[JosephM]

David, on Jan 11 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

“I” am saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace the epistemology of revelation via direct dictation. Are you saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace something different? Are you saying that epistemology is not important?

My responses to Jen surely show that I embrace Jen. She is a wise person and her insights are powerful. The “source” of the words is exactly the point. Why do you invalidate that point by stating that I somehow do not embrace Jen? Certainly “I want to” make this point. Certainly you are free to say that the alleged source of words is not important. I just think that view is dangerous and dangerous not because “I want to” see it that way.

David,

I guess you could say that what I am saying is, it really isn't necessary for me to take Pat Robinson at face value. I am not an epistemologist nor is his theory of knowledge, his critical study of its validity, his methods, or scope of any interest to me. So yes, to me, epistemology is not important. To me Life is more than words, theories and methods at arriving at knowledge. No offence meant if it is important to you. This is only my view in response to your question.

Thanks for clarifying your embrace of Jen. That was my error in perception. Perhaps you will define dangerous in context to your statement so that I may better understand your concern

Love Joseph

[David]

Thank you for your clarification. I am thankful that we agree that “support for Jen” is not the issue. However, if “the issue” that I have raised is not important to you then I hesitate to bother you with it. I suspect others see the danger that you do not.

I agree with you that Truth can come in many forms. Epistemology is about how you know the truth in any form. You will find a discussion of progressive epistemology elsewhere but basically I would argue that progressive epistemology is based upon an “internal” knowing process. So you may read Jen’s Jesus and know the truth therein, but you may recognize that the knowing comes from that “internal” process and is not a result of the claim that it comes from the historical Jesus.

The danger is that many people of many faiths would argue that the most important Truths can not be known as I would argue. Those Truths can only be “given” to us by a supernatural external being (Jen’s Jesus). Some of those people will take what is “given” by that supposed supernatural external being and strap explosives to their bodies and blow up other people. Others take on a supposed Divine identity and expect others to respond to them as some kind of god. This all is dangerous. I would argue that the power behind that danger is not with the supposed Truths that are being claimed. The power comes from the epistemology that states the way one knows the most important truths is an “external” thing and not an “internal” thing. You see where the responsibility is for these people? This is overly simplified but it many ways it is a simple point.

Now when someone like you (obviously a very intelligent/wise person) comes along and says that Pat Robertson or Jen are not claiming to be Divine but only giving us word for word dictation from that Divine it certainly sounds like you are supporting the same epistemology that blows people up (remember my argument is that the power is with the epistemology, not the “truths” being discussed). You may not intend that consequence and think therefore that you see no danger. If this is what you think then I argue that you are wrong.

I’m not clear how your statement that Jen is not claiming to be Divine but only providing Divine dictation is related to your statement to Bill that it is not your business to comment on Jen’s Jesus. If you meant the latter it would have been good to say that. I would have ignored you then. But since you seemed to support (probably without intention) the dangerous epistemology I did not want to let that pass. Hope this helps you understand my input.

This post has been edited by David: 11 January 2009 - 09:39 PM

[JosephM]

David, on Jan 11 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

Thank you for your clarification. I am thankful that we agree that “support for Jen” is not the issue. However, if “the issue” that I have raised is not important to you then I hesitate to bother you with it. I suspect others see the danger that you do not.

Perhaps.

David said:

I agree with you that Truth can come in many forms. Epistemology is about how you know the truth in any form. You will find a discussion of progressive epistemology elsewhere but basically I would argue that progressive epistemology is based upon an “internal” knowing process. So you may read Jen’s Jesus and know the truth therein, but you may recognize that the knowing comes from that “internal” process and is not a result of the claim that it comes from the historical Jesus.

Yes, the knowing comes from "internal" yet it seems to me that it is not a process.

Quote

The danger is that many people of many faiths would argue that the most important Truths can not be known as I would argue. Those Truths can only be “given” to us by a supernatural external being (Jen’s Jesus). Some of those people will take what is “given” by that supposed supernatural external being and strap explosives to their bodies and blow up other people. Others take on a supposed Divine identity and expect others to respond to them as some kind of god. This all is dangerous. I would argue that the power behind that danger is not with the supposed Truths that are being claimed. The power comes from the epistemology that states the way one knows the most important truths is an “external” thing and not an “internal” thing. You see where the responsibility is for these people? This is overly simplified but it many ways it is a simple point.

Perhaps I see a harmony that others may not. My physical life is always in the hand of the creator and real danger is not a factor to my Life. (perhaps only to my life situation) It seems to me the power does not come from the epistemology but rather a conditioned willingness of the victim creature to accept truth that way. Perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim. It seems to me, my words cannot be a danger to you unless you agree to allow them to be so. Personally I do not see Jen or Pat Robertson's words as dangerous nor their claimed source as a threat.

Quote

Now when someone like you (obviously a very intelligent/wise person) comes along and says that Pat Robertson or Jen are not claiming to be Divine but only giving us word for word dictation from that Divine it certainly sounds like you are supporting the same epistemology that blows people up (remember my argument is that the power is with the epistemology, not the “truths” being discussed). You may not intend that consequence and think therefore that you see no danger. If this is what you think then I argue that you are wrong.

Your first error in perception is in assuming I am very intelligent. lol. Secondly, I am not supporting any epistemology as you may suppose. Nor am I attacking it. I do not know where Jen's words come from, I only know where she claims they come from. Where they come from to me is irrelevant. To me, one does not learn from others these things. Linguistics enables us to describe things that others may not be yet capable of articulating yet that articulating is, as you may already know, not the source of knowledge. It seems to me that those who accept as truth written or spoken words without subjective experience for themselves are a danger to themselves. In my view, words have only the power we give to them.

David said:

I’m not clear how your statement that Jen is not claiming to be Divine but only providing Divine dictation is related to your statement to Bill that it is not your business to comment on Jen’s Jesus. If you meant the latter it would have been good to say that. I would have ignored you then. But since you seemed to support (probably without intention) the dangerous epistemology I did not want to let that pass. Hope this helps you understand my input.

I never said she was providing Divine dictation . I said she didn't say she was Jesus, She said she was providing communications from him. I was only correcting his statement. I don't even know if she considers Jesus Divine as you have used. As I said, I have no interest in her epistemology. Perhaps i just have a different way to look at it. Also perhaps it would have been best for me to just let Bill's statement alone which at the time i perceived as an unwarranted attack on Jen and, by implication of his entire context, on this site, which is represented by no single person or the few individuals named. Yes, I think I now understand your input and concern.

Love Joseph

[David]

JosephM, on Jan 12 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

As I said, I have no interest in her epistemology. Perhaps i just have a different way to look at it. Also perhaps it would have been best for me to just let Bill's statement alone which at the time i perceived as an unwarranted attack on Jen and, by implication of his entire context, on this site, which is represented by no single person or the few individuals named. Yes, I think I now understand your input and concern.

But those are just words and “words cannot be a danger to you unless you agree to allow them to be so”. For some reason you reacted to a perceived “unwarranted attack” in this instance, but refuse to recognize the “unwarranted attack” by a dangerous epistemology that I have attempted to show you. Is there some difference in the words here that I am missing?

You state that “the power does not come from the epistemology but rather a conditioned willingness of the victim creature to accept truth that way. Perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim.”

First of all, you have just provided a good definition of how epistemology works by noting “a conditioned willingness…to accept truth that way”. That is epistemology at work. I agree with you that the power comes from “a conditioned willingness to accept truth that way”. The power comes from epistemology.

You say “perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim”. The victims of the process that I am talking about include innocent bystanders in these “holy wars” even if you could blame the “willing victim” of the epistemology/thinking that fuels those wars. In any case I think it is better to talk about the dangers of the epistemology process itself. The “perpetrators” are victims also. How many are “willing” is highly questionable if you mean they actually can see viable alternatives.

If I understand you correctly then I see no danger to your “Life” either because you seemed to have separated your “Life” from your “life situation”. To the extent that they are separated in your mind it would appear to make your “Life” somewhat irrelevant to your “life situation”. It would seem that any attempt by me to talk about “life situations” with you would be fruitless. The danger that I am talking about is within those “life situations”.

This post has been edited by David: 13 January 2009 - 02:15 PM

[JosephM]

David, on Jan 13 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

But those are just words and “words cannot be a danger to you unless you agree to allow them to be so”. For some reason you reacted to a perceived “unwarranted attack” in this instance, but refuse to recognize the “unwarranted attack” by a dangerous epistemology that I have attempted to show you. Is there some difference in the words here that I am missing?

Greetings David,

That is correct. Words are not a danger unless one allows them to be so. His word attack was no danger to me. Bill is no danger to me. I merely suggested that perhaps if I looked back it would have been wiser to not respond. Perhaps it was a conditioned perception error on my part and not an attack on his part at all. Perhaps the error was mine. He might have been looking to justify in his own mind a valid reason to leave this forum for whatever reason. I really do not know. That is why I said "at the time I perceived it as" which means I do not know.

Quote

You state that “the power does not come from the epistemology but rather a conditioned willingness of the victim creature to accept truth that way. Perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim.”

First of all, you have just provided a good definition of how epistemology works by noting “a conditioned willingness…to accept truth that way”. That is epistemology at work. I agree with you that the power comes from “a conditioned willingness to accept truth that way”. The power comes from epistemology.

If the definition of epistemology is a conditioned willingness by the creature to accept truth that way then yes. But I am of the persuasion that that power does not come from theory or philosophy but rather an antithesis.

Quote

You say “perhaps it always requires both a perpetrator and a willing victim”. The victims of the process that I am talking about include innocent bystanders in these “holy wars” even if you could blame the “willing victim” of the epistemology/thinking that fuels those wars. In any case I think it is better to talk about the dangers of the epistemology process itself. The “perpetrators” are victims also. How many are “willing” is highly questionable if you mean they actually can see viable alternatives.

In my understanding, there is no blame, there is no such thing as an innocent victim and yes, in essence, victim and perpetrator are one and the same.

Quote

If I understand you correctly then I see no danger to your “Life” either because you seemed to have separated your “Life” from your “life situation”. To the extent that they are separated in your mind it would appear to make your “Life” somewhat irrelevant to your “life situation”. It would seem that any attempt by me to talk about “life situations” with you would be fruitless. The danger that I am talking about is within those “life situations”.

Yes, one can view things from both sides and the one indeed becomes irrelevant to the other. A harmony is seen and the things that do appear are seen in a different light so that even epistemology becomes irrelevant. Whether our talking about "life situations" would be fruitless or not to you depends on you and your motives for doing so.

Love Joseph