1 | Topic | Date Posted | Time Posted | Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 8/16/2001 | 20:52:16 | I'm in. :-) | |
3 | 8/17/2001 | 11:30:51 | We have discussed the possibility of sharing the travel expenses among us, according to each person's needs and each person's ability to help. Speaking for myself, I would be happy if everyone could make it. If travel expenses are not a problem, BrooklynChris and Grasshopper, would other times be possible for you? | |
4 | 8/17/2001 | 21:18:01 | Hi guys. I returned the three threads to Mormon Issues. | |
5 | 8/17/2001 | 21:44:58 | I would like to discuss with you your thoughts regarding what the rules/description for each of the boards (particularly Issues, Fellowship and C&C) should be, and how we should attempt to promote them. My initial thoughts are these . . . Mormon Fellowship: This board is provided for faithful Mormons to engage in respectful and constructive dialogue about Mormonism. All debate and criticism about Mormonism must be directed elsewhere. <i>Respectful</i> debate and <i>constructive</i> criticism about Mormonism may be directed to Mormon Issues. All other debate and criticism about Mormonism must be directed to Mormonism Challenge and Critique. If it upsets you to refrain from debate and criticism, do not enter. Mormon Issues: This board is provided for Mormons and non-Mormons to engage in respectful and constructive dialogue about Mormonism. <i>Respectful</i> debate and <i>constructive</i> criticism about Mormonism are encouraged. All other debate and criticism about Mormonism must be directed to Mormonism Challenge and Critique. If it upsets you to read respectful debate or constructive criticism about Mormonism, do not enter. If it upsets you to have your views debated or criticized, do not enter. Mormonism Challenge and Critique: This board is provided for Mormons and non-Mormons to engage in dialogue, debate and criticism about Mormonism. All forms of dialogue, debate and criticism, whether they be provocative or controversial, <i>within the limits of the BeliefNet Rules of Conduct</i> are invited. If it upsets you to read debate or criticism about Mormonism, do not enter. If it upsets you to have your views debated or criticized, do not enter. | |
6 | 8/17/2001 | 21:59:55 | Some thoughts concerning promotion of the rules . . . * I don't think we should actively enforce the no-debate and no-criticism rules of Mormon Fellowship unless the participants there ask us to do so. I think they will take care of themselves. * I think we should carefully, but rather strictly, enforce the Bnet Rules of Conduct on the Mormon Issues board. I think it is the most likely to explode again as we have seen recently with Weeder, and I think it has the most potential for valuable discussion <i>if we cultivate it carefully</i>. This is the paradox board -- the board where the real progress will happen, of course. I'm not biased. ;-) * I don't think we should censor Mormonism C&C discussions except in extreme abuse of the BeliefNet Rules of Conduct . . . such as spam. If there are minor or moderate infractions of the Bnet Rules of Conduct there, I think we should first attempt to persuade people to refrain from such conduct. Your thoughts on all of this? [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 08/17/2001 At 22:00:10] [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 08/17/2001 At 22:02:08] | |
7 | 8/19/2001 | 12:52:13 | Hi guys. Grasshopper: "If we do not actively enforce a "no debate" policy there, it might blur that distinction and undermine our careful efforts in Mormon Issues." Timothy: "Mormon Fellowship Board: I think it should be kept pretty much "debate free" so as to keep it distinct from the other boards." I agree. I also agree with Grasshopper's proposed revised description of Mormon Issues: "This board is provided for Mormons to engage in respectful and constructive dialogue about Mormonism with each other and with non-Mormons. Respectful debate and constructive criticism about Mormonism are encouraged. All other debate and criticism about Mormonism must be directed to Mormonism Challenge and Critique. If it upsets you to read respectful debate or constructive criticism about Mormonism, do not enter. If it upsets you to have your views debated or criticized, do not enter." Timothy: "I am always watching to see if I "fit" within the descriptions you propose, without opening the flood gates." Do you think you fit? I wrote it with you, among others, in mind. Grasshopper: "I agree with you that we should not censor the C&C boards except in extreme cases." Timothy: "C&C Board: I concur that we should do very little to censor this board." We agree then. Maybe . . . Grasshopper: "I've been thinking about the "Wild West C&C" quite a bit. I'm concerned that we are in a sort of a catch-22 situation." I agree that there are weaknesses to the "Wild West C&C" idea, but I think that, so long as we do not explicitly tell people that we will allow them to break rules, we may avoid most of the problems. Of course, I still think extreme cases should be censored. Grasshopper: "How should we handle petitions from participants for action regarding a particular post/thread?" I think we should handle this in the same way that we handle moderation generally. If we agree with the petition, and if there are no disenting voices, notify the board that the thread has been moved and move it. I think this becomes more complicated when there are disenting voices, and I will address this along with your next question. Grasshopper: "How should we handle posts/threads about which we, as moderators, disagree?" I think that disent should be handled democratically. If the participants on the board do not agree among themselves concerning a matter, I think we should take the matter up between the three of us and come to unanimous decision, hopefully, but otherwise a majority-based decision (two or three votes being the majority, obviously). Timothy: "I am wondering if we shouldn't designate 1 of us to be the chief moderator of each of the different boards?" Grasshopper: "I think your idea of designating a "chief moderator" is a good one. I would suggest that you take the C&C board, since non-Mormons there have expressed some concern about Mormons moderating the board. I would suggest that Lincoln take the Mormon Issues board, since he has been the most active moderator there and knows what has already been reviewed. I would take the Mormon Fellowship board." I think this is a good idea, including the proposed assignments, until disenting voices arise. Under such circumstances, I think we should consult each other and come to a decision as I describe above. I also think we should, each of us, feel free to help the others with moderation of all the boards when we notice something. I don't live at my computer -- contrary to appearances at times, perhaps -- and I would like to have your help with Mormon Issues. Also, I don't want to wait for you to return if there are problems that need to be taken care of in the other boards. Grasshopper: "What about the other boards?" Timothy: "I am wondering if we should ask Bnet to consolidate the number of "Mormon" forums." Yes, I think we should consolidate the boards into the three we have been discussing, but also keep the Mormon Women, Mormon Teens and Learn About Mormonism boards. I propose that Grasshopper monitor Learn About Mormonism in addition to Mormon Fellowship because, I suspect, the combined activity on these boards, ultimately, will be roughly the same as either Mormon Issues or C&C alone. Perhaps we should find another moderator to help us moderate the Mormon Women and Mormon Teens boards? Sharon (SharonUT)? The problem I see with this is that we would have an even number of moderators, which may prove difficult in the event of a disagreement . . . perhaps, in a 2v2 decision, we could appeal to Martha for the final call? Grasshopper: "How should we handle off-topic posts/threads?" I think they are fine as long as they do not break the rules of the board. Grasshopper: "How should we notify people of our actions?" Timothy: "With regards to explaining our actions...I like the "Thread Moved" thread practice." I agree that a "Threads Moved" thread is a good way of doing this. Grasshopper: "One thing I want us to be careful of: participants in C&C do not want that board to turn into a "dumping ground"." Timothy: "I agree that the C&C board shouldn't be treated as a dumping ground, per se." I almost agree. I agree that portraying it as a dumping ground is wrong. I do think, however, that it is, roughly, a catch-all of rule-breaking threads in other boards. Of course, as with Weeder, we do not need to move repeat threads there over and over again; that would, indeed, make C&C a dumping ground. Timothy: "Some threads might be better off being deleted entirely. If, for example, the majority of the thread is merely an argument about the thread, then does the thread really need to live?" I believe all threads should live until they become extreme cases of rule-breaking. I generally don't want to get into the business of censorship, even if I think the posts are pointless. Grasshopper: "Perhaps we can suggest to BNet a "hold" feature for moderators that would temporarily hide a post/thread while a determination is made as to its "final" disposition." Timothy: "There is a feature called "hide" that I assume can hide a topic if we want to discuss it before taking action." Yes, there is a hide feature, but we do not, for now at least, have the ability to un-hide threads. Bnet has to do that for us. That said, I <i>generally</i> think it is better to take no action at all, such as hiding, until we decide where to move a thread. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 08/19/2001 At 12:59:27] | |
8 | 8/20/2001 | 12:17:17 | Grasshopper: "If I'm reading this correctly, one of the assumptions underlying this is that (as you have done on a couple of occasions) we should propose moving threads to the participants before moving them (at least in some cases). Is that right?" Yes, I think this is generally a good idea. Do you agree? Grasshopper: "I do not see a problem with having an even number of moderators. Sharon has told me that she is not comfortable participating at BeliefNet right now, so I doubt she'd volunteer to moderate. Other suggestions?" I don't know. Perhaps we should at least ask her? Grasshopper: "Then I propose that we post in the "Threads Moved" thread on both the forum from which a thread was moved and the forum to which it was moved." I think this is redundant, as the new thread will be apparent. I do think, however, that it may be a good idea to mention, in the moved thread, that it was moved. Grasshopper: "Should we have a standard way to handle this? Splitting the thread, issuing a warning, hiding or trashing only the inappropriate posts, ...?" I think moving the individual posts to the appropriate board to a new thread with the same name is the best solution in a case like this. Timothy: "I think we need to keep a separation of our "voice" as a participant, and our "voice" as moderators. I think this is essential for our success." Generally, I agree. Timothy: "I don't think we should publicly chasitize participants as moderators, and make this a public "heaping on" from other participants. I think, where possible, we should attempt private communications with potential offenders...and if it is not resolved, take the appropriate actions." Again, generally, I agree. I believe, in the case of Weeder, however, that due to the damage he has caused publicly that his chastizement should be public, in an appropriate manner. I do not feel that I have acted inappropriately. To the contrary, I think I have been quite patient with Weeder, often beyond anything his actions have merited. I intend to try to continue to be patient; however, I intend to do everything I can to keep his posts in Mormon Issues within the rules we have agreed upon. Timothy: "Otherwise, it appears that you are merely using the weight of your position to weild authority over the direction of the discussion and the character of the participant." I did not censor Weeder. The discussion may continue, in the appropriate place, in C&C. Yes, in Mormon Issues my actions will effectively alter the course of the discussion. When the course of the discussion is breaking the rules of the forum, I think this is not only justified but required if we are to maintain the forum. Timothy, I think you know me well enough to know that I am not offended when people disagree with me. I did not move Weeder's post for this reason. However, I have more people to take into consideration than Weeder alone. If we do not keep Weeder's posts within the rules, the others of whom I speak will not return, Case in point: Sharon. | |
9 | 8/20/2001 | 12:23:41 | Grasshopper: "Perhaps in that case, rather than donning our moderator hat, we should call on one of the other moderators to take a look..." I agree with this in spirit. This would help avoid the appearance of trying to escape a discussion. I think, however, that this may complicate moderation considerably, given that I participate frequently in most of the threads in Mormon Issues. The primary problem, here, is Weeder's insistence on breaking the rules of Mormon Issues. I think, generally, the participants there recognize that he is breaking the rules and they do not think I have acted inappropriately. Frankly, I don't think Weeder even belongs in Mormon Issues. His attitude itself is entirely contradictory to the purpose of the board. That said, I am willing to work with him so long as I do not have to patronize him, which I think would be doing everyone including Weeder a disservice. | |
10 | 8/20/2001 | 15:54:14 | The test here seems pretty straight-forward to me: Is the thread focused on <i>learning</i> about Mormonism or is it focused on <i>criticizing</i> Mormonism. The latter certainly belongs in Mormon Issues, if respectful and constructive, or otherwise in C&C. | |
11 | 8/20/2001 | 15:56:17 | Concerning placement: I do not perceive the thread to be constructive relative to Mormonism. I perceive the intent of the antagonists to be rejection of Mormonism. I vote C&C. | |
12 | Weeder Targets Teens Thread | 8/21/2001 | 16:00:35 | Hi Timothy. What was your reasoning in deleting the "Weeder Targets Teens" thread? [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 08/21/2001 At 16:00:55] |
13 | 8/21/2001 | 20:54:11 | I didn't know whether I agreed until you explained your reasoning. Now I know I disagree with the action you took, although I agree with the motives. I agree that we should promote the BeliefNet Rules of Conduct in C&C. I agree that we should promote focusing on Mormonism in C&C. I disagree with censorship simply for being off-topic. Much valuable community building is done through off-topic threads. In addition, I do not see how it detracts from the on-topic threads, so long as it does not break the rules of the board. I also disagree with censorship of personal attacks except in extreme cases, as I disagree with all censorship except in extreme cases. I don't think there is a perfect formula for determining extreme cases, but I am confident that Weeder's spam attack was one of those. In addition, personal attacks are a part of religious life. The scriptures are full of personal attacks. Of course, many of the personal attacks that we see occuring on the boards is done inappropriately or unjustifiably. However, I think even these should not be censored, except in extreme cases. I think we should leave off-topic threads alone. I think we should try to resolve breaking of BeliefNet rules of conduct first by persuasion. Persistence in breaking the rules, at some point, of course, does become an extreme case and merits censorship, in my opinion. In my opinion, sincerely, Weeder deserved public chastizement, both for the good of the community and for his own good. Unfortunately, I think some of the chastizement was done inappropriately. Perhaps the thread you deleted was one of those inappropriate cases. Even if this is the case, I do not think it was serious enough to merit censorship. Do you disagree? [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 08/21/2001 At 20:55:12] | |
14 | 8/21/2001 | 20:56:22 | Even if you agree with me now, however, I do not think we should restore the thread. It's done. | |
15 | 8/21/2001 | 21:43:57 | One additional thought related to off-topic threads: off-topic posts. I don't think we should decide in which threads people's posts <i>really</i> belong, so long as the posts do not need to be moved to a different board because they break the rules. If we feel inspired to persuade people to stay on-topic or to start new threads or to do . . . whatever, I think that is fine. I do not, however, think it is fine to move people's posts around unless we are explicitly enforcing the rules of the board -- which are fairly broad for C&C. What do you think? | |
16 | 8/22/2001 | 9:43:38 | I think anything we do goes to a place for Bnet approval. They could, if we wanted, restore whatever. However . . . I think we more or less agree in our perspectives on this: we shouldn't worry much about off-topic threads or posts. I also think that we should leave done what has been done. | |
17 | 8/24/2001 | 14:29:16 | I'm good for any of those locations for nearly any Friday through Sunday stay. . . . my mother's cabin can hold all of us, but, yes, working toilets are questionable -- I understand a guy is working on it when he has the time. Which weekends, before the end of the year, do those of you with the most distance to travel suggest? | |
18 | 8/24/2001 | 15:25:01 | Almost certain? | |
19 | 8/25/2001 | 10:03:27 | Sharon, Are you feeling out-numbered? | |
20 | 8/25/2001 | 14:36:05 | Sharon, I hope you will reconsider. | |
21 | 8/25/2001 | 22:39:27 | Chris, Is it a financial logistical matter? As I mentioned above, I think we will find a solution for this. Or is it that you cannot make the time? If you tell me you cannot come this year, I'll leave you alone. :-) ----- Sharon, So we need to invite another woman. | |
22 | 8/25/2001 | 22:40:46 | By the way, have we decided whether we want to invite spouses? | |
23 | Weeder | 8/28/2001 | 10:56:00 | Hi guys. Are you aware of this morning's events at Bnet? Weeder is seeking to disrupt Mormon Issues and Mormon Fellowship, both by posting material that does not belong there and by encouraging the excitment of other participants against decisions Grasshopper and I have made there. I have taken action against Weeder's posts containing content antagonistic to Mormonism. Because I warned Weeder, twice now, not to post anything to Mormon Fellowship, I simply deleted his posts from that board. Also, I moved several of his posts from Mormon Issues to Mormonism C&C. After that, he reposted copies of them to Mormon Issues, and I deleted the second copies. I have not done anything with his posts that are encouraging the excitement of Bnet participants against our decisions. What are your thoughts on this? Do you disagree with anything I have done there? What do you think we should do concerning Weeder? What do you think we should do, if anything, concerning the posts he is using to agitate participants? Thanks for your help. |
24 | 8/28/2001 | 11:11:40 | I think Weeder also invited Iamthat to return and complain. :-) I moved his thread to Mormonism C&C. | |
25 | 8/28/2001 | 11:31:18 | Things are getting worse. Iamthat has joined Weeder, and they are trying to initiate another spam revolution. :-) Timothy, I could really use your help. Grasshopper, if you have the time, I could use your help, too, but I think Iamthat and Weeder will react better to Timothy. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 08/28/2001 At 11:32:00] | |
26 | 8/28/2001 | 12:33:17 | Yes, thanks for your help, guys. | |
27 | Iamthat and BigJoe | 8/28/2001 | 21:27:57 | Hi Timothy. If you intend to censor insults by BigJoe, I hope you intend to censor insults by Iamthat. . . . that may mean censoring roughly half his posts. :-) |
28 | Dear Friends | 8/29/2001 | 13:17:13 | I am requesting your help. I have little desire to continue combatting Weeder at Bnet. I tire of dealing with Weeder's relentless intrusions into Mormon Fellowship: I have deleted or moved, no exageration, <i>hundreds</i> of his posts from that board over the last two or three weeks. I tire of dealing with Weeder's relentless negativity and destructive attitude in Mormon Issues: I have deleted or moved, again no exageration, <i>thousands</i> of his posts from that board over the last two or three weeks. I wonder if I have, in a sense, erred in moderating the board so quickly, not allowing the other participants to comprehend fully the actions Weeder has been taking to destroy our online community. I have spent many hours cleaning up after him, not only as his posts break the rules of the boards, but also as he continually spams them with old posts. Because I have little desire left in me to continue attempting to battle this, I am requesting your help. Nothing Bnet can do will keep Weeder from breaking the rules. No persuasion that the moderators have attempted appears to be working. Perhaps you, as a body, can help? I am reminded of the story of Captain Moroni, who fought for the liberty of his community: he raised the Title of Liberty before the people as a standard, and the people rallied to the Title in support of his cause. Can we rally to the cause of Bnet's Title of Liberty? Can we demonstrate our support of those rules which are intended to give each, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, her place to speak and grow with or without the variable of disagreement or contention, as she desires? I think this perhaps our last hope of restoring Bnet to some semblance of the place we all once loved so much. Again, I am requesting your help, as someone who considers you a friend, and as someone who still believes in the future of the online community where our friendship began -- but who tires and needs your help. God bless you. Thanks. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 08/29/2001 At 13:20:44] |
29 | 8/29/2001 | 14:09:26 | Yes, I recognize that, and thank you for your help. | |
30 | 9/7/2001 | 10:07:04 | . . . since this appears to have died down. Perhaps we should take up Sharon or Satchya on their offers to have a get-together in Provo sometime -- perhaps a weekend when some out-of-towners can also stop by for a visit? | |
31 | 9/7/2001 | 11:59:23 | I'm in. | |
32 | 9/7/2001 | 13:06:14 | Yes, I suggest that we choose one to do before the other and that we develop a schedule so that we can read the same parts at the same time. | |
33 | 9/8/2001 | 22:18:32 | Satchya . . . er, LiaMarin, What do you want me to bring? I know you told us to tell you what we want to bring . . . but I want to bring what you want me to bring. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 09/08/2001 At 22:22:40] | |
34 | 9/8/2001 | 22:21:13 | Sharon, Do you think your husband will survive meeting all your wacky friends? | |
35 | 9/9/2001 | 21:48:47 | Oh! My wife will be going to Women's General Conference. Let's reschedule? | |
36 | 9/9/2001 | 21:49:20 | Sharon, Yes, I see what you mean. :-) | |
37 | 9/10/2001 | 7:23:34 | My sister's birthday is the 13th. 20th? | |
38 | 9/10/2001 | 19:45:00 | 19th? | |
39 | 9/11/2001 | 21:27:38 | Chris, I'm glad your ward can count on your care and courage -- just like the good shepherd: BrooklynChrist. :-) | |
40 | 9/23/2001 | 21:18:18 | Timothy, I agree that the common concept of truth makes <i>primary</i> appeal to the objective aspect of reality and the common concept of joy makes <i>primary</i> appeal to the subjective aspect of reality. Of course, as with all matters, this is not black and white. The subjective aspect of reality can affect the objective aspect of reality, and the objective aspect of reality can affect the subjective aspect of reality. I can make choices and control the objectivity which is within my sphere; that which is beyond my sphere can control my subjectivity to the extent that my subjectivity is within its sphere. Is my sphere an easily perceptible line between that which is, relative to me, subjective and that which is, relative to me, objective? No; I think it is more of a spectrum. What, however, is the nature of truth, the objective aspect of reality? What do we know of it? Ironically, we need merely ask these questions to forever keep ourselves from knowing objectivity <i>in itself</i>. In asking, we are projecting our subjectivity on it, and we thereby can only aspire to knowing the kind of truth which must account for the subjectivity inherent within itself. There are, of course, spiritual traditions which aspire to knowing truth, objectively, in itself, apart from any kind of subjectivity; these are spiritual traditions which, I believe, lead to something I consider spiritual death. On the other hand, there are spiritual traditions which aspire to knowing a kind of truth which appeals only to subjectivity <i>in itself</i>; this is the kind of tradition which I believe is pursued, but not advocated, by Satan. That's the great lie, in my opinion. To those who will not worship him, he advocates spiritual death, yet he certainly does not pursue it himself. Beyond the easily discerned options of absolute objectivity and absolute subjectivity is found the paradox of eternal life. What kind of truth is eternal life? Certainly it does not make exclusive appeal to objectivity; objectivity, in itself, is meaningless and dead. Certainly it does not make exclusive appeal to subjectivity; subjectivity, in itself, is lawless and relatively careless for that which lies beyond itself, ultimately making existence meaningful and alive only for one subject-being. Of course, in deference to the skeptics, both of these positions are logically tenable; one may, irrefutibly, choose existential skepticism or solopsism. Yet neither of those choices, for the faithful seekers of eternal life, appear to be adequate. These seekers feel the need for recognizing the value in both objectivity and in subjectivity. These seekers value a truth of paradox. Valuing both objectivity and subjectivity, the seekers of eternal life sometimes find the clean-cut common understandings of "truth" and "joy" to be meaningless relative to the context in which they find themselves. So their prophets refer to truth as joy, and to joy as truth. Moreover, their prophets feel wisdom and inspiration moving them to throw goodness and beauty into the mix. What, then, do we have? A conglomeration of ideals, wrapped up in words symbolizing concepts meant to inspire and incite us forward toward acquaintance with God, which is eternal life. <i>Merely</i> a conglomeration? No "merely" about it, so far as I am concerned. The conglomeration gives us a set of tools which we, as wise and inspired children of God, are to use to the best of our ability to help each other in the quest for eternal life. These tools can combat existential skepticism and solopsism, not because they appeal only to truth in itself, but precisely because they need not appeal only to truth. They are tools which work on both the mind <i>and the heart</i> of the human spirit. They are the weapons of the war in heaven. When used according to wisdom and inspiration, these tools, as the sword of the Spirit, can cut through to the more sensitive parts of the human spirit, moving and shaping it in profound ways. Once moved and shaped, we find that we know something more concerning the nature of God. God is faith, overcoming spiritual death, and hope for something more. God is love, valuing not only one's own desires, but also those desires exterior to one's self. On this foundation beyond existential skepticism and solopsism, God is both an individual and a community, hand in hand together seeking the ideals of truth, beauty and good, the combination of which I will call the fulness of joy in eternal life. One more thought about objectivity and subjectivity: I believe that which is, relative to me, perceived as objective chance, is, relative to some other subject-being, perceived as subjective choice. If anything can blur the lines between truth and joy, that can. :-) Oh, say, what is truth? A knowledge of things; a communal subjective theory of experience which professes congruence with and makes appeal to an objective aspect of reality in which subjectivity is inherent, thereby requiring that the theory account for all subjectivity, including itself. So truth is faith -- among among other things. | |
41 | 9/24/2001 | 8:43:46 | No, Timothy, my point is not that we cannot seek pure objectivity -- to the contrary, I think seeking such is quite possible. My point is that we <i>should not</i> seek pure objectivity any more than we should seek pure subjectivity. Eternal life is in the exaltation of the two. Exaltation of one at the exclusion of the other leads, in my opinion, to spiritual death or evil. | |
42 | 9/25/2001 | 15:03:59 | So far, the 26th and 27th of October are fine for my wife and me. | |
43 | 9/25/2001 | 22:35:06 | . . . I can dig a hole in my front yard. You say one may pursue both pure objectivity and pure subjectivity at the same time. I say that, in doing so, one is no longer pursuing either one purely. We agree, but we are describing the matter differently. By "pure", you mean something like "best". By "pure", I meant somthing live "exclusive". | |
44 | 9/25/2001 | 23:09:47 | If shape is not objective then what is? I'm with Joseph: I believe creation is a matter of objective reorganization, not a matter of objective production from nothing. . . . I guess that may mean I am with modern science, too. | |
45 | 9/25/2001 | 23:19:38 | . . . I can move my body. . . . I can step on a genetically anomolous organism and save humanity from what would have been a predator. . . . I can push the red button and anihilate humanity. These are simple examples of the power of faith. These are examples which are well within my personal physical and spiritual capacity (assuming I am placed in the appropriate sphere). Are there more powerful subject-beings than me? Sure. And where there is one subject-being greater than another, I wager there is yet another greater than them both. The greatest of subject-beings is the True and Living God. | |
46 | 9/25/2001 | 23:21:28 | . . . which I believe to be a paradox of panentheism and anthropoentheism. | |
47 | 9/26/2001 | 22:31:11 | Congratulations, Lia. | |
48 | 10/13/2001 | 23:32:02 | It's good to hear from you, Sharon. :-) | |
49 | 10/13/2001 | 23:34:36 | So we are still on for two weeks from yesterday? I am glad to hear, Sharon, that you feel confident that you will be able to make it. | |
50 | 10/13/2001 | 23:38:26 | By the way, Lia, I think the game you proposed sounds fun . . . but I hope you don't mind if I talk about religion and philosophy anyway. :-) | |
51 | 10/13/2001 | 23:45:29 | Grasshopper, As I read the last few paragraphs of your post, the Spirit manifest itself strongly to me . . . Zion, thy God reigneth! | |
52 | 10/14/2001 | 0:37:11 | Timothy, I am confident that the reality to which you refer as that of natural law is only as impersonal as you are relative to any given passerby on the streets of Seattle. Each of you, so far as the other is concerned, may never be anything more than a statistic, a chance, or an object. Yet you and the passerby are, or should be, manifestations of the Panentheistic aspect of God; you should be its human face, the Anthropoentheistic aspect of God, transcending and choosing. Beyond that, if you want a personal relationship with someone, you must have a language in common; English is not the common language between you and the non-human manifestations of the Panentheistic aspect of God. Faith in a personal relationship beyond merely objective natural law is that which has led humans to move beyond an arrogant dismissal of the communicative capacities, the personal relationships, of non-human animals. This same faith can and will, I am confident, take us further. In addition, whether you recognize it in these words or not, you speak of that which I call the anthropoentheistic aspect of God. You speak of this aspect of God as an ideal, an abstraction, as if from the bosom of eternity. Your faith is in emulating its character; you feel the spiritual pull. The God you posit exists, at least spiritually, abstractly, in eternity, simply because you created it. As you act upon this spiritual creation, you manifest this God with concrete existence. Looking beyond the God that you can and have created is where you will find the True and Living God. This is true for all of us. Damn their dead Gods, Timothy! Damn your dead God! Damn my dead God! Stop letting them damn you. Look to the True and Living God, and you will be saved and exalted. No, this is not merely an abstraction. This is not merely a title or an idea. This is not merely a good feeling. Yes, this is all of those things, but <i>this is not only those things</i>. Yet we begin by placing faith in that which we can manage to desire to believe, and we let this desire work in us according to our faith. Believe in God! Do so, Timothy, for the reasons you believe in truth, beauty, and goodness, and for the reasons that you think these ideals to be manifest in concrete reality. Not to do so is to choose to allow the dead Gods to damn you. Their God may be an apathetic father. Your God need be nothing less than the True and Living God. You choose. God speaks to us from eternity: love me, and you will know me. Agnosticism is theistic apathy, the rewards of which those you experience: an impersonal natural law. By their fruits ye shall know them. | |
53 | 10/14/2001 | 20:12:30 | In the end, so to speak, our entire salvation and exaltation, both individually and communally, lies in the hands of those persons of the future who reconstitute the world. We without them, and they without us, cannot be saved. Mormons have been emphasizing this for two hundred years. Early Christians emphasized this for hundreds of years. Ancient Jews emphasized this as well. Do we see the hand of God in all of this? I think that any person who values concrete individual and communal salvation and exaltation must see the hand of God in this. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 10/14/2001 At 20:13:16] | |
54 | 10/14/2001 | 20:20:48 | My wife and I will bring whichever of those things you mention that Greenfrog and his wife do not choose. | |
55 | 10/14/2001 | 20:25:07 | Sophia will be heard . . . but she is patient. :-) | |
56 | 10/14/2001 | 20:29:35 | Hivo, have you seen God? | |
57 | 10/15/2001 | 22:33:44 | Okay, my wife and I will bring the vegetables and dip. | |
58 | 10/17/2001 | 0:05:09 | Timothy: "I think I am in the very process of doing this." I want to agree. Timothy: "I am troubled by your continued and increasing "zeal" against agnosticism." Good. ;-) Timothy: "I find your definitions of agnosticism to be dogmatic . . ." How so? Paine: "Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe." I do not consider "lying" and "infidelity" to be synonymous, although the one may accompany the other. I understand "infidelity" to be apathy or destructive will, depending on whether one understands the "in" to be passive or active. Huxley: "The foundation of morality is to...give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." I passionately disagree with his first phrase. I believe the foundation of morality to be individual and communal desire. If the foundation were as he describes then I can only imgine the worst of hellish ethical and epistemic nightmares, as the skeptics rally us to the foundation of ethics . . . nothing at all. In the second phrase, if by "pretending" he means something like "dogmatism" then I agree. However, if he means anything less than dogmatism then I disagree. I think that if we were to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence then we would never discover the evidence. The foudation of the scientific method is in hypothesis, which is essentially pretending to believe something (non-dogmatically) for which, as yet, there is no evidence; only after pretending can we expect the evidence. No pretending? No evidence. Huxley sounds like he may be in the priority-of-avoiding-error camp -- the I-would-rather-be-damned-than-wrong camp. I am in the priority-of-finding-truth camp -- the I-would-rather-be-wrong-than-damned camp. I find the third phrase to be full of irony, as he repeats a meta-proposition about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge. That aside, I am not willing to join him in drawing a line and saying: beyond here I cannot go. He may choose to damn himself with his abominable creed concerning impossibilities. I will not choose so. Are there limits to knowledge? I don't pretend to know, but I intend never to act or think as if there are. Timothy: "I live my life in the manner that you often proscribe. I seek to imagine a better world, in the abstract, and work to create it in the concrete." I recognize this, and I admire you for it. I have told you this before in private, and perhaps now is a good time to tell you so in public. Timothy: "Do you not see any danger in running faster than you have legs to run?" I do, as I see danger in standing still. How fast? How slow? . . . wisdom and inspiration. Timothy: "Do you not see any danger in advocating belief in anything over even a temporary, thoughtful period of unbelief?" I see danger in faithlessness relative to God for reasons analogous to the reasons I see danger in faithlessness relative to the fulness of joy, and for reasons somewhat (but not entirely) analogous to the reasons I generally see danger in faithlessness relative to goodness, truth or beauty. Faithlessnes will ultimately destroy us, you, me, our community, or any other individual or community -- I can think of few other matters concerning which I feel as much confidence. Do I see potential value in temporary deconstruction? Yes, but actual value only so long as the deconstruction is followed by greater construction. Timothy: "Do you not agree that dogmaticism often arises where one is unwillingly to take a leap of faith into the unknown?" I do agree that dogmatism is not condusive to faith. Indeed, I consider it to be not too different from atheism. One is assertion of a dogmatically held belief and the other is rejection of the same dogmatically held belief. More to the point of your question, yes, I see value in avoiding dogmatism through faith. Timothy: "I do not consider my agnosticism a position of faithlessness, but of action and adventure. I do not consider my agnosticism merely deconstruction, but a search to find a better building plot. I do have an abstract notion of "something better" and am working, faithfully, to gather my tools and plans. My agnosticism is not apathy, and it is a mischaracterization on your part to label it as such." You may yet convince me that I mischaracterize your agnosticism. I am not claiming, Timothy, that you are apathetic generally. I am not claiming that you do not desire and work toward the better world. I am not claiming that you do not seek goodness, truth and beauty. I am simply claiming that your agnosticism, and agnosticism generally, appears to me to be theistic apathy. Faith in God is a choice, not a proof -- until after the choice has been made. Recognizing that faith in God is a choice, I find myself convinced that the person who does not choose faith in God is either against the choice or apathetic concerning the choice. You tell me that the person who does not choose faith in God may simply be preparing to make the choice. I wonder what the person is waiting for . . . the ability to make the choice in the best way? She'll be waiting forever. Why not choose, this day, the God she will serve, according to whatever wisdom and inspiration she has, while recognizing that she may always have more to learn? [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 10/17/2001 At 00:09:01] | |
59 | 10/17/2001 | 16:55:41 | I agree, IgnorantSage. | |
60 | 10/18/2001 | 10:02:15 | Do our wonderings about divine extraterrestrials from the Kolob system blind us? | |
61 | 10/18/2001 | 15:10:46 | IgnorantSage is telling the truth about his wife . . . but he forgot to mention that she is also among the most kind people one will ever meet. Greenfrog, are you suggesting a costume party? It is Halloween afterall. ;-) | |
62 | 10/18/2001 | 15:21:40 | IgnorantSage, thanks for posting that information from the neurologists. I think that confirms our past discussions on this matter. ----- Hivo, thanks for answering my question. To answer yours: I have seen God . . . and I wonder if there may be divine extraterrestrials in the Kolob system . . . | |
63 | 10/18/2001 | 21:36:31 | For Greenfrog, and anyone else who can't wait to read another sentence containing "anthropoentheism" . . . The feminine anthropoentheistic aspect of God with whom I am married calls herself "Dorothee", which means something like "Gift of God" in Greek -- her mother thought so and I agree. :-) For the rest of you . . . My wife's name is "Dorothee". | |
64 | 10/19/2001 | 8:44:53 | Who do you think she is? | |
65 | 10/19/2001 | 21:43:22 | That's an interesting observation, Timothy. | |
66 | 10/19/2001 | 21:52:47 | What was the phrase, Timothy? | |
67 | 10/20/2001 | 17:03:28 | I think you are troubled because the ghost of secular materialism is haunting you. :-) | |
68 | 10/28/2001 | 23:43:17 | Climacus, we missed you and your wife. Timothy, I enjoyed your video -- the toast in particular. Grasshopper, I guessed your book correctly . . . and I hear you would like to move to Utah? When should we expect you? :-) [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 10/28/2001 At 23:43:58] | |
69 | 11/7/2001 | 10:40:13 | Timothy: "What if science discovered the key to our identities and memories as they reside within our brains?" I will be surprised if we do not discover this eventually. I believe our spirit resides within a physical context, and can even be put on a floppy-disk (of very high capacity of course) -- indeed, it is already on a high-capacity floppy disk of sorts. Timothy: "What if they devised a way to import/export those memories to/from another medium?" This will be a step toward concrete resurrection. Timothy: "What if they were able to change the natural progression of our physical body from degeneration to regeneration?" This will be a step toward concrete immortality. Timothy: "What if science were able to provide "eternal" life?" You are using "eternal life" differently than I would use it. I would refer to your usage as "immortality". Eternal life is a matter of the fulness of joy, which science cannot provide in itself, most particularly because the fulness of joy requires free will. That said, I certainly think science can and must contribute to physical exaltation, which in turn provides greater potential for spiritual exaltation. Timothy: "What more would you want or need?" The fulness of joy in eternal life, which is to know the One True and Living God. Of course, resurrection and immortality are a good aid in this. Sharon: "To return home to my former home and family..." Timothy: "Sharon...given eternity to do so, what would prevent you?" Science does not create the important subjective aspect of a family. Without the subjective aspect, all that remains is biology. Of course, without science, we will not have the possibility of recreating the subjective aspect of family. Timothy: "What if . . ." Why not? :-) . . . and what should be added to this concrete manifestation of God, this immortal temple? The Spirit of God in its glory: you and your community in the fulness of joy. | |
70 | 11/7/2001 | 12:54:54 | Timothy: "Thus, science, will have provided me the tools by which I can obtain eternal life." Sure, as biology has already provided you with the tools to pursue joy to whatever extent such is possible in mortality. Timothy: "This may be "your" definition of the fulness of joy...what if I have a different definition?" . . . then, if I agree with the other definition, I would likely equate it with knowing God. You don't like the "G"-word, do you? Timothy: "I think you are merely stating the obvious. Science could provide the opportunity, allowing me and my family and my friends to create the subjective relationships." Well, then, to you and me it is obvious, but you did ask what more I would want . . . so I responded. Timothy: "Given time, creative will, and additional scientific findings, I am confident that we could solve our most pressing issues." Sure, and I appreciate your inclusion of creative will. If you keep using the phrases "creative will" (faith) and "eternal life" (God) then I will be forced to conclude that you are no longer agnostic, regardless of your insistence to the contrary. :-) | |
71 | 11/7/2001 | 16:00:29 | I thought "God" was superfluous? | |
72 | 11/7/2001 | 18:31:10 | :-) "For behold, Isaiah spake many things which were hard for many of my people to understand; for they know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews . . . Wherefore, hearken, O my people, which are of the house of Israel, and give ear unto my words; for because the words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy . . . Wherefore, they are of worth unto the children of men, and he that supposeth that they are not, unto them will I speak particularly, and confine the words unto mine own people; for I know that they shall be of great worth unto them in the last days; for in that day shall they understand them; wherefore, for their good have I written them." (2 Nephi 25:1,4,8) | |
73 | 11/7/2001 | 19:31:45 | Lia, I think you will end up being better for the experience. Concerning one of your concerns: Do you sustain your husband? Do you ever disagree with your husband? Does your husband sustain you? Does your husband ever disagree with you? I think the ideal is community and respect of authority rather than brainlessness -- although some of us certainly appear to interpret it along the lines of brainlessness. :-) | |
74 | 11/12/2001 | 20:38:36 | . . . else all becomes the meaningless composite in one and spiritually dead. | |
75 | Civilization III | 11/13/2001 | 9:30:55 | Hi all. Greenfrog and I recently discovered that we have common interest in a computer game called "Civilization". I know IgnorantSage also enjoys this game. Has anyone else here played Civilization? Greenfrog mentioned to me that Civilization III is either newly released or soon to be released, and we thought it would be fun to organize a game. Would anyone like to join us? Even if you have not played Civilization before, you are invited. Be aware it is somewhat complicated and takes a long time to play -- we would probably not finish the game in a single day. Also, because we can play the game over the Internet, we don't have to get together . . . concretely. :-) If you have not played before and would like to join us, I recommend you purchase the game as soon as possible and learn to play. By the way, I think this is the kind of game that, in addition to being amusing, can further incite our thoughts about spiritual matters -- as we deterine the moral ramifications of nuking Greenfrog's amphibious units. ;-) [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 11/13/2001 At 09:32:55] |
76 | 11/13/2001 | 12:53:18 | Perhaps we should go with Civ II so that Timothy can participate. I think we are most likely to find a few free days to do this over the various upcoming holidays -- before March 2002. With Greenfrog, Timothy, Grasshopper and me, we have four players. I am pretty sure IgnorantSage will want to play. That would make five players. I think we can have up to eight players in Civ II. Which days over the next couple months would be good for all of you? Oh, and yes, Timothy, Civilization is something like Risk in some ways, but much more involved -- and with more possible means for victory than world military domination. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 11/13/2001 At 12:57:54] | |
77 | 11/13/2001 | 21:45:20 | Okay, let's go with this: Microprose Civilization II Multiplayer Gold Edition As Greenfrog pointed out, the "multiplayer" part is important because the original release of Civilization II was not multiplayer. Satchya and IgnorantSage, please do pass on the invitation to your husband and brother. I hope we can get eight people. Timothy, I think those of you who are new to the game will certainly be at a disadvantage relative to those of us who are familiar with the game. I don't think, however, that this will necessarily make the game unenjoyable for you. Particularly if we do not include an AI and use all human players, diplomacy will depend much more on your human interaction than familiarity with the AI . . . and I know you can be a diplomat. :-) A couple more details: 1) We need a game host with a static IP address. I don't currently have a static IP address, but I can get one. Do any of you already have a static IP address for a machine we can use to host the game? 2) What dates are good for you? Do those of you who will be learning how to play want to wait until Christmas break? Or do you want to try to start playing over Thanksgiving break, use a Saturday or two between then and Christmas, and finish up over Christmas break? Thoughts? | |
78 | 11/14/2001 | 10:45:43 | Yes, the person hosting the game needs to play the game on the same machine. Perhaps we should, as you suggest Timothy, play a learning game over Thanksgiving break, and then play a longer game over Christmas break when Grasshopper can join in. Which days are you all available between now and the end of November? Timothy is available on the 23rd and 24th. Those days work for me, too. Who else could join us on those days? [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 11/14/2001 At 10:47:15] | |
79 | 11/14/2001 | 10:49:25 | . . . and your husband completed the test in half the allotted time -- when I was still trying to figure out how to use my calculator. :-) [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 11/14/2001 At 10:50:37] | |
80 | 11/14/2001 | 14:12:03 | The EMBA does not have finals like ordinary BYU classes. We have a final at the end of each segment. For example, we just completed a corporate finance segment, and we had a final for it. | |
81 | 11/16/2001 | 22:42:31 | Nobody else is available on those days? | |
82 | 11/17/2001 | 20:12:52 | How about an early start next Friday morning? Satchya, is your husband interested? IgnorantSage . . . you and your brother? Timothy, will you have a static IP address available? If not, I think I can still make it work with a dynamic IP address. Perhaps, when you have some time during the week, we can test this in advance of Friday? | |
83 | 11/20/2001 | 15:08:46 | Mormon Fundamentalism generally appears to have a problem accepting progressive, circumstantial and universal revelation -- all of which were taught explicitly and repeatedly by Joseph Smith, ironically. | |
84 | 11/20/2001 | 15:10:34 | Are we on for Friday morning? 9:00 AM Mountain Time? Earlier? | |
85 | 11/21/2001 | 15:14:54 | There are three copies of the PC version for sale on eBay. It may be too late for Friday, however. Have you tried visiting a used software store in your area? | |
86 | 11/21/2001 | 23:06:34 | Thank you, Grasshopper, and the rest of you . . . | |
87 | 11/21/2001 | 23:11:39 | Greenfrog, I agree with your insight concerning our perceptions of the past. It's easy to think of the past in simplified and perhaps distorted ways, as merely the good old days . . . part of the temptation of fundamentalism. | |
88 | 11/22/2001 | 22:24:31 | I think the game is called off for Friday. If any of you happen to get the game in time for Saturday, let me know; otherwise, we will plan for a different weekend. | |
89 | 11/29/2001 | 20:42:38 | I did some tests to see whether I could get the multiplayer game to work without a static IP address, and the tests worked. . . . but I hope your brother will still be interested in joining us, IgnorantSage. Speaking of which, when should we plan to play? | |
90 | 11/29/2001 | 20:43:20 | . . . and God? | |
91 | 11/30/2001 | 12:53:00 | Another lead for Civ II for Mac may be: <a href="http://www.civfanatics.com">civfanatics.com</a> . . . which reminds me that we each need to install the latest update to Civ II: <a href="http://www.civfanatics.net/downloads/civ2/utility/civiimge_uccupdate3.exe">Civ II Gold Update Version 1.3 (PC, 3MB)</a> <a href="http://www.civfanatics.net/downloads/civ2/utility/Civ_II_Gold_1.1.1_Update.hqx">Civ II Gold Update Version 1.11 (Mac, 1.3 MB)</a> A message concerning the Mac update from civfanatics.com: "Mac Users, if you can't get the patch to work, you may have to change the name of the Civ2 program manually to Civilization II Gold 1.1 before applying it. The latest MAC patch looks for the name above. If someone just got the game it would be Civilization II Gold 1.0." [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 11/30/2001 At 13:06:36] | |
92 | 12/6/2001 | 21:21:36 | Unfortunately, Hivo, I may miss you. I am planning (depending on the weather) to leave early in the morning on the 14th to drive up to Washington for a week to visit family. If, however, plans change then I will let you know -- and I would enjoy meeting you for lunch in Salt Lake. Grasshopper, I am looking forward to spending some time with you when I return from Washington . . . I live in North Orem not far from Lindon. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 12/06/2001 At 21:23:04] | |
93 | 12/7/2001 | 7:09:27 | . . . Spokane -- and perhaps a pass through Kennewick. My mother's family is from Spokane, and I lived in Kennewick as a child. | |
94 | 12/21/2001 | 13:00:46 | Merry Christmas! | |
95 | 12/21/2001 | 22:36:00 | Who wants to play a game? :-) | |
96 | 12/22/2001 | 11:36:27 | I am available on December 26, 27, 28 and 29. To finish the game, we will probably need more than one day. | |
97 | 12/24/2001 | 10:32:16 | Yes, if we want to finish the game then it will likely take most of two days . . . on a small map. . . . alternatively, we could just go as far as we feel the desire to go after Christmas and then save the game for some Saturdays in the upcoming months. | |
98 | 12/24/2001 | 10:34:58 | How about we start at 9:00 AM on December 26 and see where it goes from there? | |
99 | 12/24/2001 | 14:20:16 | . . . Mountain Time. | |
100 | Merry Christmas! | 12/25/2001 | 8:50:06 | Merry Christmas, all! Thank you, sincerely, for your friendship. |
101 | 12/25/2001 | 20:08:08 | At 9:00 AM tomorrow morning, I will have a Civilization game setup and waiting for players to join. To join, you will need my IP address, which you can get from me tomorrow morning by emailing me or calling me at (801) 225-6014. Because my IP address is dynamic, I will not know what it is until tomorrow morning. I am away from my own computer this evening, so I do not have all of your email addresses. If one of you can send an email reminder/invitation to everyone who has expressed interest in playing, I would appreciate it. I believe a friend of mine in California will be joining us. | |
102 | 12/26/2001 | 7:37:59 | The game is waiting at this IP address: 209.181.86.202 I do not remember the exact order of the game menus, but select a multiplayer Internet game using TCP/IP, and supply the address above at the appropriate time. | |
103 | 12/30/2001 | 11:25:15 | Greenfrog and I played for a while, but we had some connection problems due to his firewall at work . . . so we postponed for another time. | |
104 | 1/25/2002 | 11:15:48 | <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=114929">http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?discussionID=114929</a> | |
105 | 1/25/2002 | 12:09:53 | Timothy: ". . . we argue and dispute ideas on the fringes of our beliefs, without first establishing the roots of our beliefs. I think this is often the source of some of our disgreements. We hold differing foundations." . . . and the foundations are entirely matters of faith. The Book of Mormon recommends Christ as a foundation. Christ is the God I posit, which God can be proven only within the context of the position. | |
106 | 1/25/2002 | 12:15:50 | What does it mean to be adrift between Arosophos, Timothy and some unknown third source? | |
107 | 1/25/2002 | 12:17:51 | I think there are spiritual and physical ordinances, the physical ordinances, in an infinite variety of possible manifestations, exalting the spiritual ordinances. | |
108 | 1/25/2002 | 12:24:45 | Was he speaking to he with an ear? | |
109 | 1/25/2002 | 12:26:05 | For example: the particulars of the endowment ceremony have been changed many times, yet the spiritual ordinance remains more or less the same. | |
110 | 1/25/2002 | 12:26:39 | Are you trying to evade my question? :-) | |
111 | 1/25/2002 | 13:21:11 | IgnorantSage: "So what does a prophet do?" . . . testify of Christ, particularly of the Jesus sort, according to Revelation -- but you know that. IgnorantSage: "How does the prophetic gift function?" I think that when one recognizes that salvation and exaltation of humanity is in Christ and in becoming Christ, one attempts to share this message with another. IgnorantSage: "What makes the Gospel message . . ." . . . the first principals of the gospel are: faith and theosis -- condensed version. :-) IgnorantSage: ". . . and how is it received and transmitted?" The only answer I have for this question is the obvious answer of communication from one person to another. I assume you were looking beyond this? IgnorantSage: "Are prophets any different than us?" I think not, so long as we are prophets. IgnorantSage: "What does their calling mean?" Called as prophets, their calling means nothing more nor less than it would mean to call you a prophet, so far as I am concerned. Called as those who preside with authority over the LDS Church, under the current organization of the Church, their calling means that they have the final say in the laws of the community. Either we obey the laws and are justified therein, or we do not and are not justified relative to the community. IgnorantSage: "How do we distinguish the false mores of their societies impact?" I think the answer to this question depends a lot on what kind of community we desire to be. IgnorantSage: "Essentially, what is their role in our beliefs?" They are influential -- more than some things and less than others. IgnorantSage: "We were conselled to find truth anywhere it is to be found. It is unclear to me - the "truth" concerning God, Goddess, or homosexuality? Where is it to be found?" There you go asking for eternal life again . . . :-) IgnorantSage: "I have so many questions, yet feel so moved by "spiritual" things - inspired, enriched, by the Gospel. Yet at the same time, wondering what the "truth" is? How can I feel so positive, so moved yet be so confused at the same time? Am I on the doorstep of enlightenment or heresy? ;-)" Relative to whom? . . . and I think you have felt this way before; what followed such feelings the last time? IgnorantSage: ". . . Arosophean Gnosticism . . ." I think the Gnostics would cringe to hear of themselves being associated with me. :-) IgnorantSage: "Arosophos' is unsatisfying because I while at times it inspires me (at times, more than I have ever been inspired), at other times it makes me call out for something tangible, something more. Something seems missing. Kolob, perhaps. ;-)" You are as dissatisfied with the words I typed yesterday as I am?!? ;-) Yes, I think Kolob calls you -- without the ";-)". It calls me too, but I am not prepared to count on it being sufficient in itself. If I want a tangible Zion and a tangible resurrection to Celestial glory, shall I do no more than pray in fear and trembling to the extraterrestrial inhabitants of the Kolob system? Joseph claimed that Mormonism is <i>calculated</i> to facilitate the salvation and exaltation of humanity. He asked whether a skillful mechanic is not worthy of praise when he proves himself better than others at creating truth. Isn't he the example of a prophet you are looking for? Shouldn't we, as prophets, follow whatever inspiration and wisdom we might have in calculating our interpretations of Mormonism, as skillful mechanics, for the salvation and exaltation of humanity? Sly as serpents, yet harmless as doves: for the work and glory of God, which is immortality and eternal life, which combined are the fulness of joy, which is the only persuasive reason for anything -- the most tangible of things. | |
112 | 1/25/2002 | 13:37:52 | The temple teaches you are Adam and your wife is Eve. Hinckley brings up a peculiar aspect of the Adam-God theory . . . and succeeds in making a veiled reference to the divinity of humanity? | |
113 | 1/27/2002 | 12:41:51 | Of course authority has an infinite number of possible manifestations. Look at the world around us, the manifestations of authority within it, and the various ordinances implemented by those authorities. The question becomes one of choosing to sustain one authority above another. Sometimes we make the answer based on fear, sometimes love, and perhaps sometimes both. I don't see authority as being magical; I see it as being a necessary aspect of community, and a means whereby a community guides itself and strengthens itself. | |
114 | 1/27/2002 | 12:42:43 | . . . and if you want to be justified in a particular community, participate in it, be helped by it and help others in it, you must recognize its authority. | |
115 | 1/27/2002 | 12:44:50 | I think your metaphor is inaccurate. I do not consider faith to be a leap between certainties. I consider faith to be the foundation of everything. If you sufficiently consider any certainty you may have, I am confident you will eventually recognize the point at which the foundation of faith becomes readily apparent. | |
116 | 1/27/2002 | 12:47:10 | No, I consider it an abstract monism: there is only one Celestial glory, and I think it will always be abstract to the extent that it is always at least one step ahead of us. | |
117 | 1/27/2002 | 16:00:11 | No. That said, I have the impression that you are looking at this from an absolutist perspective that I would not share. For example, I would not agree that a given Foundation A is absolutely weaker than a given Foundation B and absolutely stronger than a given Foundation C. While foundation A may be weaker than B and stringer than C for a given individual or community, it may also be stronger than B and weaker than C for another given individual or community. Each individual and community has a set of experience (facts) that it attempts to explain and predict (theory). The foundations of which I write above are theories; thus, in other words, a given theory is stronger or weaker relative to the experience of an individual or community. | |
118 | 1/27/2002 | 16:08:01 | Timothy: ". . . do we see ourselves as we are?" So far as I can tell, to remain intelligible, this question can only be asked and answered within the context an absolutist perspective on identity. I think most of us here would agree that identity is more complex than such a perspective recognizes -- but, of course, there is a time and a place for simplifying the matter into black and white absolutes. Timothy: "Is it possible to get a better picture of ourselves through the eyes of others?" I would agree that it is "expanded", and that it is "better" only if we value others perspectives (which I do value). Timothy: "I often struggle to know myself . . ." . . . and Socrates isn't helping much, is he? ;-) Timothy: "So, what is the value of the view of others? Does it compare at all to the internal view? More, less, or equally valuable?" I think this question is analogous to the following: what is the value of the panentheistic aspect of God relative to the anthropoentheistic aspect of God? For me, they both have value, and it is in the paradox of their combination that I find their value magnified. | |
119 | 1/27/2002 | 21:00:02 | Timothy: "Arosophos states: 'I have the impression that you are looking at this from an absolutist perspective that I would not share.' Funny...I have the same impression of you! ;-)" How so? Timothy: "I am agnostic regarding the value of absolutes to finite beings." Are you sure? Here is a simple absolute: red. Does absolute red exist? Or is it simply manifestations of absolute red that exist? Assuming that you will agree with me that it is the latter, would you not also agree that redness has extraordinary practical value, to which value you are far from agnostic? The same holds for other absolutes, I think. Timothy: "This, however, does not preclude us from making value judgements relative to each foundation, based, of course, on our chosen values." Right. Timothy: "I've been reading Descartes lately. His foundation, after proving to himself that everything could be doubted, was "I think, therefore I exist." He didn't even consider this a faithful proposition, to him, it was absolute. Do you accept Descartes conclusion?" Certainly not. One simply cannot prove existence; rather, it is posited, and proven only within the position -- as God. Any decent skeptic can tear Descartes to shreds. :-) Here is a beginning . . . A = I exist (the desired conclusion). B = I think. Here is Descartes argument: 1) B > A (Assumed -- the ">" is notation for if-then propositions) 2) B (Assumed) 3) A (Deduced from 1 and 2) The obvious questions: What are the natures of the assumptions? Are the assumptions self-evident? If not, are they provable? You can take your imagination from there, I am sure. | |
120 | 1/27/2002 | 21:03:46 | Optimistic or not, one must wonder why he introduced the topic and dismissed it as quickly. . . . at least he included Eve. :-) | |
121 | 1/28/2002 | 12:48:25 | Timothy: "Do you mean the color? Or the labeling of the color? What is color? What color is actually red? Apple Red? Fire Engine Red? Red hair?" . . . then you apparently agree with me that it is manifestations of absolute red that exist within our experience. Yet you and I evidently have a concept of redness, as an ideal, that allows us to have this discussion, right? Doesn't this demonstrate the practical value of the absolute -- "absolute" being entirely interchangeable with "ideal" or something like "purely abstract concept", so far as I am concerned? We can talk about red without pulling out an apple, pointing to a fire engine, or tugging on some hair -- that's practical value if ever I have been able to recognize it. Timothy: "Is not "red" merely a construct of language that we have given the experience of "seeing" that which we, internally to us, perceive as red?" Sure; I think that is among the possible descriptions that I would consider sufficiently accurate. I think, in addition, that it is no more accurate than this statement: "'existence' is a construct of language that we have applied to the superset of that which we experience". Does this make existence or redness unreal, or our ideals relative to them non-absolute? Who knows . . . at this point we regress into silly word games. :-) Basically, however, I am confident that you and I both find value in the concept of existence and in the concept of redness, regardless of whether we agree to apply "absolute" to them. Timothy: "Absent the existence of someone to "see" or "think" red, then can we be absolutely sure that red exists?" I am confident redness does not exist apart from a context in which subjectivity exists; moreover, I am confident that existence itself is meaningless outside the contrext of subjectivity. Timothy: "And finally, if as you've agued above, even our existence is not absolutely sure, then how can anything, including red, be absolute?" We are using "absolute" differently, I think. I consider most abstractions to be absolutes of some kind or another. Abstractions generally connote some kind of feeling of perfection, completeness or thouroughness. When I talk about a chair, I can do so in entirely abstract terms. Without pointing to any particular chair, you understand me; this appears to me to be the case because you and I both are inspired by the chair God. ;-) Timothy: "I think that "red" has enormous relative value to me." Sure; we can compare one particular red to another. There is practical value in this. Timothy: "I am agnostic as to whether or not there is "absolute" value to red." That statement is filled with irony. :-) Would you have been able to formulate it, and I understand it, if we were not both inspired by the red God? Timothy: "By this, I mean, I have all the value I need in the relative existence of red, and for my purposes, there is no possibility of me knowing whether or not "red" is absolute." No, relative reds are not sufficient in themselves. We could not have this conversation without an abstract concept of absolute red. Assuming this conversation has any practical value, I think it demonstrates in itself your lack of agnosticism relative to absolute redness. Timothy: "I accept his conclusion in faith, and the fundamental foundation of all things." Descartes reasoning doesn't inspire me with much faith. I don't need an argument to decide I exist. I don't need to deduce from "I think" to "I am". I simply am. I am. I am not because I can prove it or deduce it from any argument or experience. I just decided that I am, and, in this, my faith (or lack thereof) is omnipotent. Timothy: "I don't agree that the faith to accept my own existence is equal to the faith of accepting God's existence." . . . because your God has been mailed without sufficient postage to the Kolob system -- or perhaps to the planet Krypton. :-) The scriptures teach us, Timothy, that we have looked into the heavens and seen God and not understood. The scriptures teach us that we see, now, as if in a glass darkly, but when God shall appear in that mirror we shall see, as we are seen, that we are like him. You, along with much of contemporary Mormonism, have not sufficiently considered these words. Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying there are no divine extraterrestrials in the Kolob system. I am not advocating simple humanism or pantheism. I am saying that, looking into the heavens and into your heart, you are seeing God -- and you are too afraid to recognize or to acknowledge him. Why is Jesus the Christ? Because he can zap me with lightening bolts? Or because he showed me the path to salvation? I don't even know whether Jesus walked the streets of Nazareth, yet I know I love the Christ. I know of the awesome power Christ has had in my life and in the life of so many people that I love. This isn't silly posturing or metaphorical drug-induced euphoria. This is real, as real as existence at least, and it is the meaning of life. God is. We don't need an argument to decide God is. We don't need to deduce from "God uses lightening bolts", or whatever, to "God is". God simply is. God is. God is not because we can prove it or deduce it from any argument or experience. We just decided that God is, and, in this, our faith (or lack thereof) is omnipotent. Timothy: "This is a prime example of the equality of all faithful foundations as I was discussing above." Descartes, whose argument for existence holds some appeal to you, thought it necessary that God exist as a foundation to his argument. In fact, he appears to have considered proof of God's existence to require less reasoning than his own existence. | |
122 | 1/28/2002 | 13:05:15 | Timothy, that's a good point. | |
123 | 1/29/2002 | 10:29:36 | My vision of a Celestial community is something that is always at least a step ahead of us, but not pluralistic . . . an abstract monism. | |
124 | 1/29/2002 | 10:36:17 | That's an intriguing quote, Hivo. In what way did it remind you of something I have written? | |
125 | 1/29/2002 | 11:49:14 | Timothy: "Are you arguing for something like Plato's Forms?" Sure; those are certainly related. Timothy: "You clearly hold a different definition of 'absolute' than I do." Yes, perhaps so. Let's see if we can come together on a definition or definitions. Here are some definitions from Websters . . . "free from imperfection" Is redness, when you and I conceive of it, free from imperfection? "having no restriction, exception, or qualification" Is redness, when we conceive it, without restriction, exception or qualification? "positive, unquestionable" Is redness positive or unquestionable? "independent of arbitrary standards of measurement" Is redness independent of arbitrary standards of measurement? "fundamental, ultimate" Is redness fundamental or ultimate? "perfectly embodying the nature of a thing" Does the redness we conceive of perfectly embody the nature of a thing? "being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships" Is redness self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships? Considering these questions, I feel inclined to think redness, our concept of red, meets many of the definitions proposed for "absolute". What do you think? Timothy: "I agree that there is practical value to the concept of red. I just don't agree that such value is 'absolute'." Let's look at Webster's definition of "concept" . . . "something conceived in the mind: thought, notion" "an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances" Given Webster's perspectives, are concepts absolute? Timothy: "Again, this seems much like Plato's forms. However, like Aristotle, I find Plato's theory wanting." As we have discussed recently, I too do not share in Plato's perspective, primarily because of the ontological priority he places on abstractions -- whereas I feel the ontological priority should be roughly equal between the abstract and the concrete, with the concrete being recognized as an exaltation of the abstract. I think it is important to acknowledge, here, that Aristotle still preached the forms, but from a different perspective. Timothy: "No...it is only ironic if I exalt the abstract as you do. I do not. Now you would have me believe in a chair god, and a red god..." Okay, Timothy, when you and I discuss redness, must particular manifestations of redness within your experience pass through your mind before you understand what I am talking about? Or have you, too, exalted an abstraction within your mind sufficiently that it need not make particular reference or appeal to any concrete manifestation for it to maintain meaning for you? Timothy: "Have you ever seen a yellow-spotted giranamobile?" Nope, but I now have an abstract concept of one, based entirely on the words you presented to me, and their relationship with concepts in my mind. I have, without a single previous experience of a yellow-spotted giranmobile, created something in my mind in a very real way. Timothy: "Does this mean that you are self-created?" Of course I am to some extent. In fact, some would argue that the aspects of our nature that are most important are those that are self-created. That aside, you may be wondering whether I would say I created my physical body? I can conceive of such a possibility, but I do not think it to be the case -- yet ultimately whatever proof I may provide is suspended in faith. Timothy: "Well...I would not consider this my God. I would consider this the God of many, if not most, mormons, with whom I am primarily addressing my comments. I agree that I am rejecting the construct of the popular mormon god." Precisely, and some analogies . . . I reject the popular construct of truth -- yet, unlike the decision you have made relative to God, I certainly do not consider myself agnostic regarding truth. I reject the popular construct of Joseph Smith -- yet, unlike the decision you have made relative to God, I certainly do not consider myself agnostic regarding Joseph Smith. Timothy: "An interesting appeal to authority from one who claims to be an empiricist. ;-)" Remind yourself of that next time you tell somebody about the laws of physics. You, too, have your prophets, Timothy. That aside, I think you may have missed my point in referring to the scriptures. My point, most particularly, is that while you might reject some popular ideas of God, you need not and probably do not reject all ideas of God -- including most particularly those taught us in the scriptures. Timothy: "Hmmm...that's quite a statement. Is this one of those instances where I don't know myself as well as you do? ;-)" I believe precisely what I wrote. Timothy: "You exalt the abstract in a way that I do not. I do see incredible value in the abstract; I consider it one of the most important tools in my arsenal." I agree with the first sentence, so long as it is a difference in kind rather than a difference in magnitude that is connoted. I also agree with the second sentence. Timothy: "I also don't think your experience is unique to "Christ." Different abstract concepts can and do produce these very results in other people." God by any other name would be as divine. Timothy: "Again, I don't equate "existence" with the abstract." Neither do I, but I do believe the abstract exists, every bit as much as the concrete exists -- but to a lesser concrete magnitude and a greater abstract magnitude. There is no existence without the one or the other. Timothy: "You exalt the abstract in a way that I do not." If making the abstract out to be of equal importance with the concrete is to exalt the abstract beyond that which you feel inclined to do then, yes, I exalt the abstract in a way that you do not. The concrete, without the abstract, is nothing, not even the dust of the earth, not even meaningless -- because meaninglessness is relative to abstraction. . . . and the abstract without the concrete? Purely evil, so far as I am concerned. Timothy: "I do agree that the abstract is powerful and important, but not as "real" as existence." Timothy, don't you see that there is no existence without the abstract? Timothy: "I disagree. If I were to agree, then I would have to conclude that all things and thoughts "are" and that there is no difference between the abstract and the non-abstract." Of course there are differences between the abstract and the non-abstract; however, the difference is not one of existence. Of course, the abstract does not exist concretely per se, as the concrete does not exist abstractly per se. Yet the concrete without the abstract has no meaning, not even that of existence. ----- The Book of Mormon says: Believe in God! Believe that he is! The wisdom harnessed in these phrases never ceases to inspire me. Whether it be the Great Spirit, a pantheism or a humanism, an extraterrestrial from the Kolob system, a triune abstraction, love or . . . whatever can find room in our hearts and minds, the True and Living God will work with us, if we allow it, and lead us from death to life, which is to know him physically and spiritually. The Spirit calls out, from within the most profound recesses of our hearts and from the furthest recesses of the heavens: I am. | |
126 | 1/29/2002 | 12:48:59 | I think you're right, Hivo. Joy has a lot to do with creation. | |
127 | 1/29/2002 | 12:50:55 | Yes, with an eye on yet further progress. | |
128 | 1/29/2002 | 13:20:13 | There is a passage in the Book of Mormon that addresses the Law of Moses as being something the Nephites kept not because salvation was in the law per se but because the law strengthened their faith in Christ. I guess I think of ordinances generally in this way. Salvation is not in them per se, but they are certainly important in strengthening our faith. Ultimately, of course, what is the concrete manifestation of joy if not an ordinance, one that is not the fulness of joy per se but gives us renewed faith in it? | |
129 | 1/30/2002 | 10:39:36 | Thanks for the image, Greenfrog. ;-) | |
130 | 1/31/2002 | 12:20:15 | Red is! | |
131 | 1/31/2002 | 14:30:19 | I'd enjoy meeting. Just let me know when and where. | |
132 | 2/1/2002 | 13:38:19 | Sharon: "I agree with both Arosophos and Timothy." So do I. An old saying about forests and trees comes to mind . . . [This Message Was Edited By arosophos On 02/01/2002 At 13:39:47] | |
133 | 2/1/2002 | 13:47:33 | Greenfrog, Your comments regarding Joseph Smith resonate strongly with me. I join Grasshopper in the thanks. | |
134 | 2/1/2002 | 14:00:27 | [In response to IgnorantSage] . . . or finally just doing as Nephi says: ". . . liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our <b>profit and learning</b>." (1 Nephi 19:23) ". . . liken them unto yourselves, that ye may have <b>hope</b> . . ." (1 Nephi 19:24) ". . . my soul <b>delighteth</b> in his words. For I will liken his words unto my people, and I will send them forth unto all my children . . ." (2 Nephi 11:2) ". . . whoso of my people shall see these words may <b>lift up their hearts and rejoice</b> for all men. Now these are the words, and ye may liken them unto you and unto all men." (2 Nephi 11:8) Why does it work? "And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me." (Moses 6:63) It works by definition: God is. [This Message Was Edited By arosophos On 02/01/2002 At 14:01:17] | |
135 | 2/7/2002 | 7:56:48 | Guess the details, and I will tell you whether I agree. | |
136 | 2/7/2002 | 10:49:08 | Anytime is good for me . . . I am once again between jobs, so that makes for extra free time. | |
137 | 2/7/2002 | 10:50:24 | When fits best in your schedules, Chris and Sean? | |
138 | 2/8/2002 | 10:48:01 | Sean and Chris, why don't you guys work out a couple options between the two of you and then let the rest of us know what the options are? | |
139 | 2/8/2002 | 13:32:50 | I spoke with Sharon on the phone, and we plan to carpool to Salt Lake tomorrow evening to meet at Sean's parents' home at 6:00 PM. Hopefully, Chris, you will be able to make it, even if you are late. | |
140 | 2/8/2002 | 22:08:22 | I watched from home, too. It was better than I had anticipated. | |
141 | 2/19/2002 | 10:38:13 | Perhaps a split is the wrong paradigm? What if reason is exalted emotion (highly organized emotion)? | |
142 | 2/19/2002 | 10:41:23 | To use a metaphor, I understand paradox to be a pointing finger. If the parts of the paradox are merely taken at face value, contradiction may result. If we allow our minds to look in the direction the combined parts point, paradox results. I think that perhaps every profound insight I have felt to attain in my life has resulted from pondering paradox. | |
143 | 2/19/2002 | 10:43:57 | Timothy: "Often, I get the impression that some tend to think the "paradox" is the ultimate truth, and not merely something to more fully explore and thus better understand; often revealing that the paradox is in reality not a paradox." In a monistic reality, there is no true paradox, I agree. In a pluralistic reality, the kind in which I place my faith, there certainly is true paradox: no matter how fully we explore and understand pluralistic reality, yet apparent contradictions remain -- and shall we lazily label them contradictions or shall we label them paradox and attempt, eternally, to understand them more profoundly? | |
144 | 3/1/2002 | 13:06:23 | I believe in infinite first causes. | |
145 | 3/2/2002 | 8:59:15 | Timothy, I think you are a first cause. | |
146 | 3/2/2002 | 19:42:51 | As I understand LDS theology, it does incorporate first cause, as I have explained, an infinite number of times. I'm not trying to be esoteric, so deal with it. :-) | |
147 | 3/3/2002 | 12:40:16 | Congratulations, Lia. | |
148 | 3/5/2002 | 14:22:01 | BrooklynChris, I think I was born with angst. :-) How do we get through it? I try to transform fear into love. One of my favorite passages of scripture is 1 John 4: 14-21 . . . "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 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. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also." I think John says many profound and inspiring things in this passage, but I would like to draw your attention to just one: love will give us boldness in the day of judgment. This statement reminds me of the description of Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon: "And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people. Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood. Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger; And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity. Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." (Alma 48: 11-17) May the powers of hell be shaken forever. | |
149 | 3/13/2002 | 20:00:02 | It's Leonard and Jen miniturized! My wife thinks so, too. :-) Congratulations, Leonard; they're beautiful. | |
150 | 3/19/2002 | 12:29:45 | Hivo, Your experience sounds similar to experiences I have had in my life. The interesting thing to me is that when I overcome the struggle, I feel so much better and so much closer to God. This subject seems always to remind me of Joseph. Joseph in Liberty Jail: "O God, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place? How long shall thy hand be stayed, and thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and of thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries? Yea, O Lord, how long shall they suffer these wrongs and unlawful oppressions, before thine heart shall be softened toward them, and thy bowels be moved with compassion toward them? O Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven, earth, and seas, and of all things that in them are, and who controllest and subjectest the devil, and the dark and benighted dominion of Sheol--stretch forth thy hand; let thine eye pierce; let thy pavilion be taken up; let thy hiding place no longer be covered; let thine ear be inclined; let thine heart be softened, and thy bowels moved with compassion toward us. Let thine anger be kindled against our enemies; and, in the fury of thine heart, with thy sword avenge us of our wrongs. Remember thy suffering saints, O our God; and thy servants will rejoice in thy name forever." (D&C 121: 1-6) God's response to Joseph: "My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes. Thy friends do stand by thee, and they shall hail thee again with warm hearts and friendly hands. Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did Job." (D&C 121: 7-10) God's continued response to Joseph: "If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea; If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can't you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb; And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he? Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever." (D&C 122: 5-9) Joseph's reaction to God's response: "And as for the perils which I am called to pass through, they seem but a small thing to me, as the envy and wrath of man have been my common lot all the days of my life; and for what cause it seems mysterious, unless I was ordained from before the foundation of the world for some good end, or bad, as you may choose to call it. Judge ye for yourselves. God knoweth all these things, whether it be good or bad. But nevertheless, deep water is what I am wont to swim in. It all has become a second nature to me; and I feel, like Paul, to glory in tribulation; for to this day has the God of my fathers delivered me out of them all, and will deliver me from henceforth; for behold, and lo, I shall triumph over all my enemies, for the Lord God hath spoken it." (D&C 127: 2) Joseph's subsequent attitude: "Now, what do we hear in the gospel which we have received? A voice of gladness! A voice of mercy from heaven; and a voice of truth out of the earth; glad tidings for the dead; a voice of gladness for the living and the dead; glad tidings of great joy. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that bring glad tidings of good things, and that say unto Zion: Behold, thy God reigneth! As the dews of Carmel, so shall the knowledge of God descend upon them! And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets--the book to be revealed. A voice of the Lord in the wilderness of Fayette, Seneca county, declaring the three witnesses to bear record of the book! The voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light! The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times! And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And the voice of Michael, the archangel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope! 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: 19-23) [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 03/19/2002 At 12:31:50] | |
151 | 3/19/2002 | 12:32:16 | By the way, Hivo, I look forward to seeing you in Utah. :-) | |
152 | 3/19/2002 | 20:52:33 | I like both Utah County and Salt Lake County. I am not as familiar with Weber County. If you cannot make up your mind, you can split the difference by moving to Lehi or West Jordan. | |
153 | 3/21/2002 | 20:23:40 | I wager you'll look back at this with a smile someday. :-) | |
154 | 3/21/2002 | 20:25:36 | Yep, he really does lift weights. | |
155 | 3/22/2002 | 15:16:03 | God by any other name is as inspirational. :-) | |
156 | 3/25/2002 | 12:30:05 | Do you want it deleted? | |
157 | 3/25/2002 | 13:15:43 | Too late. :-) | |
158 | 4/4/2002 | 16:29:53 | Happy birthday! :-) | |
159 | To Lia | 4/10/2002 | 15:17:45 | Hi Lia. IgnorantSage just sent me an email in which he suggested that I visit the Google search engine (www.google.com) and submit a query for "Arosophos". I did so and discovered that Google has indexed your personal website, which associates our names and pictures with our Bnet screen names. This means that anyone can search Google for our Bnet screen names (not just mine) and receive a link to our names and pictures. Lia, will you please remove our screen names from the HTML file, and change the name of the HTML file? The results will be: 1) Although the current indexing will remain and contain our names associated with our Bnet screen names, the link will no longer point to the pictures -- and eventually Google will remove the dead link index. 2) If the page is indexed again, it will not contain our screen names, and thus a search engine query for the screen names will not return a link to the page. Thanks. |
160 | 4/10/2002 | 20:24:09 | That will work. Thanks. :-) | |
161 | 4/11/2002 | 20:28:32 | Why esotericism? | |
162 | 4/13/2002 | 10:39:56 | A conversation Timothy and I had via email (start reading from the bottom) . . . ----- on 4/13/02 10:24 AM, Lincoln Cannon at cannon@byu.edu wrote: > It seems to me that the difficult thing with subscription-based sites is > building subscription volume from nothing; however, with a preexisting site > such as Bnet, with a very high volume of visitors, a subscription base could > be created almost immediately -- of course, some substantial number (perhaps > the majority) of persons involved would stop visiting. > > Lincoln > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Timothy W. Killian" <tim@eventure.com> > To: "Lincoln Cannon" <cannon@byu.edu> > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 11:15 AM > Subject: Re: A New Beginning > > >> I've been thinking a lot about a subscription based discussion site. I've >> got a lot of ideas as to how it might work. I'd love to start this >> discussion... ;-) >> >> Tim >> >> on 4/13/02 10:10 AM, Lincoln Cannon at cannon@byu.edu wrote: >> >>> If we could get our hands on financial statements, we could make a good >>> guess as to how many subscriptions per year at a given price would be >>> required to maintain operations. :-) >>> >>> Lincoln >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Timothy W. Killian" <tim@eventure.com> >>> To: "Bnet" <tim@eventure.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:57 AM >>> Subject: FW: A New Beginning >>> >>> >>>> Bnet filed for chap. 11 yesterday. Should we buy them out and turn it > into >>> a >>>> subscription-based site? ;-) >>>> >>>> Timothy W. Killian | |
163 | 4/17/2002 | 19:49:18 | Greenfrog: "I'm pretty curious about what Arosophos might say in response to this questions, since he and I have differed in the past about the appropriate way to respond to statements of belief or position that one believes to be incorrect and harmful." The War in Heaven will not be won through indecisiveness -- or dogmatism. If Timothy knows his ideals in this matter are better than the ideals he opposes then his duty is to pursue his ideals -- while sincerely considering criticism, and modifying his ideals as persuaded by that criticism. How do we pursue our ideals? Ask God. | |
164 | 4/18/2002 | 19:47:35 | I agree with most of your observations, with only one substantial objection: the subscription price. I have a hard time imagining myself paying more for a subscription to a website than I pay for a subscription to a magazine. | |
165 | 4/18/2002 | 19:48:23 | . . . then again, I don't pay for magazine subscriptions. :-) | |
166 | 4/18/2002 | 19:50:25 | Would I pay for Bnet? Yes, if the price was not too high. I would be paying to maintain my associations in a familiar context. | |
167 | 4/18/2002 | 19:51:33 | . . . and one more thing: I think you are right on concerning free access with fees for participation. That's how people become interested. | |
168 | 5/6/2002 | 19:51:26 | Timothy, why are you not agnostic relative to Zion? | |
169 | 5/21/2002 | 21:41:51 | Congratulations, BrooklynChris. | |
170 | 5/22/2002 | 20:08:00 | :-) | |
171 | 6/2/2002 | 13:25:50 | That doesn't sound like something your husband would say. ;-) | |
172 | 6/28/2002 | 16:42:32 | . . . no conjuring required; a spirit may be present, yet unobserved. | |
173 | 7/8/2002 | 20:20:36 | I am probably going to Asia without my wife. To Asia, because I visit Europe regularly. Without my wife, because we expect she will be pregnant. | |
174 | 7/8/2002 | 20:24:19 | Hivo, I would enjoy meeting you when you are here. Let me know when and where. | |
175 | 7/9/2002 | 22:04:21 | We leave to France tomorrow morning. . . . "metaexpectant". | |
176 | 7/9/2002 | 22:07:15 | Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays do not work for me, but Wednesday would be good. | |
177 | 7/9/2002 | 22:16:42 | Lia, remember the beauty of the light that broke the last storm? | |
178 | 7/23/2002 | 20:56:34 | Satchya, do you have faith in Christ? | |
179 | 7/23/2002 | 21:06:49 | Have you repented of your sins? | |
180 | 7/24/2002 | 22:30:53 | Hivo, you seem sincere to me. | |
181 | 8/3/2002 | 10:56:14 | When is the last time you read the Book of Mormon, Timothy? | |
182 | 8/5/2002 | 20:46:11 | A wise man wrote: "Seek and ye shall find." What? Problems? Sure; wherever you create them. | |
183 | 8/5/2002 | 20:48:01 | Timothy, have you read the works that inspire you most looking for problems? | |
184 | 8/5/2002 | 20:52:09 | Here is the power of God: to transform darkness into light, weakness into strength, foolishness into wisdom -- "fools mock but they shall mourn". . . . problems into opportunities. | |
185 | Timothy, do you fear God? | 8/13/2002 | 17:50:56 | I've been wondering . . . |
186 | 8/13/2002 | 18:24:23 | Never? | |
187 | 8/13/2002 | 18:50:18 | My answer to your question depends on your answer to my question: Do you never fear God? | |
188 | 8/13/2002 | 20:05:31 | If I fear X then I must consent to the existence of X? Physically, no; I consider the statement too strong. Spiritually, yes, I consider the statement accurate. Do you never fear God? | |
189 | 8/13/2002 | 20:07:39 | Sgallan, is the "no" a response to my first question or to my second question? | |
190 | 8/13/2002 | 20:11:57 | In response to your questions: What is there to fear? That is what I want to know. I am somewhat acquainted with my fears, and I would like to become better acquainted with your fears. Why should God be feared? Who should be feared? When should posited God be feared? To rephrase: is fear moral? Whether or not fear is moral, I suspect you can answer my question: Do you never fear God? | |
191 | 8/13/2002 | 20:20:57 | . . . or any history book. | |
192 | 8/13/2002 | 20:52:16 | A thing can be unlike all other things of its class in one way and like all other things of its class in another way. | |
193 | 8/13/2002 | 20:57:22 | Joseph claimed that you would draw closer to God in abiding by the precepts taught in the book than in abiding by the precepts of any other book with which he was acquainted. Regardless of whether he was justified in this claim, I do not think he was claiming infallible historicity. | |
194 | 8/14/2002 | 11:40:51 | I am not asking whether you never fear anything I associate with "God". I am asking whether you never fear anything you associate with "God". | |
195 | 8/14/2002 | 17:17:42 | In response to your first paragraph: I believe in God; do you fear me? In response to your second paragraph: you claim that because God is unknown to you, you do not fear God; then you claim that you fear that which is unknown to you. You accused me of disingenuity at the beginning of this thread, and I feel now to return the accusation. Will you remedy this? | |
196 | 8/14/2002 | 18:26:54 | Thank you, Timothy and Sgallan, for answering my questions. | |
197 | 8/15/2002 | 16:24:06 | Yes, sometimes. | |
198 | 8/16/2002 | 22:34:48 | The scriptures speak of a narrow path, hard to find and relatively untraveled, that leads to life. In contrast, the scriptures also speak of broad well traveled roads that lead to death. Recognizing that I sometimes struggle to discern the differences between these routes, I consider them with care, and sometimes wonder in fear about the keeper of the way. I sometimes fear God because I sometimes lack confidence that I have understood him, and I somtimes lack confidence that I have correctly identified him. The fear comes and goes as I continue in faith, transitioning from one understanding to the next. Although I sometimes seek to avoid the fear, and even sometimes seek to embrace it, more often now, as I feel it come, I recognize it and remember that it has, as yet, always ended in greater peace and joy when I return to the love of God, sometimes intensely and sometimes subtly. | |
199 | 8/17/2002 | 18:08:22 | I sometimes struggle to discern the difference between Christ and Satan, and this frightens me. | |
200 | 8/23/2002 | 21:03:08 | . . . and, as usual, Sharon was the ideal hostess. Her husband, on the other hand, was not much of a hostess. ;-) | |
201 | 8/23/2002 | 21:10:17 | Timothy: "Arosophos...if you're still reading this thread, I'd be curious to know what prompted the initial question." . . . curiosity -- which is not satisfied, by the way. Timothy: "Do you think I should fear god in the manner that the scriptures seem to indicate?" I think it depends on your interpretation of the scriptures, which, in my opinion, you regularly interpret narrowly and with a bad attitude. | |
202 | 8/23/2002 | 21:11:10 | I would have liked to see your face when you read that. :-) | |
203 | 8/24/2002 | 22:51:11 | I look forward to your next visit, Hivo. | |
204 | 9/7/2002 | 8:28:19 | Congratulations. :-) | |
205 | 9/7/2002 | 8:32:05 | George, you will be disillusioned. :-) | |
206 | 9/8/2002 | 15:05:02 | If it isn't, maybe it should be. | |
207 | 9/21/2002 | 10:34:38 | Yes, Hivo really is that big . . . | |
208 | 9/25/2002 | 18:36:29 | 6:30 PM on Saturday or Sunday? | |
209 | 9/25/2002 | 18:40:09 | My prayer is for you, Greenfrog. Remember how you felt last time you ascended from the Valley of the Shadow of Death? | |
210 | 9/25/2002 | 18:42:19 | George, I enjoyed your post. | |
211 | 9/26/2002 | 18:06:43 | . . . a very merry unbirthday to you . . . | |
212 | 9/27/2002 | 11:51:04 | . . . then, uh . . . Happy birthday to you; happy birthday to . . . | |
213 | 9/27/2002 | 11:54:13 | IgnorantSage: "Arosophos, if you make it, give Gaia my regards. I think I would enjoy meeting her." If I make it, I will do that. | |
214 | 9/27/2002 | 11:56:30 | Sharon, my wife and I may come. Do you need to know for sure in advance? | |
215 | 9/30/2002 | 22:14:36 | Timothy: "I am not a radical skeptic, contrary to what others may assert." Rather than a radical skeptic, you are, I think, an inconsistent skeptic. Your hollow faithlessness in some matters is outdone only by your extravagant faith in other matters. Timothy: "I think we all recognize certain types of information as objective (for example, basic math)." Recognize that if we consider mathematics to be representative of objectivity then objectivity is abstract -- not concrete. Timothy: "Even given our subjectivity, we have methods by which we are able to minimize our subject perceptions as we seek to find objective truths." Given the previous recognition, I understand this statment to mean: we are able to minimize concrete experience as we seek to find abstract truths. I disagree. We do not minimize concrete experience as we seek to find abstract truths. To the contrary, our abstract truths are valuable only to the extent that they are congruent with maximized concrete experience. Timothy: "For example, we may use statistical analysis and build mathematical models to aid in our evaluation of information." . . . and we may forget that these abstractions are not concrete experience, or we may remember that they are tools we may use to create concrete experience according to our desires. The power of God is manifest in this: the dice may fall roughly as predicted by the bell curve, but I can consistently place them with both "1"s up. Timothy: "By using the scientific method and other methods such as peer review, we can "test" our information. The more we do this, the better we do this, the more "objective" our information can become." . . . and the more abstracted into a universal generalization that accounts for concrete experience only as well as the statement, "Because God Willed It", accounts for the origins of our pluralistic reality. No; I am not saying that we should not seek truth, in all its abstract glory; I am saying that we should not mistake it to be other than it is: an abstraction that cannot displace the concrete experience it symbolizes. Timothy: "Just because 'love' is ultimately a 'subjective' experience . . ." . . . and therefore, as you are using the terms, a concrete experience. Timothy: ". . . that does not mean that I can't 'objectively' evaluate the nature of love relative to my own experience." Right; indeed, you cannot help but cognate all kinds of abstractions as candidates for knowledge, abstractions in congruence with past and future individual experience, and truth, abstractions in congruence with past and future communal experience. Timothy: "Dating is a form of testing the theories of love." . . . as all experience is the test of candidates for knowledge and truth. Experience, not knowledge or truth, is the final judge here. The dynamic God of life -- not the static God of death -- reigns supreme in the end. All the truth and knowledge in the world -- in that carefully and intricately constructed <i>universe</i> -- can crumble instantly in a single moment of pluralistic experience. One exception is all it takes to refute the logical syllogism. All the awesome might of our truth is nothing relative to any greater God. Timothy: "I would suggest that our entire life-experience leads us to understand the nature of relationships in a scientific and objective manner . . ." So long as you are not saying this is the primary result of life experience, I will agree. If you are saying it is the primary result, I cannot help but wish myself out of existence now; thanks, but no thanks. My community and I do not care primarily for hollow abstractions because hollow abstractions do not care primarily for us. More: we will not allow them to be our masters because we know we created them, and we know we will recreate them. Abstractions have power over us only to the extent that we allow them this power, precisely as Joseph the Prophet taught. Timothy: "Through this process of testing, our understanding of "love" becomes objective, relative to our own subjective nature." Through this process, we abstract into knowledge from concrete experience. Timothy: ". . . we tend to build a societal view of what love is (objectifying the information)." We create truth as we generalize across the abstractions of knowledge. Timothy: "For example, if I were to tell you of a man who lies to his wife, cheats on her, calls her names, and frequently slaps her, would you believe me if I told you that he loves her?" Maybe, depending on the remaining set of experience with which I intend to create congruent knowledge. Timothy: ". . . subjective information can be tested, and objective data can be gathered." Objective data can be gathered? If by "data" you mean "experience" then you are equivocating, so far as I can tell. Data, in itself, does not provide knowledge or truth. Data is not inherently meaningful. Only when we arrange it, categorize it, exclude parts and emphasize parts does it become meaningful. We organize the abstraction from the concrete data. We gather the subjective data, or the concrete experience, before we create the objective theory, or the abstract knowledge. Timothy: "As further illustration of this point: taste (as in food tasting) is generally seen as a subjective thing. Yet, if I gather a sample of individuals and give them a taste test . . . I can then use that objective information to build an objective business with objective goals, even though my business may deal entirely with subjective product." We can abstract across the plurality of experience and use the abstraction to pursue our desires. Timothy: "I am confident that I could prove my wife's existence to you in such a manner as you would acknowledge, with a high degree of confidence, that she indeed does exist." Given my faith in existence, I agree. Timothy: "Why should proving the existence of God be any different?" Your absence of faith in God makes all the difference. Timothy [to George]: "You're presupposing that objective knowledge of God is not possible; upon what do you base that supposition?" I disagree. He is acknowledging that faith is a pre-requisite to knowledge, regardless of the contents of that knowledge. Your faithlessness in God keeps you from knowing God, precisely as the prophets have been repeating for millenia. Timothy: "Again, why should God's existence be any different than my or your existence?" Exactly. Why do you treat them differently? Why do you apply your skepticism inconsistently? Why do you look down into the bottomless pit of skepticism on the one hand while looking straight into the blinding light on the other hand? You are blinded to your extravagant faith in your existence, while you fall into the emptiness of agnosticism and atheism. Timothy: "If you tried to prove your wife's existence to me, and you used the expected methods to do so, and I yet denied her existence, would you consider my rejection of her existence to be rational?" . . . the expected methods . . . Damn you, God! If I cannot confine you to my expectations then I will define you to my expectations. Timothy: "What makes the knowledge of knowing the existence of your wife different than the knowledge of knowing God?" You want to believe in one and you do not want to believe in the other. Timothy: "Sure, you could turn God into a semantical game . . ." . . . as you have turned your wife into a semantical game? Timothy: "I may claim that pink elephants exist, because I say they do." You may, and I will remind you that not all pink elephants are equal, and I will ask you how you expect the pink elephant to function in your experience, and I will urge you to consider whether the function is or will be fulfilled. . . . and then one day the crazy geneticist decides to make the pink elephant -- and the flying pig -- and Timothy decides to reconsider his agnosticism, if he can. Too bad, if he cannot, because his faith could have made all the difference. Timothy: "Yet, you'd likely conclude that I have no justification to make such a claim and dismiss me as delusional." Maybe, depending on the particulars. Maybe I will join you in the delusion -- if I think it better than those that haunt me now. Timothy: "If you confine this statement to "faith and hope" and leave off "knowledge" then I will accept your assertion . . ." I will, if you will confine your statement to faith and hope in the existence of your wife. Without God, your wife does not exist. With God, she can be everything. Timothy: "But, when you claim to 'know' God but back that up with only 'faith and hope' then you have weakened your argument." Yes; there is generally less confidence communicated in "faith and hope" than there is in "knowledge". Despite that, I used to know I exist; now I know I exist. That is to say: knowledge is faith and hope. I used to know God exists; now I know God exists. Timothy: "Do you merely have "faith and hope" that your wife exists?" . . . without the "merely"; yes. Timothy: "Or do you know that she exists?" Yes, there, too. Timothy: "Why the difference relative to God?" . . . because God is vastly more complex, while infinitely more simple, than my wife. In some ways, I know more about God than I do about my wife; in other ways, the opposite is true. Most sincerely faithful persons seem to recognize the feelings associated with this ambiguity. Timothy: "I am confident that I could convince a jury of my peers that she indeed does love me." . . . as any person can convince a jury of her peers to accept that in which it already places its faith. Indeed, no new convinction happens; only an extension of convinction happens. You tell George that you can convince the existential faithful to accept existence; I tell you that George can convince the theistic faithful to accept theism. Timothy: "However, as I have suggested, knowing that she exists and knowing that she loves me are two different types of knowledge, one being more objective in nature and one being more subjective in nature. Knowing of her existence is an objective question . . ." Knowing of her existence is <i>relatively</i> objective because you think you can experience existence more directly than you can experience love -- existence, you think, is less abstract than love. Timothy: ". . . you continue to frame the knowledge of God's existence as a subjective question. Why is God's existence different than my wife's existence?" You continue in faithlessness, and that is the difference. Timothy: ". . . do you think I can, in the same manner, influence her existence through my skepticism?" Yes and no; no more nor less than you can influence the existence of God through your skepticism. Timothy: "You are claiming that you can influence God's existence through your faith; why is this different than my wife's existence?" It is not different. If you are skeptical of your wife's existence, her spirit is not with you. This does not keep her spirit from others, but it does affect her existence, relative to you. The same is true of God. Timothy: "Sure, you can claim that you are god, and therefore God exists. I remain unconvinced in the larger sense." What larger sense? Are you looking for tall extraterrestrials, Timothy? Nobody here seems to be claiming evidence of those . . . but don't let that stop you. Look! . . . and while you are at it, don't overlook the other aspects of God within you and around you, well within your experiential reach. Believe in God. Repent of your sins. You will know God exists. Timothy: "Sanctified is a religious word that has little practical meaning outside of the religious context." Show me outside the religious context. I have been unable to find it. I have found new names for old Gods, dead, lying or evil -- but I have not found an end to the religious context. Timothy: "I don't understand the word ['sanctified']. Can you explain it to me better?" . . . in a word: "repent". Timothy: "This is poetry . . ." So is that! Timothy: "But, this moves us no closer to any objective knowledge that God exists." . . . nor will it until you have faith in God. You don't believe me, I guess. You think George can force you to consent to the existence of God, right? Or are you playing a game, knowing full well that nothing, not God, can control your faith? You are free. Free to believe. Free to reject. George and all the powers of the universe combined cannot change that -- or there is no existence. Joseph taught you this; remember? Timothy: "If you are claiming that God's existence is only poetry and not meant in a literal sense, then I will better understand your position." Someday, when you stand beside the gravestone of your wife, you may decide that her existence was literally poetic. Without the poetry, there was nothing. Yes, there was more; there was the fleshy body that exalted the poetry in concrete embrace. Yet where is the poetry now? Did it ever exist? Does it yet exist? May it yet be exalted again . . . and further? Timothy: "Do you even recognize the word game you are playing?" Oh, awesome irony! Timothy: "When I was younger, I thought that my taste in music was an objective thing; that I was right about what was 'good' and others were wrong. I've learned that there is not right or wrong relative to music. My tastes are my tastes." What happened to the abstractions generated from your taste test example? Are you rejecting that now? Timothy: "Again, you are attempting to use poetry to support your knowledge claim of god." Knowledge is poetry. Not convinced? Prove the contrary, dear poet. | |
216 | 10/1/2002 | 22:33:08 | Timothy: "Can any knowledge be justified?" Yes, I think so. Timothy: "If so, what? How?" Justification is relative to a community. It seems to make little sense to speak of epistemic justification relative to one's self. Given that, justification of knowledge is exaltation of its abstract content into the abstract content of truth. In other words, an individual's knowledge is justified when her community thinks it justified -- when her community has similar confidence in the abstract content. Timothy: "Are there levels of knowledge? Can we know something more certainly than we know something else?" Sure, if we want to think of it that way. I think we can think of everything as having levels, degrees, spectrums, etc. Its a different degree of abstraction than simple dualism or monism, with different useful applications. I may feel more confident concerning proposition X than I feel concerning proposition Y, and where such is the case, there will be another proposition, Z, in which I feel yet greater confidence. In the spirit of Joseph, an aspect of God is the proposition inspiring the greatest confidence -- an abstraction of ultimate propositional confidence -- perfect knowledge -- omniscience. Timothy, to Hivo: "Do you suppose that I do not yet understand your views, and that were I to better understand them, I'd not hold onto my current views?" This conversation has more to do with desire than with understanding. Understanding is in the way, here. Profoundly fundamental matters of faith are the pivotal point. No amount of understanding can compel faith. As Alma said, if you can desire to believe, let the desire work in you. What if you cannot desire to believe? You would be more miserable in the presence of God than in the presence of the damned souls in hell. Worse! What if you cannot desire to exist? Timothy: "If I were to posit that this door did not exist, I'd both never be able to leave my house . . ." You present a straw man of existential skepticism. Timothy: "Arosophos has resorted to the charge of 'faithlessness'." Resorted? This implies that I have modified my charge. I wager I can find posts at Bnet containing charges of faithlessness, directed at you by me, dating back at least two years. That said, you are misrepresenting my charge by acknowledging only the half of it. I have charged you with inconsistency: extravagant faith in contrast to faithlessness, without apparent justification for the contrast. Timothy: "It is, in the end, a meaningless charge . . ." You reign supreme in matters of meaning to you. I plead impotent. Timothy: ". . . as he will readily agree that I have faith in many things." Not only do I agree, but again: I have explicitly charged you with the inconsistency of extravagant faith in many things. I am not condemning the extravagance per se; I am condemning the inconsistencies. Timothy: "The charge then is only that I don't have faith in the LDS god . . ." No. That is not the charge. The charge is faithlessness in the True and Living God. Further, the charge is that for well over two years, in and out of hundreds of conversations, you have evaded the real charges, hiding behind excuses of third-party dogmatism, dismissing real faith as unrepresentative relative to a straw man characterization of the Mormon majority. The charge is, and has been, consistently, that you, Timothy, have joined Jonah at the bottom of the sea with the weeds of dogmatism wrapped around your head. You will not, for your hate of the weeds, see past to the outreached hand. Timothy: "In actuality, I have moved on." I have read this statement from you several times. Guess, will you, why it sounds hollow to me? Timothy: "But, this lack of faith comes not from a basis of disbelief as you and he seem to characterize; no, in fact, my faithlessness in the LDS god comes precisely from a history of belief in such a god. I have planted the seed, I have tested the seed, I have been diligent in nurturing the seed, and the seed did not produce desirable fruit." Timothy, did you know the True and Living God? Did you allow him to teach you? Did you become acquainted with him? Was it after tasting of Eternal Life that you judged the fruit undesirable? Stop typing the excuses. Don't refer to the lifeless characterizations of stereotypical Mormons. Deal with a flesh and bone Mormon. | |
217 | 10/1/2002 | 22:52:01 | . . . from what? | |
218 | 10/2/2002 | 17:32:56 | A break tag appears after the opening anchor tag. | |
219 | 10/2/2002 | 17:54:09 | Timothy: "Occam's razor..." . . . proves that I created Timothy, since the simplest explanation for all that I experience is that I create the experience. | |
220 | 10/2/2002 | 17:55:24 | . . . and simpler yet: Timothy does not exist, because I do not exist -- the absolute, utterly undifferentiated, simplicity of nothingness. | |
221 | 10/2/2002 | 18:14:31 | How so? | |
222 | 10/2/2002 | 18:22:32 | Timothy: ". . . my comments were directed specifically to Arosophos, and what I perceived as his disrespect of my positions . . . " For over two years, you have evaded criticisms of your positions by either dismissing (as unrepresentative of Mormonism) or ignoring (as you appear to be doing now) the person offering the criticisms. If, in this evasion, you are following the golden rule then I understand why you think I disrespect your positions. | |
223 | 10/2/2002 | 20:26:42 | . . . disingenuous. | |
224 | 10/2/2002 | 20:45:58 | [Post 56-58] Timothy critiques George. [Post 59] Arosophos critiques Timothy's critique of George. [Post 60] Timothy practically ignores Arosophos' critique, and asks Arosophos a few questions. [Post 62] Timothy critiques Hivo. [Post 64] Timothy critiques Greenfrog. [Post 66] Arosophos answers Timothy's questions, and critiques Timothy's critique of Hivo and Greenfrog. [Post 67] Timothy practically ignores Arosophos' critique. [Post 68] Arosophos asks Timothy a question. [Post 70] Timothy ignores Arosophos' question. [Post 73] Arosophos points out that Timothy is ignoring Arosophos. [Post 74] Timothy claims he does not know why Arosophos thinks Timothy is ignoring Arosophos, then claims that Timothy will ignore Arosophos, and then asks whether Arosophos wants Timothy to ignore Arosophos. | |
225 | 10/2/2002 | 21:04:06 | Timothy: "Please do speak frankly, and if you are holding anything back on my account, please let the formality cease. I'd like to hear exactly what you want to say. I'll not be offended by your frankness; in fact, I seek it." Do you? | |
226 | 10/5/2002 | 15:45:40 | <i>You</i> think it complicates things. See? That's the problem with the razor. | |
227 | 10/5/2002 | 16:01:31 | Timothy: "To accuse me of being generally evasive and disingenuous is without merit, especially coming from one who openly admits to being a proponent and frequent user of esoterics." Timothy, I think you can distinguish between disingenuity and esotericism. That said, I reiterate the accusation: you have been and continue to be evasive and disingenuous in your critique of Mormonism. You prop up straw men Mormons, tear them apart, and wander away whenever a real Mormon happens on the scene. Timothy: "You have repeatedly shown a lack of willingness to engage me in actual dialogue . . ." How so? Timothy: ". . . despite my repeated attempts both publicly and privately asking you to do so." Last I checked, I had responded to every email and post you have ever directed at me. If it matters, I cannot say the same for you. Timothy: "I think your main intent is to disrupt the flow of the conversations that have been initiated between myself and others. It is a pattern that I have watched you take repeatedly over the past year particularly in your visitation to this board." Maybe flows are meant to be disrupted for the better? If the flow to which you refer is that tending to spiritual death, I intend to be guilty as charged. Timothy: "The insinuation that I might need to hide my ideas from your analysis and scrutiny for some unknown reason, is unfounded. I hold my opinions honestly, I share my opinions honestly. I have no hidden agenda. I have no reason to hide, and every reason to be open." I do not recall claiming that you are hiding anything, except your ears when Mormons try to tell you who they are -- in contrast to who you make them out to be. Timothy: "I do not fear your critique of my ideas." I do not recall claiming that you fear my critique of your ideas. I do recall claiming that you appear to fear critiquing real Mormons. Timothy: "I value your participation here; I value the ideas that you present. I think you are bright and I have gained much from our discussions over the past two years." I would not participate here if I did not feel the same regarding you and others here. Timothy: "Regarding the questions raised in this thread, I am more than happy to answer any and all questions, and to dialogue with you in relation to those questions once I feel that you will truly remain to engage me in that conversation." I'm waiting. | |
228 | 10/6/2002 | 20:28:49 | I think simplicity is sometimes over-rated and frequently ambiguous. Does simplicity have predictive power? I don't immediately see why it would have more predictive power than complexity. | |
229 | 10/6/2002 | 20:30:35 | Timothy, I have not yet read your posts, but I look forward to doing so. | |
230 | 10/7/2002 | 18:14:31 | Greenfrog: ". . . I think I'm already shaving with Mr. Ockham." Yes, with Timothy, <i>you</i> are shaving, because <i>you</i> are choosing to assert that the alphabet is more complex than that which you recognize only as random chance. Are you sure the alphabet is more complex than whatever resulted in that which you are recognizing as random chance? | |
231 | 10/7/2002 | 18:16:47 | Congratulations, Timothy. I hope it goes well for your wife -- and you. | |
232 | 10/7/2002 | 18:31:48 | Timothy: "You seem to be saying that anyone who does not agree with your version of mormonism is not a 'Real Mormon'." I do not see where I wrote that -- and I disagree with the idea. Timothy: ". . . Since I find many people, both on this forum and in other forums who view God differently than you do, are you saying that none of them are real mormons?" No. I am saying that you have failed to deal with them as they are, in all their dynamic flesh and bone, desiring and faithful, splendor. I am saying that you have dismissed <i>the Mormon-ness</i> of these Mormons to the extent that they do not fit within the bounds of the stereotypes that you have used to justify your perspective of Mormonism. Timothy: "Additionally, the charge that I 'wander away whenever a real Mormon happens on the scene' is also intriguing. Given that I have invited you and the others on this forum here specifically to discuss mormonism, are you suggesting that there are others, the "real" mormons, that I should have invited?" No. I am suggesting, more metaphorically, that you have failed to deal with us as we are, in all our dynamic flesh and bone, desiring and faithful, splendor. I am saying that you have dismissed <i>our Mormon-ness</i> to the extent that we do not fit within the bounds of the stereotypes that you have used to justify your perspective of Mormonism. Timothy: "How, then, do we distinguish between real and unreal mormons?" I think it is simple: a real Mormon claims so to be. You and I should then deal with the person as a Mormon without rejecting her as unrepresentative of Mormonism. You may think: but Arosophos, what if most Mormons think differently than her? I would respond: most do, and others also think differently than most. Am I suggesting that we cannot make generalizations? No. I am saying that we should recognize generalizations for what they are, and then acknowledge the complexity that defies the generalizations. In Mormonism, this is particularly important, because Mormonism has always claimed that the generalizations drawn from majorities are, at best, unlikely to represent accurately the will of the True and Living God, or its manifestation in the Saints of God following the path that is narrow, hard to find and relatively less traveled. | |
233 | Timothy: "Are you suggesting that our goal should be consistent skepticism?" I do not think skepticism should be a goal, except to the extent that it assists with greater goals. Timothy: "That if I doubt one thing, I have to doubt all things?" . . . more particularly: if you doubt W for reason X then you doubt Y for reason Z, where X and Z are not inconsistent. Timothy: "With regards to 'hollow faithlessness' I guess I don't understand your meaning. I think I have constructive faith in all sorts of things, again, based upon the justifiable level of knowledge that I hold in certain propositions." I acknowledged your faith explicitly with these words: ". . . your extravagant faith in other matters." That said, my meaning is that you apply extraordinary skepticism to matters related to Mormonism and extravagant faithfulness to other matters -- for example, political matters come to mind immediately. Timothy: "What makes 'faithlessness' in a proposition hollow? What is your precise meaning in this label?" "Hollow" is a metaphor that I feel accurately describes faithlessness. Do you find the metaphor inaccurate? Do you find faithlessness <i>full</i>? How about ultimate faithlessness: spiritual death; is that <i>fulness</i>? Perhaps it is that fulness which is in opposition to the fulness of God. ----- Timothy: "If there are two apples on the table, and I am able to "represent" the two apples through a mathematical equation, that does not have any impact on the actual apples on the table." If by "actual" you refer to their entire concrete and abstract being, I disagree. The equation affects the apples spiritually. They connect you to the apples, and they expand on the spiritual existence of the apples. If by "actual" you refer to only their concrete being, I disagree only to the extent that there is no concrete being without associated abstract being. Timothy: "The objective nature of the apples is not dependent upon my mathematical equation . . ." You are mixing your terminology again, here, which was the original reason for my comments. You originally claimed that mathematics is "objective", and here you are claiming that mathematics is not "objective". My point, again, from the beginning: recognize that if we consider mathematics to be objective then objective is abstract -- not concrete. I recommend that we clean up the vocabulary, and agree to use "objective" and "concrete" synonymously, as well as "subjective" and "abstract" synonymously -- or vice-versa, if you prefer. Yes, the best abstractions are those that are congruent with past and future experience, whether we call experience objective or subjective, but let's not equivocate between them. The spirit and the body move in congruence, the one affecting the other, yet we distinguish between them. Maybe there is no line of distinction between spirit and body or between abstract and concrete? Perhaps they are one? Of course they are one, and of course the harder we look for a line of distinction the better we will see a spectrum, yet we find it useful to speak of dichotomies, as we find it useful to speak of spectrums. Timothy: ". . . if I make an error in calculating the number of apples through my mathematical representation, I have not affected the objective number of apples on the table." . . . "objective number"? Number is an abstraction. Here, then, you are speaking of "objective" as being abstract, but I think you wanted to speak of "objective" as being concrete. Is number inherent in concrete experience? No, I think we organize number into concrete experience, creating order from chaos. Timothy: "Just as if I were able to paint a picture of those apples, my painting will not change the objective nature of the apples, but it may change the subjective perception of the apples." . . . and nature is an abstraction. Yes, it is intended to be congruent with past and future experience of the concrete. Again, more: even the concrete, as we cognize it, is an abstraction. I am not saying that there is no concrete objectivity; I am saying it is meaningless, even absolutely non-existent, without abstract subjectivity. Timothy: "What I am suggesting is that even though our perceptions are subjective, I think there does exist an objective reality." I agree, so long as you recognize that objective reality not only as affecting subjective reality, but also as being affected by subjective reality. I agree, so long as you recognize that objective reality does not exist apart from subjective reality. I agree, so long as you attach no value to that which is spiritually dead. Timothy: "This, of course, is a debate which has been waged for millenia (Plato vs. Aristotle, Descartes vs. Hobbes, Arosophos vs. Timothy ;-)" . . . and, of course, the debate will continue tomorrow, but perhaps we can do better today than yesterday? If you understand me to be taking the position of any of the philosophers you listed, you will not be understanding my position. My position is that neither the abstract nor the concrete is more real than the other -- they are ontological equals. My position is that the one does not exist without the other, and that the one may diminish or exalt the other infinitly. My position is that the fulness of joy is the exaltation of both the body in immortality and the spirit in eternal life. Timothy: "I don't seek to "minimize concrete experience" in a "search for abstract truth" as you seem to imply. Just the opposite is true. I seek to maximize my exposure to objective experience to better understand and provide increased opportunities for my subjective nature to understand objective reality. So, the "conclusion" that you present here (that our subjective truths are only valuable as they conform to our objective experiences) is what I believe as well. If this is how you feel, then I think we agree on this point . . ." Okay. Timothy: ". . . despite your attempt to show disagreement." Mine was the attempt to show inconsistency in your discussion of the nature of mathematics. On the one hand, you wrote of mathematics as objective in the concrete sense, and on the other hand, you wrote of mathematics being objective in the abstract sense. Timothy: "You have somehow set your comments here to be seen as though we disagree. If you believe that, then I have failed in properly explaining my position. I agree with you on this proposition." Okay, as before. Timothy: "Our perception of reality is not reality itself, but an approximation of reality." . . . well, then, maybe we do disagree, because, as I explained above, I believe perception is every bit as real as whatever affects perception. Again, I believe the abstract and the concrete are ontological equals. Reality, to be reality, must account for perception. Reality, to be reality, must account for approximations. Reality, then, as reality, may be more than perception and approximation, but does not transcend perception and approximation. Our spirits are not somehow distinctly separated from our bodies. They are one. When I move my hand, the neorologist can track it on the computer screen. When the neurologist clicks on the computer screen, I move my hand. Which is more real? Both. Timothy: "The more 'data' we can gather, the better we can understand objective reality." . . . and the more reality becomes. Thus, from a monistic perspective, all the learning in the world only ensures our ever greater ignorance, because our learning creates as much additional reality remaining to learn as it does learn. From a pluralistic perspective, we are simply rearranging reality for the better -- according to wisdom and inspiration, we hope -- never expecting that we will ever exhaust the possibilities for learning -- indeed, we think the idea absurd. No, I am not saying you are advocating an end to learning; I am just trying to expand on an idea. Timothy: "I think that it is common to forget that our perceptions do not dictate reality . . ." I think it is common to forget that our perceptions affect reality, even <i>are</i> reality, but not exhaustively so, except perhaps in the most abstract sense. Timothy: ". . . rather our perceptions do interpret reality." . . . which is the spiritual creation, which leads to the physical creation, all things being created spiritually before being breated physically -- and vice-versa in the eternal round or spiral of eternal progression. Timothy: "Depending upon the nature of the thing, we are frequently able to mold aspects of objective reality to conform to our subjective perceptions." Yes, and the nature of the thing is not so important in this as is our ability to mold it; this is the power of God. Timothy: "To a degree, I think we are able to influence objective reality; but that degree is miniscule compared to the degree to which objective reality influences us and our subjective perceptions." Without God, we are nothing, not even miniscule; with God, we are everything. Timothy: "You can change the course of the dice before they fall, but cannot change the course of the dice once they leave your hand." . . . unless . . . ? In that is God. Timothy: "You can work to influence objective reality before it happens, but you cannot change that reality once it has occurred . . ." The concrete past: no, I cannot change it. The abstract past? The abstract future? The <i>concrete</i> future? I can. Again, the concrete past, I cannot change it . . . but, it is meaningless and nonexistent without the abstract past. Timothy: ". . . you may argue that our perception of the past is all that matters." That which we perceive is all that <i>can</i> matter, by definition. That which we do not <i>perceive</i> does not <i>matter</i> -- at least not yet. Is there much that we do not yet perceive that will eventually matter? We count on it. Timothy: "We may perceive the past in a certain way, but we may be wrong in that perception." Right and wrong . . . more congruent and less congruent . . . degrees of abstraction, each useful in its place. Timothy: "The degree to which we are wrong will have an affect on our ability to predict future objective reality." . . . and ouy ability to predict future reality will affect the degree to which we are currently wrong. Each seems to justify the other. Timothy: "I am saying that we can seek to 'objectify' that experience of love, we can seek to better understand the nature of love, and by so doing, increase the existence of love in our lives. Given that I posit Joy as the ultimate meaning and purpose of life, it is important that we be able to objectively analyze subjective things so as to increase the likelihood that our lives will be filled with these subjective experiences." Here, then, you seem to be speaking of objectivity as being a kind of meta-subjectivity, or common subjectivity -- its being shared is its justification. I can agree with this, but I feel confused by what I perceive as your inconsistent use of "objective", sometimes referring to concrete reality and sometimes referring to meta-abstract reality. Do you recognize yourself to be using the word "objective" inconsistently? <b>Timothy: "I agree. I just don't use the term "god" as you do . . ." Why not?</b> Timothy: "I am hopeful and have faith that the primary result of my life experience will be joy. I use the experiences of my life, and my analysis of those experiences to perfect the course that I am on so as to reach a fullness of joy in the most efficient and effective manner possible. The 'tools' are not the goal, they merely aid me in reaching that goal." I agree. Arosophos previously: "My community and I do not care primarily for hollow abstractions because hollow abstractions do not care primarily for us." Timothy: "This is a curious statement; if as I am suggesting, subjective perceptions are tools by which we aim our course towards increased joy (through better understanding of objective reality), why would you care not for that tool simply because it cares not for you?" The word "primarily" is the key to understanding my statement. Timothy, previously: "Through this process of testing, our understanding of 'love' becomes objective, relative to our own subjective nature." Arosophos, previously: "Through this process, we abstract into knowledge from concrete experience." Timothy: "I agree." Okay, then I have been thrown by your use of "objective", as I discuss above, and as your next statement illustrates: Timothy: "I don't believe we have the power to create all truths. I think we do have the power to create some truths. Those truths that we create are subject to our relative understanding of objective reality, and our limited ability to create or alter that objective reality." Here, you seem again to be referring to concrete reality as "objective". I am fine with that until you start applying "objective" to knowledge, as you did in reference to love above. Yes, our abstractions can be more or less congruent with concrete reality, but that does not make our abstractions concrete. You agree, I am sure, but your agreement is clouded when you use "objective" to describe both ends of the spectrum. Timothy: "By gathering 'objective data' I mean the following: If there are two apples on the table, I consider the existence of those apples to be 'objective data'." I do not consider classification or number to be concrete. We apply "apple" and "two" to concrete experience. We abstract the experience into knowledge. Timothy: "I may erroneously perceive that there are three apples. I'll ask you to share your perception. You may correctly perceive that there are two apples. We'll share our subjective perceptions, and conclude that the incongruence of our perception suggests that we should do further study if we are desirous to know how many apples are on the table." I am mostly fine with this; however, your presentation of it gives me the feeling that you are disregarding the extraordinary faith shared between us in this matter. Timothy: "That I perceive three apples does not change objective reality . . ." If you are talking about objective reality as the shared abstract then I disagree; it does decrease the shared abstract, assuming that I perceive two apples. If you are talking about objective reality as the concrete then I agree; paradoxically, in ideal concrete reality, your experience is your experience regardless of your interpretation of it -- the paradox is that all interpretation of experience is affected by interpretation of experience, and so the ideal concrete reality is hardly the ideal we would force it to be. If you are talking about some unknowable thing in itself beyond experience then I neither agree nor disagree; I don't know anything about (or care about) such things. To clarify, for me, experience is concrete; and, so far as I am concerned, there is nothing more concrete than experience -- no metaphysical thing in itself. Timothy: ". . . it merely means that I am wrong." . . . or that we are wrong, or that our abstraction will prove less congruent with our future concrete experience. Timothy: "By seeking additional sources of data, by not holding too tightly on my own limited perception, I can gather additional data. I can use my sense of touch to feel the apples on the table. This additional tool, the sense of touch, in addition to the sense of sight, may aid me in correctly identifying the actual number of apples on the table." The <i>actual</i> inherent number of apples? No. The communally accepted true number of apples? Yes. Timothy: "But, if I incorrectly surmise that there are three apples, when there are only two, and I make a decision to feed my family of three with these two apples, it is likely that my "error" in perception will result in one of the three of us going hungry, thus reducing our joy. Once the first two apples have been eaten, my perception that there were three apples matters not to the objective reality that there were only two apples." It seems that animals, without recognition of numeric abstractions, succeed in feeding themselves and their offspring. Timothy: "My perception of objective reality does not force objective reality to conform to me." You are only recognizing half of the matter. Concrete experience has no meaningful existence without our perception. Timothy: "If God is objectively real, then at some point, I may run into that objective reality." You have run into the concrete experience of God, and you have not recognized him -- as the prophets warned you. Why? Because you lack faith. Why? Because you lack desire. Timothy: "I can have faith that there are three apples, but if there are only two, my faith proves nothing, and may even be a detriment to my potential joy." Faith is not denial of concrete experience; faith is creative will. If you have faith in a third apple, you will seek it; if you do not, you will not seek it -- by definition. More: if you have faith in a third apple, and fail to discover it, you may create it by slicing the two apples into three equal portions, or by planting the seeds and growing trees that produce many more apples; if you do not have this faith, you may, as you fear, decrease the joy of your family -- even allowing one of them to starve to death for want of a third apple, as absolute faithlessness sees nothing but two apples for two people. Timothy: "My faith in the knowledge of the third apple may prevent me from seeking other sources of food for my family, and may in the end decrease my joy." That is dogmatism: the twin sister of faithlessness. Both cling foolishly to their rigid perceptions. Neither chooses to recognize that the three apples of her original faith (and more) are indeed before her eyes. Faith, on the other hand, will share the two apples between the three members of the family, plant the seeds and then seek more food while the tree grows. If we are to come out <i>true</i> Mormons, we must take whatever truth we have, make the most of it, and seek to add to it whatever other truth we can find. So said the prophet; so is our faith. You, Timothy, have chosen the path of the faithless sister, relative to God and Mormonism. You cling foolishly to your rigid perception of God. You have rejected the fruit of life, choosing neither to eat it nor plant its seeds, but instead to seek something else -- which you may or may not find. Instead of feeding and planting that which you have while seeking for more, you remove from your child concrete present fruit in an appeal to abstract future fruit. Why? The fruit is rancid? It will do more evil than good? The seed is dead? Maybe. How do you know? In the least, you should plant the seed. You already did? You already watered it? You already cared for it? It did not grow? Here; I offer you new seeds. These are of the same that I have planted, watered and for which I have cared. My seeds have grown and I have tasted the fruit and enjoyed it. You don't want them? Okay. You are free to choose. . . . but please know: I, too, have been looking for something better, and I have not found it. I continue to look, and I will look with you, but whenever you tell me you are hungry, I am going to offer you the fruit of the tree for which I continue to care. Timothy: "Faith can be a component of certain types of knowledge, but is not 'the' component of all types of knowledge." I have been unable to recognize any knowledge of any type that is not founded in faith. Can you show me some knowledge that is independent of faith? Timothy: "God may present himself to me despite my lack of faith in him. I may happen upon God despite my faith in him." You may meet Satan, or some other God, in this manner, but you will not meet the True and Living God in this manner. You are setting yourself up for destruction and hell. The True and Living God can only be met by the faithful, precisely as the prophets have been teaching for millenia. Timothy: "Just as in this world, I am constantly surprised by things that I didn't know previously existed." Although recognizing existence requires faith, such faith is relatively impotent compared with the faith that recognizes the True and Living God. Timothy: "The suggestion that we only see that which we have faith in is not supported by my experience." Perhaps you do not recognize the degree to which faith pervades your experience? Timothy: "If such were the case, there would be no surprise in existence." . . . in a monistic solopsistic universe. I do not believe we live in such a universe. I attribute reality to your faith and its creations, as I attribute faith to mine. I call this love. Timothy: "That being said, I do believe we have the power to deny that which is objectively true. We can deceive ourselves, and we can live our entire lives under such deceptions." . . . and objective truth is error relative to greater objective truth, and we can live our entire lives in such transcendence. Gods many and lords many: which can save us and which shall we choose? Timothy: "You could claim that my disbelief in God is merely denial . . ." I could, but I do not think it is so much denial as it is a lack of desire and faith. Timothy: ". . . I'll claim that your belief in God is denial . . ." Denial of what? Can you name one aspect of concrete experience that I deny? Timothy: "If I am expected to act according to the will of a man, then I have certain requirements that such a man must meet." . . . which means that you expect the man to act according to your will. Timothy: "I hold the same true for god." Okay. Timothy: "Where god is concerned, I have been left wanting in my examination of the evidence." For which God have you been seeking evidence? Timothy: "In what way is the application of my skepticism inconsistent? Please clarify." The scriptures teach us that all we experience, our being and its context is God, or an aspect of God, to the extent that it is sanctified, holy, good, joyful, or whatever. You demonstrate typical faith in your experience of being and its context, and you even recognize these to be only an aspect of something more than you and your context appear to be, yet you claim agnosticism of God. Faith in "being" and "context" lead you to assert belief in the concepts they represent. Faithlessness in "God" leads you to reject belief in the concept it represents. Am I saying God is only a concept? Only to the extent that I am saying that you and your context are only concepts. Here is the inconsistency: do you or do you not believe in the existence of that which the scriptures label "God"? Oh, you disagree here, or you question there? Don't you disagree here and question there concerning the nature of your being and its context? Concerning how it might be sanctified, holy, good or joyful? Regardless of the myriad of questions, your faith is demonstrated in that you posit belief in your being and its context, regardless of the questions and disagreements. Your faith becomes love as you recognize that while you and I do not agree concerning every aspect of being and its context, we yet have much more in common than not, resulting from <i>faith</i> -- the <i>creative will</i> to have being and its context in common between us. Faith is a posture relative to a direction. I do not know the True and Living God as I expect to know him, and I suspect the same of my neighbor, yet we posture ourselves in unity of faith to that end. Timothy: "I plead guilty to having faith in my existence. Is it extravagant? I'm not sure how that word would apply. You seem to be using it in an accusatory tone, as though I place too much faith in my own existence. Is not your faith in your existence extravagant? Please clarify your meaning." Oh, yes; my faith in existence is extravagant. Wondrously extravagant! Nothing can prove it, yet my faith is there, unshakingly. The skeptic can point out the problems, and I can acknowledge them -- and then we can part ways as he walks to death and I walk to life. I am not condemning extravagant faith. I am condemning extraordinary faithlessness, and I am pointing out the inconsistencies I see in your position. Timothy: "How faith in my existence is related directly to my agnosticism in god's existence does not follow for me . . ." Then you have not understood the scriptures, or you have chosen not to accept what they are teaching you. You, Timothy, should be God. Faith in your existence should be faith in the existence of God. No, this is not all, but it is the seed -- the beginning. When Paul was a child he understood as a child, and, like him, we now see through the glass darkly. However, when Paul became a man, he put away childish things, and, like hime, we will see as we are seen -- in that glass that is a mirror. Timothy: ". . . just as faith in my existence does not correlate to my agnosticism that unicorn's exist in the fundamentally same manner that I exist. Please clarify how they relate." Your faith in their existence can make all the difference. That aside, the True and Living God is not just a unicorn. Timothy: "Is the god you believe in bound by my expectations?" Yes, to some extent. The God in which I place my faith would not compel you to faith -- in contrast to other Gods. Timothy: "If not, is he free to manifest himself to me?" He already has. Blessed are they who see and believe; more blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe. God may present himself to both our physical and spiritual senses. Those that recognize him spiritually have the same advantage over those that recognize him only physically (relative to eternal life) as the person who knows how to fish has over the person with a fish (relative to physical life). The one discovers and remains dependent; the other adds to discovery, creation, becoming and being. Timothy: "You may think that I would remain in denial if he did; my experience with myself over the course of my life leads me to believe that I am not so stubborn as you suggest." Satan may appear as an angel of light; Laman and Lemuel saw the angel of light with their physical eyes, yet denied him with their spiritual eyes; Moses could not look upon God without being quickened by the Spirit of God. . . . and yet the promise remains that <i>all</i> those who sanctify themselves and seek God shall see his face and know that he is, that he is the true light in us, descending from heaven, atoning for our sins, and rising again in the glory of immortality and eternal life. Timothy: "My belief does not dictate objective reality." No, but it does affect it -- and it has everything to do with knowing God. Timothy: "If you are unable, through shared data, to explain to me why my lack of knowledge of god needs to be examined . . ." I open my heart to faith in Christ. I repent of my sins. I am baptized in the Holy Spirit of Christ. I become acquinated with the True and Living God, and this is joy. Again and again, I try the spirits. Each time, I return to Christ. He is my desire. In him I have found life and love. In him I have found meaning. In him I have found joy. He is my True and Living God. That is poetry. Yes, it is not so wonderful as the concrete reality of my experience. Timothy: "You speak of a future occurrence and possibility of a future pink elephant; somehow, this is supposed to support your assertion in the past (and present) existence of God." No; that is supposed to support faith in its various varieties. Take, for instance, faith in concrete Kolob, not as a literary device to teach of divine transcendence, but as a star somewhere in our galaxy that now has immortal humans dwelling within its system. You and I don't know much about such a place. Neither of us can prove or disprove its existence. However, our faith in such a place, as the flap of the butterfly's wings at the heart of chaos theory, may make all the difference. That said, Kolob is hardly the heart of the matter. So many dogmatic fundamentalists miss God for their straining to make out planets in distant solar systems, about which we appear to know so very little, if anything. Timothy: "I agree that our subjective perception of reality may influence the creation of objective reality in the future." Good. Timothy: "I do not believe that our subjective perception changes the objective nature of reality in the past." I am not too concerned by this, but I will say, again, that whatever past we have is meaningless apart from our perception of it. Timothy: "I'd hope that we'd work together not to support each other in delusions . . ." . . . reality today, delusion tomorrow . . . yet through it all I have my concrete experience of the love of God. Timothy: ". . . to better understand objective reality through shared experience, and work to improve the possibility of obtaining joy for ourselves and our communities." I like that. Timothy: "The term 'delusion' suggests that our perceptions, relative to objective reality, are wrong." . . . or that they can always be more congruent with past and future experience -- and they <i>can</i>. Timothy: "To the degree that we are able to mold objective reality going forward, our delusions may be functional." Sure. Timothy: "However, also to the degree that our perceptions are deluded about objective reality, we may hinder our ability to influence objective reality." Sure, again, by definition, because we label as "delusion" that which becomes incongruent with future experience. Timothy: "Either way, delusions should probably be dismantled and not enabled." . . . by definition; sure. But how shall we recognize the delusions ahead of time? Wisdom and inspiration? Yes, by <i>being</i> God and <i>loving</i> God. Timothy: "I have faith that by so doing, we gain more power over objective reality, and by that means, increase the likelihood of future joy." I agree. Arosophos, previously: "I will, if you will confine your statement to faith and hope in the existence of your wife. Without God, your wife does not exist. With God, she can be everything." Timothy: "I do not understand this statement. It does not conform to my experience." Does it not conform to or does it transcend your interpretation of experience? Do you distinguish between the two? Does your wife exist independent of her context? Her anatomy? Her environment? Her community? And their contexts? And the context beyond that? Even God, forever and ever? What of her future? Will she <i>be</i>? What of that distant day that some suspect to be a long slow decent into nothingness for all of existence? What if there is some more powerful God that makes more of her than that? That exalts her? Deifies her? <i>Becomes</i> her? That which she is, now, is nothing, without God. The present without a future, or the future without a present. The individual without the anatomy, the anatomy without the individual, the community without the environment, the environment without the commnity: all is nothing without God, yet with God is everything. Arosophos, previously: "Yes; there is generally less confidence communicated in "faith and hope" than there is in "knowledge". Despite that, I used to know I exist; now I know I exist. That is to say: knowledge is faith and hope. I used to know God exists; now I know God exists." Timothy: "I do not understand this statement. Can you clarify?" That which I consider to be knowledge today will be relatively insufficient tomorrow. Arosophos, previously: ". . . because God is vastly more complex, while infinitely more simple, than my wife. In some ways, I know more about God than I do about my wife; in other ways, the opposite is true. Most sincerely faithful persons seem to recognize the feelings associated with this ambiguity." Timothy: "How do you know this?" It is a part of me. Timothy: "I believe that I can be shown evidence that will convince me of things to which I currently do not hold faith. I recognize that my understanding of the world is limited and finite. I expect new knowledge to be gained and new understandings of objective reality to become available." Evidence will convince you of things which are of the same class as things of which you are already convinced. Physical evidence, persuasive argument or logical implication will not lead you to enduring faith in the True and Living God, but it may lead you to faith in some evil counterfeit. Faith in the True and Living God is not the result of evidence, persuasion or implication. Faith in the True and Living God is the foundation for particular kinds of evidence, persuasion and imp | |||
234 | 10/8/2002 | 21:29:27 | Greenfrog: "Timothy has not erected a straw man -- there are plenty of LDS people in my experience with conceptions of God as limited as the one(s) he previously referred to." . . . as there are plenty of non-LDS people with conceptions of God as limited. Is it accurate to portray a person with a relatively limited understanding of politics to be generally representative of a particular political party? Is it accurate to portray a person with a relatively limited understanding of medecine to be generally representative of a particular medical association? Likewise, is it accurate to portray a person with a relatively limited understanding of religion to be generally representative of a particular religion? To do so is to fabricate the strawman; to do so is to represent a position weakly, so as to facilitate negative criticism. I am not saying we should not discuss the person or numbers of persons with a limited understanding of a given political party, medical association or religion. I am saying that we best engage a given political party, medical association or religion by becoming acquainted with those members that best represent an understanding of it. To do otherwise is disingenuous. Greenfrog: "This last sentence almost sounds like Arosophos agrees that some LDS do have the limited conceptions of God that Timothy posits." Of course all of us have limited understandings of all kinds of things, and some of us have limited understandings of religion. That does not justify negative criticism of Mormonism as weakly represented. Greenfrog: "I'm not sure I agree that 'Mormonism has always claimed...'" Joseph taught it, and we maintain those teachings in our standard works. For me, that is enough to claim that Mormonism has always taught it. | |
235 | 10/9/2002 | 11:17:50 | Merriam Webster's first definition of "strawman": "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted" We each are referring to a part of this definition. Please reread my posts with the definition I intended. As for the reference, here are a couple of many with similar implications: "For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me . . . Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law." (D&C 132: 22, 25) "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) | |
236 | 10/11/2002 | 23:17:37 | Arosophos, previously: "I am suggesting, more metaphorically, that you have failed to deal with us as we are, in all our dynamic flesh and bone, desiring and faithful, splendor. I am saying that you have dismissed our Mormon-ness to the extent that we do not fit within the bounds of the stereotypes that you have used to justify your perspective of Mormonism." Timothy: "Arosophos...do you think you specifically, and the group who participates here generally, are representative of mainstream mormon thought?" I think this question is ironic, given the statement to which it is responding. What is the implication of the question? That you are justified in marginalizing who we claim to be? That aside, I will answer the question. I work every day with mainstream Mormons that are vulgar, arrogant, racist, sexist, hypocritical, deceitful and cynical. Does this mean that mainstream Mormonism is vulgar, arrogant, racist, sexist, hypocritical, deceitful and cynical? Does this mean that I am a mainstream Mormon when I am vulgar, arrogant, racist, sexist, hypocritical, deceitful and cynical? I attend church every week with mainstream Mormons that know democrats are evil, the Earth was created 6000 years ago, we will all wear temple garments in the Celestial Kingdom, Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, Gordon Hinckley is infallible and Big Foot is Cain. Does that mean that mainstream Mormonism is to know these things? Does that mean I am a mainstream Mormon when I know these things? Oh, you want to go to the heart of the matter? The <i>real</i> mainstream Mormonism? You are confident that, here, you will find that I am not mainstream? Tell me, Timothy, which of the contemporary teachings of the leaders of the LDS Church I do not believe? Tell me which of the scriptures I do not accept? No, I am not claiming that you cannot answer these questions with some legitimate content -- if you work at it; I am claiming that whatever content you provide would be outweighed ten or an hundred fold by that which I do believe and accept in common with the <i>real</i> mainstream Mormon. More to the point: am I mainstream Mormon? From your perspective, no. From my perspective, I am Mormon; and, mainstream or not, it is one of few classifications that I choose to apply to myself. Now, your turn, Timothy. Why does it matter whether I represent mainstream Mormon thought? Timothy: "Do you believe that mormonism, as it is manifested today, does not have orthodoxy?" I believe it does, in the form of LDS orthodoxy, and I consider my beliefs to be generally congruent with but not exhausted by this orthodoxy. Timothy: "I can only guess that you are referring to times past when I have asserted that you do not represent the general population of mormonism in many of your views and ideas. To my recollection, I have only made such comments when I feel that you are attempting to disrupt a conversation that I am having with another mormon, whose specific ideas I am discussing with them." . . . whose specific ideas you are discussing with them, and <i>then portraying to be representative of Mormonism generally</i>. As soon as you begin generalizing from them as individuals to Mormonism generally, you have invited me into the conversation. Timothy: "You have admitted that you use disruption as a tool in these discussions . . ." I have claimed to disrupt destructive will. I think "admitted", as you intend its use to affect, presents an inaccurate connotation. Timothy: ". . . you've also admitted to speaking in esoteric terms . . ." I have claimed to use esotericism according to whatever wisdom and inspiration I might have. I have challenged others to demonstrate that they can claim otherwise for themselves. That said, I again think "admitted", as you intend its use to affect, presents an inaccurate connotation. Timothy: ". . . wouldn't your application of esotericism qualify you for the label of evasive?" I already answered that question in the negative. I also mentioned at that time that I was confident that you can distinguish between esotericism and evasion. Evidently, I was wrong, or you are being disingenuous. Timothy: "Do I believe you to be mormon? Yes." Good. Timothy: "Do I believe that your beliefs relative to mormonism have basis in the historical teachings of mormonism? Yes." . . . more or less of a basis in the historical teachings of Mormonism than the beliefs of persons who are, from your perspective, mainstream Mormons? You may run into a problem here. Who is more representative of Mormonism, Timothy? Am I? Or is the person who doesn't know Joseph Smith was a polygamist? Timothy: "Do I believe that your views are generally in line with general mormon thought as it exists today? No." I have claimed that my beliefs are generally congruent with LDS orthodoxy. You claim precisely the opposite: that my beliefs are generally incongruent with LDS orthodoxy. Your claim merits justification. Timothy: "Am I willing to engage you directly as a mormon? Yes. Am I willing to dialogue with you in all of your complexity relative to mormonism? Yes; I seek to do so." Good. Timothy: "Given your propensity to speak in esoteric terms, I find discussion with you to be difficult and frustrating." Given that you appear to equate esotericism and evasion, I can understand the frustration. That said, I think I am rarely evasive, and tend to error more often in the opposite direction -- sometimes to the frustration of my wife, who claims my careless directness to be the only significant source of conflict in our marriage, as she scolds me for making others uncomfortable. You can choose to believe or not to believe me, as you will, of course. Timothy: "I don't think, for example, that it is possible to engage you directly on Beliefnet, because I believe you are not entirely forthcoming in your beliefs." About which of my beliefs am I not forthcoming? Every time you mention this -- which has been frequently lately -- I have wondered what you are referring to. Are you again referring to extraterrestrials? I think every regular participant of Bnet knows that I don't know much about extraterrestrials. If they don't, it is not for any lack of clarity on my part. It does not appear to be a big deal to them? Why is this such a big deal to you? Or are you referring to something else? If so, what? Timothy: "I believe you purposefully speak in complex language and veiled ideas; again, you've admitted as much." I don't recall claiming purposefully to speak in complex language. I do use complex language when I think it best describes my thoughts. I will apologize for it only to the extent that I know I can and should communicate better. Veiled ideas? Which ideas am I veiling, and how am I veiling them? Please do answer with examples. Timothy: ". . . you seem unwilling to engage anybody in these forums in an entirely open and honest way; estorerics." Ah! Now, in addition to evasive, esotericism is not honest. I do not sleep with the prostitute -- is that evasive and dishonest? Timothy: "You force people to read between the lines with what you are saying . . ." . . . then I am omnipotent. ;-) Timothy: ". . . you are legalistic in your use of language." . . . to a fault, sometimes, yes. Timothy: "You like puzzles, you like riddles . . ." Yes, but I think you may be imagining them to exist where I do not intend them to exist. Timothy: ". . . you like for others to think they understand your meaning while knowing that you mean something slightly different." No. Timothy: "Am I unwilling to engage you directly? To the contrary, I've been seeking for 2 years to have a direct conversation with you." Sometimes -- from my perspective. Timothy: "I have specifically sought out those of you whom I believe to be the best and the brightest of mormonism." . . . so that you can tell us we are not representative of Mormonism? Timothy: "This charge continues to baffle me given my track record and given the specific makeup of this forum." From my perspective, your track record with the Mormons that participate here is a punctuated equilibrium of convenient oversight relative to their Mormon-ness. You spend more time and effort pushing us to justify the words and deeds of persons you judge representative of mainstream Mormonism than you do our own words and deeds. Timothy: "Can you think of anything that Joseph taught, that is maintained in your standard works, and yet is currently not representative of mainstream mormon thought?" I can think of many ideas, taught by Joseph and maintained in the scriptures, that LDS orthodoxy does not frequently consider. I cannot immediately think of an idea, taught by Joseph and maintained in the scriptures, in which the LDS orthodoxy finds no merit. ----- Sgallan, thank you for your analysis. I hope you will agree with me, or persuade me to agree with you. | |
237 | 10/12/2002 | 19:56:18 | Sgallan: ". . . I can't imagine . . ." Yes you can. | |
238 | 10/13/2002 | 15:44:20 | I know I will. | |
239 | 10/15/2002 | 21:54:28 | Timothy: "Arosophos...if we are to make any progress in this conversation, I suggest we slow it down and work on smaller pieces at a time." I hope, whether fast or slow, you will take the time to respond to the other points in my previous post. Timothy: "Until you entered this conversation, we had been using the terms 'objective' and 'subjective'. You inserted the terms 'abstract' and 'concrete' and I resisted that change in usage to remain consistent with the prior conversations." I introduced these words as tools to assist me in demonstrating inconsistencies I observed in your use of "objective". Timothy: "The meaning of 'objective' can include 'concrete' (definitions 1 & 2) but can also include 'abstract' (definitions 3 a & b)." I still think you are equivocating. In what way are definitions 1 and 2 related to "concrete", and in what way are the parts of definition 3 related to "abstract"? Timothy: "The 2 apples on the table are objective according to definition 1." Number (i.e., "2") and classification (i.e., "apple") are abstractions. I am not saying that the two apples do not have a concrete aspect; I am saying that they have both a concrete and an abstract aspect. The concrete aspect, as I use "concrete", is whatever experience leads me to explain experience with number and classification abstractions. Which is objective? The concrete experience or the abstract explanation? Timothy: "The mathematical representation of the apples on the table is objective according to definition 3 a and b." Mathematics is an abstraction. Are mathematics uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices? Which kind of mathematics should we apply to the apples and why? Is this decision not influenced by emotion and personal prejudices? Timothy: "In discussing knowledge, where I use the term 'objective', I am generally using definitions 3 a & b." I think definitions 3a and 3b contradict each other. Can you explain how "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" and "based on observable phenomena" do not contradict each other? Timothy: "There are types of knowledge that we can seek to obtain in an 'objective' way." If knowledge is objective then that which is objective is abstract. Is that the perspective you intend me to understand? Timothy: "We can quantify, measure, test and compare objective knowledge." . . . all of which transform concrete experience into abstract numbers. Again, here, you appear to be telling me that you use "objective" in reference to abstractions. Timothy: "Some knowledge, though abstract, can be more or less objective: 'There are 2 apples on the table.' This is an objective statement based on abstract principles." Right; you are using "objective" and "abstract" together again. Timothy: "Your attempt to limit my use of 'objective' to only that which is concrete goes too far, in my opinion." I am not trying to limit you; I am trying to understand you in a consistent manner. I do not think it is appropriate to apply "objective" to both concrete experience and abstract knowledge. Most of the time, in this most recent post, you seem to be applying "objective" to abstract knowledge, or more particularly shared abstract knowledge (my understanding of "truth"). I am fine with that, so long as we remain consistent. ----- Do we agree on the following definitions? Experience is concrete and subjective. Knowledge is abstract, subjective to the extent that it is not shareable and objective to the extent that it is shareable. Truth is abstract and objective. . . . of course, "shareable" is only meaningful relative to a particular community, which also makes "objective" and "truth" meaningful only relative to a particular community -- which is <i>dynamic</i>, not static. | |
240 | 10/19/2002 | 23:06:38 | He has not posted to Bnet or responded to email from me since Bnet threatened legal action against him. | |
241 | 10/23/2002 | 20:51:04 | George: "What I think (and what I understood Arosophos to be saying, although I may be wrong) is that there is concrete and abstract objectivity." I am saying that we can apply the word "objective" to whatever we want, but that we should try to do so consistently. As presented at the end of my previous post, "objective" is shared subjectivity, which I consider to be synonymous with "truth". George: "Concrete objectivity is easy. It's like the rock or the table." . . . except that, in our application of "rock" and "table", we are abstracting from the concrete. George: "Abstract objectivity is where I start to get mixed up, but I think the easiest example is mathmatics. Math is abstract, and it is still based on subject beings having a common understanding of certain symbols. I think I am safe in saying that the concepts of basic math are relatively objective even though it is abstract." Given that "objective" is shared subjectivity, or truth, I would say that mathematics is not merely relatively objective, but rather it is extraordinarily objective -- highly abstract. We do not <i>experience</i> mathematics. We abstract mathematics from experience. George: "I understand the 'objective knowledge' he speaks of to equate to his definition of truth." . . . almost. The distinction I see is that <i>shareable</i> does not imply <i>shared</i>. George: "But I would add that in terms of art, sometimes this objective understanding can't be expressed in words (and maybe that means that it is not objective), but the common understanding is felt, as in my example of two people looking at a painting." I think you are recognizing <i>degrees</i> of objectivity. Again given the understanding that "objective" is shared subjectivity, I think that which can be represented by the abstractions associated with words and numbers is more objective than that which is shared more experientially/concretely and less abstractly. ----- Grasshopper: "I would phrase it more like this: something that is purely objective does not depend on the perception of any subject-being." This seems to contain connotations with which I am uncomfortable. Are you talking about things in themselves -- a sort of dead matter that utterly transcends subjectivity? If so, I don't know anything about such things, and I never will, by definition. Thus, I consider such things to have an ontological status equivalent to non-existence. If, on the other hand, you are talking about highly abstract and widely shared subjectivity, which because of being shared does not depend for existence on any particular subject-being, then I retract my comments above. Grasshopper: "There is an objective aspect of the world that is "how" the world is. But pure objectivity is inaccessible to us because we are subject-beings; everything we access and experience is "filtered" through our subjective being. Even what we call "rocks" or "tables" have subjective aspects. Without any subject-being, "rocks" and "tables" would not "exist". The universe might still be -- undifferentiated and meaningless." I agree with this, except for the application of "objective" to something that transcends experience. I think we should apply "objective" to either concrete experience or shared abstractions. ----- Grasshopper: "Timothy uses the term "objective" frequently to mean, as he quoted from dictionary.com: Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually. In particular, I think he uses the latter definition when he discusses evidence and the former definition when describing how he believes we should approach our search for knowledge." So far as I can tell, the dictionary is presenting contradicting definitions for "objective": one definition appeals to "observation", which is obviously subjective; the other refers to a lack of emotions and prejudices, which is not only contradictory to "subjective", but also entirely meaningless. Would this mean the authors have not thought enough about the definitions? Would it mean that we commonly use "objective" in a contradictory fashion? Grasshopper: "I think Arosophos has tried to present some of the "hidden" flaws in these definitions: namely, that no one is truly 'uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices'. We only pretend we are, or we are ignorant of the emotions and/or personal prejudices on which we rely." I agree, and more: we should not try to be uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. To the contrary, we should try to be <i>influenced</i> by them, in wisdom and inspiration. Grasshopper: "As to the latter definition, 'Based on observable phenomena', I think the term 'empirical' is more appropriate than 'objective'." I agree that "empirical" provides greater clarity. Grasshopper: "I think another difference between Timothy's terminology and Arosophos's is what is considered 'empirical'. For Arosophos, I think it essentially means 'whatever is experienced'." Right; I associate "experience", "empiricism", "fact" and "concrete". Grasshopper: "For Timothy, I think it essentially means 'whatever is currently reproducible following the scientific method'. I believe Arosophos's faith is that what he considers empirical will eventually fit Timothy's definition." I know that either truth (shared subjectivity, shared abstraction, objectivity) must account for my experience -- exhaustively -- or I do not exist. Grasshopper: "Thus, for Timothy, religious experience is not empirical and therefore not objective (and therefore not true?). (To the extent that 'religious experience' corresponds to stimulating certain areas of the brain, I think Timothy considers it empirical.)" Here is empiricism in this matter: when I bump into a wall, my arm moves; when the neurologist stimulates a particular neuron, my arm moves. Unless we are solipsists, we consider physical experience to be an open system. Why should we consider spiritual experience differently? Because of prejudice and emotion. Grasshopper: "For Arosophos, religious experience is, by definition, empirical." Yes, as is all experience. Grasshopper: "Timothy seems to believe that there is such a thing as "objective truth", meaning truth that is independent of any subject-beings. For Arosophos, this is a contradiction in terms." I believe in objective truth, so long as we are associating "objective" with shared subjectivity or shared abstraction. I am confident that truth does not exist apart from subjectivity and abstraction. Grasshopper: "Timothy essentially expects that if God cannot be found through current scientific method, God is not empirical and therefore not objective and therefore not 'real'." What is Timothy looking for? He is looking for an extraterrestrial. I do not know how soon he will find what he is looking for -- but I expect he will eventually find it. Grasshopper: "Arosophos ascribes some of his experiences to God; these experiences are by definition empirical, with objective aspects, and are real." Yes. Grasshopper: "Timothy and Arosophos have very different definitions of God." Mostly, yes; Timothy and the scriptures also have very different definitions of God. Grasshopper: "I'm not sure, but I suspect, that Arosophos' God, by definition, exists. By that I mean that Arosophos defines God in such a way that God cannot not exist." . . . as surely as you and I exist, and I have been unable to find an understanding of God more congruent overall with prophetic authority and my experience. Grasshopper: "Timothy, on the other hand, defines God in such a way that God does not necessarily exist and must be demonstrated to exist by scientific methods." . . . as the existence of extraterrestrials. I suspect we will find them -- and I suspect we will be surprised. In the meantime, let's believe in the True and Living God, and repent; and we will see his face and know that he is, according to the promise. [This Message Was Edited By Arosophos On 10/23/2002 At 20:52:37] | |
242 | 10/23/2002 | 21:43:43 | . . . an interesting afterthought: If prophetic authority and Joe share understanding of God to a greater extent than do prophetic authority and Arosophos, whose understanding is more objective? . . . and where there is one less objective than the other, so there is a third less objective than the both. |