Facilitated Communications

[_mfbukowski]

To be honest, I have no idea where mfbukowski was going with that, since I’m curious how one would reason from recalcitrant experiences.

Huh?
He handles this in Two Dogmas- I thought you knew that?

Whatever.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Huh?
He handles this in Two Dogmas- I thought you knew that?

Whatever.

Can you tell me how? that's what I'm interested in, what you think, not Quine. I think I've demonstrated I understand Two Dogmas well enough.

[Guest]

Mfbukowski,

Is there any chance I could get you to post a detailed explanation on just what exactly your philosophy is? Giving out names is not helpful.

My view is pretty much Nagel's.

What- you want me to type out what he says?

The bottom line is what I have said many many many times in just as many posts, and that is that we LIVE in the realm of the subjective AS WELL AS IN THE OBJECTIVE whereas science deals only with the objective.

Truth is a net of experience, we draw from all sources available- science, religion, tradition, what linguistic system we were born with, what we had for breakfast this morning, (not necessarily said facetiously) how we were raised, and a host of human experiences to try to cobble together a reality which works for us.

THAT is all there is to it. You can say it elegantly as others have using logic and philosophy (Wittgenstein, Nagel, Quine, Dewey, James, even my poor buddy Rorty, Teilhard de Chardin, Whitehead)- all those guys are essentially saying the same thing!

And if you put it all together and ask me to summarize it all, it is in that paragraph, and it is also in Alma 32.

That net of truth is too big and too complex to be put into one little formulation so that you can try to throw out some raven paradox or whatever to show it doesn't work. It is just to big and too flexible.

All I am doing is throwing out pointers saying "look at this!"

If you think I can put 40 years of thinking about this into one little post, you are mistaken!

I have been writing this thread as if I was speaking to someone already familiar with the background material who would see all the connections instantly, but that has not been the case.

Maybe it would take at least a book to put it all together with references etc- that would be nice- but for now I think that is about the best I can do.

But for your question about recalcitrant experiences, all I can do is agree with Quine that they throw everything into doubt, and ultimately the net flexes, bends, and then repairs itself again, and is incorporated into the schema.

Definition: a "recalcitrant experience" is one that changes everything- that appears to make all that was thought to be true, suddenly "false".

This is from Quine- Two Dogmas of Empiricism- Underlining added

VI. EMPIRICISM WITHOUT THE DOGMAS

The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience. A conflict with experience at the periphery occasions readjustments in the interior of the field. Truth values have to be redistributed over some of our statements. Re-evaluation of some statements entails re-evaluation of others, because of their logical interconnections -- the logical laws being in turn simply certain further statements of the system, certain further elements of the field. Having re-evaluated one statement we must re-evaluate some others, whether they be statements logically connected with the first or whether they be the statements of logical connections themselves. But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole.

If this view is right, it is misleading to speak of the empirical content of an individual statement -- especially if it be a statement at all remote from the experiential periphery of the field. Furthermore it becomes folly to seek a boundary between synthetic statements, which hold contingently on experience, and analytic statements which hold come what may. Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system. Even a statement very close to the periphery can be held true in the face of recalcitrant experience by pleading hallucination or by amending certain statements of the kind called logical laws. Conversely, by the same token, no statement is immune to revision. Revision even of the logical law of the excluded middle has been proposed as a means of simplifying quantum mechanics; and what difference is there in principle between such a shift and the shift whereby Kepler superseded Ptolemy, or Einstein Newton, or Darwin Aristotle?

.... Carnap, Lewis, and others take a pragmatic stand on the question of choosing between language forms, scientific frameworks; but their pragmatism leaves off at the imagined boundary between the analytic and the synthetic. In repudiating such a boundary I espouse a more thorough pragmatism. Each man is given a scientific heritage plus a continuing barrage of sensory stimulation; and the considerations which guide him in warping his scientific heritage to fit his continuing sensory promptings are, where rational, pragmatic.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

This to me, is a perfect statement of what I have been saying here forever. If it works it's true. Quine thinks of himself as a "Pragmatist".

I don't see how you could even continue to ask the question after allegedly being familiar with the essay.

We cobble together our net of truth and then when a tear appears, we sew it back together as best as we can and wait for it to heal itself as more data comes in to be interpreted to make more thread to sew it together in a different way as needed.

But somehow, I am positive you still will not get it.

[_Runtu]

We cobble together our net of truth and then when a tear appears, we sew it back together as best as we can and wait for it to heal itself as more data comes in to be interpreted to make more thread to sew it together in a different way as needed.

But somehow, I am positive you still will not get it.

I have understood you quite well since the beginning, apparently. I doubt you would get too many Mormons to agree with you that truth is something cobbled together and repaired as needed. I was just told, for example, that if the truth I cobbled together as a Mormon wasn't working for me, it is my fault. You can't adjust truth or sew it back together when it's defined that way.

I think that's my biggest problem with your use of Pragmatism. In Pragmatism, if I understand it right, truth bends in favor of what works; in Mormonism, what works (and what your conscience tells you is right) is always subordinated to the Truth.

[_mfbukowski]

We cobble together our net of truth and then when a tear appears, we sew it back together as best as we can and wait for it to heal itself as more data comes in to be interpreted to make more thread to sew it together in a different way as needed.

But somehow, I am positive you still will not get it.

I have understood you quite well since the beginning, apparently. I doubt you would get too many Mormons to agree with you that truth is something cobbled together and repaired as needed. I was just told, for example, that if the truth I cobbled together as a Mormon wasn't working for me, it is my fault. You can't adjust truth or sew it back together when it's defined that way.

I think that's my biggest problem with your use of Pragmatism. In Pragmatism, if I understand it right, truth bends in favor of what works; in Mormonism, what works (and what your conscience tells you is right) is always subordinated to the Truth.

Yes, please see that final sentence through my eyes then ok? It becomes a tautology.

As we see so often on these boards, (which I usually hate)- "Let me fix it for you"

If I were to say that, in my understanding, it means:

"In Pragmatism, if I understand it right, truth[IS] what works; in Mormonism, what works (and what your conscience tells you is right) is always subordinated to [what works and what your conscience tells you is right]"

Yep, that's about it.

More like what works for you and what your testimony tells you, but close enough

[_Runtu]

Yes, please see that final sentence through my eyes then ok? It becomes a tautology.

As we see so often on these boards, (which I usually hate)- "Let me fix it for you"

If I were to say that, in my understanding, it means:

"In Pragmatism, if I understand it right, truth bends in favor of what works; in Mormonism, what works (and what your conscience tells you is right) is always subordinated to [what works and what your conscience tells you is right]"

Yep, that's about it.

Except that's not at all what I meant (of course, you know that). Mormon posits a set of truth claims and says that if you follow that truth, it will work. However, whenever you find something that doesn't work, you can't repair it, adjust it, sew it back together. You just have to continue following truth that doesn't work.

As I showed in my thread about conscience (which you haven't responded to), conscience is always secondary to following the prophet. That doesn't sound like Pragmatism at all.

[_mfbukowski]

We cobble together our net of truth and then when a tear appears, we sew it back together as best as we can and wait for it to heal itself as more data comes in to be interpreted to make more thread to sew it together in a different way as needed.

I have understood you quite well since the beginning, apparently. I doubt you would get too many Mormons to agree with you that truth is something cobbled together and repaired as needed.

I am not going to edit out the weird spellings due to my cut and paste- those are from footnotes I am too lazy to fix

Underlining added

Alma 32:

33And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand.

35O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38But if ye aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life.

41But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life.

42And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you.

Ok so I mixed metaphors

Instead of "cobbling" I should have said "nourishing, planting and pruning"

Clearly the implication is that we are responsible for growing our testimonies and not choking them off.

[_Runtu]

Ok so I mixed metaphors

Instead of "cobbling" I should have said "nourishing, planting and pruning"

Clearly the implication is that we are responsible for growing our testimonies and not choking them off.

That's a different argument entirely. In Mormonism, you have the word of God, and you try it, nourish it, plant, prune, and so on, and it works. But whether it works or not is not in question. If it doesn't work, the problem lies with you, not with the principles, as Wade helpfully reminded me.

Again, I don't see how that's an example of Pragmatism at all. Pragmatism, so far as you have explained it, is happy to discard principles that don't work in favor of those that do. Mormonism has no such provision.

[_mfbukowski]

Yes, please see that final sentence through my eyes then ok? It becomes a tautology.

As we see so often on these boards, (which I usually hate)- "Let me fix it for you"

If I were to say that, in my understanding, it means:

"In Pragmatism, if I understand it right, truth bends in favor of what works; in Mormonism, what works (and what your conscience tells you is right) is always subordinated to [what works and what your conscience tells you is right]"

Yep, that's about it.

Except that's not at all what I meant (of course, you know that). Mormon posits a set of truth claims and says that if you follow that truth, it will work. However, whenever you find something that doesn't work, you can't repair it, adjust it, sew it back together. You just have to continue following truth that doesn't work.

As I showed in my thread about conscience (which you haven't responded to), conscience is always secondary to following the prophet. That doesn't sound like Pragmatism at all.

I didn't respond because that doesn't sound like Mormonism at all.

Tolerance of ambiguity is important in building a testimony and in all quests after truth.

That to me is the psychological portion of what Quine is saying above. The ultimate goal here is a coherent world view that makes me self-actualized and incredibly happy and peaceful, and that is not just handed to you by the world. I think that is abundantly clear just by looking at the vast majority of humanity.

In religious parlance, quite frankly, I think that is what the healing power of Jesus Christ IS when put into psychological / philosophical terms.

They are just different "language games"- different contexts - to me. I can speak of the power of Christ to heal my soul and redeem me from my sins, or I can speak of putting together a self-actualizing system which takes me out of myself and brings me to ultimate peace.

I can see humanism as theology when I realize that God really IS a man who is my father, and that men are gods and that God IS the Man of Holiness.

These are all just different contexts for what Quine and Nagel and James and everyone else is saying- even Buddhism for that matter. Truth is what we make of it, and I am convinced I have found the perfect path which works for me and should work for everyone if they let it.

But if it doesn't, that's ok with me - I believe all will see it eventually.

But guess what- that is Mormon doctrine too- "Every knee shall bow and tongue confess...."

And the fact that everyone will get a chance to find it is also doctrine- in this life or elsewhere.

See, like it or not, I really HAVE thought this through.

[_Runtu]

Tolerance of ambiguity is important in building a testimony and in all quests after truth.

That to me is the psychological portion of what Quine is saying above. The ultimate goal here is a coherent world view that makes me self-actualized and incredibly happy and peaceful, and that is not just handed to you by the world. I think that is abundantly clear just by looking at the vast majority of humanity.

That's what I am looking for, too. That I didn't find it in Mormonism doesn't mean there is something wrong with me (Wade will beg to differ).

I know you've thought this through, Mark, and I'm happy it works for you. I wish it did for me. It would make my home life a lot more peaceful. But for now, I'll take personal peace. I never had much of that as a Mormon.