Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 6

[_mfbukowski]

In my view, human experience isn’t just communicated by language – it is how we process the experience internally. It’s how we understand and digest the experience. There is no understanding or processing of a human experience outside language – even when the language is wholly interior. We can’t stop our language even if we tried to. We can’t turn it off somehow, inside our brains. So separating human experience somehow from language seems unwarranted to me.

Well I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I agree that it is perhaps impossible to separate language from the structure of experience for those who "have" language, but I would never assert that those who do not have language do not experience things.

Imagine a non-hearing person before they learn sign language- or a baby, for example. I am not ready to say that they do not have "human experiences". The Helen Kellers of this world for example - clearly they are able to walk around and navigate obstacles and fill their needs in feeding themselves and in many cases I imagine behaving quite successfully without language.

And I agree with Wittgenstein that there are certain things which are literally "unspeakable"-- clearly the fact that we cannot express precisely the sound of a trumpet to someone who has not heard it indicates to me that there is a component of experience which is beyond the ability of language to communicate.

How would you convey the sound of a trumpet to a person like Helen Keller who was obviously highly linguistic (later in life) but never heard a trumpet in her entire life?

To say that language and experience are the "same thing" just doesn't make sense to me at all, and it seems blatantly clear that they are not.

One can also say things which cannot be experienced which has led to much confusion derived specifically from language. Phrases like "the sound of one hand clapping" is an example, and the "color of courage" taken literally is another. Neither of these things we can say can be experienced.

So because things certain things can be experienced which cannot be said, and because certain things which can be said cannot be experienced, I really have no choice but to believe that language and experience are not the same.

[_mfbukowski]

There is no understanding or processing of a human experience outside language – even when the language is wholly interior.

Oh- there's one thing I left out of my other post--

Wittgenstein would say that the idea of an "interior language" or a private language is a non-sequitur -- a private language is not a language at all, because it does not communicate with anybody. But I think you have realized here yourself that there is something "going on" in us mentally which is not properly called "language". Call it a semantic difference if you like- that's ok with me.

My only point is that there is clearly SOMETHING going on inside us-- whatever you want to call it-- which is outside of what is communicable to others. If you want to call that "interior language" it's ok with me, but I favor calling it "experience which is not communicable" or "first person experience" (for the fact that we use the first person in describing it linguistically)

I enjoy your posts because you are obviously unsullied by philosophical jargon - you are the "reasonable person" in the equation here who keeps us from getting too far off of reality.

[_mfbukowski]

I figured you'd be dismissive. You and Mark seem to both make the mistake that I agree with postmodernism. Not so. I have specifically avoided staking out an epistemological position so as to allow the post-structuralists to speak for themselves. As I said, the hijacking of post-structuralism by certain apologists is rather bizarre and self-defeating. So, dismiss away. You won't hurt my feelings.

You know I think this may be the problem in communication between us. Our attitudes in the discussion are as different as can be.

You are telling us about what you think the proprietors of various "isms" think about Mormonism, while I am telling you what I think about Mormonism from my own point of view.

I really would like to know what John thinks, not what some "ism" guy says about this and that.

Maybe then we could communicate instead of defending "isms".

Who cares who hijacked what from whom. That's past history and those people are not here.

We are. What do YOU think, John?

[_Runtu]

You know I think this may be the problem in communication between us. Our attitudes in the discussion are as different as can be.

You are telling us about what you think the proprietors of various "isms" think about Mormonism, while I am telling you what I think about Mormonism from my own point of view.

You couldn't be more wrong. I haven't once said what anyone thinks about Mormonism (I doubt very much that many post-structuralists have given Mormonism even a fleeting thought). What others think or say about Mormonism hasn't been my concern.

I have been up front from the very start of these posts: I have said I thought that it was odd that some people want to use postmodernism (and in particular post-structuralism) as an apologetic defense of Mormonism. What I did was outline the basics of post-structuralism and pose a few questions.

I really would like to know what John thinks, not what some "ism" guy says about this and that.

You and Facsimile 3 seem to assume that I want to debate this, that, or the other. Again, I did what I set out to do: I outlined where I think Mormonism comes from in its approach to truth, and then I explained the development of structuralism and post-structuralism and posed some questions. I had hoped that someone might take my questions as a starting point for discussion, but that hasn't happened. So, in that sense all the time I spent reading and constructing my posts was a colossal waste of time.

Maybe then we could communicate instead of defending "isms".

I'm not defending an ism, nor do I intend to.

Who cares who hijacked what from whom. That's past history and those people are not here.

Well, one of them is on the other board and routinely does searches for naughty words here. What I wanted to discuss was why these people have hijacked post-structuralism and whether it is appropriate to do so. I think it isn't, but if you don't want to discuss that subject, that's fine. Just don't get bent out of shape that the discussion isn't going the way you want it to.

We are. What do YOU think, John?

I've said what I think. It's clear to me that wedding a philosophy that posits a meaningless and self-defeating universe to a religion that insists on having the whole truth is bizarre and undermines the very reasons its proponents adopted it. That's what I think.

I do think there is merit in some of what post-structuralism asserts: it is difficult to separate experience and language, and it is pretty obvious that language doesn't play by the neat "games" you seem to think it does. Language is messy, indeterminate, and self-defeating in many ways. Does that mean that nothing is real, or everything is pointless? I don't think so.

[_mfbukowski]

I had hoped that someone might take my questions as a starting point for discussion, but that hasn't happened.

I thought that was what I was doing, but I guess not.

I guess I was not asking whatever questions you felt were "permitted".

I am not sure what you want John.

[_Runtu]

I thought that was what I was doing, but I guess not.

I guess I was not asking whatever questions you felt were "permitted".

I am not sure what you want John.

I'm sorry if I came across as not being amenable to your questions. I just find it a little frustrating to be asked to defend an "ism" that I never had any intention of defending. I've been in a bad mood since yesterday, so I probably shouldn't be posting. I think my bad mood has come across loud and clear in my posts. I'm sorry for that.

Go ahead and ask whatever you want, and I'll try to respond adequately.

[_beastie]

Imagine a non-hearing person before they learn sign language- or a baby, for example. I am not ready to say that they do not have "human experiences". The Helen Kellers of this world for example - clearly they are able to walk around and navigate obstacles and fill their needs in feeding themselves and in many cases I imagine behaving quite successfully without language.

And I agree with Wittgenstein that there are certain things which are literally "unspeakable"-- clearly the fact that we cannot express precisely the sound of a trumpet to someone who has not heard it indicates to me that there is a component of experience which is beyond the ability of language to communicate.

Good point. Runtu, how would post-structuralists respond to this point?

Wittgenstein would say that the idea of an "interior language" or a private language is a non-sequitur -- a private language is not a language at all, because it does not communicate with anybody. But I think you have realized here yourself that there is something "going on" in us mentally which is not properly called "language". Call it a semantic difference if you like- that's ok with me.

My only point is that there is clearly SOMETHING going on inside us-- whatever you want to call it-- which is outside of what is communicable to others. If you want to call that "interior language" it's ok with me, but I favor calling it "experience which is not communicable" or "first person experience" (for the fact that we use the first person in describing it linguistically)

All right, that seems reasonable. Of course, it’s the leap to trying to communicate these interior events that creates problems.

I enjoy your posts because you are obviously unsullied by philosophical jargon - you are the "reasonable person" in the equation here who keeps us from getting too far off of reality.

That’s generous. I’m somewhat reluctant to participate because I fear I’ll be a distraction.

[_mfbukowski]

That’s generous. I’m somewhat reluctant to participate because I fear I’ll be a distraction.

When I was in grad school, due to a peculiarity in housing requirements, I got assigned to a student housing apartment project which was supposed to be exclusively for law students. That means that every other person - roomates, people down the hall, etc. were all law students. They all had the same exam schedule, the same classes, the same professors etc.

Half the time I didn't know what ANYONE was talking about - "Hey what about that quiz in Schwartz's class? - Oh man- and that question about (insert paragraph of legal jargon)- what did you put for that one"? Etc etc.

But we had some great philosophical discussions because as you know, the law always rests on what a "reasonable person" would do or think.

I got to be the "reasonable man" who's mind was not polluted by what all the lawyers thought- it was great! People would actually seek me out because I knew nothing about what they were talking about!

[_mfbukowski]

Go ahead and ask whatever you want, and I'll try to respond adequately.

Well I raised one issue that beastie commented on- maybe that would be a start.

[_Gadianton]

I'll kind of respond to everyone in this post. First off, the structuralist idea that we are bound to language isn't too far off from Wittgenstein and as I've mentioned before, postmodernists love Wittgenstein. I don't think you can deduce too much ontologically from Saussure i.e., what is "out there" independent of humans. Derrida I usually see regarded as following Heidegger and his rejection of ontology altogether yet an "Ontic Realist" - meaning he's a "realist" though of an extremely subtle variety. All I'm trying to get at here is I don't think there is any extreme disconnect/rejection of the rocks and trees in front of us coming from continental philosophy that would warrant one saying, "whoah there, I'm going to stick on the analytical side of things and deal with common sense, serious reasoning, I just don't get these weirdos from France." There are plenty of common-sense defying positions within analytical philosophy that would rival the weirdness of Derrida. I would quickly offer modal realism as a nutty position that would rival deconstructions weirdness any day, yet David Lewis is a hugely important analytic philsopher.

How any of it mixes with Mormonism defies me. I'm with Runtu that it's especially weird for post-structuralism given not just the positions, but the origins and context of the development of post-structuralism, for it to have something fantastically important to do with Mormonism.

In general, I'd say that rube-like common sense fits in best with Mormonism and there is no deep philosophy other than what one wants to read into it. How is Wittgenstein so well situated for understanding Mormonism - better so than alternative frameworks? I'm open if someone wants to explain it.

My defense for the primacy of rube interpretations of Mormonism beyond the obvious point that the originators of Mormonism weren't theologins or philosophers, is simply that Joseph Smith, BY and the other big contributors tried to clarify Mormon theology in terms of deep-sounding common sense, not leave it with more nuance or mystery.

As a quick point of discussion, Fac3 says he likes the "dynamic" approach to language and reference. Well, how is that more essential to a Mormon worldview than the common rube interpretations that there's an pure, Adamic language, a language of perfection that has not been corrupted by the world?

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel ... damic.html

I'm not saying no "dynamic" view of language could be advanced, but I'd have to see a lot of fantastic evidence that it more likely represents God's position than the link above.

As another quick example, the "materialism" in Mormonism -- sure, saying hey, even spirit is matter as mfb brought up a few days ago seems to superficially solve dumb questions like, if I have a spirit, how does it exist if it isn't something? But in philosophy, a mental realm doesn't need this rescuing and making a set of Russian dolls out of intelligence, spirit, and body only complicates the philosophical questions. Consciousness doesn't reduce to neurons, but it doesn't reduce to spirit or intelligence either since that's all matter too and would fail to explain consciousness by the same anti-physicalist arguments, or if otherwise, consciousness also reduces to the physical state of spirit matter, and the physical state of intelligence*, and all either independently or together to give the "you" experience in all phases, pre-spirit world, spirit world, life, afterlife, resurrection. So now, either you have to have a phenomenal realm to explain consciousness in all three states, or all three states work for the same fundamental reasons. In other words, we're multiplying entities with no benefit. If we can't explain how the earth is held up by one turtle, adding two more underneath didn't help us any.

*I realize some accounts of the intelligence have a "non-you" spirit matter that is organized into a "you" spirit. But this again, just brings up all the same philosophical problems with you as a body and now they have to be explained for a more complicated system.