Postmodernism and Mormonism: Part 6

[_mfbukowski]

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?

I would like to see an account of anything that Runtu knows without him using the first person. What do you know Runtu? Do you know you are sitting at the computer and reading this? If not, who is?
Edit:
Or is that fact not "true"?

[_Runtu]

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.

What the hell? To recap, you don't care about postmodernism, you don't understand it, but you are certain that my definition is a straw man. Where is that coming from? And how is a slam like that at all germane to the discussion?

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.

Great, then let's discuss that. Things would have gone much better from the start had you simply stated, "I'm not interested in postmodernism."

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.

There's a big problem with that idea from where I stand. In Mormon theology, nothing is "created," but rather everything is "coeternal" with God. God doesn't "create" reality through language, but rather He organizes what is already there. So, Mormonism, in my opinion, posits a real, existing, eternal universe that has laws that God is bound by. So, the creative act, in Mormonism, is not to start from the beginning but is God following the pre-existing plan that he must follow. Hell, that doesn't make sense to me, either.

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.

It's not difficult to me. I think the difficulty in this discussion is that you've wanted to discuss your own worldview and mine (which is fine so far as it goes), but that wasn't my intent with this thread.

So, maybe we can agree that we won't talk about Mormonism's compatibility with my "straw man" version of postmodernism. I'm happy to talk about where I'm coming from.

[_Runtu]

I would like to see an account of anything that Runtu knows without him using the first person. What do you know Runtu? Do you know you are sitting at the computer and reading this? If not, who is?
Edit:
Or is that fact not "true"?

That's a difficult question. Do I know I'm sitting at the computer reading? No, I don't. Maybe I'm dreaming, or maybe someone else is dreaming me. Or maybe life is one big illusion. Maybe everything I think I know is wrong.

Obviously I wouldn't be able to function if I didn't "believe" that I exist and am sitting at a computer typing and reading. But do I know it? Nah.

[_mfbukowski]

John we have been over and over and over these same points. You can go back if you like and read all my other comments on your 5 other postmodernism threads and I say the same things over and over.

I said in the first obscurante terroriste thread that I wasn't interested in postmodernism. I told you that in this thread if you read it.

This really is going nowhere. I guess I will just wait until and if you are ready to discuss what I have posted.

[_Runtu]

John we have been over and over and over these same points. You can go back if you like and read all my other comments on your 5 other postmodernism threads and I say the same things over and over.

I said in the first obscurante terroriste thread that I wasn't interested in postmodernism. I told you that in this thread if you read it.

This really is going nowhere. I guess I will just wait until and if you are ready to discuss what I have posted.

I said I was perfectly willing to discuss it, and I did so in my last two posts. Accusing me of creating a straw man isn't exactly fostering productive conversation.

Look, I understand why you're pissed at me. I've tried very hard to stick to the topic I wanted to discuss. If you aren't interested (and clearly you aren't), let's discuss what you want to talk about. Please read my last two posts wherein I tried to respond to your objections.

[_mfbukowski]

I would like to see an account of anything that Runtu knows without him using the first person. What do you know Runtu? Do you know you are sitting at the computer and reading this? If not, who is?
Edit:
Or is that fact not "true"?

That's a difficult question. Do I know I'm sitting at the computer reading? No, I don't. Maybe I'm dreaming, or maybe someone else is dreaming me. Or maybe life is one big illusion. Maybe everything I think I know is wrong.

Obviously I wouldn't be able to function if I didn't "believe" that I exist and am sitting at a computer typing and reading. But do I know it? Nah.

Ok, I am done. If you don't know that, I don't know what to say. If you really believe those things, you know nothing and we cannot converse. Sorry you seem like a nice guy, take care of yourself. I would suggest you talk this over with "someone else" if you believe they exist.

[_Runtu]

Ok, I am done. If you don't know that, I don't know what to say. If you really believe those things, you know nothing and we cannot converse. Sorry you seem like a nice guy, take care of yourself. I would suggest you talk this over with "someone else" if you believe they exist.

Honestly, what's with the slams? I do believe that "knowledge" is provisional, and that without some notion that we know something, we would all be stuck in a meaningless void. But that's different from saying you can know something absolutely. Provisional knowledge is good enough for me.

[_mfbukowski]

Honestly, what's with the slams? I do believe that "knowledge" is provisional, and that without some notion that we know something, we would all be stuck in a meaningless void. But that's different from saying you can know something absolutely. Provisional knowledge is good enough for me.

Slams? You tell me you don't know if you are awake and I respond as kindly as I can and that is a slam? How am I supposed to know if you are serious or not?

Ok so "provisionally" you know you exist.

That is progress.

So who is the subject of that sentence you wrote then? Who is it that believes that knowledge of himself is provisional?

[_Runtu]

Slams? You tell me you don't know if you are awake and I respond as kindly as I can and that is a slam? How am I supposed to know if you are serious or not?

I was just going by your snarky remark about finding someone else who I believe exists.

Ok so "provisionally" you know you exist.

That is progress.

So who is the subject of that sentence you wrote then? Who is it that believes that knowledge of himself is provisional?

Obviously, "I" am the subject of that sentence.

[_mfbukowski]

Recap:

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?

Then, to paraphrase myself, I asked you if you "knew" that you were sitting at the computer reading. You answered:

That's a difficult question. Do I know I'm sitting at the computer reading? No, I don't. Maybe I'm dreaming, or maybe someone else is dreaming me. Or maybe life is one big illusion. Maybe everything I think I know is wrong.

Obviously I wouldn't be able to function if I didn't "believe" that I exist and am sitting at a computer typing and reading. But do I know it? Nah.

I do believe that "knowledge" is provisional, and that without some notion that we know something, we would all be stuck in a meaningless void. But that's different from saying you can know something absolutely. Provisional knowledge is good enough for me.

A pragmatic position would be that it doesn't matter if you "know" you exist or not since it cannot be "proven" anyway. And yes, we would be stuck in a meaningless void if we really did not know. The fact is, the belief that you exist (most people would be pretty certain that they exist- no, they would be ABSOLUTELY certain that they exist - remember Descartes) is just plain necessary to get out of bed in the morning.

So would you say that your "provisional belief" that you are reading a computer screen and exist is "true"?

Pragmatism would say absolutely yes, you exist, because you must believe that in order to get out of bed, eat, drive a car, say hello to your children etc.

Doubting that you exist would really be the end of life if you tried to live that way. You might have to be locked up for your own protection.

So going back to the first quote of the "recap" above, THAT is the sense in which "the subjective is true".

We literally cannot get through life without the belief that we need to respond to internal "subjective" feelings like an excruciating pain in your chest, or hunger or thirst. We cannot love our spouses without really believing that they are real and that the fact of their existence is also "true".

THAT is the essence of the pragmatic notion that propositions are "true" if they "work".

I can doubt that I exist all I want, but ultimately I get hungry and go and get a sandwich or I will die eventually. That is one way to resolve the question I guess. There can really be no doubt that the statement "I exist" is "true", because if you disbelieve it long enough, and believe it is false you will be right.

So yes, there is no question that "subjective statements" can be and are "true" under the right conditions.

So yes, first person statements give us access to truth. If you doubt you are thirsty, just wait a week or two without drinking to see if that belief "works" for you.