An imagined world--it's own thread

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by Kishkumen »

dastardly stem wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 6:54 pm
I think I understand why it sounds ludicrous. I'm not sure how it's any more ludicrous than the existence of a spirit world.
You are completely missing the point.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 6:41 pm
After all Kish, materiality itself is based upon our own human SIZE...... everything we believe is actually *real* is just a matter of magnitude..... nothing objective need apply, it is fundamentally entirely subjective - amazingly enough! It's what is labeled "experience." Non-fiction cannot tell me what my own experience means to me, but I sure know, whether anyone else does or not.
Excellent thoughts, Philo. As usual. What you have to say on these topics is always thought provoking and instructive.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by Kishkumen »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 7:19 pm
I don't think I'm taking the connection for granted. It's certainly not necessary by any means. And I could at any second go whole hog post modern deconstruction and argue there's no meaningful distinction at all. And I'm not sure that what I'm thinking of as rational though is limited to materiality. For example, how would we classify purely logical arguments?

Do you find the rational/irrational distinction helpful at all?
Not as you discussed it above, no. Of course, so much depends on definitions, and you gave us very little to go on. I am not criticizing you for that. I am just saying that a lot depends on how you define *all* of your terms, not just one or two.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
msnobody
First Presidency
Posts: 834
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:35 pm

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by msnobody »

dastardly stem wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 pm
msnobody wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 4:03 pm

You're really going to think I'm crazy when I post this, but here goes. It happened, period is all I can say.

I've had a couple of experiences where I believe God has shown me visibly a glimpse into the spirit world; to be more specific I believe he was showing me spiritual warfare that was going on. Once was when I had clinical depression and was driving to work and there was an entity in my presence that I saw in the back of my vehicle and also on the hood. It wasn't like I had to turn my head or eyes to see it, or that I was even thinking about anything like this. It was a formed figure with what looked like dark, churning storm clouds inside. Another time was when the LDS missionaries I had gotten to know were at my church speaking with one of our church members and I saw something float from right to left over where we were standing.

for what it's worth, I cannot prove that to anyone or show evidence of that experience.
I don't think you're crazy. I've seen things too. I don't attribute visions as evidence of a spiritual world. They are brain activity. If we can validate the existence of a spirit world, then it becomes a more viable explanation for any such experiences.
I'm not so sure you can validate the existence of a spirit world to someone else's satisfaction. Perhaps what is seen spiritually prompts brain activity, rather than brain activity prompting what one sees spiritually?
The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession... The LORD set his love on you and chose you... The LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery. Deut. 7
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by Kishkumen »

msnobody wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 7:46 pm
I'm not so sure you can validate the existence of a spirit world to someone else's satisfaction. Perhaps what is seen spiritually prompts brain activity, rather than brain activity prompting what one sees spiritually?
Yep! Could be! I don't see why that is difficult for many people to get. Maybe because they are so far biased against the possibility.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by Res Ipsa »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 7:41 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 7:19 pm
I don't think I'm taking the connection for granted. It's certainly not necessary by any means. And I could at any second go whole hog post modern deconstruction and argue there's no meaningful distinction at all. And I'm not sure that what I'm thinking of as rational though is limited to materiality. For example, how would we classify purely logical arguments?

Do you find the rational/irrational distinction helpful at all?
Not as you discussed it above, no. Of course, so much depends on definitions, and you gave us very little to go on. I am not criticizing you for that. I am just saying that a lot depends on how you define *all* of your terms, not just one or two.
I absolutely agree. It's something I've thought a little bit about, but given the negative implications of labeling religious thought as "irrational," I haven't tried to actually flesh out a workable distinction.

In my work world, "rational" would be something like "an argument that flows from evidence-based facts to a conclusion following inferences that are formally valid." Or something. But rather than label an argument irrational (unless it's in the realm of crazy), I'd just attack either evidence or the inferences and show why it is irrational without using the label. But that's way too narrow for general usage.

Do you use the concept of rationality when evaluating historical evidence and proposing interpretations or conclusions. Or reading someone else's evaluation? If so, how do you define (loosely and generally) a rational argument or theory?
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by Kishkumen »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 8:03 pm
I absolutely agree. It's something I've thought a little bit about, but given the negative implications of labeling religious thought as "irrational," I haven't tried to actually flesh out a workable distinction.

In my work world, "rational" would be something like "an argument that flows from evidence-based facts to a conclusion following inferences that are formally valid." Or something. But rather than label an argument irrational (unless it's in the realm of crazy), I'd just attack either evidence or the inferences and show why it is irrational without using the label. But that's way too narrow for general usage.

Do you use the concept of rationality when evaluating historical evidence and proposing interpretations or conclusions. Or reading someone else's evaluation? If so, how do you define (loosely and generally) a rational argument or theory?
My definition of rationality depends on whether I am dealing in abstract ideas or realia. Ultimately I am an idealist who recognizes the necessity of dealing with real life pragmatically for the most part.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by Res Ipsa »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 8:12 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 8:03 pm
I absolutely agree. It's something I've thought a little bit about, but given the negative implications of labeling religious thought as "irrational," I haven't tried to actually flesh out a workable distinction.

In my work world, "rational" would be something like "an argument that flows from evidence-based facts to a conclusion following inferences that are formally valid." Or something. But rather than label an argument irrational (unless it's in the realm of crazy), I'd just attack either evidence or the inferences and show why it is irrational without using the label. But that's way too narrow for general usage.

Do you use the concept of rationality when evaluating historical evidence and proposing interpretations or conclusions. Or reading someone else's evaluation? If so, how do you define (loosely and generally) a rational argument or theory?
My definition of rationality depends on whether I am dealing in abstract ideas or realia. Ultimately I am an idealist who recognizes the necessity of dealing with real life pragmatically for the most part.
How does the definition differ?
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by dastardly stem »

msnobody wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 7:46 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 pm


I don't think you're crazy. I've seen things too. I don't attribute visions as evidence of a spiritual world. They are brain activity. If we can validate the existence of a spirit world, then it becomes a more viable explanation for any such experiences.
I'm not so sure you can validate the existence of a spirit world to someone else's satisfaction. Perhaps what is seen spiritually prompts brain activity, rather than brain activity prompting what one sees spiritually?
I think I agree with this, msnobody. The question I have is how does one who claims a spiritual realm have good reason to think it exists? It’s possible. But how would one move the possible to something more plausible then probable? If we can’t get there then how is it reasonable for people to claim to know of a spirit realm?
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: An imagined world--it's own thread

Post by dastardly stem »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 7:36 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Thu May 19, 2022 6:54 pm
I think I understand why it sounds ludicrous. I'm not sure how it's any more ludicrous than the existence of a spirit world.
You are completely missing the point.
Fair enough. My apologies.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Post Reply