[minsocal]

David, on Mar 29 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

Nope, sorry, still lost. But I don’t think you are trying to talk about the thread (I will try not to take personal offense as the author of the thread). Again you may want to talk about what is important to you which as I said before is ok. It just sometimes gets boring when someone always wants to change the subject back to what is on their mind.

But again it may be just me. Anyone? Help??

Well then David, you have found another person you cannot communicate with. Like others, I find it much more stimulating to debate elsewhewre. More depth, more nuance. Less rigid.

When you are done working up the rules for Me, Jen and the others, let us know.

I am off to a much more productive territory with people who can tolerate and accept, argue and reject.

I have read what you have said David,

you are now the defacto moderator of this board. Enjoy!!!! Bye bye...

[David]

minsocal, on Mar 29 2009, 03:13 PM, said:

Well then David, you have found another person you cannot communicate with. Like others, I find it much more stimulating to debate elsewhewre. More depth, more nuance. Less rigid.

When you are done working up the rules for Me, Jen and the others, let us know.

I am off to a much more productive territory with people who can tolerate and accept, argue and reject.

I have read what you have said David,

you are now the defacto moderator of this board. Enjoy!!!! Bye bye...

Thanks for all of your contributions. I really enjoyed our discussions on Jung.
You know that progressives and rules don't mix. Images of herding cats.
I can’t be a moderator. I’m going to Canada and talk with my bird.
Maybe I am better at talking with birds.

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 29 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

Thanks for all of your contributions. I really enjoyed our discussions on Jung.
You know that progressives and rules don't mix. Images of herding cats.
I can’t be a moderator. I’m going to Canada and talk with my bird.
Maybe I am better at talking with birds.

My progressive cat (named Poopers) is deeply offended. Herds and cats do not fit together conceptually, in practice, or in nature. My cat knows his relationship to nature and to the bird. He simply says, may I speak also? I listen to both.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 29 March 2009 - 05:51 PM

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 29 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

No, you are still missing it and that is because you are still limited to your tools. First logic is overrated. Second I am talking about epistemology and you are talking theology/philosophy. I am talking about "how you know" as being primary within experience before belief comes along. You consider belief primary and necessary for experience. These are fundamentally opposing. Experience is not a belief. Now you dismiss the importance of experience because of your belief and I give it importance based upon belief but the primary experience is not belief. That's about as far as I can go with someone who is working with different tools. Thanks and again let's just talk baseball.

You are joking, are you not? Uhhh ... this is such an old debate it is almost boring. Belief and experience cannot possibly be in fundamental opposition !!! They have to be the same damn thing!!!

[David]

minsocal, on Mar 29 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

You are joking, are you not? Uhhh ... this is such an old debate it is almost boring. Belief and experience cannot possibly be in fundamental opposition !!! They have to be the same damn thing!!!

I thought you were gone. I see I wasted my herding cats analogy.

Yes belief and experience are very different. The issue is foundational for epistemology. One who thinks that you must have belief in order to have any experience that you can “know” is fundamentally opposed to someone who would reject that. Now as to whether it is possible to have experience without belief the answer appears obvious to all but the fundamentlists. Belief depends upon our conceptual processes in a way that primary perception does not (perception that involves a prior belief obviously is affected by belief). The “properties” of an experience are more elemental than the belief. It is possible to experience something that you have no idea how to conceptualize and provides no basis for prior belief. It is also possible to experience something so infinite that no belief can conceptualize it. This all suggests that experience is indeed “primary” and comes before belief. It also suggests that there is something that "holds together" our experience that is more primary than belief. But it certainly is not “the same damn thing”.

Furthermore my experience with progressives shows that they are very sure about their religious experience but much less sure about how to translate that into belief. So for them it is certainly not “the same damn thing”. How do you “know” mystery? How do you “know” awe? How to you “know” love? Maybe most of all how can you "know" Grace? A fundamentalist will say you can not know any of these things without some prior belief. A progressive will just smile and walk away.

P.S. By the way I am really getting tired of your being bored.

This post has been edited by David: 29 March 2009 - 08:04 PM

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 29 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

I thought you were gone. I see I wasted my herding cats analogy.

Yes belief and experience are very different. The issue is foundational for epistemology. One who thinks that you must have belief in order to have any experience that you can “know” is fundamentally opposed to someone who would reject that. Now as to whether it is possible to have experience without belief the answer appears obvious to all but the fundamentlists. Belief depends upon our conceptual processes in a way that primary perception does not (perception that involves a prior belief obviously is affected by belief). The “properties” of an experience are more elemental than the belief. It is possible to experience something that you have no idea how to conceptualize and provides no basis for prior belief. It is also possible to experience something so infinite that no belief can conceptualize it. This all suggests that experience is indeed “primary” and comes before belief. It also suggests that there is something that "holds together" our experience that is more primary than belief. But it certainly is not “the same damn thing”.

Furthermore my experience with progressives shows that they are very sure about their religious experience but much less sure about how to translate that into belief. So for them it is certainly not “the same damn thing”. How do you “know” mystery? How do you “know” awe? How to you “know” love? Maybe most of all how can you "know" Grace? A fundamentalist will say you can not know any of these things without some prior belief. A progressive will just smile and walk away.

P.S. By the way I am really getting tired of your being bored.

I have made my request to delete my account. I'm not sure there is a real moderator on this board. Anyway, make your complaints there and stop threatening board members.

[davidk]

David, on Mar 29 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

No, you are still missing it and that is because you are still limited to your tools. First logic is overrated. Second I am talking about epistemology and you are talking theology/philosophy. I am talking about "how you know" as being primary within experience before belief comes along. You consider belief primary and necessary for experience. These are fundamentally opposing. Experience is not a belief. Now you dismiss the importance of experience because of your belief and I give it importance based upon belief but the primary experience is not belief. That's about as far as I can go with someone who is working with different tools. Thanks and again let's just talk baseball.

David,

I think we are using the same tools. You're just using your left hand!

I really don't think we are altogether that far apart, but I do think you have fundamentally misunderstood my position.

Paul said the universe, and our experiences with it, is the evidence of God and His holy nature. That the discovery (experience) of it can be reasonably explained, is my fundamentalist argument.

It is not that my belief is necessary for my experiences. It is that my belief explains them reasonably. My epistemology is in knowing what provides reasonable answers for knowing why my experiences have real understandable meaning at all.

Everyone believes their belief is a belief in the correct things. The problem is when some claim their experiences have shaped their beliefs but are not able to explain them enough to do the them justice. I just ask that: if some cannot be adequately explained, how do you know that you know they have true meaning?

I have insisted only that: God is reasonable, and any experience exposing His truth will necessarily be reasonable also. It is not that I have to believe first in the correct things. I was not born with belief. I had to experience things first, and then honestly ask why things are the way they are and accept any reasonable answer, whether I had first believed otherwise or even wanted to believe it, or not.

After all of my experiences, the first thing I believed was that the personal and infinite God truly created all else.

I could elaborate.

Davidk

This post has been edited by davidk: 30 March 2009 - 01:38 PM

[JosephM]

(snip)

davidk said:

Everyone believes their belief is a belief in the correct things. The problem is when some claim their experiences have shaped their beliefs but are not able to explain them enough to do the them justice. I just ask that: if some cannot be adequately explained, how do you know that you know they have true meaning?

I have insisted only that: God is reasonable, and any experience exposing His truth will necessarily be reasonable also. It is not that I have to believe first in the correct things. I was not born with belief. I had to experience things first, and then honestly ask why things are the way they are and accept any reasonable answer, whether I had first believed otherwise or even wanted to believe it, or not.

(snip)

Davidk,

I would differ in that the statement "Everyone believes their belief is a belief in the correct things" is an erroneous statement. Think about the words you used. (Everyone?) Also it seems to me if you were familiar with the experience of "knowing", you would understand how it is possible to know yet not be able to articulate in understandable terms to others.

You base your knowledge on an assumption that God's reasonableness will be reasonable to your thinking mind. Perhaps you may discover that it is not true at this moment in time. There are many thinking minds that think they are reasonable yet experience shows they are not in agreement. So where does that leave your definition of reasonable? Just something to think about.

Love Joseph

[davidk]

JosephM, on Mar 30 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

Davidk,

I would differ in that the statement "Everyone believes their belief is a belief in the correct things" is an erroneous statement. Think about the words you used. (Everyone?) Also it seems to me if you were familiar with the experience of "knowing", you would understand how it is possible to know yet not be able to articulate in understandable terms to others.

You base your knowledge on an assumption that God's reasonableness will be reasonable to your thinking mind. Perhaps you may discover that it is not true at this moment in time. There are many thinking minds that think they are reasonable yet experience shows they are not in agreement. So where does that leave your definition of reasonable? Just something to think about.

Love Joseph

In all of the above, you have assumed yours to be the correct belief. If you had not, you could not account for your criticism in the veracity of my comment.

While reasonable men may differ, no man can be absoulutely reasonable; and that in no way discounts God's absolute reasonableness.

You cannot express what you don't know. You can what you do.

[JosephM]

davidk, on Apr 1 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

In all of the above, you have assumed yours to be the correct belief. If you had not, you could not account for your criticism in the veracity of my comment.

DavidK,

On the contrary, I do not assume my beliefs to be correct. That is why i have said that your use of the word 'everyone' was erroneous. By that statement you assummed something about me (everyone) that you do not know. I was merely pointing that out you were in error as far as it relates to me. After all this is the debate and dialog section. Yes?

davidk said:

While reasonable men may differ, no man can be absoulutely reasonable; and that in no way discounts God's absolute reasonableness.

You cannot express what you don't know. You can what you do.

No one is discounting God's reasonableness by my comment. Perhaps you will find i am discounting yours and mine in my comment. It seems to me that our reasonableness is subjective.

There is much I know that I cannot express. i speak for myself therefor for me your statement "You can what you do" is also false.

Your original statement "Everyone believes their belief is a belief in the correct things" is also not true for me even if you assume it is . There is much i believed that has been changed because it has been revealed to me i have been in error, therefor it is possible that i believe i have present beliefs that are also in error (not correct).

Just something for you to consider. I have nothing more to add if you yet do not understand my comments.

Love Joseph

[davidk]

JosephM, on Apr 1 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

DavidK,

On the contrary, I do not assume my beliefs to be correct. That is why i have said that your use of the word 'everyone' was erroneous. By that statement you assummed something about me (everyone) that you do not know. I was merely pointing that out you were in error as far as it relates to me. After all this is the debate and dialog section. Yes?
No one is discounting God's reasonableness by my comment. Perhaps you will find i am discounting yours and mine in my comment. It seems to me that our reasonableness is subjective.

There is much I know that I cannot express. i speak for myself therefor for me your statement "You can what you do" is also false.

Your original statement "Everyone believes their belief is a belief in the correct things" is also not true for me even if you assume it is . There is much i believed that has been changed because it has been revealed to me i have been in error, therefor it is possible that i believe i have present beliefs that are also in error (not correct).

Just something for you to consider. I have nothing more to add if you yet do not understand my comments.

Love Joseph

Joe,
The evidence simply does not support your argument. Your argument doesn't support your argument. "I do not assume my beliefs to be correct." Then you cannot claim me to be in error.
---
If you can't communicate to others, or to yourself, what it is that you think you know, in no way can it be called knowledge.