The meaning of experience? When did that get on the table? That is a whole other subject.
You put “the meaning of experience” on the table when you brought up the issue of “my worldview.” A worldview is primarily concerned with the meaning of experience, of existence. On the other hand, a person could say experience, existence is meaningless. But that would constitute a worldview, too. The two are so intimately related that, although they can be individually distinguished, one does not have the one without the other. This isn’t a change of subject.
When I asked whether you thought valid evidence cannot include oral testimony from the lived experience of actual human beings, you replied: “Only to the degree that that 'evidence' can be verified by our own experience today.”
The “evidence” we seem to be speaking of here seems to be of intangible (I’ll hold off on using the “S” word) experience. Although we are contemporaries, you cannot “verify” my experience of this kind. And I can’t “verify” yours. But because I am conscious that I have an “inner life,” I assume that you do, also. This is not an operation in logic, it is simple common sense. Although common sense doesn’t gives us absolute certainty about anything, many times it’s all we’ve got to go on.
Moreover, do you suggest that because you cannot personally verify that a particular event took place in the past that it certainly didn’t happen? Notwithstanding the testimony of witnesses, and the fact that the event powerfully affected -- one could reasonably say transformed -- the course of human history down to our own time?
Socrates apparently didn’t write anything – he “left no evidence” that we might consult in deciding whether this was a real person or a fictional character. But Plato and Xenophon and Aristophanes seem to have believed Socrates existed. Still, these men are presently unavailable for “cross-examination” on this point. How do you “verify” the facticity of Socrates – or that of Plato et al. for that matter? (Maybe somebody else wrote their stuff after all….)
In regard to my observation that choices we human beings make in our most personal, intimate life may well have public consequences, you accused me of “selective reasoning…[of] only choosing those factors that conform to [my own] view and ignoring those that don’t.”
Leaving aside an objection that you perhaps infer too much with respect to the choices that get loaded into my “selective reasoning,” I have merely to mention that our present little “dust-up” perfectly illustrates my point. (E.g., people writing to me via private mail wondering why I’m being so “mean” to you! :^) )
Seriously, I can’t think of too many decisions (large or small) that I have ever made – or not made as the case may be -- that did not affect other people within the circle of my “influence” – family, friends, coworkers, etc., etc., for good or ill in some degree or other.
WRT your joke that you are a “corrupt old logician,” you said I “seemed to take it seriously!” I can laugh at a joke, yet at the same time see its serious side. Jokes wouldn’t be funny if they lacked one. I took you up on your self-description because it offered the perfect foil for a point that I was making in regard to your comment that I ought to be a Sunday school teacher. (That’s pretty funny, too – and also has a “serious” side.) The point being, mainly, that little children have the great gift of curiosity – before it has been “educated out of them,” before they have been “indoctrinated” into whatever reigning ideologies are currently in fashion. Materialism and atheism have become very popular today, as I’m sure you may have noticed.
You wrote: “Gee, you sure seem to be a Christian and it is my understanding that according to that worldview, one is either ‘Redeemed’ by believing that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrificial payment for all sin or one is not Redeemed and, therefore, still corrupt. Am I wrong on either of these counts?”
You are correct that I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who was incarnated as a man, who suffered as a man, and willingly sacrificed Himself that mankind would be redeemed and the “lost” restored to the Father. That redemption is intended for all men, though a man may refuse it. As for such a refusal, that, to me, is up to God to judge. I could say that living in such a refusal is a corrupt way to live, in the sense that it is a deliberate falling away from truth, and so disorders the personality. (Sorry I have no proof of the kind you require to help my argument here.) But that’s not to say that I think it is my place to have much of an opinion of what transpires between you and God, let alone to consider myself in a position to judge it.
You continue: “You raise two points, first you say ‘between which human conscious experience normally takes place and unfolds’ which implies that it isn’t ‘out there’ but is part of my ‘human conscious experience’ which is here-now. This isn’t what you said before and this creates the dichotomy, not me. It was your assertion that the ’source’ was ’out there’ but now you seem to be saying it is also part of the normal human consciousness, so it isn’t ’out there’ after all. Which is it?”
You seem to want to treat this issue as if I were speaking of some spatially-located site where the process of conscious reflection takes place. There is no such spatially located site! But that doesn’t mean that Eric Voegelin was wrong when he observed that the psyche (soul) is both the site and sensorium of the consciousness of divine things.
I hate to infer too much, but I gather that, for you, lack of spatial location would plainly constitute evidence of the absence of any real thing. That in order for things to be “real,” they must have position in space-time. For if they do not, then there’s no way they can be “tested,” falsified, proven, disproven, in the manner you require.
But what do you do with a conscious experience that has the character of “not-me” speaking, of a kind of “incoming!” from a source sensed as being outside one’s self – in that no conscious will or desire or anything else other than pure receptivity is all one had to do with it?
Prescribe Thorazine?
I must close pretty soon. Much good stuff remains, but I have to go make dinner.
But first, one last point. You said, “I was thinking about how the Chinese Communists complain about the ‘spiritual pollution’ from our culture as we come into increasing contact. What is ‘spiritual pollution’ to an atheistic communist? What could they possibly be thinking of? The precise meaning of words is so very important. This is such a glaring example. It certainly doesn’t mean what we think it means, of that I can be sure.”
Not that I want to establish any “moral equivalency” between you and the Chicoms here; but I think it may be safe to say that, like you, they think matters “spiritual” are wholly bogus cultural artifacts left over from times when men were “primitive” (i.e., “lesser evolved” and thus inferior to what we are today). And now men aren’t primitive anymore, because they have logic, and reason, and science; so having all those good, solid things, these superstitions should just die away….
However, these “superstitions” do not just die away. It may be that, somehow, such “superstitions” are part of the nature and substance of the human condition. In any case, they not only do not die away; they keep on getting “rearticulated” in different forms over time. The “divine symbol” is always there; interpretations of it vary in times and places….
So the Chicoms have apparently made a “utilitarian” decision to appropriate the symbol and try to harness it for their own purposes: If you can’t “make it go away,” well then, try to “make it serve."
Chinese communist "doxology" is made to stand in for “legitimate” (you’ll doubtless quibble about that usage) expressions of the spirit, which are then absolutely “forbidden” (and criminalized). Even “home-gown” spiritualists such as Falun-Gong, not to mention assorted American and European priests and pastors, and American “values” more generally, are all anathema….
I’m baaack! Due to friendly persuasion.
and I’m glad, sorry if i offended you. You put “the meaning of experience” on the table when you brought up the issue of “my worldview.” A worldview is primarily concerned with the meaning of experience, of existence. On the other hand, a person could say experience, existence is meaningless. But that would constitute a worldview, too. The two are so intimately related that, although they can be individually distinguished, one does not have the one without the other. This isn’t a change of subject.
Actually you were responding to PH, not me, on that particular post, but ok. The “evidence” we seem to be speaking of here seems to be of intangible (I’ll hold off on using the “S” word) experience. Although we are contemporaries, you cannot “verify” my experience of this kind. And I can’t “verify” yours. But because I am conscious that I have an “inner life,” I assume that you do, also. This is not an operation in logic, it is simple common sense. Although common sense doesn’t gives us absolute certainty about anything, many times it’s all we’ve got to go on.
I agree with everything you said here. With maybe one exception, I would say common sense is an ‘implicit’ operation in logic. If you were to analyze this ‘common sense’ construction ‘- if as a human being I have an inner life and you also are a human being therefore you also have an inner life like mine - it can be logically parsed. The only thing any of us know with ’absolute certainty’ is something exists. Moreover, do you suggest that because you cannot personally verify that a particular event took place in the past that it certainly didn’t happen? Notwithstanding the testimony of witnesses, and the fact that the event powerfully affected -- one could reasonably say transformed -- the course of human history down to our own time?
No, but there is a scale here. Do the records of the Chinese building the great wall of China seem reasonable. Yes. There are still remnants of a wall there. Is the ‘record’ of Noah loading a pair of every creature on earth into a wooden ark reasonable? That’s a little further down the scale, well a lot further. On another thread I was stunned at the idea that we have recorded 1.7 million different species (i think i have this number right, somebody will beat me up if it is off) and this is still just a fraction. Did he get all these creatures on the ark? Do I have to take everything literally? Socrates apparently didn’t write anything – he “left no evidence” that we might consult in deciding whether this was a real person or a fictional character. But Plato and Xenophon and Aristophanes seem to have believed Socrates existed. Still, these men are presently unavailable for “cross-examination” on this point. How do you “verify” the facticity of Socrates – or that of Plato et al. for that matter? (Maybe somebody else wrote their stuff after all….)
I don’t. I take it just as it is. Maybe he did exist, maybe he didn’t. But in either case it has no affect on my life other than the information transmitted. It was part of the endless groping to understand what it means to be human. I stand on their shoulders, just as you do, just as we all do. Civilization moved just that much higher for what they contributed. That is the lot of being human. The existential truth, one way or another, is useless. In regard to my observation that choices we human beings make in our most personal, intimate life may well have public consequences, you accused me of “selective reasoning…[of] only choosing those factors that conform to [my own] view and ignoring those that don’t.” Leaving aside an objection that you perhaps infer too much with respect to the choices that get loaded into my “selective reasoning,” I have merely to mention that our present little “dust-up” perfectly illustrates my point. (E.g., people writing to me via private mail wondering why I’m being so “mean” to you! :^) )
I thought you were casting a net that was far to wide to include support for your position in all cases, without some qualification (concerning all the people you roped in to support your position, not the idea itself). This was again part of your post to PH that I got pinged on and probably shouldn’t have responded to. I don’t see anything that happens here as part of my ’intimate’ choices since this is a public forum, so I don’t know how this relates. We are mixing a whole bunch of meanings here, and it is far too muddy to mean anything. However, you weren’t being ’mean’ to me. There was a misunderstanding. I have a vigorous and, at times, offensive writing style. I admit to this. Sometimes I don’t understand why people see it this way, but I recognize they do. If you look back at my posts you will find I always apologize when someone complains. I don’t let the fact that I worded something poorly to get in the way of the communication. As a writer, there is a truism. The burden is always upon the writer to make the reader understand, not for the reader to ’have to’ understand the writer. That’s why my posts are so long, I’m so incredibly verbose. I’m trying to make sure I’ve made the point as clear as possible so the reader cannot possibly misunderstand. Then again, people still do. Seriously, I can’t think of too many decisions (large or small) that I have ever made – or not made as the case may be -- that did not affect other people within the circle of my “influence” – family, friends, coworkers, etc., etc., for good or ill in some degree or other.
But is that the issue? Is it a ‘public’ consequence that you marry a man your mother disapproves, so she is unhappy with the choice that makes you happy for the rest of your life, or is this still ‘private?’
I am trying to dance around this ‘private and intimate life’ choice thing and still remain ‘public.’ Who decides what’s right for me, but me? How can anyone else know what’s right for me, but me? If I can find a single ’private intimate’ choice that affects no one else, doesn’t this violate the rule and invalidate it? WRT your joke that you are a “corrupt old logician,” you said I “seemed to take it seriously!” I can laugh at a joke, yet at the same time see its serious side. Jokes wouldn’t be funny if they lacked one. I took you up on your self-description because it offered the perfect foil for a point that I was making in regard to your comment that I ought to be a Sunday school teacher. (That’s pretty funny, too – and also has a “serious” side.)
Your response gave no indication you understood it was a joke, so I thought I had to point it out. The Sunday school teacher comment was because I really don’t think I should be debating with you. You are a person with high optimism and ideals and morality and I am not here to try to shatter that. Yet, debating you I end up in exactly that position. I am here to question the philosophical underpinnings that support a whole realm of world views, not just yours. I have put just as much time as I have put in here debating followers of Aleister Crowley, chaoism and Daoists (and I used to be one, so I can) as I have you. I would rather debate the smug self righteous ones, but they all run away so quickly. They are mostly men, and they find a single point upon which to disagree, and run away. You don’t, so I still converse with you. But I’d rather you went off and taught Sunday school. The point being, mainly, that little children have the great gift of curiosity – before it has been “educated out of them,” before they have been “indoctrinated” into whatever reigning ideologies are currently in fashion.
But I’d rather you went off and taught Sunday school. How is this different? Materialism and atheism have become very popular today, as I’m sure you may have noticed.
And we are back to basics again. First of all, materialism as opposed to what? This term has no meaning anymore, doesn’t anyone get it ??? E = mc2..... There is no ‘material.’ It is ALL energy. It is all just different forms of energy. Can we call it energyism? What happens if we call it ‘energyism?’ What happens to this idea when the paradigm changes? What happened to all the horse buggy whip manufacturers when the auto came along? When everybody jumps in the stock market it is time to get out !!! Atheism is less than 5 % of the national population according any pole I ever saw. Atheism is a logical fallacy. (Bet you never thought you’d see me write that! Now, after all I’ve written, can you tell me why I would say that, considering all I have written? {this is a test, this is only a test, should you attempt to adjust your tv . . .) You are correct that I am a Christian. . .
So I was correct about the world view, ‘saved or corrupt.’ But that’s not to say that I think it is my place to have much of an opinion of what transpires between you and God, let alone to consider myself in a position to judge it.
Thank you. Who is to say what part any of us really plays? And who really knows what? You seem to want to treat this issue as if I were speaking of some spatially-located site where the process of conscious reflection takes place. There is no such spatially located site! But that doesn’t mean that Eric Voegelin was wrong when he observed that the psyche (soul) is both the site and sensorium of the consciousness of divine things.
Yes, but it doesn’t mean he was right, either. I cannot say he is wrong because I cannot assert a negative, but, by the same token you cannot say, ‘There is no such spatially located site!’ No one can assert a negative. I am being totally consistent here. Anybody can hypothesize a negative anything and nobody can prove it wrong. That doesn’t prove anything, doesn’t demonstrate anything, doesn’t verify anything. And, (oh, i don’t want to even have to say this) it begs the question that there are ‘divine things.’ I hate to infer too much, but I gather that, for you, lack of spatial location would plainly constitute evidence of the absence of any real thing. That in order for things to be “real,” they must have position in space-time. For if they do not, then there’s no way they can be “tested,” falsified, proven, disproven, in the manner you require.
I appreciate your carefully worded question here. This is the second time you have surpassed anyone else that I can ever recall. If I ever offend you again keep in mind, I admire your intellect, you are quite brilliant. If you take the current view, the space-time continuum, then space and time are not separate things. If tomorrow somebody else comes along with a better theory then all this goes out the window and I have to start over from there. But, as we understand it now, a location in space is a location in time. (and I kan’t help adding this is why Kant was wrong because space and time were not simply constructs of the ’a priori’ mind but turned out to properties that actually existed and could be proven so, therefore they were valid ‘a posteriori’ concepts) But none of this disproves the existence of something that exists in all space times equally. What is the implication of something that exists in all ’here and nows?’ Do we even have a definition for this?
The second part of your question concerns something that has no location in space or time. Since you are bound to space time, how could you ever know? It would never exist in your space time, so how would you ever to know? By definition, since you are in space time, you would never occupy the same space time. Your paths would never cross. But what do you do with a conscious experience that has the character of “not-me” speaking, of a kind of “incoming!” from a source sensed as being outside one’s self – in that no conscious will or desire or anything else other than pure receptivity is all one had to do with it?
Don’t assume you know the source, go with known data. It isn’t coming from some source ‘outside’ space time but is part of all space time, it IS all space time. You aren’t the whole universe, but the Whole Universe is part of You. It is part of me. It is here, now. Forever and Always.