[minsocal]

David, on Mar 20 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

I have made posts about experience and knowing. I like to talk about epistemology. But it is not as simple as your question makes it appear to be.

I was thinking about the movie “A Beautiful Mind”. In that movie a brilliant person fooled his own wife for a long time into thinking that his “friends” were real persons when in fact they lived only in his own head. He in fact could never persuade those “friends” to go away even after he gradually realized that no one else saw or heard them. If one were going to attempt to decide whether those “friends” were real or not the last thing one would do would be to ask that person to “know their own experience”.

I have no idea how this relates to Jen. Apparently otherwise “normal” appearing people can make fantastic claims like being abducted by space aliens and those people will never be persuaded that they do not “know their own experience”. But that does not mean that people will accept what “space aliens” say to those people even if those “space aliens” provide very wise and progressive messages. I have no idea how this relates to Jen but the one thing I do know is that the last person who we can trust to testify on this is Jen. Only her medical records and people who actually know her can speak to this.

Jen had shouted out for some time that there was independent scientific evidence related to a research study. As it turns out her specific information is protected by her medical records and generally the scanning process that she talks about really does not show what she claims. In other words Jen has lost the ability to show us anything other than her own testimony and we can not accept her own testimony for the reasons I have stated. So although Jen, like all of us “knows” her experience it is not that simple.

Your implications are no longer subtle, yet unwarrented. You could have just said this up front and saved us all the probelm. Just as davidk could have done.

[David]

You remain subtle. Why don’t you just post what is on your mind? If you want to make me the “bad guy” go ahead and give it your best shot. I don’t mind being the recipient of your anger or whatever. Comparing me to DavidK surely is not your “best shot” but if it is then go ahead and explain why that is so. If we can work out any disagreement then that would be great. If we can’t that’s ok also.

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 20 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

You remain subtle. Why don’t you just post what is on your mind? If you want to make me the “bad guy” go ahead and give it your best shot. I don’t mind being the recipient of your anger or whatever. Comparing me to DavidK surely is not your “best shot” but if it is then go ahead and explain why that is so. If we can work out any disagreement then that would be great. If we can’t that’s ok also.

It isn't anger, and I am not known to be subtle. The questions being thrown about here have been contested for thousands of years. Those questions are common knowledge, and always have been. Your desire for epistemology makes the world far, too far, complicated. To put it bluntly, I have said over and over again, this message board has NO PLACE TO GO if there is no reconciliation between you and davidk. You have been influential in setting the tone of this board. I have not.

[David]

I would much rather reconcile with Jen. I hope that will happen some day. I can understand why it may not happen today.

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 20 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

<snip>

I have no idea how this relates to Jen. Apparently otherwise “normal” appearing people can make fantastic claims like being abducted by space aliens and those people will never be persuaded that they do not “know their own experience”. But that does not mean that people will accept what “space aliens” say to those people even if those “space aliens” provide very wise and progressive messages. I have no idea how this relates to Jen but the one thing I do know is that the last person who we can trust to testify on this is Jen. Only her medical records and people who actually know her can speak to this.

<snip>

See bold. That is davidk speaking, the "propositional content" of anything but a person. Will you require my medical records to prove I feel that I am a progressive Christian? Frankly, what you stated (in bold), if you truly mean it, well ... I'm just out of words. I am simply on the wrong message board.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 20 March 2009 - 04:13 PM

[David]

I have spent 30 years as a “deal maker”. My job involved taking people with differing interests and “making deals”. Here is a suggestion for a “deal”.

First a “reality check”. If “accepting Jen” means that one has to accept literally that Jen receives and transmits the exact words of the historical Jesus then clearly no one so accepts Jen. Clearly if they did accept this there would have been a series of questions directed to the historical Jesus given to Jen. This is what Jen wanted. This is certainly what would be expected for anyone who accepts Jen in this way. Can you imagine the amount of problems this would solve? Since no one saw any potential in this then clearly Jen has never been “accepted” in this way.

But certainly Jen has been accepted and appreciated. Some people may see Jen as a creative person who uses this as a technique or some people may just ignore the whole channeling issue and concentrate on what is being said. There are many ways to just avoid the whole issue and go straight to “accepting” the person. I think that has happened and understandably so.

But what has also happened is that people have left. Progressives have a terrible time with including/excluding and here we have including/excluding in the same person! People would rather exclude themselves from this website rather than suggest that this part of Jen be excluded even if that is for a larger purpose. From what I have seen I think this history stretches from FredP early on to most recently with people like Bill whose conversation with Jen started this tread.

I would suggest a “deal” that may work out for all concerned. The deal would be that no one force Jen to attempt to change what she claims to be her experience. However, Jen would have to obtain permission from her Jesus to not use his name anymore. Some may be able to recognize when that Jesus is speaking but that Jesus must surely realize that the “direct dictation” alternative is not effective and does more harm than good. We would still get the same words, but they would be signed by Jen. If Jen receives too much credit in her mind then she will just have to live with that. Jen obviously loses whatever good or bad is associated with the channeling claim (again the evidence indicates that the channeling claim was never really accepted here anyway). It seems that we all could concentrate on the insight/wisdom including Jen who would no longer have to defend the channeling claim.

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 20 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

I have spent 30 years as a “deal maker”. My job involved taking people with differing interests and “making deals”. Here is a suggestion for a “deal”.

First a “reality check”. If “accepting Jen” means that one has to accept literally that Jen receives and transmits the exact words of the historical Jesus then clearly no one so accepts Jen. Clearly if they did accept this there would have been a series of questions directed to the historical Jesus given to Jen. This is what Jen wanted. This is certainly what would be expected for anyone who accepts Jen in this way. Can you imagine the amount of problems this would solve? Since no one saw any potential in this then clearly Jen has never been “accepted” in this way.

But certainly Jen has been accepted and appreciated. Some people may see Jen as a creative person who uses this as a technique or some people may just ignore the whole channeling issue and concentrate on what is being said. There are many ways to just avoid the whole issue and go straight to “accepting” the person. I think that has happened and understandably so.

But what has also happened is that people have left. Progressives have a terrible time with including/excluding and here we have including/excluding in the same person! People would rather exclude themselves from this website rather than suggest that this part of Jen be excluded even if that is for a larger purpose. From what I have seen I think this history stretches from FredP early on to most recently with people like Bill whose conversation with Jen started this tread.

I would suggest a “deal” that may work out for all concerned. The deal would be that no one force Jen to attempt to change what she claims to be her experience. However, Jen would have to obtain permission from her Jesus to not use his name anymore. Some may be able to recognize when that Jesus is speaking but that Jesus must surely realize that the “direct dictation” alternative is not effective and does more harm than good. We would still get the same words, but they would be signed by Jen. If Jen receives too much credit in her mind then she will just have to live with that. Jen obviously loses whatever good or bad is associated with the channeling claim (again the evidence indicates that the channeling claim was never really accepted here anyway). It seems that we all could concentrate on the insight/wisdom including Jen who would no longer have to defend the channeling claim.

Let's make a deal, was that Monty Hall or Monty Python? Leave me out, thank you.

[October's Autumn]

I'm not really understanding the problem here. Jen is free to believe what she chooses to believe. I am free to choose to believe her or not believe her or whatever. I've no problem with her making posts and signing them "Jesus." That is her expression of her belief. If it were that much of an issue with me I'd simply put her on ignore. I don't have an issue and I don't need to make any demands of her. If she is breaking some TCPC posting rules, then alert the moderators! Otherwise, let it go! Let Jen post as Jesus, she certainly isn't hurting anyone...

[David]

minsocal, on Mar 20 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

See bold. That is davidk speaking, the "propositional content" of anything but a person. Will you require my medical records to prove I feel that I am a progressive Christian? Frankly, what you stated (in bold), if you truly mean it, well ... I'm just out of words. I am simply on the wrong message board.

You are correct. Both Davids are talking inclusion/exclusion (not the reconciliation you had in mind?). Your observation also supports and justifies the progressive's natural tendency to include. As far as the medical records are concerned you need to go back and read what I wrote. But you are on the right message board.

[David]

October, on Mar 20 2009, 08:37 PM, said:

I'm not really understanding the problem here. Jen is free to believe what she chooses to believe. I am free to choose to believe her or not believe her or whatever. I've no problem with her making posts and signing them "Jesus." That is her expression of her belief. If it were that much of an issue with me I'd simply put her on ignore. I don't have an issue and I don't need to make any demands of her. If she is breaking some TCPC posting rules, then alert the moderators! Otherwise, let it go! Let Jen post as Jesus, she certainly isn't hurting anyone...

I do not think that complete freedom takes you anywhere. Certainly Progressive Christianity is not based upon complete freedom. People come to this website I think at least in part to work out what it means to be a Progressive Christian. Some leave this website when they see complete freedom as being more important than working out what it means to be a Progressive Christian. As I said I think that has been true from FredP to most currently Bill. To the extent that this website can reflect a social movement called Progressive Christianity it will deal with inclusion/exclusion that is inherent in any social movement. I keep suggesting that we take that process out of the closet and make it public, visable and non personal. A mission statement is the best way to do that. Is it our mission to encourage "direct dictation" from the historical Jesus? If so then do something to support that mission. Ask Jen to ask Jesus all of those important questions. What part of the Bible is correct? Did or did not Paul have an actual vision of Jesus and how different in Paul's Jesus from the historical Jesus. If you are not going to include "direct dictation" from the historical Jesus as part of your mission then don't patronize Jen by saying in some way that her channeling "belongs" as a part of this mission when it does not.

On the other hand we could separate this message board completely from any mission related to Progressive Chistianity and encourage complete freedom of posting from any and all. I am sure I would then leave. So who are you going to exclude?

This post has been edited by David: 21 March 2009 - 07:54 AM

[davidk]

David, on Mar 20 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

Comparing me to DavidK surely is not your “best shot” but if it is then go ahead and explain why that is so.

David,
Rest assured, your posts have been cogent and are not the problem on this thread.

(I have been flattered by the manner that has been attempted to discredit you. However, if it was someones best shot, they didn't have any ammunition to begin with.)

None of what you posted has warranted such vitriol as you have patiently tried to wade through simply by your asking a clinical question and hoping to get a clinical answer.
---
"Because it did get stuck." Hilarious! Your response was brilliant.

[David]

davidk, on Mar 21 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

David,
Rest assured, your posts have been cogent and are not the problem on this thread.

(I have been flattered by the manner that has been attempted to discredit you. However, if it was someones best shot, they didn't have any ammunition to begin with.)

None of what you posted has warranted such vitriol as you have patiently tried to wade through simply by your asking a clinical question and hoping to get a clinical answer.
---
"Because it did get stuck." Hilarious! Your response was brilliant.

David,

I really do miss writing to myself. But we agreed early on that we used the same words with entirely different meanings. Yet that obviously is not completely true. I have used you as a “symbol” in a way that is very un-progressive with my main point being the attempt to recognize appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity. If you have been personally offended by this you have not reacted violently and personally I appreciate that.

That’s about as much “reconciliation” as I can do. But tell me which is your favorite baseball team. One of my best friends is an “evangelical Catholic” (you think that would be a communication problem?) who is also a Dodger fan. As a Giants fan obviously we have taken our theological problems onto the baseball field and have enjoyed many games together.

David

[minsocal]

October, on Mar 20 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

I'm not really understanding the problem here. Jen is free to believe what she chooses to believe. I am free to choose to believe her or not believe her or whatever. I've no problem with her making posts and signing them "Jesus." That is her expression of her belief. If it were that much of an issue with me I'd simply put her on ignore. I don't have an issue and I don't need to make any demands of her. If she is breaking some TCPC posting rules, then alert the moderators! Otherwise, let it go! Let Jen post as Jesus, she certainly isn't hurting anyone...

Yes, please. That is the only point.

[minsocal]

A review of the early parts of this thread raises some very interesting issues concerning any individual mystical or religious experience. Clearly, it is a subject that science once avoided and is now re-engaging. This does not mean that the theory is all that new. As I understand it, Jen has proposed a theory somewhat similar to Jung and synchronicity. Jung worked closely with the Nobel Laureate Wolfgang Pauli in working out many of the details of the theory. Pauli, a physicist, was one of the few people who could sit down with Einstein and discuss the implications of the theory Jen refers to. The reason for this is that both Pauli and Einstein did not mentally process most of their ideas in the form of verbal propositions. This is recorded fact.

This last point, that people process information in very different ways, is generally accepted and part of any contemporary course in human development. It was Jung who noted that it would be some time before we would do "equal justice" to all forms.

If Jen is proposing a theory similar to synchronicity, the "rules" of epistemology have to be given a very careful review. Those rules, which I defended elsewhwere, include non-rational sources. What science is beginning to show, based on solid evidence, is that the division between the 'rational' and the 'non-rational' is pure illusion. This, of course upsets traditionalists and conservatives. But, if it is a fact, it is a fact. It is the tail of the beast that sometimes gets caught when the rest has eluded us.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 21 March 2009 - 11:29 AM

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 20 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

Repeating the question as the answer is sort of like answering your own question with your own answer which by the way I am glad you did since you evidently are now satisfied.

These kinds of questions are well know to epistemologists and often ... well ... simply rejected. They represent nothing more than the fact that language can be twisted many different ways. So what? It is nothing more than placing a 'proposition' before a value. And, that debate is very old.

[davidk]

David, on Mar 21 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

David,

I really do miss writing to myself. But we agreed early on that we used the same words with entirely different meanings. Yet that obviously is not completely true. I have used you as a “symbol” in a way that is very un-progressive with my main point being the attempt to recognize appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity. If you have been personally offended by this you have not reacted violently and personally I appreciate that.

That’s about as much “reconciliation” as I can do. But tell me which is your favorite baseball team. One of my best friends is an “evangelical Catholic” (you think that would be a communication problem?) who is also a Dodger fan. As a Giants fan obviously we have taken our theological problems onto the baseball field and have enjoyed many games together.

David

I appreciate your being civil. It reflects well on your Mom and Dad. There's nothing to be ashamed about by being somehow "un-progressive". It's honest to say being all inclusive cannot be intellectually sustained. By any admission, that undertanding is a good thing. If I could be used to demonstate that point to the others, that's even better. How much sense does it make for anyone to pat themselves on the back for their tendency to include everyone, when it's impracticality is the more evident?
---
An evangelical Catholic Dodger fan?

Growing up it was always the Yankees. Maris, Mantle and the like. In the late 80's and early 90's we could go see the Braves in Atlanta on the cheap. Then they began to win, that was pretty exciting and the passion for a "home town team" took over for several years. I have friends still fanatics. Me? Not so much as I used to be. Still ocacasionally try to slip away for a game.
---
A reasonable, personal, infinite God created all else. How could anyone think anything we know could be considered unreasonable, or irrational? If the difference between "the 'rational' and the 'non-rational' is pure illusion", then that must make everything rational. Otherwise one could not use rationality in their arguiment.

[minsocal]

A 'deal' is between two parties with mutual and equal understanding and respect. Coercion takes place when the egalitarian element is eliminated. Radical Paulinism speaks here, coherent with the teachings of Jesus.

[David]

davidk, on Mar 22 2009, 07:51 PM, said:

An evangelical Catholic Dodger fan?

Growing up it was always the Yankees. Maris, Mantle and the like.

Well New York has a place in my baseball theology. You see New York was once the Garden of Eden where Dodgers and Giants lived together in peace. Then there was the great Fall when both were kicked out of the Garden and were sent to California. The Dodgers went South to Hell. The Giants went North to Heaven. It’s been a constant battle ever since. My friend for some reason has never been able to see this even though the theology is much more consistent with his general thinking than mine.
(I tend to ignore facts that are not consistent with my baseball theology so don't bother pointing out those errors to me)

This post has been edited by David: 23 March 2009 - 11:52 AM

[minsocal]

Mock

–verb (used with object)

1. to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2. to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.
3. to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.
4. to challenge; defy: His actions mock convention.
5. to deceive, delude, or disappoint.

–verb (used without object)

6. to use ridicule or derision; scoff; jeer (often fol. by at).

–noun

7. a contemptuous or derisive imitative action or speech; mockery or derision.
8. something mocked or derided; an object of derision.
9. an imitation; counterfeit; fake.
10. Shipbuilding. a. a hard pattern representing the surface of a plate with a warped form, upon which the plate is beaten to shape after furnacing.
b. bed (def. 23).

–adjective

11. feigned; not real; sham: a mock battle.

—Verb phrase

12. mock up, to build a mock-up of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synonyms:

1. deride; taunt, flout, gibe; chaff, tease. See ridicule. 5. cheat, dupe, fool, mislead.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 23 March 2009 - 12:07 PM

[David]

Of course my friend has a different version of baseball theology. He claims (and I hesitate to repeat this because I don’t want others to become Dodger fans) that the Giants are so named because of their giant liberal San Francisco egos that prevent them from seeing the “true blue” and that the “blue” of Dodger blue refers to being loyal to the faith. So the very act of baseball is the Dodger attempt to convert Giant fans. We try to watch the game while having these discussions (there is a whole bunch more like the “meaning of going home”, “losing as really winning”,etc., but I can see that some are not interested in this).

Minsocal, I am sorry if you are mocked by this. Certainly comments about Monty Hall and Monty Python are attempts at seriousness and not mockery.