by onacruse 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
um Craig...if your version of dog, not biblical BTW, made us what exactly the what we are I think self determination would be more like an ammoral facet of our existence...and only moral on the part of dog...to abide by the result of the experiment and deal w/the results fairly. There is no evidence of this happening, particularly if you believe in the Bible. Maybe I'm just saying the same thing...if so never mind...
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Craig: A bookworm Witness? Jeez, if Katie hadn't snagged you, I would have. (No worries, Katie, I'm harmless...mostly)
I've always appreciated you. In my book, you qualify for "good people" status.
Been through that Epiphany stage more than once. The first time was coming to grips with how I perceived Jesus Christ as an historical figure. Wow! was that an eye-opener!!
Good luck with your continuing quest for Truth. May it never end.
Wasa
LOL @ Six And here I thought you were Forrest Gump!
Synesthesia is rare; but that it even occurs at all is simply evidence that our individual sensory processes don't represent "reality." If "red" is real, as an external universal property, then we'd all, each and every one of us, without exception or variation, experience exactly the same thing when "red" appears. And the same is true of "love." You know what love means to you, and I know what it means to me, and Katie knows what it means to her. But all the words and actions in the world will never share between us what we "feel inside" when we say "love." We interpret and project, but never touch.
Valis, hehe, as a fellow Wittgensteiner, I know you know where I'm going with all this I offered the theological corollary so as to include the quasi-religious dimension of "morality" as Hayakawa mentions. Like so many here, I've struggled with a sense of guilt: "What would God think of me in all this?" I happen to still very much believe in God (though, as you rightly observe, not strictly in the Biblical portrayal of Him; my "reasons" run more along meta-geometrical and esthetic lines). And that's one of the ways in which the "epiphany" I've been experiencing gives me such peace of mind: I need feel no guilt whatsoever for simply being what I am. Insofar as guilt and innocence are determined by some "standard," then they are moral issues. But since I cannot help but determine within myself and for myself what is right and wrong, then my acts of self-determination are themselves the standards of morality. btw, my 4th proposition (assuming I don't get delisted in the meantime for spamming LOL ) will be that "ethics are amoral."
wasa, "the quest for truth." Ah, yes. How long I was shackled with the erroneous idea that there is a "truth," that I had "the truth," that I was sharing "the truth," that this or that book contained "the truth." In the few months I've been in this forum, that's one of the things that became clear to me: the Hebrew and Greek concept of "truth" (and, therefore, the Biblical meaning as well) is not the "possession of a body of correct doctrine," Rather, it is the "process of honest and open investigation." (e.g. the Greek word means basically "not to hide or conceal, be unconscious of"). And, as you say, that quest will never end.
Craig
But what is it that happens when we "see" something? Nothing more than the physical stimulation of our retinal nerves by an electromagnetic radiation (the various frequencies of which we are conditioned to label as "color"). Thus, not all people see the same color as we do (e.g. color-blindness), and some people experience a taste instead of a color (a neurological condition called synesthesia).
Synesthesia is actually very common, occurring in about one in two hundred people, and has other effects as well. For instance, another aspect is whenever you hear a particular tone you see a particular colour. And some see colours in numbers. So, 5 is always red, 6 is always green. It's always tinged green. 7 is always indigo, 8 is always yellow. So, to ask what colour a number or a tone is will be meaningless to most, but not all of us. And if we don't agree who is right ?
And, of course, our understanding of things is constrained by our own experience...as Plato explained in his allegory of the cave (http://www.plotinus.com/plato_allegory_of_the_cave.htm)...but perhaps that anticipates your cogitations
Earnest
Earnest, I didn't know that synesthesia was that common...I'll drive more carefully now
Plato's Allegory is very much to the point here, thanks for that link: a very thought-provoking examination that opens up a whole lot of self-analysis. And yes, you are anticipating my next proposition, so let's go:
Proposition 2: Everything we "know" is nothing more than someone else's interpretation.
Purport: Every self-determination we make is based on non-truth.
"Well now, Craig, what you say about self-determination at least offers a positive idea about our personal self-worth, and dignifies our moral right to make decisions for ourselves. But here you turn around and say that those very decisions are misinformed? How is that "good?" And what's more, I'm learning new things every day; I'm far from ignorant, and to suggest that I am ignorant is just plain insulting!"
The "misinformation" of which I speak has nothing to do with how many "facts" we accumulate, or how much understanding we have, or how much experience we've had. It has to do with how we think and learn. For example, take a newborn baby, fresh out of the womb. We lean over, smile, and say "Oh, aren't you just a cutie?" What does that baby think about that? Nothing. Our facial expression means nothing to him, our words mean nothing to him. Or, we show the baby a congratulatory card we got from a friend. What does the picture on that card mean to the baby? or the writing on that card? Nothing, because the baby has not yet developed the ability to associate meaning with abstract symbols in the world around him. He has no "ideas" in his mind, he's a blank slate.
How then does that baby develop ideas? All the people around him superimpose their own perceptions on that baby! For example, we say the word "chair," and gesture toward that object with which we have associated that symbol (i.e., the "word" chair), and so then the baby also associates that symbol with that object. But it's not his definition or perception, it's ours. Eventually, that baby accumulates more and more such associations; for example, he learns that those inkblots on a piece of paper are not just random patterns, but are symbolic letters, and that those letters combine together to form symbolic words, and as he absorbs more and more words (all of which are nicely defined for him in a handy dictionary), his thinking processes get increasingly complex. All kinds of abstract associations form in his mind, and eventually he becomes "smart;" ahhhh, he's finally thinking for himself.
In fact, he never starts thinking for himself! His entire perception of the universe is nothing more than a reflection of the thousands of interpretations and meanings of symbols that have been superimposed on him by others. What he calls "truth" is nothing more, and nothing less, than somebody else's idea of what truth is.
And it can never be any other way. That is the standard (or moral) of our existence.
To tie this in with the topic that started all this: No JW is less "informed" than any of the rest of humanity. The "reasons" each and every one of us accept as our own fall equally short of being "truth."
Craig
No JW is less "informed" than any of the rest of humanity.
That's simply not true! lol
*I'm going to go bash my head repeatedly into concrete now, rather than have a discussion with you as to "why" it's not true*
Ahh, Mr. Six, there there now! **kisses Six's forehead**
Keep in mind the narrow sense in which I'm using the word "informed." It has nothing to do with "quantity or accuracy of information." I'm certainly not suggesting that JWs are as well- or fairly-educated as the general population (or, that the "general population" is as well- and fairly-educated as it might like to think). I'm driving at the moral issue here, not an ethical one. And it's in the ethics that you and I will, I've no doubt, fully concur.
Bear with me...
Craig
I guess I keep waiting for that special moment to hit me and then I will be at total peace with myself, even if that means I have no more knowledge than I do now
I don't think it will , DeDe,i think it is like dieting, u just keep doing it and eventually u arrive at your goal.. Or as my therapit, said, " fake it till u make it"
or sort of watching hair grow,it grows so slowly, u will never see it. but wow, 3 months after a haircut, u have a lot more hair.
I have found my ideas and feelings are changing-they are just changing very slowly. eventualy i will be a new perosn.. I already feel less pain, than i did a year ago. It takes tiem to recreate a new person.
weds
My head hurts. I think I'd rather beer with you.
Actually, I don't have time to jump feet first into all this right now, but my quick reaction is that I feel like you're weaving between words usage in a way I can't keep up with. I mean, if your analogies are metaphoric, lol, then maybe it all works.... but I kinda feel like you have hit us with some stuff that can very much be measured, and you present it as if that isn't the case.
For instance, color. Red can very much be quantified, both as to it's make-up, and to the way it (tends) to make humans feel. The former is a very hard science, the latter a bit more soft. A scientist who studies light or color, has a much more precise view of "red" than most of us, but that is just a matter of him having more information/data about it.
Another "for instance":
For example, take a newborn baby, fresh out of the womb. We lean over, smile, and say "Oh, aren't you just a cutie?" What does that baby think about that? Nothing.
Not true at all. Just because he doesn't have language, doesn't mean he doesn't think. He responds to tone, facial expression, body language, etc.
Our facial expression means nothing to him, our words mean nothing to him.
You can't really believe that, can you?
Or, we show the baby a congratulatory card we got from a friend. What does the picture on that card mean to the baby? or the writing on that card?
It may mean something as simple as "what's that?". (however babies with no language say "what's that?") But it means something. (and yes, for the sake of this discussion, a question is something)
Nothing, because the baby has not yet developed the ability to associate meaning with abstract symbols in the world around him. He has no "ideas" in his mind, he's a blank slate.
But he's not a blank slate, not really. I mean "blank slate" is fine for a loose discussion, but you seem to be very much wanting to go... uh... somewhere in a very precise fashion. And to be precise, a baby is not a blank slate at all.
I'm driving at the moral issue here, not an ethical one.
Could you define those terms as you'll be using them?
even if that means I have no more knowledge than I do now
wednesday, thanks for high-lighting Dede's comment.
Dede, I've spent so much of my life accumulating knowledge, facts, figures, names, dates, places, things, buduh, buduh...and I never had "peace of mind" either. As Solomon said, "In the abundance of knowledge there is vexation." Why? Because knowledge is not the "standard," the moral by which we should measure our worth; not the "knowledge" of the WTS, or the "knowledge" of the Bible, or of the Koran, or anything else. As I'm trying to say here, the peace of mind, the feeling that we are in harmony with what is "right," has to do with realizing, and accepting within ourselves, that we measure up to the highest moral "rule" simply because we are what we are.
"Loving yourself.." two such simple words, mysterious and frustrating only because we lead so much of our life convinced (by others, as my proposition #2 asserts) that it can't be that simple. Self-love is where peace begins.
Craig
