Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 6

[_Runtu]

Never mind. I'm having a bad enough evening as it is. No need to make it worse.

[_mfbukowski]

Gadianton:

I should be in bed - I am tired and don't know if I am making sense, but I will give it a quick reply just to keep things going. This will be quick and messy I am sure, so give me a little slack on this one.

Wittgenstein is essentially a mystic. With all his analytical tendencies, in his later years, he speaks of the "unspeakable" which is essentially what I spoke of earlier in this thread- "what cannot be said".

So it is not so much that he is good for Mormons particularly, but he is "good" for religion in general because of this notion that all that is important cannot or need not necessarily be said.

Further, his view of language is functional- meaning derives from the context in use. Change the context and you change the language (game) being played.

So for religious discourse, words can mean something different than they do in other kinds of discourse and they may or may not be "translatable" into different language games, or contexts. For example "I know the church is true" can have an entirely different meaning than a similar sentence like "I know that calculus is true" because it is based in an different context. You cannot take either statement at face value, and to do so would to make a category error essentially, since the contexts and meanings are not the same. Each must be examined and the meaning analyzed within the context and not in an isolated manner, independent of the context. This approach facilitates separating religious discourse from other types of discourse, like say scientific discourse and makes for a different definition and whole approach to concepts like "truth" for example. So religious "truth" can be seen as entirely different than scientific "truth" and meaning something quite different.

This functional approach to language is what fits him into an overall "pragmatic" way of looking at the world.

Mormonism is very readily adaptable to pragmatism due pragmatism's radical empiricism- so radical that it would classify for example "religious experience" as in a sense "empirical" since such experiences include experiences which many have and which change people's lives.

Furthermore, pragmatism exists in a milieu which is highly compatible with a materialistic and humanistic view of the universe which says that culture and language largely determine who we are as humans and "what works" culturally for humans is what has defined us. Think of evolutionary theory if you like as an analogy- culture has evolved because it works for us, and the tools of culture is what makes life possible for humans. I think it was Josiah Royce who said something like "Education is learning to use the tools which the race has found indispensible". This works well with Mormonism because for Mormons God is man and man can become God. Humanism is theology when God is a man. That is the insight that makes postmodernism related to Mormonism, but I don't really want to go into "isms"

The Mormon notion that God - Man "organized" the universe fits very well with the idea that we as humans through our perceptions literally organize the chaos surrounding us- the chaos of light and sound and sensory perception- are organized by our culturally programmed (humanistically programmed) brains- into reality. In other words, man-god organizes reality or the universe just as God Man did/does. It is two sides of the same story - the same central perception of the universe expressed in two different ways. Our humanly programmed brains create our reality; our Human God organized the universe.

Furthermore, the philosophy of William James is directly related in my opinion to Mormonism - he is the author of "Varieties of Religious Experience" which explores the notion of the validity of religious experience, or as Mormons would say "personal revelation". James was raised in a household of Sweedenborgians, and we know that there are definite ties between Sweedenborg and Joseph Smith.

The entire American experience of manifest destiny is the organization of wildness into human society- take the natural "chaos" and organize it into a town, a city, a "civilization" a creation of man. We can no longer even live in the wilds- without special training we would die in days or hours if left in the wilderness alone. Even our weak and hairless bodies are pretty useless without the culture which has allowed us to survive- our very bodies have evolved for human civilization. Truly mankind has organized our world- it is indisputable that God-man has organized our human reality which is our universe.

That was quick and dirty, but hopefully it shows why pragmatism at least has an affinity for the Mormon way of looking at things.

But I suspect that I will soon be hearing the old saw - "but that's not what Mormons believe" and of course I will reply that at least one does. and it just so happens that many more do as well, or we would not be having this discussion.

[_beastie]

This is where I find your assertions problematic:

This works well with Mormonism because for Mormons God is man and man can become God. Humanism is theology when God is a man. That is the insight that makes postmodernism related to Mormonism, but I don't really want to go into "isms"

The Mormon notion that God - Man "organized" the universe fits very well with the idea that we as humans through our perceptions literally organize the chaos surrounding us- the chaos of light and sound and sensory perception- are organized by our culturally programmed (humanistically programmed) brains- into reality. In other words, man-god organizes reality or the universe just as God Man did/does. It is two sides of the same story - the same central perception of the universe expressed in two different ways. Our humanly programmed brains create our reality; our Human God organized the universe.

It seems cheating, in a way, to use the idea that God was once a man to align Mormonism with the idea that man creates reality.

In Mormonism, God may have once been a man, but God is still God. He’s no longer just a man. He’s still “God” in a way similar to how other faiths use the term: omniscient, omnipotent and eternal. When you use the term God Man you seem to be doing exactly what you point out as an issue earlier: context is everything. God Man is not creating reality in the same way that post-modernism asserts man creates reality.

[_Runtu]

This is where I find your assertions problematic:

This works well with Mormonism because for Mormons God is man and man can become God. Humanism is theology when God is a man. That is the insight that makes postmodernism related to Mormonism, but I don't really want to go into "isms"

The Mormon notion that God - Man "organized" the universe fits very well with the idea that we as humans through our perceptions literally organize the chaos surrounding us- the chaos of light and sound and sensory perception- are organized by our culturally programmed (humanistically programmed) brains- into reality. In other words, man-god organizes reality or the universe just as God Man did/does. It is two sides of the same story - the same central perception of the universe expressed in two different ways. Our humanly programmed brains create our reality; our Human God organized the universe.

It seems cheating, in a way, to use the idea that God was once a man to align Mormonism with the idea that man creates reality.

In Mormonism, God may have once been a man, but God is still God. He’s no longer just a man. He’s still “God” in a way similar to how other faiths use the term: omniscient, omnipotent and eternal. When you use the term God Man you seem to be doing exactly what you point out as an issue earlier: context is everything. God Man is not creating reality in the same way that post-modernism asserts man creates reality.

Not only that, but postmodernism (at least for post-structuralists) does not posit a reality "organized" or "created" by humans. Quite the opposite. It is language that organizes and creates humans. Even the notion of our being individual subjects (and thus capable of first-person language) is a product of the existing language system. So, if God is just an exalted human, he is nonetheless a creation, a projection, of language. And since language is such a messy and self-defeating affair, whatever meaning God has in the universe is illusory.

[_mfbukowski]

It seems cheating, in a way, to use the idea that God was once a man to align Mormonism with the idea that man creates reality.

In Mormonism, God may have once been a man, but God is still God. He’s no longer just a man. He’s still “God” in a way similar to how other faiths use the term: omniscient, omnipotent and eternal. When you use the term God Man you seem to be doing exactly what you point out as an issue earlier: context is everything. God Man is not creating reality in the same way that post-modernism asserts man creates reality.

Well if that is true, that is where I break with post-modernism. I never understood what it meant anyway. Who cares? It is just a label!

"Cheating"?

But that is the way it is. THAT is the gift he has given us! It seems like "cheating" because you realize how simple and easy it all is.

The fact that the Man of Holiness would give us such a gift as to be co-creator/organizers with him is the basis of my faith. He is infinitely above what I could ever be, and so will remain because of his eternal progression, and through us his kingdoms continue to expand and grow as our kingdoms and creations expand and grow. He will ever be our Father.

Not only that, but postmodernism (at least for post-structuralists) does not posit a reality "organized" or "created" by humans. Quite the opposite. It is language that organizes and creates humans. Even the notion of our being individual subjects (and thus capable of first-person language) is a product of the existing language system. So, if God is just an exalted human, he is nonetheless a creation, a projection, of language. And since language is such a messy and self-defeating affair, whatever meaning God has in the universe is illusory.

John, what am I going to do with you? You are stuck in a rut! I don't care about post-modernism and have said so, and I have challenged your view that language is “what creates humans” and you have refused to answer.

If you are going to make me come up with a slogan to mirror your “language creates humans” I would say that “human culture and humans have co-evolved to create eachother.”

Drop a person naked in a forest and see how long they survive. We need food, clothing and shelter to survive, and of those two are cultural: clothing and shelter. It is inadequate to say that “shelter” is created by language- I can see how you get to that, but again, a deaf mute without language, dropped in the same position as a hearing person would seek shelter and food in that situation.

But if you are not going to answer the objections to your theory, re-asserting them does not help your case much.

[_Runtu]

One thing I keep coming back to with Brother Bukowski is that everything seems centered on the subjective/first person. I suppose for my own understanding (maybe Facsimile 3 is right that I'm none too bright), I propose we discuss what constitutes the subject. From there we might be able to better access why the subject has better access to "truth" (what works, whatever) than anything else.

[_Runtu]

John, what am I going to do with you? You are stuck in a rut! I don't care about post-modernism and have said so, and I have challenged your view that language is “what creates humans” and you have refused to answer.

I only brought up postmodernism because you said it was "related to Mormonism." I completely and utterly reject that.

If you are going to make me come up with a slogan to mirror your “language creates humans” I would say that “human culture and humans have co-evolved to create eachother.”

I would agree with that. I'm not a poststructuralist, per se. I like my friend's definition that humans interact with the "umbworld," and both are transformed by the other. That seems as good an explanation as any I've encountered. But that means existence isn't fixed, real, or static. It's in constant flux, constant rearrangement. That goes for the subject as well as the object.

Drop a person naked in a forest and see how long they survive. We need food, clothing and shelter to survive, and of those two are cultural: clothing and shelter. It is inadequate to say that “shelter” is created by language- I can see how you get to that, but again, a deaf mute without language, dropped in the same position as a hearing person would seek shelter and food in that situation.

A deaf mute still uses linguistic structures in his or her brain. That should be pretty clear, I would imagine.

But if you are not going to answer the objections to your theory, re-asserting them does not help your case much.

I wasn't responding to an objection (and it's not my theory, anyway). You said Mormonism was related to postmodernism, which I think is absurd.

[_beastie]

Well if that is true, that is where I break with post-modernism. I never understood what it meant anyway. Who cares? It is just a label!

"Cheating"?

But that is the way it is. THAT is the gift he has given us! It seems like "cheating" because you realize how simple and easy it all is.

The fact that the Man of Holiness would give us such a gift as to be co-creator/organizers with him is the basis of my faith. He is infinitely above what I could ever be, and so will remain because of his eternal progression, and through us his kingdoms continue to expand and grow as our kingdoms and creations expand and grow. He will ever be our Father.

Well, it is a bit confusing when you tell us that post-modernism can be compatible with Mormonism, and one of your evidences of that compatibility is that the “Man/God” created reality, just like post-modernism asserts that man creates reality. It’s confusing because clearly the “Man/God” is not contextually appropriate for the post-modern idea of man creating reality. Now when that’s pointed out, you say you don’t care about post-modernism, anyway. Then don’t use the Man/God creating reality to support the compatibility between post-modernism and Mormonism and we won’t have this confusion in the future.

by the way, it’s only “simple and easy” if you stop thinking about it after the “Man/God” answer is provided. It’s just one turtle on the back of an infinity of turtles.

[_Runtu]

Well, it is a bit confusing when you tell us that post-modernism can be compatible with Mormonism, and one of your evidences of that compatibility is that the “Man/God” created reality, just like post-modernism asserts that man creates reality. It’s confusing because clearly the “Man/God” is not contextually appropriate for the post-modern idea of man creating reality. Now when that’s pointed out, you say you don’t care about post-modernism, anyway. Then don’t use the Man/God creating reality to support the compatibility between post-modernism and Mormonism and we won’t have this confusion in the future.

by the way, it’s only “simple and easy” if you stop thinking about it after the “Man/God” answer is provided. It’s just one turtle on the back of an infinity of turtles.

I understand why he's frustrated, but I would hope that he understands where I'm coming from. On the one hand, he says postmodernism is "related" to Mormonism, and then he says he doesn't care what it is (and doesn't understand it), so who cares?

I thought the topic of this thread was how or whether Mormonism is compatible with postmodernism, but if you want to discuss how I think "reality" is known or created or whatever, that's fine.

You're absolutely right that Mormonism doesn't work with the poststructuralist idea that humans don't "create" anything, let alone anything real. What I see mfb doing is grounding reality in the subjective, suggesting that a first-person language game gives us access to God/truth/whatever. Is that a fair statement?

[_mfbukowski]

Ok Mormonism is NOT related to your ( as in you plural) definition of post-modernism. I was trying to explain the question of why someone would defend that position.

I never cared and I still don't care how you define your straw men.

I am not a literary critic, I am not a scholar, I am just some guy with a modicum of philosophical education who is trying to come with with a coherent world view, because that is my obsession.

The reality is that Mormonism is directly related to the idea that Man creates the world, call that view whatever you like, and if you cannot see that it is related to that idea, I am done.

It should be fairly clear by now that the idea of God, who is a man, organizing the world is related to the idea that man organizes the world.

Sorry if that seems difficult for some of you.