Do both . . . balance. Emphasizing the one above the other is the problem -- not the resolution to a problem. [quote:2x52x0v4]Fanger: "Maybe I'm idealistic, but I tend to think only internal things really matter to people, so it would be futile to tell them to look to objective reasoning."[/quote:2x52x0v4] Simply because so many of us are immoral does not mean that some of us will not benefit from being reminded to look to God, the balance of subjective and objective reasoning -- in many ways, I consider the model described above (the matrix of two spectrums) to be a model of God.
392	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/22/2004 5:50:00	Sorry . . . it's kind of like getting ready to bench press. :-)
393	The Font of Knowledge	Equal Yokes	7/23/2004 4:07:00	[quote:3vbtp0dz]Greenfrog: "Would you be willing to have the standard you propose enacted into law and enforced by the police, based on their interpretations of it, or would you prefer something a tad more specific?"[/quote:3vbtp0dz] Good call. :-) . . . but for now, mostly, I am going to stand by my vague answer, at least until I make the time to respond to our "Joy and Desire" thread. In brief, however, as you suggest in your original post, equality isn't really what folks want. I mostly agree with this. However, most do want their wants -- their desires -- at least the greatest of desires (which is the whole of desires), to be recognized and respected as equal to others' desires. That's what folks really want. Do I want this to be enacted into law and enforced by the police? Only with clarification, some of which I hope to provide in that other thread. However, as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" may have been a decent launching point for a government, so "equal Godhood" may turn out to be a decent launching point for . . . hmm . . . say, a church? ;-)
394	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	7/26/2004 0:24:00	[quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "The question is whether the satisfaction the molester feels is the same thing as what another feels in the birth of her child. In my world, if we call those feelings the same thing, then we’ve destroyed the practical function of language – to express meaning through distinctions."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Language is not just about distinctions. It is also about associations. Your statement above is excellent evidence of the idea I am advocating. Do you see how you used the word "satisfaction"? You have used it to categorize together both a joy-like feeling that you percieve as moral and a joy-like feeling that you perceive as immoral. At this point, your argument likely would be that you prefer to apply "satisfaction" rather than "joy" because "joy" has connotations that you do not want to associate with joy-like feelings that you consider to be the result of immoral actions. However, the fact that you (and most of us) prefer not to associate "joy" with the results of actions you consider to be immoral is precisely the problem -- the practical detriment. My point, in prefering to apply "joy", is that it emphasizes, in a terrible and wonderful way, how important others' desires (even those that I consider revolting) are to those who have them. The practical value of this emphasis is that I feel greater love and understanding for the person, and I am slower to reject or oppress their desires. In the end, even in love, there may be rejection or oppression, but there is a fuller measure of respect and recognition that comes to me because of the language and associated semantics that I choose to use to describe and understand our differences. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "The experience of sexual orgasm is fulfillment of desire and yet nothing like the feeling I had in the example above. It’s not just different in quantity—I can’t say one is more or less of the other. It’s not just different in quality—I can’t say one is greater or worse a version of the other. IT’S SIMPLY DIFFERENT IN KIND."[/quote:2rzde8kx] I agree that there are infinite variations of desirable and undesirable experience. You are labeling a subset of desirable experiences "joy"; I am labeling the whole set "joy". My choice to use "joy" in this way was not arbitrary. I mention one of the practical ramifications above. Beyond that, I cannot make sense of our religious tradition unless I associate physical pleasure in all of its forms with joy, as an aspect of joy. Joseph tells me that the fullness of joy comes only in physical immortality. I understand immortality to be the ideal physical state of being. Physically, there are many kinds of joy, among which is, as you mentioned, sexual orgasm. The temple ceremony mentions that animals will find joy in fulfilling the measure of their existence. What is the measure of the existence of your sexual systems? In sexual orgasm, is not that measure being filled to some extent? From a physical perspective, that seems to be an aspect of the joy of which we learn in the temple ceremony, and from Joseph Smith. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "Your description of how your ethics has come about seems very similar to what guides me: Experience -- in which I include the Holy Spirit."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Agreed [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "I love the Spirit and I love the simplicity that comes with a life following it. In a lazy way, I also love that it relieves me of some of the burden of thinking."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Joseph mentioned that we can recognize the Spirit of God, from among competing spirits, by the natural inflow of intelligence associated with the experience. In my experience, the Spirit makes me think harder, and it can be exhausting. Sometimes I feel like telling it to lay off. ;-) [quote:2rzde8kx]Barlow: "We can accept this definition and still distinguish between types of joy."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Right [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "I guess the other thing I see as part of the function of language is to not only make distinctions, but make distinctions that correspond meaningfully with experience. There can be a range of things in one word (we call lots of colors "red") but there's a point at which we've taken it too far and the word includes too many things (like if we used the word "red" to describe all red or blue things). It might still have meaning (as "red" still would), but we'd do ourselves a favor by simply making the distinction finer (use "blue" and "red"), and thus more accurate to distinctions in experience."[/quote:2rzde8kx] I agree, but think you are leaving out half of the argument -- the half that needs to be made for the value of generalizations. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "My problem w/ joy being defined as the fulfillment of all desires is that to most people, it only feels like fulfillment of some desires = joy. So why don't we just call fulfillment of the other desires something else? Like 'pleasure' or 'satisfaction?'"[/quote:2rzde8kx] . . . because we should combat perspectives that tend to oppression. We read and hear of it all the time: in THEIR fulfillment of desires, THEY have pleasure or satisfaction. In OUR fulfillment of desires, WE have joy. THEIR desires are evil. OUR desires are good. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "Of course, some of us think fulfillment of certain desires = pain. So maybe desires should be defined in terms of the experience their fulfillment brings. i.e. good desires = those for which fulfillment = joy; bad desires = those for which fulfillment = pain. Something like that."[/quote:2rzde8kx] THEY are in pain. WE have joy. Such a perspective certainly reflects common attitudes; however, we need to adjust our attitude. Our language (due to its affect on our spirits) is one way to promote the adjustment. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "In religion and life, the word 'joy' seems to hold a very special place in many people's minds/hearts. I think Arosophos' definition makes joy a more base experience than people generally intuit it to be."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Here is that special place: [quote:2rzde8kx]"Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever. "Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ. "But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. "And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen." (Alma 31: 15-18)[/quote:2rzde8kx] Desirable, desirable Joy; we believe that thou art Joy, and we believe that thou art desirable, and that thou wast spiritual, and that thou art spiritual, and that thou wilt be spiritual forever. Desirable Joy, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy desirable children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no atoning desires. But thou are the same yesterday, today, and forver; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which desirableness, O Joy, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of atoning desires, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, desirable Joy. And again we thank thee, O Joy, that we are a chosen and a desirable people. Amen. [quote:2rzde8kx]Barlow: "Not to digress to much on this linguistics stuff, but here's a thought. Often times words make distinctions taht correspond to experience, but sometimes it seems to be the other way around. We experience things a certain way because of the words that we call that thing."[/quote:2rzde8kx] I agree. My wife and I come from families that speak different languages. In many ways, each family perceives the world in ways that the other simply cannot (presently) because of a lack of words that have been associated with a particular perspective. [quote:2rzde8kx]Barlow: "One of the things I like most about this definition of joy is the fact that it really forces you to deal with 'relative' nature of the word."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Right. It moves me to identify with and love more that person whose desires are so different than my own. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "I view language in the way that this guy Husserl does (continental phenomenologist who taught Heideggar). He thinks words are empty until 'filled' with experience. So in that view, it would sort of be impossible for the word to affect experience since it doesn't contain anything until after the experience."[/quote:2rzde8kx] There is no such thing as an empty word. All words come with context. All words have emerged from context. The context during emergence becomes associated with the word. Then, when the word is used again in a new context, we associate the new context with the old, and the old context affects the way we perceive the new. This is important in the matter at hand. To some extent, I like the old way in which we use "joy". I just want us to project it out and apply it to others, even when their feelings of pleasure and satisfaction are resulting from that which we consider to be immoral action. This will move us to perceive the situation differently. We will understand them better. We will be more likely to reassess our moral perspectives. We will be more inclined toward atonement. Reassessment and atonement will not and should not always result in changing ourselves, but where there is a lack of reassessment and atonement, there is not change where there should be. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "As you can probably tell from my posts, I think experience is pretty much all we have in life. For me, it's the locus of all meaning. There isn't anything that affects it as far as we can tell. So that's why I think it's more important to make the word 'joy' a result of experience (preferably common experience) rather than a construct of a priori reasoning."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Based on past experience, we can hypothesize how to affect future experience. Not to do so is foolishness. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "I'm all for accepting Arosophos' definition if it corresponds to your experience."[/quote:2rzde8kx] The point is to define "joy" not only to correspond to past experience, but also to change future experience for the better. I am not suggesting that we ignore the past. I am suggesting that we recognize it fully, and figure out how to make it better. [quote:2rzde8kx]Fanger: "You don't have to accept a static form of joy to recognize that Arosophos' joy is an overgeneralization."[/quote:2rzde8kx] How do we recognize an overgeneralization in any meaningful way? Only by its lack of associated practical benefits. To demonstrate that I am overgeneralizing, you need to demonstrate that the generalization lacks practical benefits (or that the practical detriments outweigh any benefits). You have alluded to the practical detriment of confusion. I certainly don't think confusion outweighs the benefits I have described. All complicated concepts confuse some persons at first, yet we continue to teach many of them. [quote:2rzde8kx]Greenfrog: "I'm not sure I agree that joy is obtained through fulfilling desires. It seems to me that the product of fulfilling desires is more desires. And unfulfilled desires don't seem all that joy-inspiring."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Greenfrog, I entirely agree that more desires is a product of fulfilling desires; however, this is not to the exclusion of the measure of joy associated with the fulfillment of the fulfilled desires. I suspect that fullness of joy is not a static state of existence. Rather, I understand it to be the eternal pursuit and fulfillment of ever expanding desires. Some argue that we must constantly return to something like utter misery in order to know something like utter joy. Although that may work, I think there is another possibility. Ideally, our future need only be utterly joyful relative to the present, such that we may consider the past utterly miserable relative to the present, yet the present is increasingly joyful. If to have as-yet-unfulfilled desires is to demonstrate capacity for yet greater joy, I am joy-inspired even relative to my as-yet-unfulfilled desires. I know your statements reflect Buddhist ideas of detachment -- recognition of desires as desires and letting them go by without faith in their fulfillment. To the extent that this leads us to judge wisely among our competing desires, I think it's great. To the extent that it detaches us entirely, I think it's spiritual death. [quote:2rzde8kx]Greenfrog: "But in my experience, there is always more desire than there is satisfaction of desire."[/quote:2rzde8kx] . . . and, in my experience, more desire is a good thing because, pursued wisely, it will lead to more joy. [quote:2rzde8kx]Greenfrog: "I believe that there is something quite organic about our brains, and I think they are organized in a way that reinforces certain behaviors by delivering good feelings. But those feedback loops seem to be created in a manner that always requires "more, more, more" (to quote a less-than-savory song) to achieve the prior level of satisfaction."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Sure, and more-more-more is what fullness is all about. Of course, if pursued unwisely, more-more-more will give us precisely its opposite. [quote:2rzde8kx]Greenfrog: "The nature of language seems to be that we can always claim that turning away from one set of preferences and toward another is just another form of "desire," but congregating all of those meanings under the same term seems to me to be moving in the wrong direction -- one that involves less information, rather than more."[/quote:2rzde8kx] For some applications, I agree. For others, I think generalizations are useful. I am sure you recognize value in both detailed information as well as generalization. [quote:2rzde8kx]Greenfrog: "I think the same may be true of 'desire' and 'joy'. If we stick to these general terms and apply them to all kinds of things that bear some superficial similarities, we may never learn what existence has to offer us, all the while never quite understanding why chasing our desires doesn't seem to deliver the promised joys."[/quote:2rzde8kx] I am not suggesting that we refrain from investigating the details. To the contrary, I think to refrain from such investigation would be foolish. My argument, here, however, is related to the practical benefits of the generalization, which benefits are an aspect of my experience as much as those derived from detailed investigations. [quote:2rzde8kx]Timothy: "It seems like Arosophos has a point, but it feels a bit too reductionist to me; what of urges and habits and addictions; are the fulfillment of all of these 'joy'?"[/quote:2rzde8kx] Our desires ARE urges, habits and addictions. The answer to your question is: yes. [quote:2rzde8kx]Timothy: "There is also a thought relative to the creation of desires that troubles me; I don't believe that we have complete agency over this, and to the degree that a desire exists within us that we didn't choose, I wonder if I can really label the fulfillment of that desire as joy."[/quote:2rzde8kx] I entirely agree that we do not have total control over our desires. As I have discussed previously, I believe we have control over our desires only to the extent that we have knowledge of them, and only within the context of greater desires, over which we have diminishing control and about which we have diminishing knowledge. As the Bible says, "The truth will set you free." I believe this is applicable here. Truth, a knowledge of our desires, will give us power to choose among them, control and create them -- to the extent of the knowledge, and within the context of greater desires. [quote:2rzde8kx]Barlow: "Why does this have to be an either/or thing? Why not accept the reductionist (reduced?) definition of joy and still define the fulfillment of different desires with other more specific words."[/quote:2rzde8kx] Precisely -- there is value in each, depending on the application. In this instance, we are discussing the merits of a particular model that relates desire and joy, as generalizations.
395	The Font of Knowledge	The Atonement	9/11/2004 20:57:00	[quote:2wzfbnlp]21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I [b:2wzfbnlp]Paul[/b:2wzfbnlp] am made a minister; 24 Who now [b:2wzfbnlp]rejoice in my sufferings for you[/b:2wzfbnlp], and fill up that which is behind of the [b:2wzfbnlp]afflictions of Christ in my flesh[/b:2wzfbnlp] for his body’s sake, which is the church: 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even [b:2wzfbnlp]the mystery[/b:2wzfbnlp] which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of [b:2wzfbnlp]this mystery[/b:2wzfbnlp] among the Gentiles; which is [b:2wzfbnlp]Christ in you[/b:2wzfbnlp], the hope of glory: 28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29 Whereunto [b:2wzfbnlp]I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily[/b:2wzfbnlp]. (Colossians 1: 21-29)[/quote:2wzfbnlp]
396	The Font of Knowledge	Have they seen Jesus?	9/11/2004 21:19:00	[quote:3oty3r86]49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him. 50 Then shall ye know that [b:3oty3r86]ye have seen me[/b:3oty3r86], that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88: 49-50)[/quote:3oty3r86] [quote:3oty3r86]66 Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him—my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound. 67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. 68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that [b:3oty3r86]you shall see him[/b:3oty3r86]; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will. (D&C 88: 66-68)[/quote:3oty3r86] [quote:3oty3r86]1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that [b:3oty3r86]every soul[/b:3oty3r86] who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, [b:3oty3r86]shall see my face and know that I am[/b:3oty3r86]; 2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world; (D&C 93: 1-2)[/quote:3oty3r86] [quote:3oty3r86]2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, [b:3oty3r86]when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is[/b:3oty3r86]. (1 John 3: 2)[/quote:3oty3r86] [quote:3oty3r86]20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22: 20)[/quote:3oty3r86]
397	The Font of Knowledge	Altruism	9/11/2004 21:28:00	[quote:2yzwcln2]Greenfrog: "When people state that they, in fact, acted solely for the benefit of others, do you believe them to be either ignorant or liars?"[/quote:2yzwcln2] YES! . . . at least until they devolve into spiritual death.
398	The Font of Knowledge	Altruism	9/11/2004 21:28:00	I think altruism is a good thing, so long as we understand ourselves to be a part of the all.
399	The Font of Knowledge	Desire and Joy	9/11/2004 21:57:00	[quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I used 'satisfaction' with the molester and 'what another feels' with birth. Read it again and you'll see I didn't use satisfaction with birth."[/quote:1bdh38i8] You are correct. Sorry for the misrepresentation. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "But although I'm not saying that there is no satisfaction in birth, I am positing that there is no joy in molesting a child."[/quote:1bdh38i8] . . . a naive position. There is a darker side of the world that we so often do not think about -- perhaps because we find ourselves so utterly incapable of maintaining our faith when confronted with the horrifying reality. However, I suspect that no more than a thorough consideration of the results from an Internet search for "joy" and "child molestation" (which I have not done myself, and which I recommend NOT doing) will sufficiently demonstrate that many among us posit and attain joy in child molestation. [Note for the casual observor: I am not advocating child molestation; to the contrary, I consider child molestation and advocacy of child molestation both to be profoundly immoral.] Now, your argument may be that you do not accept their use of "joy" in reference to their feelings associated with child molestation. My response is that they have quite as much basis for reversing the argument against whatever feelings you associate with "joy". How do you resolve this? Who is right and who is wrong? Would you resolve it, or would you leave it in the realm of pure relativism? If you attempt to resolve it, how will the substance of your attempt be any different than that of a person who attempts to resolve the difference, between that which you call "joy" and that which another mutally recognized moral person calls "joy", by not accepting your use of "joy"? Beyond that, what's the point of denying that a person who claims joy is truely experiencing joy? What do we say to the murderers and rapists that tell us they experience joy in murdering and raping? Do we enter into a syntactical debate, or do we condemn their joy? I condemn their joy. The same goes for religious persons that find joy in oppressive dogmatism: I condemn their joy. I don't care how good it feels. I don't care how bad its wanted. I don't care whether the demons rejoice. Some joys are immoral. . . . as some Gods are immoral. We can marginalize evil joys, as we do evil Gods by no longer referring to them as "God". However, syntactical marginalization does little to change the evil Gods, while weakening the accuracy of our perspective. We best fight our foes when we previously think them to be at least as strong as they turn out to be when the fight happens. Yes, there may be some negative ramifications to over-estimation, such as lack of efficiency, but the detriments of over-estimation in such matters are far less than those of under-estimation. It seems to me that so much of the world today demonstrates moral apathy in their marginalization of Satan. If we believe in evil at all, the belief tends to be of a pale and sickly sort. Our arrogance in this gives Satan power, in his deceit, to lead us carefully down to hell. Likewise, if we marginalize immoral joy-claims, we may be under-estimating the power of the experiences behind the claims -- that same powerfully motivating feeling that you and I have when we use the label "joy". [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "What, in our use of words, would be an end (telos) that is more important than communication of experience? I know you go into this below (end = avoiding oppression), but I don't think that goal is necessariy any more valuable than some other moral goal."[/quote:1bdh38i8] Communication of experience is hardly the end. We only care about communication of experience because we can apply the communicated experience in such a way as to affect future experience. Beyond that, "avoiding oppression" does not sufficiently describe the moral model I am advocating. More accurately, "seeking fullness of joy" describes the model. To seek fullness of joy, we should avoid oppression, but fullness of joy may still not be achieved where there is no oppression. Perhaps our environment or anatomy simply do not provide the concrete context for fulfillment of our desires. Avoiding oppression most accurately describes only half of the goal: the half perhaps also described by "eternal life". There is another half described as "immortality". [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "And tweaking language to achieve it is not the proper place."[/quote:1bdh38i8] Why not? Whatever works to the fullness of joy is proper, so far as I am concerned. To think otherwise is inherently immoral. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "How would you even be able to communicate with someone who thinks the ultimate moral telos is oppression?"[/quote:1bdh38i8] As I see it, Satan will communicate with us to whatever extent he feels is useful along the way to maintain the possibility for ongoing marginal oppression (cultivating us just enough to consume us). That aside, most of us are oppressive without positing oppression as the ultimate moral telos. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "Why do we have to make words less accurate to experience in order to alter our behavior?"[/quote:1bdh38i8] You are portraying my use of "joy" as being less accurate; however, you have not demonstrated it to be less accurate. You have demonstrated it to be less specific than other words for various particulars, and I have agreed. That agreement, however, does not detract from the value of classifications and the functional relationships between all instances of classifications. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I think it's weird linguistics to try to alter existential decisions by hiding one particular ethical teleology under semantics."[/quote:1bdh38i8] I am not trying to hide anything. I am trying to reveal something -- a relationship between you and the murderer, between me and the murderer, between the Son of Man and the murderer, for the recognition of which he suffered. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "There have to be other, more effective ways to avoid oppression without making words have definitions that do not correspond to experience."[/quote:1bdh38i8] My use of "joy" does correspond to experience. All you need to do is accept that I am using it as a classification that contains the more specific emotions that you have described, and then recognize that I am advocating the idea that there are functions of the classification that apply to all of the specifics that you have described. Moreover, I am arguing that it is precisely in not recognizing the universally applicable functions of the classification that we are encountering problems. Arosophos, previously: "What is the measure of the existence of your sexual systems? In sexual orgasm, is not that measure being filled to some extent?" [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I don't think this follows. Animals (and people) might be finding joy through procreation AND another thing called sexual pleasure. The fact that the temple says joy results from procreation doesn't mean it's the only thing that results."[/quote:1bdh38i8] I don't see how your criticism addresses the argument behind my rhetorical questions. Arosophos, previously: ". . . the Spirit makes me think harder, and it can be exhausting. Sometimes I feel like telling it to lay off." [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "Hmm. Totally opposite experience for me. It gives me peace, which causes me to be less skeptical, which causes me to think less and enjoy life more."[/quote:1bdh38i8] Please don't understand that I do not associate feelings of peace and enjoyment, or bolstered faith, with the spirit I call "Holy". I do. I simply wanted to point out that these feelings, as I have experienced them, have never removed my desire to continue asking questions and thinking critically. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I see the value of generalizations - it would be good if we had a word that included all joy, satisfaction, happiness, etc. (as "color" includes red and blue). But unless you want to have inefficient communication, then such a word should be what the most people associate with the category. People don't associate joy with every fulfillment of desire. And in fact, I don't even know if they associate all fulfillment of desires in any way that would result in any accurate generalization other than the word "feeling" (which includes pain, joy, satisfaction, etc). That's why I think we should find another word."[/quote:1bdh38i8] That's precisely where we disagree because, as I am arguing, I think people SHOULD associate "joy", or some analogous generic word, with every fulfillment of desire, whether they do or not. I think they should because it is more accurate to do so. Not doing so leaves us with an inaccurate idea of that about which we speak. We are talking about more than words here. We are talking about the connotations in our understanding. I am arguing that it would be more accurate and of practical benefit to us to associate the connotations of "joy" with the broad category of fulfilled desires. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I don't think language should be chained to some ethical telos like 'avoiding oppression'. Sometimes oppression is good. How do you know it's a moral evil?"[/quote:1bdh38i8] It is essential to the nature of evil. It is in the oppression of desires that evil is experienced -- that it exists. Oppression is sometimes good? Yes, but only to the extent that it is necessary to oppress oppression. Practically speaking, given our constraints in a particular context, oppression may justifiably be deemed necessary to counter others' oppression. Beyond that, I would rewrite the scripture: oppression is the root of all evil. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "The thing is, unless someone agrees with your value judgment here, they won't be able to communicate with you."[/quote:1bdh38i8] We struggle constantly to communicate because of differing understandings and disagreements in application of words. This does not mean we cannot work toward understandings and beyond disagreements. Agreement in all things is not necessary for communication to take place. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "In reality, an ethics-less language is the least oppressive because it allows people with other ethical worldviews to talk with you without having to accept your moral assumption that oppression is evil."[/quote:1bdh38i8] I cannot conceive of an ethics-less language without resigning myself to a chain of reasoning that leads to nihilism. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I, for one, don't see the they/we talk in church that often with respect to joy."[/quote:1bdh38i8] Unfortunately, I experience this too often. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "Instead, I usually hear people saying how WE are sad when we sin and WE are happy when we do good."[/quote:1bdh38i8] Fortunately, I experience this, too. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: ". . . my suggested definitions of joy are no more discriminatory than yours . . ."[/quote:1bdh38i8] I'm not sure what you mean, here. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I suspect that not all fulfillment of desires will result in what people can call joy."[/quote:1bdh38i8] Likewise, not all equations that include "1 + 1" end with "= 2", but we still recognize the utility of the fundamental "1 + 1 = 2" even when we go about considering more complex equations. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "But if I said joy is the fulfillment of all desires and this statement didn't correspond with most people's experience, then I'd be, in a sense, oppressing those around by using and expecting others to use my own definition."[/quote:1bdh38i8] . . . justified counter oppression. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "I don't think we should imbed our assumptions about how that experience should be affected in a tool like language."[/quote:1bdh38i8] Language WILL affect experience. If you do not seek to use the power of language for good, others will use it for evil. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "Why not make language as clear and simple and assumption-less as possible so we really know what we're doing when we go about affecting change?"[/quote:1bdh38i8] Language without assumptions does not exist. Language IS the assumption -- the logos in the beginning. [quote:1bdh38i8]Fanger: "why deceive the speaker out of oppression with the words we give him to use? Why not help him see the choice between oppression and non-oppression and let him choose based on his moral beliefs?"[/quote:1bdh38i8] His moral beliefs are founded in language -- communication between two subjects, and the will to oppress or exalt others' desires. [quote:1bdh38i8]Greenfrog: "Do you wish for more physical hunger and thirst than you already experience, as well?"[/quote:1bdh38i8] Sure, so long as I have the ability to fulfill the desires and so long as they do not conflict with yet greater desires -- the latter of which is the problem with the hypothetical you are proposing.
400	The Font of Knowledge	Altruism	9/11/2004 22:10:00	If I think a person is lying or ignorant then I am extrapolating from past experience in such a way that results in contradiction when I accept their words as being true. This has nothing to do with thinking that I know their thoughts better than they know their thoughts. It has a lot to do with thinking that they are either not expressing their thoughts honestly or not recognizing all the effects of their actions that appear in my experience.
401	The Font of Knowledge	Have they seen Jesus?	9/11/2004 22:11:00	Amen
402	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	9/11/2004 22:49:00	[quote:71uff2mh]Fanger: "Man, I cringed when I read 'objectivity is a moral duty.' What do you mean by this?"[/quote:71uff2mh] Our will to objectivity demonstrates charity. It is a will to respect others' experience and find common ground. It leads to an ability to share reproducible benefits. Objectivity, defined in terms of subjectivity, leads us to immortality and eternal life. [quote:71uff2mh]Fanger: "I think I'm just more optimistic -- that if all follow their subjective moral inclinations, then there will be a better outcome than if we impose some ruler."[/quote:71uff2mh] I am certainly not suggesting any ruling imposition. I am not suggesting objectivity defined in contrast to subjectivity. I am suggesting that we come together as a community and communicate, share our experience, put it together as a vast library of data points, and seek to understand them all together in one. I am suggesting that we persuade each other that this should be our moral inclination: to come together in objectivity, for our mutual benefit -- for immortality and eternal life. [quote:71uff2mh]Fanger: "Not that the moral way can't be stated in objective terms - just that it wouldn't do anything to change our actions if it were."[/quote:71uff2mh] To the contrary, too many of us are following Gods of relativism and oppression. Too many worship Gods that mock objectivity, exalting foolishness and all the disastrous results of a lack of critical thinking. The world would certainly be a different place if objectivity and morality were understood to be harmonious. One of the challenges, however, is that too many pseudo-scientists and big-O Objectivists propose a secular objectivity that is weak in its utter lack of inspiration. . . . Gods many, vying for our hearts and minds. [quote:71uff2mh]Fanger: "Of course there will be terrorists, but they're outliers."[/quote:71uff2mh] For better or worse, all it takes is one. Maybe YOU are that one. [quote:71uff2mh]Greenfrog: "When I close my eyes, I can imagine, subjectively, something interesting -- say a donkey. But when I reach out my hand, it encounters what feels remarkably like a laptop computer -- not a donkey at all. In the past, I've thought of those kinds of experiences as having an important element of objectivity, even when no one else is around to offer their opinions."[/quote:71uff2mh] . . . past experience (memory) is as much or more a part of subjectivity as is present experience. Objectivity is shared experience even in you. Past and present experience, shared in you, makes you more objective on your own than you would be if you considered only one or the other independently. [quote:71uff2mh]Greenfrog: "If 'objectivity' isn't the right word for the laptop portion of that experience, what should I call it?"[/quote:71uff2mh] I think it is the right word. The spectrum between objectivity and subjectivity includes higher levels of subjectivity within one's self, even bordering on the kind of sharing of experience that we do in communities. [quote:71uff2mh]Greenfrog: "Yes, but that explanation of objectivity and subjectivity doesn't very accurately describe the donkey/laptop experience, which occurs to the single subject of the single subject universe -- unless we posit that the laptop makes the single subject universe a dual subject universe -- which would be attributing a lot of characteristics to my laptop that I wouldn't ordinarily think to do."[/quote:71uff2mh] It is not the laptop that makes the universe a dual-subject universe. It is your memory that makes it a dual- (even infinite-) subject universe. A subject with memory already introduces the complexity of a multi-subject universe. [quote:71uff2mh]Greenfrog: "Isn't there a basic understanding of subjectivity that applies to a single mind, without regard to the existence of other (theoretically) subject minds?"[/quote:71uff2mh] As Joey points out, I think William James' allegory still functions appropriately under the conditions you suggest. The principle of the allegory is the same whether we introduce multiple subjects in either space or time -- they are functionally equivalent in introducing complexity. [quote:71uff2mh]Fanger: "Whether there are other people or not, we still experience things as other."[/quote:71uff2mh] . . . only when we have memory of past impotence. I suspect my newborn child is still working out the distinction between self and other. [quote:71uff2mh]Fanger: "So from a phenomenological perspective, I'd disagree w/ James -- experience of otherness doesn't depend on a community of subjects."[/quote:71uff2mh] I don't think James would necessarily disagree with you here. His allegory is intended primarily to address the origin of ethics. In fact, in a universe of infinite objects and a single subject that is to some extent impotent relative to the objects, I suspect James would agree with you that, given time and memory, the subject would experience otherness. [quote:71uff2mh]Fanger: "But from an ethical perspective, maybe I wouldn't disagree if we concluded that the intuition of other subjects is the only source of ethical obligation."[/quote:71uff2mh] That is among James' points in the allegory, as I understand it.
403	The Font of Knowledge	Altruism	9/11/2004 23:14:00	Ironically, so long as there is desire to oppress in the world, when we desire the fullness of joy, we may find ourselves enjoying the fulfillment of desires that others abhor.
404	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	9/12/2004 3:07:00	. . . schizophrenia all around. ;-)
405	The Font of Knowledge	Altruism	9/12/2004 3:11:00	[quote:3ki237vi]Greenfrog: ". . . anyone can act purely upon a desire to do good for others, without regard for the consequences to themselves?"[/quote:3ki237vi] Having a desire and acting on it is acting with regard for the consequences to one's self -- to think otherwise is the ignorance half of the subject we addressed in the other thread.
406	The Font of Knowledge	Altruism	9/12/2004 3:13:00	[quote:2kx9xuhn]Greenfrog: "If so, is there a reason we have to build a gloss of mixed motives before we conclude that the action was a good one?"[/quote:2kx9xuhn] Is one person's altruism always good? . . . only to the extent that it is truely altruism, including being true to one's being part of all.
407	The Font of Knowledge	Diagram of the Kingdom of God	9/12/2004 6:38:00	. . . something interesting to look at: [img:sy3pturq]http://www.gnosis.org/images/JSKABF12.jpg[/img:sy3pturq] [img:sy3pturq]http://www.antimormon.8m.com/tbsteinhousechp46b.gif[/img:sy3pturq] These purport to be the "Diagram of the Kingdom of God" published by Orson Hyde in the Millenial Star in 1847. As there are differences between the two, I am not immediately sure which (if either) is authentic -- or perhaps both are, but one from some other source.
408	The Font of Knowledge	Fanger's Objectivism	9/14/2004 5:07:00	[quote:218dy4nx]Fanger: "If you're proposing a wholly harmonious ethics, then doesn't is just fade away into nothing?"[/quote:218dy4nx] I don't understand the question. [quote:218dy4nx]Fanger: "However, I tend to wonder whether ethical communism doesn't too easily forget the only thing that gives it meaning -- the individual -- each one existing subject."[/quote:218dy4nx] Objectivity defined in terms of subjectivity is not that which it purports to be unless it accounts for ALL subjectivity of which it is composed. This is nothing less than an eternal task, with supreme interest in the experience of individuals . . . and NOT in a democratic sense. The one lost sheep is as important as the others safe in the fold. The robustness of the objectivity, its depth and breadth, is affected most by the effort to account for the experience of outliers. This is basic scientific method. We collect the data points and then we theorize so as to account for ALL data points. It is generally not sufficient for a theory to account for most data points -- although, due to contextual constraints, there are times and places when most is preferable to waiting for the better theory. In the end, the individual data points -- all of them -- drive the theory. . . . in the end, each individual subjective experience affects the objective truth. [quote:218dy4nx]Fanger: "Didn't Christ die for me alone? And you alone?"[/quote:218dy4nx] Sure, and for both of us. This is the question of balance between individual and community. I suggested, previously, a model for illustrating the equally important aspects of the balance -- the matrix of two spectrums, two quadrants of which are individual and community.
409	The Font of Knowledge	Altruism	9/14/2004 5:28:00	Fanger, How would Jesus have felt had he not chosen to engage in the atonement? Consider, then, all the altruistic gestures of all time: how would their performers have felt had they not so performed? We cannot honestly escape the recognition of self-interest in our actions, even those which may incline us to appeal to selflessness. It is not in the nature of things -- except perhaps to the extent that spiritual death is possible. Everyone need not be included for something to be good. Good arises immediately within a single subject universe when the desires of the subject are fulfilled. In a world consisting of infinite subjects with conflicting desires, such as ours, there are infinite forms of goodness. Our eternal duty becomes to organize and reorganize the world such as to increase goodness, not in an overall sense ("overall", here, has meaning only in a finite universe), but rather in an infinitely local sense. By that I mean something like the idea of doing all I can to make the world I experience better both now and in the future, and to persuade others to do the same. We can do this, of course, only within the sphere (including a context of desires) in which God has placed us. Assuming the world is ultimately infinite, the same would be true of all aspects of God: God finding himself amidst infinite intelligences, and finding himself more intelligent than some, decided to organize and reorganize laws for their mutual exaltation. I am appealing to no perfect community or best universe. I am appealing only to practical communities and a better world. . . . unless you WANT to talk about ideals, but then we should recognize them as ideals that only resemble our world to the extent that the concrete approaches the abstract.
410	The Font of Knowledge	Morality Without Religion	9/14/2004 5:36:00	I see religion as a formal mechanism for encouraging morality via tools such as myth and ceremony that communicate to us in ways that secularism cannot (or at least does not readily). However, I certainly do not think morality is impossible without religion any more than I think cooking is impossible without a kitchen.
411	The Font of Knowledge	Morality Without Religion	9/16/2004 5:40:00	[quote:2cf96wiu]Sterling: "Remove organized religion, remove the traditional image of God. Then think of a reason to behave in a loving, selfless manner . . . I don't think that without it there would be any compelling reason to be moral."[/quote:2cf96wiu] The foundation of morality, for too many of us, is a feeling of compulsion or fear relative to the traditional image of God. I worry that the traditional image of God is, in too many instances, leading us to worship Satan, as described by Nephi: [quote:2cf96wiu]"And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. "And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. "And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. "And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw." (1 Nephi 14: 9-12)[/quote:2cf96wiu] However, there certainly is another PERSUASIVE reason to be moral: it is the love of Christ, the True and Living God. We need not belong to organized religion to know something of this latter God. To the contrary, here are Paul's words: [quote:2cf96wiu]"For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Romans 2: 12-16)[/quote:2cf96wiu] Likewise, even when belonging to organized religion, we may not know something of the latter God. Here are Jesus' words: [quote:2cf96wiu]"Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (John 14: 9)[/quote:2cf96wiu] . . . and Joseph's words: [quote:2cf96wiu]". . . any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power. "I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended. "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not . . ." (D&C 88: 47-49)[/quote:2cf96wiu] Please note, however, that I am not suggesting that there is no value in organized religion. To the contrary, I believe there IS value in organized religion, and am, as we say, anxiously engaged in the LDS Church. ----- [quote:2cf96wiu]Cheapcontact: ". . . it's hard to say that any increase (assuming there is increase) of joy is attributed to God or to my wife, or even my dog (I like him a lot)."[/quote:2cf96wiu] Is it necessary to create a dichotomy between your wife (or your dog) and God? Can you consider them to be aspects of God? When you can, I think you will be seeing God with additional clarity. [quote:2cf96wiu]Cheapcontact: "I don't believe I can say that positing God increases the odds of Joy all the time."[/quote:2cf96wiu] To the extent that the God you worship is not leading you to the fullness of joy, you are not worshiping the True and Living God. I am not writing this by way of argument or conclusion. I am writing this as a position, as a declaration of the essential nature of the God we should choose to worship. I begin with the assumption that I do not know God fully, as I do not feel to participate fully in eternal life. To know God is eternal life. To the extent my life is not eternal, I do not know God. To the extent that my worship is not leading to eternal life, I am not worshiping the God of Eternal Life. We need not prove that faith in Christ leads to the fullness of joy. We need to prove our faith in Christ by whether we are heading toward fullness of joy. [quote:2cf96wiu]Cheapcontact: "I do believe that for some people the idea of God truly does help them, but for others it's not so helpful."[/quote:2cf96wiu] Among Lords many and Gods many, we should anticipate finding some that lead to damnation rather than salvation. [quote:2cf96wiu]Cheapcontact: "I can't rightfully compare their joy to my joy or to your joy or to the prophets joy and say anyone's is greater than the others. I accept that people really are different and that Joy comes from different sources for different people, cramming everyone into one box will only lessen the potential for joy in my humble opinion."[/quote:2cf96wiu] Agreed . . . and the love of God is manifest in making place for as many of us as is possible, with enough time and effort -- kingdoms of glory as numerous as the stars. [quote:2cf96wiu]Cheapcontact: "Love makes it all worth while with or without a believe in God."[/quote:2cf96wiu] I agree, but there is more, if we desire it, and if we can handle it -- but most of us don't or can't, and that's not evil.
412	The Font of Knowledge	"The Question of God"	9/17/2004 4:54:00	[quote:2ro9nfyl]Fanger: "After years of thinking, it seems like everyone ends up with the same conclusion, so it's sort of anticlimactic. Nobody knows whether God exists, so you either take the leap of faith to believe or you take the leap of faith to not believe. This conclusion is one of the reasons I don't spend a lot of time reading about the philosophy of religion anymore."[/quote:2ro9nfyl] Asking whether God exists is about as useful as asking whether today will be a good day. Faith works to make the day good where asking, in itself, results only in a day of asking -- whether that is good depends on the person, I suppose.
413	The Font of Knowledge	Morality Without Religion	9/17/2004 5:29:00	[quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "If what you mean by God is 'that which maximizes joy' . . . that's not a really useful definition to me, you haven't really said much about God at that point."[/quote:2pvz1jrd] To the contrary, if you live life thinking that God is that which maximizes joy, I wager you will find the meaning both useful and full of saying much about God. Try it. I dare you. Please note, however, that I think there is much more to say about God than that God is that which maximizes joy -- but that is a lot better definition than most of the world will give you, so far as I am concerned. [quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "But if you take the more standard definition of God (the creator of the world, no morality implied by that creation) then I don't see how a belief in such an entities existence would open up more possibilities for joy."[/quote:2pvz1jrd] That's the point. The standard definition of God is useful for only standardness. It the standard definition of God were sufficient, we would all have eternal life, according to the Bible. [quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "Eternal life does open up the possibilities of more joy, assuming eternal life is a good, desirable thing, but for this life I don't think it grants access to a possibility of more joy than someone who doesn't have that belief, especially if you have to take on with that belief baggage that detracts from joy during this life."[/quote:2pvz1jrd] Must there be a dichotomy between this life and eternal life? If we cannot find joy now, why should we think ourselves capable of doing so in some other life, so long as we maintain our identity? [quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "I don't believe that the standard ideas about God necessarily lead everyone toward fullness of joy all the time."[/quote:2pvz1jrd] I agree. Standard inputs are good only for standard outputs. [quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "How do you know if you are heading toward fullness of joy and not just up a local peak?"[/quote:2pvz1jrd] I suppose you can first head for the highest peak you can see and then start building it higher. [quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "When you say Gods/God I read idea/ideas. Is this a correct interpretation?"[/quote:2pvz1jrd] That is a correct, but not exhaustive, interpretation. Part of the power of the word "God" is in its overloaded connotations. Arosophos, previously: ". . . there is more, if we desire it, and if we can handle it -- but most of us don't or can't, and that's not evil." [quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "Do you care to expand on this idea?"[/quote:2pvz1jrd] These scripture passages outline the thought, and, I feel, begin to suggest the agony and glory of it: [quote:2pvz1jrd]8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. 9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all. 10 And he said unto me: What desirest thou? 11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another. 12 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence. 13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white. 14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou? 15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. 16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? 17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. 18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. 19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! 20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. 21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? 22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. 23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul. (1 Nephi 11: 8-23)[/quote:2pvz1jrd] [quote:2pvz1jrd]7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19 We alove him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4: 7-19)[/quote:2pvz1jrd] [quote:2pvz1jrd]21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. (Colossians 1: 21-29)[/quote:2pvz1jrd] [quote:2pvz1jrd]14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8: 14-18)[/quote:2pvz1jrd] [quote:2pvz1jrd]Cheapcontact: "It's possible to believe whatever you want."[/quote:2pvz1jrd] Yes, but unless you choose relativism (or devolve into nihilism) then it's not possible to want whatever you believe. :-)
414	The Font of Knowledge	Greatest Love	9/17/2004 5:43:00	[quote:26ophns8]1 NOW as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. (1 Corinthians 8)[/quote:26ophns8] [quote:26ophns8]9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. (John 15: 9-14)[/quote:26ophns8]
415	The Font of Knowledge	Morality Without Religion	9/19/2004 2:35:00	[quote:1yfjndb7]Cheapcontact: "So when I read this I see, 'if you live life thinking that you should be trying to maximize joy then you will find the idea of maximizing joy useful.'"[/quote:1yfjndb7] That's not quite the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that you may find some utility in worshiping the idea (that life is about maximizing joy) as you worship your idea of God. [quote:1yfjndb7]Cheapcontact: "I agree that the idea of maximizing joy is a useful and good one, but if that's all there is to say about God then we can drop the 'idea' of God and just worship 'maximizing joy'."[/quote:1yfjndb7] I agree. Maximizing joy is a subset of the aspects of God. I am not suggesting that the two are equivalent. However, I am suggesting that considering the two to be equivalent would be a theological improvement for a lot of persons. [quote:1yfjndb7]Cheapcontact: "God is an idea in thier head that they use to justify many things."[/quote:1yfjndb7] . . . which is among the reasons for which I think worshipping the idea of maximizing joy would be an improvement in many cases. Arosophos, previously: "It the standard definition of God were sufficient, we would all have eternal life, according to the Bible." [quote:1yfjndb7]Cheapcontact: "I've never read that. I'm sure you got some quote somewhere though."[/quote:1yfjndb7] The Bible tells us that eternal life is to know God. Since the standard definition of God is that which is most widely asserted, it follows that most of us would have eternal life if the standard definition of God is that to which the Bible refers with "know God". [quote:1yfjndb7]Cheapcontact: "Without that expectation of eternal life one could get bogged down in this existence and how unfair and painful it can seem."[/quote:1yfjndb7] I agree that the future -- a hope fulfilling future -- is as important as the present for reasons such as that you propose. Arosophos, previously: "Part of the power of the word 'God' is in its overloaded connotations." [quote:1yfjndb7]Cheapctonact: "I see it more as a hinderance, but I'm willing to work with you on it. How is it powerful? I see it as a hinderance because it effects our ability to communicate ideas to each other successfully."[/quote:1yfjndb7] Ambiguity is not always a hinderance. To the contrary, it often helps us communicate to multiple persons at multiple levels simultaneously. It is a useful layer of abstraction. Computer programmers often write code that consists of nothing more than a layer of abstraction that defines how other code should interact. The details of the interactions are left to be determined in the other code, but because of the high level abstraction, the creators of the other code can at least count on certain points of communication. Without these points of communication defined by the high level abstraction, communication would be much more difficult, and some powerful forms of communication would be impossible. [quote:1yfjndb7]Cheapcontact: "I was also wondering if you could describe the two different types of people, those that desire and can handle vs those that can't, that way I know what you're saying when you say 'and that's not evil.'"[/quote:1yfjndb7] My sister wants to run a marathon, but while training for it, she injured herself to the point that she can no longer attempt to run the marathon. We each have physical and spiritual capacities. These capacities are not static, but not perfectly dynamic according to desire either. To be a bit more clear: our impotence does not make our will evil. Likewise, the existence of evil does not necessarily make the will of God evil -- much depends on the extent of God's power.
416	The Font of Knowledge	Greatest Love	9/19/2004 4:01:00	[quote:2fwrdz23]13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 15 ¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14: 13-15, 21)[/quote:2fwrdz23]
417	The Font of Knowledge	Total Forgiveness	9/23/2004 5:56:00	Being -- what actually is -- is an ideal.
418	The Font of Knowledge	Total Forgiveness	9/23/2004 6:12:00	Perhaps the atonement of total forgiveness requires that we go deeper -- much deeper -- than we are considering. Is it sufficient that we change only our spirits? That, to me, seems to be only half the work. We should also be changing our bodies. Persons dealing with depression are familiar with the beneficial power of drugs. I wager repeat sex offenders would benefit from adjustment of the chemical cocktail that works on their desires in such a perverse and difficult to withstand manner. One of the planks in my political platform is casteration of repeat sex offenders. Vote for me! . . . I am only half joking. I don't like the cruel and unusual part, but if we can come up with a safe way of removing the sexual drive then I am for it in such cases. I believe we have free will; however, I believe we exercise the freedom within an anatomy, community and environment that we do not control. We can, however, seek to adjust our inferior desires within the context of our superior desires. We can seek to change both our spirits and our bodies toward whatever ideal we posit, even if it is only the ideal of being.
419	The Font of Knowledge	Morality Without Religion	9/24/2004 4:02:00	[quote:19r54107]Cheapcontact: "I'll buy the logic in the last paragraph, but originaly you said 'we would all have eternal life' as opposed to 'most of us would have eternal life.'"[/quote:19r54107] Good point. My original statement was an exageration. [quote:19r54107]Cheapcontact: "But your definition of God seems so ambigious that it often seems like there are side effects in the functions you told me I could call but you're not telling me about the side effects in the api."[/quote:19r54107] . . . a programmer. :-) . . . so you must also be familiar with the persistent inadequacy of API documentation, particularly related to implementations of interfaces (beyond the knowledge of the interface author) and their cascading effects. This inadequacy is something we try to account for in various ways, but it does not, however, keep us from leveraging the power of interfaces. The same is true of "God". There are aspects of the ambiguity that are not helpful; however, there are also aspects that are extraordinarily helpful. [quote:19r54107]Cheapcontact: "Are you saying that some people just can't help but be poor christians and no matter how hard they try the'll end up in a lower kingdom?"[/quote:19r54107] To some extent, yes, and myself included. However, I use "to some extent" because your statement has too much finality to it. I don't count on finality -- in fact, I count on precisely the opposite.
420	The Font of Knowledge	Total Forgiveness	9/24/2004 4:12:00	[quote:ym3awnwu]Cheapcontact: "If you take drugs to alter your sexual desires you are only temporarily altering the body. You have not changed your body."[/quote:ym3awnwu] That seems to depend on the particular drug. I wager you can think of some examples of drugs that permanently change your body -- and some theoretically possible drugs that could do likewise. [quote:ym3awnwu]Cheapcontact: "Though the castration thing is interesting. voluntary castration I think would be a sign of atonement taking place but when it's forced upon the offender I don't know that you've done them a service toward being fully atoned, but you sure have made a lot more kids safer."[/quote:ym3awnwu] Oppression justifies counter-oppression to the extent that there is no practical alternative. I don't expect full atonement to happen immediately (or ever completely, to be honest), so, as dictated by wisdom and inspiration, I am ready to support some counter-oppression to the extent that there is no practical alternative. Don't tread on me -- at least not more than seventy times seven times. ;-)
421	The Font of Knowledge	Greatest Love	9/24/2004 4:14:00	I agree, Bimpire. To some extent, that's what Paul is talking about in the first passage quoted.
422	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	9/24/2004 4:39:00	[quote:lllsigpr]Bimpire: "Homosexual acts (not necessarily homosexuality) are sin."[/quote:lllsigpr] [quote:lllsigpr]Cheapcontact: "I disagree."[/quote:lllsigpr] I second the disagreement. Promiscuity is a sin. Dishonesty is a sin. Compulsion and oppression are sins. Homosexual acts in commited honest relationships of mutual desire and consent are not sin, so far as I can tell. Show me the sin in homosexuality itself. I cannot see it, and I will not oppress that which I cannot identify as sin -- the thought makes me feel ill. While I cannot show you sin in homosexuality, I can show you sin: oppression of homosexuals by those who have no other explanation for their claim that it is sinful than their desire that it be considered sinful. Appeal to authorities. That only adds apathy and irresponsibility to the sin. Appeal to God? YES. If you have prayed with all your heart, mind and soul to know that homosexual acts are evil, to verify the words of the authorities to which you appeal, and if you have been filled with the knowledge of God that homosexual acts ARE evil, then you make a justifiable appeal . . . and you make yourself my enemy, in this thing, until your God converts me or my God converts you. The war in heaven continues.
423	The Font of Knowledge	Morality Without Religion	9/25/2004 5:48:00	[quote:15iflq97]Cheapcontact: "Which ambiguities are extremely helpful?"[/quote:15iflq97] A general can effectively appeal to God to inspire his troops, a politician can do so to inspire a nation, a religious leader to inspire a church, all without requiring any specific nuance or degree of understanding of God. The nuances and degrees can be communicated at spiritual emotional levels even without the speaker being directly aware of the details. So an abstracted degree of inspiration is one example of the utility of the ambiguities in "God". This, of course, feeds into the programmatic interface analogy we were discussing. [quote:15iflq97]Cheapcontact: ". . . but the two situations don't feel analogous to me."[/quote:15iflq97] To some extent, we have power over each other simply through communication of words. Each word carries a set of connotations for the person receiving it, and the recipient simply cannot help but be impacted in some way by the connotations within the context of the receipt. This seems to me to be much like interacting with a programmatic API, except to a much more complex magnitude at which it is impossible to be exact and call only one method at any given time -- but, rather, we find ourselves clumsily calling whole sets of methods in various vicinities while attempting to call the particularly desired method. [quote:15iflq97]Cheapcontact: "I'm not certain that this discussion is really relevant to this particular thread though. I'm having a hard time even remembering how we got to this point."[/quote:15iflq97] We are trying to determine whether there is value in God if there is the possibility of morality without religion. [quote:15iflq97]Cheapcontact: "So then are you saying that everyone does have the ability to make it into the highest kingdom? It sounds like your trying to say both."[/quote:15iflq97] I am saying both because I believe both: 1) There is no necessary end to progression. 2) Not all will desire sufficiently to progress.
424	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	9/25/2004 6:40:00	[quote:2oxlmjip]Jim Weed: "Earlier Arosophos suggested that there is nothing inherently sinful in the act of homosexuality. A pretty compelling idea that has me thinking. One of the underlying assumptions seems to be that one should be convinced of the utility of a commandment or law in order to responsibly endorse it. Is that accurate?"[/quote:2oxlmjip] . . . not entirely. To the extent that we recognize no oppression in a particular commandment or law, inspiration itself is sufficient justification for endorsement. However, to the extent that we recognize oppression in a particular commandment or law, inspiration alone is insufficient. We need also recognize that the oppression is practically necessary to counter some greater oppression. Nephi tells us that the spirit moved him to kill Laban. His immediate reaction, in the face of inspiration, was not to comply. However, he soon recognizes that killing Laban is practically necessary to counter the greater detriments that would result if Laban kept the Brass Plates from Nephi's family and descendents. Whether we agree with Nephi's reasoning or not, and whether we think there may have been some practical alternative to killing Laban or not, the story yet illustrates: inspiration without understanding is insufficient when the inspiration moves us to oppression. I have nothing against appeals to authority, except to the extent that we do so to justify oppression, or counter-oppression without reason. Such appeals are to the authority of Satan.
425	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	9/25/2004 6:45:00	[quote:2ijb3n1b]Sara Sassypants: "Was there an official document similar to the Proclamation, saying clearly that black people would NEVER get the preisthood which was later revoked?"[/quote:2ijb3n1b] There was the Proclamation on the Economy that is now largely ignored.
426	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	9/25/2004 7:01:00	You can find it at about the middle of the page located at this link: [url:1q12pxot]http://marriottschool.byu.edu/emp/wpw/generalmanagement.cfm[/url:1q12pxot] It is a document about economic principles signed by the entire first presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles during the time of Brigham Young.
427	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	9/27/2004 0:47:00	[quote:e2r4tkvf]Jeff Freebird Z: "Honestly, I think that church leaders just haven't had the desire to go to the Lord and really ask about this issue. I haven't heard any indication that this is any sort of struggle. President Kimball practically begged the Lord for the revelation correcting the false doctrine denying blacks the priesthood. I'm not sure the same desire is present yet to seek an answer about homosexuality."[/quote:e2r4tkvf] I agree. ----- On the subject of fitting homosexuals into Mormon cosmology, I see a place for them, minimally, in the second degree of Celestial glory, a step ahead of the asexuals and a step behind the sexually reproductive. Of course, some homosexuals may now be finding ways to be sexually reproductive, and it appears certain that many will do so in the future. That acknowledged, I remain persuaded that, all else being equal, and given our current paradigm, the better situation for children is to be raised by their own biological parents of mixed sex. However, all else is not and, I suspect, never will be equal, so when we cannot put children into situations to be raised by their own biological parents of mixed sex, we look for other alternatives that are better than leaving them parentless, such as adoption. Again all things being equal, we should look to give parentless children to adoptive parents of mixed sex. However, again all things are not equal, and loving adoptive parents of non-mixed sex would certainly be better than non-loving adoptive parents of mixed sex. One may consider the future and wonder: which is better, loving mixed sex adoptive parents or loving non-mixed sex biological parents? It seems to me that this question is unnecessarily imposing our current sexual paradigm on the future. In a world where any two persons (or any set of persons) can create children, how does our entire understanding of the sexual paradigm shift? God will yet reveal many great and important things, Joseph claimed. I believe Joseph, and I believe God is now revealing some such things. Where has God led in the past? Where does God now lead? Extrapolating from those reference points, can we see where God is pointing our spirits?
428	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	9/30/2004 6:15:00	Greenfrog, I enjoyed your post on the practical benefits of committed relationships.
429	The Font of Knowledge	Two Spiritedness	10/4/2004 3:01:00	[quote:1fygq2my]. . . here's how I view the hierarchy of "ideal family" environments for children to be raised: Heterosexual mother and father Heterosexual stepparent situation Gay couple single parent polygamous family Foster care [/quote:1fygq2my] I disagree with this list. All things being equal, here's my version: II. Biological Parents 1) Two Mixed-Gender 2) Two Female-Gender (Future) 3) Two Male-Gender (Future) 4) One Female-Gender 5) One Male-Gender III. Adopted Parents 1) Two Mixed-Gender 2) Two Female-Gender 3) Two Male-Gender 4) One Female-Gender 5) One Male-Gender IV. No Parents Where's the first roman numeral? It's harder to articulate. You may have noticed that polygamy is not on my list, and you may be thinking that I would put it at the top. Depending on your understanding of polygamy, you would be very wrong or APPROACHING being right. Basically, I think children benefit most from mixed-sex sets of parents, particularly when the set of parents includes both biological parents. If a polygamous set of parents includes mixed-sex parents and both biological parents then, all things being equal, I am persuaded that the inclusion of additional loving parents in the set would be beneficial. Of course, all things are not equal in practice, and often children of polygamous parents receive less attention from their biological father than their counterparts with monogamous fathers. Theoretically, however, would there not be potential benefits from having the ratio go the other way -- where parents outnumber and provide additional attention to their children? Joseph put polygamy in place, and Brigham taught that those unwilling to participate in it would damn themselves. This frightens some persons, and others chuckle to themselves or even become angry at the idea. When I consider their words, I see these early leaders of Mormonism pointing the way toward something more, beyond traditional polygamy, something that Joseph could not reveal for fear of destroying the early LDS Church or losing his life -- something for which even many of us, here, would condemn or ridicule him. There is a first roman numeral remaining to be articulated, and while "polygamy" is insufficient to express it, "polygamy" approaches it.
430	The Font of Knowledge	Pornography and Polygamy	10/7/2004 5:22:00	What do pornography and polygamy have in common?
431	The Font of Knowledge	Pornography and Polygamy	10/7/2004 5:47:00	What is the psychological intersection of the two?
432	The Font of Knowledge	Pornography and Polygamy	10/7/2004 5:50:00	What do male pornography and polyandry have in common?
433	The Font of Knowledge	Pornography and Polygamy	10/7/2004 7:56:00	Sorry . . . :-) [23:41] Arosophos: part of the beauty of wedding ceremonies is communal consent [23:41] Arosophos: it's like objectivity [23:41] Arosophos: truth [23:41] Arosophos: atonement [23:41] Arosophos: communal recognition of the sexual relationship [23:41] Arosophos: i think this is the largest barrier between me and polygamy [23:42] Arosophos: that's where i struggle with porn, too [23:42] Arosophos: that's where i wish i did not have to struggle with homosexuality [23:42] Arosophos: i wish we could give them communal consent [23:43] Arosophos: i think they need it [23:43] Arosophos: and that it would not hurt [23:43] Arosophos: us [23:43] Arosophos: the trouble with porn [23:43] Arosophos: like open marriage [23:43] Arosophos: is that it is consent without limits [23:43] Arosophos: which is no cosent at all [23:43] Arosophos: its like pantheism [23:43] Arosophos: rather than [23:43] Arosophos: . . . oh, what's the new word [23:44] Arosophos: theonpanism [23:44] Arosophos: the problem with pantheism [23:44] Arosophos: is that it is indiscriminate [23:44] Arosophos: there is no acknowledgement of real evil [23:44] Arosophos: it equates God with all [23:44] Arosophos: whether desirable or not [23:44] Arosophos: porn and open marriage [23:44] Arosophos: likewise [23:45] Arosophos: are indiscriminate in sexual choice [23:45] Arosophos: they are inherently without commitment [23:45] Arosophos: to some extent [23:45] Arosophos: they do not distinguish between good and evil [23:45] Arosophos: they are apathetic [23:45] Arosophos: . . . just thinking out loud here [23:46] Arosophos: open marriage is opening the door to [23:46] Arosophos: sleeping with the devil [23:46] Arosophos: someone your wife totally hates [23:46] Arosophos: without her consent [23:46] Arosophos: it is preparation for betrayal [23:47] Arosophos: it is leaving the struggles of unity unaddressed [23:47] Arosophos: unity is not merely the lack of disagreement [23:47] Arosophos: atonement is not compromise [23:48] Arosophos: damn [23:48] Arosophos: now i have to rewrite all of this for the thread
434	The Font of Knowledge	Pornography and Polygamy	10/7/2004 8:00:00	As Joey mentioned, I think this is about the desire for sexual plurality, and about good and evil ways of pursuing the desire. I don't know that our community, today, offers any good ways of pursuing the desire. I think this is unfortunate.
435	The Font of Knowledge	Pornography and Polygamy	10/7/2004 8:14:00	As I was beginning to discuss on the "Two Spiritedness" thread, I think the answer depends a lot on how you understand "polygamy". I don't think traditional polygamy has shown itself to be sufficiently good in practice. However, I also don't think that Joseph and Brigham were pointing at traditional polygamy as the end point or the ideal. Porn and open-marriage don't seem to be the good way for reasons analogous to those I have for not thinking pantheism to be the good way. The indiscrimination invites too many practical detriments that good old fashioned discrimination, with whatever wisdom and inspiration we may have, would help us avoid. There is the spiritual side, too. There are spiritual problems with porn and open marriage. They do not invite us to consent. They do not expect our consent. They do not unite us. They do not move our hearts to the sexual union. In turn, the participants do not participate in a sexual union exalted by our common good will. In some cases, such as homosexuality, we can change this. In the case of porn and open-marriage, their indiscriminate nature (by definition, in the case of open-marriage and almost universally in practice in the case of porn) make it unchangeable without changing the very nature of the thing described by "porn" or "open-marriage". Polygamy, on the other hand, is -- or should be and can be -- about commitment and communal consent, even communal interest. It could be uniting in its discrimination rather than dividing in its indiscrimination.
436	The Font of Knowledge	Pornography and Polygamy	10/7/2004 8:16:00	[quote:2gj42aqe]And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen. (D&C 132: 66)[/quote:2gj42aqe]
437	The Font of Knowledge	You ain’t worth sh*t (but let’s talk about it)	10/10/2004 0:11:00	Objective, as commonly used, practically means "dogmatic subjectivity in denial".
438	The Font of Knowledge	You ain’t worth sh*t (but let’s talk about it)	10/10/2004 6:43:00	. . . and be read. So know that I read it. :-)
439	The Font of Knowledge	PSHAAA Spiritual/Philosophical/Mormon Idiosyncrasies	10/11/2004 5:33:00	[quote:1ndhn3el]Jim Weed: "I have some great ideas about this. Sacrament meeting is just that--sacrament. Maybe a message. 30 minutes. Then RS and Priesthood are service-oriented planning meetings--who needs help, what can we do--more along the lines of what those organizations were created for. Then the last hour is Sunday School where you have a lesson."[/quote:1ndhn3el] I like that. [quote:1ndhn3el]Jim Weed: "I'm surprised they haven't asked for how I would do things yet."[/quote:1ndhn3el] When they ask me, I'll send them your way.
440	The Font of Knowledge	"and they pray unto me because I am with them"	10/21/2004 4:38:00	Imagine if we all treated each other so well.
441	The Font of Knowledge	Fish don't know that water is wet.	12/5/2004 21:35:00	Fish don't live out of water, either.
442	The Font of Knowledge	Journal of Discourses and the same sex marriage discussion	12/5/2004 21:47:00	Your post resonates with me, Joey.
443	The Font of Knowledge	Evolution, creation, or both?	12/5/2004 22:32:00	What are the facts? The facts are the world of experience. The objective facts are the world of shared experience. You and I agree that we see the bones. That's an objective fact. What are the theories? Evolution Theory and non-Evolution Theory -- neither of which is incompatible, strictly speaking, with Creation Theory. Which theory explains present facts and predicts future facts more satisfyingly? Which explains and predicts more of the world of shared experience? The better theory explains and predicts more, but is not necessarily the best possible theory. I am, to some substantial extent, uninformed about the facts that Evolution Theory and non-Evolution Theory should explain and predict. However, after exercising some degree of faith in Evolution Theory, I chose to embrace it more fully when I realized: faith in Evolution Theory was making me a better person. I was caring more for the non-human world around me than I had prior to testing the faith. I valued this affect, and continue to value it. I am acquainted with persuasive arguments for accepting Evolution Theory. These provide a feeling of confidence and security -- knowledge -- in relation to my choice to embrace Evolution Theory. However, I also know that each of the persuasive arguments depends on assumptions in which I have chosen to posit some degree of faith. These temper my feeling of confidence and security in knowledge. Ultimately, however, the practical difference in my life has been, as I mentioned, the affect Evolution Theory has had on my esteem for non-human life. I perceive myself as more charitable, more Christian, more loving than I perceived myself to be before planting the seed -- tasting the fruit -- testing the faith. As empiricism works not just in physical matters, so desire works not just in spiritual matters.
444	The Font of Knowledge	Evolution, creation, or both?	12/8/2004 5:41:00	[quote:3mlc1zz7]Greenfrog: "So if someone comes up with a nice story that talks about the life of rocks, supposing that you are largely uninformed about the life or non-life of rocks, would you adopt the theory, so long as it causes you to find value in thinking of rocks as living critters?"[/quote:3mlc1zz7] Sure -- if, as you say, it is sufficiently persuasive to cause me to find value in thinking of rocks as living critters (which, by the way, and as a total tangent, I may be crazy enough to believe in some bizarre sense). [quote:3mlc1zz7]Greenfrog: ". . . even though you may not personally have taken any significant interest in the accuracy of details of evolution, isn't a significant reason for your willingness to consider the theory the fact that it is a generally accepted theory in science?"[/quote:3mlc1zz7] As I mention in my previous post, the persuasive arguments provided by science have certainly influenced me. Note, however, that I recognize them for what they are: arguments stemming from assumptions that we cannot ultimately prove in any final way, but only in the way that increases our confidence as we find ourselves yet more unable to disprove the theory -- to whatever extent. [quote:3mlc1zz7]Greenfrog: "Do you really think that your willingness to consider evolution is unrelated to its utility in interpreting the facts you are not informed of?"[/quote:3mlc1zz7] No. Again, to put it somewhat differently, I am acquainted with the appeals to utility. I think they are great. For the most part, they work for me. However, I was attempting to focus on an aspect of this matter that has not received as much attention in this thread: our faith in Evolution Theory is much like faith in other matters. We each seek out persuasive arguments or authoritative foundations for our beliefs to some satisfying extent, beyond which we have only desire. [quote:3mlc1zz7]Greenfrog: "I think the theory's relationship with the facts I encounter in my life is a very important to whether and how I value the story. If the only criterion I use is subjective, I think I'll have slipped out of reality and into solipsism."[/quote:3mlc1zz7] I, too, value experience (facts) but I am not going to pretend that I know how I REALLY come to have them -- REALLY REALLY, in that gloriously-silly and wishful thinking final way. I, too, find that Evolution Theory better explains and predicts my experience than does non-Evolution theory, but I am confident that better theories -- those that explain and predict my experience even better -- are possible. Yes, we can theoretically choose solipsism. You don't and neither do I. We don't because our desires are elsewhere. [quote:3mlc1zz7]Cheapcontact: "From my understanding of Arosophos he wouldn't mind slipping into subjectivism."[/quote:3mlc1zz7] So long as we are slipping, we have no choice but to do so subjectively. I don't, however, advocate relativism, as I do not advocate absolutism. Objectivity, as I understand it, is a communal matter, and I advocate that. [quote:3mlc1zz7]Cheapcontact: "You and Arosophos claim everything is subjective so and he has said things like (these are not exact quotes but are what is lingering in my head), 'oh the joy of subjectivism' and 'pure sweet relativism'."[/quote:3mlc1zz7] Wow. That is a mischaracterization. I certainly have not communicated well enough. [quote:3mlc1zz7]Cheapcontact: "So I don't think Arosophos would be much concerned about greenfrogs argument if the results produced by the theory increased joy."[/quote:3mlc1zz7] Increased joy is not my interest. Fullness of joy is my interest. Some increases in joy are detrimental to the pursuit of fullness. [quote:3mlc1zz7]Cheapcontact: "He's like the guy in the matrix that just wanted his juicy steak back. Reality doesn't matter as long as everyone is happy."[/quote:3mlc1zz7] Happiness (or the lack thereof) is reality. Experience is reality. We should certainly dig deeper into it so as better to understand the foundations of the higher levels, as we should seek to climb for a better view of the lower levels -- but all remains experience. Reality, as you refer to it here, is, at best, an innocent assumption. At worst, a damning lie. [quote:3mlc1zz7]Greenfrog: "So Arosophos, which is it, the red pill or the blue one?"[/quote:3mlc1zz7] What is the practical difference? How should I expect the choice to affect my experience? Can I have half of each, both or neither?
445	The Font of Knowledge	Evolution, creation, or both?	12/9/2004 6:27:00	The statement you quote from the other thread was intended as sarcasm -- which, of course, is not easy to pick up online.
446	Spockwithabeard Stuff	T-Shirt Vote Accuracy check	12/9/2004 6:32:00	I didn't vote, but I might buy one if you point out where I can see the winning design.
447	Spockwithabeard Stuff	T-Shirt Vote Accuracy check	12/9/2004 18:27:00	Thanks -- I'll take one. What's the price and to whom do I pay?
448	The Font of Knowledge	why do you stay? why don't you? why didn't you?	12/11/2004 9:17:00	I am LDS because it makes me a better person -- even when I dislike it. Recently, my grandmother, after politely listening to me rant about something crazy, told me: don't leave the Church. I responded: I intend to stay as long as it will have me. That's how I generally feel . . . . . . there are better and worse days, but generally I am just willing to do what I can to contribute to making the LDS Church better while it does what it can to contribute to making me better. All of that aside, I am Mormon, and that inspires me. Nothing has brought me more substantial and enduring fulfillment in life than the conscious effort to understand and live according to the principles of Mormonism. By the light of Mormonism, I see more clearly; and, in its warmth, I care more deeply.
449	The Font of Knowledge	Evolution, creation, or both?	12/15/2004 4:00:00	[quote:37t1zydu]Fanger: "My next question for you is why should you choose to believe in one or the other at all? I find the effort (cost) of making an affirmative choice to believe in evolution as a fact more weighty than the benefit it brings me in the form of increased charity toward animals. Not because believing in evolution brings harm, but because building faith takes effort."[/quote:37t1zydu] I don't feel that the cost of consideration began large. As with all efforts of faith, it begins small and grows as our experience confirms the value of the faith. All it takes, in the beginning, is the desire to believe, and let this desire work in you . . . [quote:37t1zydu]Fanger: "Man, sounds like the fulfillment of some desires in your experience take us further from the fullness of joy. So are you saying that some desires do not have the net result of joy?"[/quote:37t1zydu] I understand you are joking to some extent, but I would like to point out that we should compare net to net and non-net to non-net. If we do so, we continue to observe that joy results from fulfilled desire and that fulness of joy can result only from the greatest possible fulfillment of desires, with an "s", at all individual and communal magnitudes. [quote:37t1zydu]Greenfrog: "I have found that as my understanding of evolution has deepened, my understanding of God has transformed, as well."[/quote:37t1zydu] . . . as has mine, and for the better -- in ways that make me a kinder and happier person.
450	The Font of Knowledge	Evolution, creation, or both?	12/15/2004 5:03:00	In practice, we have only whatever wisdom and inspiration we may have. That's a vague answer, and I would like eventually to provide a better one. It is something that occupies my thoughts frequently.
451	Spockwithabeard Stuff	Thanks Rob and Sol!	12/19/2004 0:20:00	Thanks
452	The Font of Knowledge	what will the judgment be like?	1/25/2005 1:45:00	[quote:35fr95ji]Timothy: "I understand your point, but I think this fundamentally misses the common view of the LDS Church and its recent theology on this point."[/quote:35fr95ji] That's what the Roman critics of Jesus kept telling him, too.
453	The Font of Knowledge	what will the judgment be like?	1/26/2005 1:31:00	. . . "snarkiness"? That's a cool word.
454	The Font of Knowledge	Something Beautiful . . . and Familiar	2/21/2005 0:53:00	[url:2cr9b66p]http://silvercrow.com/druid/aprilgorsed.htm[/url:2cr9b66p]
455	The Font of Knowledge	What's so great about joy?	2/24/2005 2:15:00	Joy is fulfillment of that which is desired.
456	The Font of Knowledge	Mormonism: The Meta-Christianity	3/18/2005 22:41:00	The earliest (and therefore most representative of early Christian thought) writings in the New Testament are those of Paul. In my estimation, Paul approached Christianity in much the same way that Joseph approached it: embrace and extend. Paul and early Christians were, perhaps ironically, meta-Christians, as Joey has put it -- certainly they were relative to the forms of Christianity that destroyed them.
457	The Font of Knowledge	The Singularity	3/18/2005 22:44:00	Blacksmithing is a technique for implementing a particular technological trend. It is not a technological trend. Similarly, the punch card was a technique for implementing information technology; however, although the technological trend of info tech continues, the punch card exists mainly in museums.
458	The Font of Knowledge	The Risks of Abstinence	3/20/2005 0:13:00	[url=http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_2612550:14wie761]LDS Teens Fare Best[/url:14wie761] . . . and, by the way, I believe one of our own SWAB participants was a contributor to this study.
459	The Font of Knowledge	I've found the truth...	4/2/2005 17:42:00	. . . and I became an atheist yesterday. ;-)
460	The Font of Knowledge	Mormonism: The Meta-Christianity	4/7/2005 1:41:00	For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Mormon first, and also to the Occidental. For there is no difference between the Mormon and the Occidental: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For the Mormons require a sign, and the Occidentals seek after wisdom: But we preach being Christ, unto the Mormons a stumblingblock, and unto the Occidentals foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Mormons and Occidentals, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Mormon nor Occidental, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, there is neither heterosexual nor homosexual, there is neither monogamous nor polygamous: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
461	The Font of Knowledge	Critical Mass of Community	4/11/2005 0:21:00	Does Beliefnet still exist? Sure, but . . .
462	The Font of Knowledge	Critical Mass of Community	4/11/2005 4:21:00	The spiritual community still exists, even when the physical location changes.
463	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/17/2005 0:41:00	. . . deny yourselves of all ungodliness . . . Deny yourselves of ALL ungodliness? ALL? Deny yourselves of ALL that is not God? What remains when all that is not God is denied? Only God remains. By exalting some God above ourselves, are we disobeying the commandment of the God that loves us? This is not an argument for arrogance. We, as members of the body, the flesh and blood of Christ, each have relative strengths and weaknesses. We can acknowledge those and try to use them to assist each other without devaluing any particular member. Without God, we are nothing; with God, we are everything. The opposite is also true.
464	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/17/2005 1:18:00	[quote:2hab4083]Joey: "P.S. I wonder if those guys sang puff the magic dragon when they visited."[/quote:2hab4083] What the hell is this? :-) [quote:2hab4083]Timothy: "That may have been a theory at one point; but that theory, so far as I can tell, no longer exists within the dominant expressions of the faith."[/quote:2hab4083] [quote:2hab4083]And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look, and behold that great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil. And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and [b:2hab4083]she had dominion over [i:2hab4083]all [/i:2hab4083]the earth, among [i:2hab4083]all [/i:2hab4083]nations, kindreds, tongues, and people[/b:2hab4083]. And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw. And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.[/quote:2hab4083] [quote:2hab4083]Timothy: "God worship, generally, denotes a hierarchical structure of communal government that I have no faith in."[/quote:2hab4083] The words "generally" and "denotes" contradict each other. I agree that, generally, God worship has the connotation you perceive, precisely as described in the passage above from Nephi.
465	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/17/2005 1:59:00	Satan, and the Whore of all the Earth . . . the one projects oppression as the other begs erotically for it. The one exalts itself above all that is called God, declaring itself God; the other debases itself below all that is called God, denying itself God. Satan laughs and his angels rejoice.
466	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/17/2005 23:49:00	What's the semantical difference, Layla?
467	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/19/2005 4:52:00	What is the difference between being God and being God-like, particularly when God-like is utterly without God-unlike?
468	The Font of Knowledge	Heart of Hearts	4/19/2005 5:50:00	Knowledge has meaning only within the context of faith in a particular God. What kind of world do you want to live in? Who is the God of that world? Choose that God. Depending on our choice, we are alone, but only to the extent that our foundational faith is not love -- Christ and the eternal atonement. If we found our faith in Christ then we are not alone, and there is a way to know even when the disciples of other Gods know differently. Which disciple of which God should we trust? Trusting the heart of hearts is not sufficient unless that heart is filled with the love of Christ, or is defined to be the heart of Christ. As Paul taught, there are gods many. As Joseph taught, we should try these spirits. As Joshua taught, we should choose among them which we will serve. The egotistical heart of Satan moves him to oppression. Thus, the danger: following the heart of hearts in worshipping a God of damnation. There are many spirits possessing our hearts and minds. Not all are equal. Worshipping a Spirit is easy. Finding a Spirit worthy of worship is not. There is a degree of safety in checking our choices against the canon of scriptural history -- the safety and stability of orthodoxy. There is, however, also the risk of dogmatism and consequential damnation, in embracing abominable creeds. Yet, in any of this, are we free? Is our heart of hearts free? How free? I wonder how free I am, truely, to choose among the desires in my heart of hearts, and I repeatedly find myself impotent to some great extent. Entirely impotent? I hope not, but certainly utterly impotent relative to the whole of my desires. I can choose only within the context of some desire, of lesser or greater magnitude. As I gain knowledge of my desires, I feel more free. We have, perhaps, only ever greater degrees of knowledge, and its accompanying persuasion. I suspect to find freedom only there. Confirmed faith as a foundation for knowledge is not merely a method put forward by religion. This is basic reality -- revelatory experience. We do not and cannot know, in the absolute sense (whatever that is), the absolute truth (again, whatever that is) of our interpretation of experience. We experience -- we ARE experience, the process -- and we interpret according to our desires, and work among our desires according to our knowledge, built on past experience and desires, in an eternally emergent process. Religion is not alone, here. Science and every other human endeavor relies on such faith. What kind of world do you want to live in? How SHOULD the world be? The Spirit you worship can answer these questions. I hope you worship the Spirit of Christ. To the extent you do not, my intention is to persuade you to do so. To the extent you will not, the War in Heaven continues. Is the War in Heaven value neutral? Only experience can answer that. My faith is in Christ, but I would not underestimate Satan -- to do so would be foolish, unless we know infallibly that he cannot win the war. [url=http://www.hopeofzion.com/articles/try_the_spirits.htm:2st355vm]Try the Spirits[/url:2st355vm]
469	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/19/2005 16:52:00	Is Jesus God or God-like? If you are entirely Arosophos-like, denying ALL Arosophos-unlikeness, are you not Arosophos?
470	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/19/2005 19:22:00	Ghrumpy, is Jesus God or God-like? Ghrumpy, is Jesus the metaphor or that which the metaphor attempts to describe?
471	The Font of Knowledge	Following God	4/19/2005 21:26:00	Let's be to God as Jesus is to God, whether we call this being God or being God-like.
472	The Font of Knowledge	Heart of Hearts	4/20/2005 2:12:00	[quote:31r1k4cx]1 LET not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. 5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. [b:31r1k4cx]13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.[/b:31r1k4cx] 15 If ye love me, keep my ccommandments.[/quote:31r1k4cx] It is interesting to me that the invitation to express our desires to God is repeated twice in contrast to the single iteration of the invitation to heed God's desires. In my mind, this is profoundly reflective of Jesus' integrity: always practicing his preaching -- always emphasizing others' desires, but never forgetting his own.
473	The Font of Knowledge	Heart of Hearts	4/20/2005 2:17:00	[quote:2cdpvk7c]4 I ought not to harrow up in my desires, the firm decree of a just God, for [b:2cdpvk7c]I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life[/b:2cdpvk7c]; yea, [b:2cdpvk7c]I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction[/b:2cdpvk7c]. 5 Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience.[/quote:2cdpvk7c] This, too, is striking to me. Do we believe that God decrees UNALTERABLE DECREES according to our desires?
474	The Font of Knowledge	Heart of Hearts	4/20/2005 2:23:00	. . . and, of course, we have the ever repeated invitations to ask and receive, seek and find, complemented with repeated examples of Jesus asking and giving to his disciples according to their desires.
475	The Font of Knowledge	Heart of Hearts	4/21/2005 1:42:00	What are the practical benefits and detriments of the faith?
476	The Font of Knowledge	Gender Categorization	4/21/2005 1:52:00	Obviously gender lends itself, at least in the human mind, to the simple dichotomy of male and female. This dichotomy, however, on closer inspection, cannot exhaustively account for the spectrum of gender we experience. For example, where do hermaphrodites belong? Dichotomies are useful because of their efficient simplicity, perhaps as Newtonian physics is useful relative to Einsteinian physics, but efficiency is not always as desirable as accuracy. In some cases, we have decided that biological dichotomies are manifest as "diversity", and in other cases we have decided that biological dichotomies are manifest as "handicaps". Which is correct? What kind of world do we want to live in? Must we embrace and enhance all anatomical dichotomies at the communal magnitude? It's our choice, to the extent we have knowledge, I suppose.
477	The Font of Knowledge	Gender Categorization	4/21/2005 1:56:00	If we will, we can change the world such that the biological dichotomy is masked by technology -- even totally deprecated for all practical purposes. We have done this with many biological dichotomies already.
478	The Font of Knowledge	Gender Categorization	4/21/2005 1:57:00	Of course, perhaps the biological dichotomies we think we see are the result of our long faith in the dichotomies. The power of prophecy is its affect on the future.
479	The Font of Knowledge	Gender Categorization	4/21/2005 2:10:00	Hermaphrodites have a penis and a vagina.
480	The Font of Knowledge	Gender Categorization	4/21/2005 2:23:00	Is gender categorization morally arbitrary? In the end, so far as I can tell, all is morally arbitrary relative to God.
481	The Font of Knowledge	Gender Categorization	4/21/2005 20:06:00	I've never heard of that happening -- I suspect they are mostly, if not all, impotent.
482	The Font of Knowledge	Gender Categorization	4/26/2005 5:11:00	[quote:uu0yl35g]Perfunktory: "In terms of gender, can you give me an example where there is some consensus that a particular biological dichotomy is a handicap?"[/quote:uu0yl35g] For gender, a quick and simple dichotomy can be drawn between normal and abnormal gender. Normal gender, among humans, is male or female. Anything that approaches both or neither is abnormal --statistically relatively unlikely. I wager most of us think of abnormal gender as something like a handicap. [quote:uu0yl35g]Perfunktory: "I'm also unclear why you have chosen to set up your own dichotomy of diversity and handicap. What is your measuring stick? Can you explain?"[/quote:uu0yl35g] As with all dichotomies, the closer we look at this one, the more we see a spectrum in place of the dichotomy. A dichotomy is efficient due to its simplicity. I used the dichotomy between diversity and handicap because I suspected that it would quickly, and with sufficient rough accuracy, communicate at least some of the meaning I intended to communicate. What is my measuring stick? How do I distinguish between handicaps and diversities? For now, that is beside the point, as I am not particularly attempting to distinguish between them here. To the contrary, I am pointing out that the difference is arbitrary to the extent that a community can agree to change or transcend perception. Is white skin a diversity or a handicap? That depends much on communal perception, which is informed of experience in an environmental context. On the one hand, white skin does not defend an animal as well from the sun. On the other hand, white skin helps an animal hide better in the snow. In yet another context, white skin is just another color of skin. Hopefully this comes close to answering your questions.
483	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/12/2005 6:36:00	The answer to the question presented in this thread is the foundation of morality. If I posit too much importance in the individual, I become a tyrant, relativist or solipsist. If I posit too much importance in the community, I become a slave, whore, automaton or escapist. The former moves me to oppress others' desires; the latter moves me to oppress my desires. In a world consisting of only one subject, good and evil have meaning only in terms of the desires of that subject. That which is congruent with the subject's desires is good; that which is not congruent with the subject's desires is evil. In this world consisting of only one subject, that subject is God. In a world consisting of two subjects, good and evil have meaning only in terms of the desires of those subjects. That which is congruent with their desires is good; that which is not congruent with their desires is evil. However, their desires may conflict, and from such conflict arises the real moral test for these subjects. Will one or both seek to oppress? Will one or both seek to be oppressed? Will one or both seek to transcend the conflict and atone? In this world consisting of two subjects, only their atonement, as God, is sufficient for the salvation of those subjects. Extrapolating to our world consisting of infinite subjects, good and evil have meaning only in terms of our desires, and nothing less than the eternal atonement of our God, in sweat, tears and blood, transcending the profound conflicts of this world, is sufficient for our salvation. I am a subject in a world. The skeptic recognizes no necessary subjective existence outside itself and no necessary faith in other subjects' desires. The skeptic can assume itself in a single subject world, where good and evil have meaning only in terms of its desires. It can rise up above all that is called God, declaring itself God. I posit faith in your existence and in your desires. I become one subject among many in the world. God, finding himself in the midst of infinite subjects, is presented with at least three broad alternatives. He may yet rise up above all that is called God, declaring himself God, or he may choose to worship such a God. He may seek to institute laws whereby other subjects may become as he is, inviting them to be joint heirs in the glory of God, if so be that they suffer with him. We take the name of Christ, covenanting to love as we are loved, willing to atone, hoping for glory. ----- Desires move us. I suspect we are not so free as we suppose. We choose among desires only as we become acquainted with them, and only within the context of yet greater desires with which we have yet to become acquainted. To the extent that we do not know our desires, we are not free. Conversely, to the extent that we know our desires, we are free. The truth will set us free. ----- Desires matter by definition. They ARE meaning; they are ALL that matters. When they are fullfilled, there is joy -- again, definitionally. Abstractly speaking, we desire joy, period. We are that we might have joy. That is the meaning of life, the universe and everything. For Satan, his joy is sufficient. For his whore, his joy is sufficient. For Christ, nothing short of the fullness of our joy is sufficient. ----- What are the relative ontological statuses of individuals and communities? Do they exist? Does one exist more than the other? Experience Faith That is where it begins: something like faith in experience. From there, I emerge -- faith in local individuality. I may not be the individual I suppose. Desires move me. I do not know them to some extent. I am not free to some extent. Am I? I am. From there, you emerge -- faith in remote individuality. You may not be the individual you or I suppose. Desires move you and me. You and I do not know them to some extent. You and I are not free to some extent. Are you and I? You and I are. From there, we emerge -- faith in communality. We may not be the community we suppose. Desires move us. We do not know them to some extent. We are not free to some extent. Are we? We are. Were communities and individuals existing all along, even before something like faith in experience emerged? Do they only exist at degrees of subjective complexity? My faith is in their existence, in their emergence from chaos to order, in their abstract spiritual organization, in their concrete physical organization, and in their exaltation: our individual and communal fullness of joy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------- Abstract ------------------- Concrete Imminent ---------- Individual (Faith) ------ Anatomy (Desire) Transcendent ----- Community (Law) ----- Environment (Law) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Abstract ----------------------- Concrete Imminent ------- Individual (Knowledge) ----- Anatomy (Experience) Transcendent ----- Community (Truth) ------------ Environment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- Abstract ---------------- Concrete Imminent ------ Individual (Spirit) ----- Anatomy (Body) Transcendent ----- Community ---------- Environment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- Abstract ------------------ Concrete Imminent ---------- Individual (Subjectivity) ------- Anatomy Transcendent ----- Community (Objectivity) ----- Environment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Abstract -------------------------- Concrete Imminent ------ Individual (Eternal Life) ------- Anatomy (Immortality) Transcendent ----- Community (Zion) ----- Environment (Celestial Glory) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
484	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/12/2005 16:35:00	The construct remains accurate as you identify with any of its aspects, including, to address your explicit concern, identification with community. More, even: you [i:a86viis9]should [/i:a86viis9]identify with as many aspects as possible; it is your moral duty as one that has taken the name of Christ.
485	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/12/2005 16:38:00	That said, the construct is purposefully simplified -- an abstraction across complexity -- which implies limits to its usefulness, perhaps as the simplicity of Newtonian physics is more useful for some situations than is Einsteinian physics, whereas Einsteinian physics provides more accuracy in complexity related to uncommon scenarios -- but I am not a physicist.
486	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/12/2005 16:50:00	It's tempting to read too much into the results of this poll: Two thirds of the vote recognize the importance of some kind of balance, perhaps roughly described as "equal", between community and individual. One third (relatively half the number of persons) recognizes one or the other to be more important, but they are almost equally divided in recognizing one or the other as more important. A third of the host of heaven was persuaded that seeking oppression or to be oppressed was better than the plan of Christ.
487	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/12/2005 23:16:00	[quote:2ph1jdm8]Cheapcontact: "The plan of Christ, as you understand it."[/quote:2ph1jdm8] As you, I can write only about my understanding of things. :-) [quote:2ph1jdm8]Cheapcontact: "To me a community is only as valuable as the individuals in it. Unlike Joey and Arosophos I don't see a community being more than it's parts."[/quote:2ph1jdm8] What does it mean for a community to be more than its parts -- or not more than its parts? [quote:2ph1jdm8]Cheapcontact: "If one community disappears (not because the people die but because people lose interest in what that community was based on) and another one reappears then I don't feel sad by the lose of that community. If people miss the community I empathize with them as individuals but still don't care about the entity that is the community. But if a person dies and even if someone new comes along to replace them I am deeply affected. I still feel that the individuals are more important than the community. Communities can benefit individuals so I believe they are good, but they are not more important than the individuals that make up the community (to me anyway)."[/quote:2ph1jdm8] You seem to recognize that others may value the community as much or more than the individuals of which it is composed. Do you think they are justified? Additionally, do you think it possible that you and I are to greater organizational magnitudes as lesser organizational magnitudes are to us? I am not asking whether you think it is the case. I am asking whether you think the case possible. [quote:2ph1jdm8]Cheapcontact: "I value the individual more than the community but I can also fairly confidently state that I do not wish to oppress other people."[/quote:2ph1jdm8] How should conflicts between individuals be resolved?
488	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/13/2005 0:51:00	[quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact: ". . . you and Joey have a habit of stating things in such a manner that sometimes leads one to believe that you feel your knowledge of things are, in fact, the correct understanding."[/quote:o7ongdze] I do not consider my knowledge of things to be final. I expect my knowledge of things to change. I feel my knowledge of things is better than alternatives I know. I suspect there is no final static knowledge of things that is the correct understanding. [quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact, previously: "To me a community is only as valuable as the individuals in it. Unlike Joey and Arosophos I don't see a community being more than it's parts."[/quote:o7ongdze] [quote:o7ongdze]Arosophos, previously: "What does it mean for a community to be more than its parts -- or not more than its parts?"[/quote:o7ongdze] [quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact: "I'm not certain what it would mean exactly . . ."[/quote:o7ongdze] Then, in fairness, you don't know whether I see a community as being more than its parts; and you don't know whether you agree with Joey. You know only that you have not understood the matter in the terms used by Joey. [quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact: "But without thinking about it too much, even if community was more than the parts, that wouldn't make me value it more or than, or even equally with, the parts necessarily."[/quote:o7ongdze] I agree that there is no logical necessity of associating value with terms we have not understood. [quote:o7ongdze]Arosophos, previously: "You seem to recognize that others may value the community as much or more than the individuals of which it is composed. Do you think they are justified?"[/quote:o7ongdze] [quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact: "I don't know if they are. It doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't mean they're not justified."[/quote:o7ongdze] Given this response, Cheapcontact, I am led to understand that the point of your response to my original post was not to disagree -- because you do not know whether you disagree. Rather, the point was that my original post may not be correct. Is this correct? If so, I agree that it may not be correct; but, at the time I posted it, it was the best I could do. Do you see how I could improve it? [quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact: "What do you mean by organizational magnitudes?"[/quote:o7ongdze] I am referring to greater and lesser degrees of order, both quantitatively and qualitatively. When you look at the world, do you see things that are more and less ordered than each other? Do you see any order smaller than you of which you are composed? Do you see any order greater than you of which you are a part? These are organizational magnitudes. [quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact, previously: "I value the individual more than the community but I can also fairly confidently state that I do not wish to oppress other people."[/quote:o7ongdze] [quote:o7ongdze]Arosophos, previously: "How should conflicts between individuals be resolved?"[/quote:o7ongdze] [quote:o7ongdze]Cheapcontact: "I'd first ask everyone to take a look around at the other individuals involved and to remember that they are people that can bleed, cry and sing just like you. Then from their it would depend on what their conflict was."[/quote:o7ongdze] Why should an individual care that another individual is like itself?
489	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/14/2005 6:32:00	[quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "I think it would help you and Joey be more effective communicators if when you made grand statements like '1/3 of swab is against Christ's plan' you were more explicit about your views of knowledge."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] You're right. Note, however, that I did not claim that 1/3 of SWAB is against Christ's plan. I mentioned that it was tempting to see the poll results as, so to speak, a manifestation of the War in Heaven -- a part of a larger pattern. That aside, perhaps most of us are often against Christ's plan? Satan, I suspect, is not a fool, and John seems persuaded that any of us claiming to have no need of repentence is a liar. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "Even if a community produced more value than the sum of its individual parts, I wouldn't necessarily think the community was more valuable than, or even equal to, the individuals."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] What is the value of the individual parts of a motorcycle relative to those parts assembled into a motorcycle? Why do we pay the persons who perform the assembly? Organization simply adds value. You and I recognize this every day when we pay for anything other than raw materials -- but even those are organized relative to that for which we do not pay. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "As an example of where your conclusion breaks down I offer myself, who values individuals more than communities and yet does not oppress. Now I could be wrong about myself, maybe I do value community greater than or equal to the individuals and maybe I do intentionally oppress, but from my understanding of myself I do not believe these two things to be true about me."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] I think our exchanges in this thread have demonstrated that we are mostly not sure whether we agree, and somewhat disagreeing about the words used to describe ideas with which we both agree. Moving on, however . . . what does it mean to you to value individuals more than communities? What does it mean to you to oppress? Your answers to these questions will help me understand your claim that you value one over the other without oppressing. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "Explain to me how I'm going against Christ's plan and maybe I can help improve what you have proposed."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] Answering the questions asked above will help me do that -- or not do that, depending on how you answer. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "Are you equating order with value?"[/quote:1ncmiu1g] I am not equating the two, but I am stating that order is valueable. I think it demonstrable in your day to day actions that you believe this, too, regardless of the words you may use to describe the matter. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "Are you asking if something like the United States is more ordered than me? I don't know if it is. I'd say the human body is better ordered than the United States, but ones house might be in less order than the United States. Am I still missing the point?"[/quote:1ncmiu1g] Order can be appraised either qualitatively or quantitatively. The US is perhaps quantitatively more ordered than you. You are perhaps qualitatively more ordered than the US at some magnitudes -- although you are a part of it, making your order a part of its order. Alternatively, from another perspective, we can consider the US to be a part of you. Appraisal of order has much to do with our desires -- what we are looking for. Order has value because it is recognized, in its most basic form, to the extent that experience is congruent with our desires. That is, in itself, basic order -- and definitionally desireable. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "Can you give me an example of two things and tell me which is less and which is more ordered and why you believe them to be?"[/quote:1ncmiu1g] 1) ;dfoignbpae48[ n 2) This is order. Above are two things, one of which is more ordered than the other because . . . most of us think so. Somthing about the experience of one of those things is generally congruent with something in our desires. Something about the other is generaly not. One has more value in our estimation than the other. How many books would sell containing things like the first? Most books that sell contain things like the second. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact, previously: "I value the individual more than the community but I can also fairly confidently state that I do not wish to oppress other people." [/quote:1ncmiu1g] [quote:1ncmiu1g]Arosophos, previously: "How should conflicts between individuals be resolved?"[/quote:1ncmiu1g] [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact, previously: "I'd first ask everyone to take a look around at the other individuals involved and to remember that they are people that can bleed, cry and sing just like you. Then from their it would depend on what their conflict was."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] [quote:1ncmiu1g]Arosophos, previously: "Why should an individual care that another individual is like itself?"[/quote:1ncmiu1g] [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "To help in understanding."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] How does an individual's understanding that other individuals are like itself resolve conflicts? [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "I think I understand what is meant by "more than the sum of the parts" but I don't know what the manifestation of such a thing would be. This is due to the fact that I'm not aware of every seeing such a thing and I don't have a good enough imagination to know what it would look like without having seen an example before hand."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] Then, subsequent to Greenfrog's example, you wrote: [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "I agree that you can get exponential increases in returns when combining different things."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] Hopefully we're beginning to understand each other. I hope the motorcycle example and economic references above also help. [quote:1ncmiu1g]Cheapcontact: "My confusion lies with how you convert these ideas to talk about individuals and communities, as you pointed out."[/quote:1ncmiu1g] Individuals are like motorcycle parts, and communities are like motorcycles; or, communities are like motorcycle parts, and metacommunities are like motorcycles; or, metaindividuals are like motorcycle parts, and individuals are like motorcycles.
490	The Font of Knowledge	Community or Individual?	5/14/2005 6:41:00	[quote:29qv2gbi]Greenfrog: "A useful construct for many purposes. But it doesn't seem to apply very well to the multiple aspects of 'me,' instead presupposing a unitary self, if I have understood the construct correctly."[/quote:29qv2gbi] . . . another thought: To the extent you recognize yourself to be dividual (to have multiple aspects) you are not recognizing yourself to be individual, and should more appropriately be identifying with a community. The construct contrasts one versus many, the smallest and greatest mangitudes in the abstract, which simple dualism makes the construct broadly applicable -- but lends itself to the same criticisms that are justifiably directed at all dualisms. The harder I look at the dualism, the more I see a spectrum -- an infinite pluralism.