posted
Oh, I believe in absolute truth, but mortals are not able to wrap their heads all the way around it, so something like PGK can very well apply simultaneously with absolute truth.
Card's book Rebekah shows some of my view on this quite well. Both Rebekah and Abraham believe they are being lead by God, but they nonetheless choose different things.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Oh, I believe in absolute truth, but mortals are not able to wrap their heads all the way around it, so something like PGK can very well apply simultaneously with absolute truth.
I think you don't use the "believe in absolute truth" the same way Eowyn-sama used it.
The way I understand those two different meanings, while yours can comfortably be contained in PGK, Eowyn-sama's should be placed at the core of CGK! One has to be cherished by any individual who chooses it, the other is to be chosen by all (hence the incompatibility with egotheism).
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 2) I find this one a little tricky. The line between 'strong/educated enough' and 'ignorant' is so completely subjective that it boggles my mind. How much knowledge do you need before you are educated enough? What if the knowledge you need isn't available yet to mankind?
I suppose you’re talking about the knowledge needed to decide on the matters of “absolute truth”. And I agree that it is very probable that we lack such information as of yet, either because we don’t want to acknowledge it, or because it isn’t really available to our limited senses and intellect. So “enough education” for “absolute truth” falls outside the reaches of egotheism. The debate here is about, what should we do with the knowledge that we (as Humanity) already posses, as a whole. Is it all CGK to be “indoctrinated” to all newborns? I really hope nobody thinks that.
Meanwhile, we have noticed that some knowledge can be easily integrated “rationally”, while some needs a lot of subjectivism and “personal feelings”. Do I say one is more valuable than the other? No. Value judgments are made on the Personal level and an egotheist wouldn’t share more than their opinion as such, not as something that all should agree upon. Yet, in order to share optimally this limited space we call “home” (i.e. Earth), we need to see what can we all agree upon, (and how), and form a category of knowledge that I call CGK. I propose Science to be included there, because as a consequence of the way scientific method was defined and works, virtually anybody can verify its results and decide for themselves if these results should be integrated as such (i.e. reliable) on their PGK.
The question (#2) then comes to this: What should one know before deciding if Science is “good” or “bad”? Well, I suppose that knowing what science is and what science does, plus acknowledging its limits and the kind of questions it could answer, would be a good “prerequisite education”. If, after finding out what science is able to do, one decides that the answers they (inside) are looking for are impossible to be valuably approached by science, and even more, that science as a whole hurts their ability to find those answers (and therefore reject it entirely), then they should be given the choice lo live their lives following a set of rules (on PGK level) that defies anything science says (on CGK level). But I’m really surprised if anyone argues that Science shouldn’t be included into CGK. I am interested however to see their arguments against it.
Which brings me, again, to my arguments against including any religion as “absolute truth” into CGK. Remember, I never said that Religion (as a concept) is to be excluded from CGK. All religions should be available to be known about by any interested person. (I think the complete history of religions would be valuable knowledge to be integrated into CGK) Yet, the truth value about many of their claims isn’t possible to determine in the same reliable and repeatable fashion as science facts can. Even more, different religions make claims that are incompatible with each other, which at a Logical level we cannot accept to be true at the same time. Do you see the distinction?
EDIT: BTW, we still need to build bridges and complex structures for our comfort. What kind of knowledge should we use for it, Science (CGK) or Religion (PGK)?
I’ll respond to the 3rd point in a following post.
quote: It is the result of the “prerequisite”, as you put it, that “absolute truth”, even as it might exist as a Platonic concept, can’t be really known “absolutely”, and transferred from one human being to another, the first because we don’t posses all the possible data (yet) and the second because our language is far from perfect. Add to that the imperfection of us humans.
This paragraph makes me wonder if you understand what I mean by the word truth. It has nothing to do with whether we can know it or communicate it. I'm saying that truth (the actual facts of the universe) exists outside of humankind, outside of the human mind and independent of what we think of it.
What I am objecting to is the idea of truth by consensus, truth by voting--the world has always been round, it wasn't flat when most people believed it to be flat.
I've got to run to class and hopefully I'll be back later. While I'm gone I need to think about what Pooka said about truth, I don't think our viewpoints are as different as you claimed.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is the result of the “prerequisite”, as you put it, that “absolute truth”, even as it might exist as a Platonic concept, can’t be really known “absolutely”, and transferred from one human being to another, the first because we don’t posses all the possible data (yet) and the second because our language is far from perfect. Add to that the imperfection of us humans.
This paragraph makes me wonder if you understand what I mean by the word truth. It has nothing to do with whether we can know it or communicate it.
I think you’re right about me not understanding it. You’re the best to know if I really respond to what you wanted to say. Please don’t give up on me too easily. Explain it more when you have time and I hope I’ll learn something valuable, and respond accordingly.
quote: I'm saying that truth (the actual facts of the universe) exists outside of humankind, outside of the human mind and independent of what we think of it.
Wow, how’s that for a “coincidence”? I’ve recently seen a TV show called “What the bleep do we know? (the extended quantum edition)” and there are at least 3 hours of arguments about why quantum physics points to another different “reality” on the matter! (pun intended)
quote:What I am objecting to is the idea of truth by consensus, truth by voting--the world has always been round, it wasn't flat when most people believed it to be flat.
I do agree that regarding the physical Universe, there is truth to be discovered (scientifically), and that the constants of physics (and its laws) are not a matter of popular vote. That’s why they should be the first to be included into the CGK. But my question is this: do you consider all “truth” to be like the laws of physics, including what theology says about any given deity?
It seems to me that while you talk about “absolute truth” you mix together very different levels of “truth” which leads to much confusion (at least to my understanding). The whole point of this debate about egotheism is to acknowledge the various degrees of knowledge, to try to “classify” them on the four levels, but ultimately to leave the matters of “truth” to the personal level.
Really, how many times do I have to state here for the record that I don’t promote “blind moral relativism”, as in: "let all believe anything they want, they are all right, and they should act according to their own rules, regardless of the rest of the Human race"?
At a personal level, each individual sets their own “truth” and I’ve seen too many cases where nothing changed that “knowledge”, whatever the proof and/or arguments. If one has chosen to believe in something so strongly that NOTHING can change their minds, then the lesson is simple: there are “truths” that are so personal that nothing in this physical universe, not even the “absolute truth” can change it (for that person!) Do you think it’s a “moral duty” to convince them BY FORCE? I say no, let them hold their cherished “truth” to the end. (But it is not at all the same thing, for the rest of the world, if that “truth” is on PGK level, FGK, RGK or CGK!)
quote: While I'm gone I need to think about what Pooka said about truth, I don't think our viewpoints are as different as you claimed.
I hope you don’t feel that I try to put words in your mouth, or that I’m being condescending. I only claimed a difference and explained it as I understand it, and I’ll wait patiently to see if I was right.
A.
PS: another important question: is “knowledge” and “truth” the same thing for you (royal you)?Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that perhaps what you are calling "levels of truth" would be more accurately called "levels of certainty" or even "levels of shared certainty." Because yes, truth claims made by religions are either true or false in the same way that truth claims about the physical universe are. It is not possible for a particular deity to exist "for me" and not exist "for you." The deity either exists or does not, and if we disagree on that point one of us is wrong. Calling your levels of agreement different levels of truth distorts the word "truth."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I'm losing track of what I need to talk about from what previous post :-p I'll try starting with the most recent and working backwards.
I guess the first part is what I mean by truth, and where it applies. I'm not particularly well versed in epistemology, but I'll try to muddle through.
quote: do you consider all “truth” to be like the laws of physics, including what theology says about any given deity?
Yes, I do. I will agree that there is a distinction between the physical and the spiritual (which is why I don't need 'scientific' proof of God's existence to believe in him) but I believe that truth applies to both realms. God exists or he doesn't. The liquid in the bottle will either kill you or it won't. A human being either has a soul, something separate from the physical body, or it doesn't.
quote: Really, how many times do I have to state here for the record that I don’t promote “blind moral relativism”, as in: "let all believe anything they want, they are all right, and they should act according to their own rules, regardless of the rest of the Human race"?
So if you're not saying that, you're saying "what one individual believes is right for him, but he should not act on what he believes is right, only on what everyone else says is right" ?
quote: If one has chosen to believe in something so strongly that NOTHING can change their minds, then the lesson is simple: there are “truths” that are so personal that nothing in this physical universe, not even the “absolute truth” can change it (for that person!)
Really? If I strongly, passionately and in the face of all evidence to the contrary believed that the earth was flat, I wouldn't sail off the edge no matter how far I traveled, and eventually I'd end up right back where I started.
If I strongly, passionately believe in God and he doesn't exist, then I'll eventually die and cease to exist completely, regardeless of what I believed in life. (Unless Terry Pratchett is right and the afterlife or lack thereof is whatever we belive it will be :-p )
I guess basically what I'm saying is that if someone strongly believes in something no matter what any one else says, then they are either right or wrong. Just because they believe something is 'truth' doesn't mean that it is (even for them).
quote: Do you think it’s a “moral duty” to convince them BY FORCE? I say no, let them hold their cherished “truth” to the end. (But it is not at all the same thing, for the rest of the world, if that “truth” is on PGK level, FGK, RGK or CGK!)
Of course it's not a moral duty to convince anyone by force. I'm not arguing against tolerance here, just against the idea that the universe molds itself to fit an individual's beliefs. If someone really believes in something and refuses to listen to anything else, then there's not much point in trying to convice them otherwise. But that doesn't mean they're right.
We'll have to wait for Pooka to clarify, but I think what she's saying (and what I agree with) is that although there is an absolute truth, humans are incabable of understanding all of it and therefore must operate on PGK.
I'm sorry this is so long, but I'm determined to address at least one of the older posts!
quote: Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 2) I find this one a little tricky. The line between 'strong/educated enough' and 'ignorant' is so completely subjective that it boggles my mind. How much knowledge do you need before you are educated enough? What if the knowledge you need isn't available yet to mankind? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you’re talking about the knowledge needed to decide on the matters of “absolute truth”.
Actually, what I'm saying is how do you decide what is 'enough' education in an egotheistical sense? You say that we shouldn't form beliefs until we have enough information, but that's impossible to pin down. Do you have to learn x amount of history/math/biology? what if you're missing a crucial piece of history/math/biology that's crucial to your personal understanding of the universe? I think the answer to your question is that you have to be an egotheist from the beginning and be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less) or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think that perhaps what you are calling "levels of truth" would be more accurately called "levels of certainty" or even "levels of shared certainty." […] Calling your levels of agreement different levels of truth distorts the word "truth."
I see, this would explain also my struggle to separate the terms “knowledge” and “truth”. So yes, what is meant is rather "levels of certainty" and not levels of (logical) truth.
Thank you, dkw, for your suggestion.
Now, I pose this open question:
Statement #1: “Science gives the speed of light in vacuum to be equal to X m/s” Statement #2: “The Bible states that the deity endorsed/encouraged/commanded the tribe Y to do Z”
Do you put the level of certainty about the “truth” of those two statements on the same level (given speciffic values of X, Y and Z)? If so, what level? If not, on what different levels they would be?
Please note that now the term “truth” is the “logic/absolute” truth of the content of the statement, so it really wouldn’t need the quotes at all.
posted
I can put my level of certainty about whether or not the Bible says a certain event happened pretty high -- I only have to look it up and see "yep, that's exactly what the Bible says." Now whether what the Bible says happened is what actually happened, that's another question. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't really want a bridge yielded by science, but one grounded in engineering. Though I might be fine with a bridge that is built to withstand more than what could be anticipated, so long as it is not so massive it can't hold up it's own weight.
quote:We'll have to wait for Pooka to clarify, but I think what she's saying (and what I agree with) is that although there is an absolute truth, humans are incabable of understanding all of it and therefore must operate on PGK.
It's not that we fail to know absolute truth and settle for PGK. What we know of absolute truth is authentic. Just no one knows it for everyone. Indeed, it is very rare for anyone to posess truth which applies to anyone other than themselves.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I can put my level of certainty about whether or not the Bible says a certain event happened pretty high -- I only have to look it up and see "yep, that's exactly what the Bible says." Now whether what the Bible says happened is what actually happened, that's another question.
posted
Eowyn-sama, let me tell you that for someone who declares not to be “particularly well versed in epistemology” you’re doing a great job, as far as I can tell (I myself not being an “expert” on the matter. ) I like especially your last paragraph of your previous post.
But let’s take things step by step.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: God exists or he doesn't. The liquid in the bottle will either kill you or it won't. A human being either has a soul, something separate from the physical body, or it doesn't.
Complete agreement here. (note: this is LOGIC, and I consider it to be CGK material)
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: Really, how many times do I have to state here for the record that I don’t promote “blind moral relativism”, as in: "let all believe anything they want, they are all right, and they should act according to their own rules, regardless of the rest of the Human race"?
So if you're not saying that, you're saying "what one individual believes is right for him, but he should not act on what he believes is right, only on what everyone else says is right" ?
Hmm, interesting way of parsing that phrase. I admittedly need to work on my expression skills.
No, I’m not saying that one has to act only on what “everyone says is right” (I wouldn’t have anticipated this to be the alternative!) I’m saying that where there are more individuals living together, (like in Families, Regions and on Earth), there should be some set of rules agreed upon by the individuals in each respective “circle” and most importantly, known to all. Now, what are those rules all about? Well, the way I see it, they “regulate” the privileges and the obligations of the individual vis-à-vis the group. In other terms, define responsibility. “Do this and it will be followed by that. And you need to know it to live in this group.”
(Note: does the speed of light in the vacuum, or a given fact about the deity X enter the list of “rules” as I defined them here? I think not!)
So, what my quite-hard-to-parse phrase wants to say is that whatever one believes (PGK), they should have the knowledge pertinent to their actions, and accept the responsibility of it on ALL LEVELS. Else, leave the group and follow the rules of the group of their choosing/liking.
Now, CGK being the largest group imaginable, the issue of what CGK might be gets a special concern from me.
Having said that, it is very transparent (I hope) where the “proposition” that most of the “secular laws” would be naturally on the RGK level comes from, as very few are common to all the countries in the world.
quote:Really? If I strongly, passionately and in the face of all evidence to the contrary believed that the earth was flat, I wouldn't sail off the edge no matter how far I traveled, and eventually I'd end up right back where I started.
If I strongly, passionately believe in God and he doesn't exist, then I'll eventually die and cease to exist completely, regardeless of what I believed in life. (Unless Terry Pratchett is right and the afterlife or lack thereof is whatever we belive it will be :-p )
I guess basically what I'm saying is that if someone strongly believes in something no matter what any one else says, then they are either right or wrong.
Again, I completely agree. The way one sees the truth (on PGK level) doesn’t affect its certainty (or even value) on the other levels, including the ABSOLUTE (which, I repeat, is beyond the reaches of egotheism!)
But, what about if I strongly believe that I should murder people whenever I want? Is that the same, or the concern about “affecting the rest of the group” changes?
quote:Just because they believe something is 'truth' doesn't mean that it is (even for them).
This really is worded a bit too ambiguously for my taste. If we’re talking about the truth about the physical laws of the Universe, it’s one thing, if you’re talking about spiritual truth that is based on faith, it’s another matter entirely.
You see, the debate on whether the personal belief (PGK) influences the real Universe (the absolute level) or not, is really beyond my capabilities, and the TV show I named before deals with that. This is why I don’t claim egotheism to be able to deal with that, as long as it isn’t scientifically proven.
But, on the matters of spirituality, I do believe that any relevant access to the truth is on PGK level alone. There surely is an absolute truth about any given theological statement, but if we all agree that we don’t have any reliable way to (all) find it, why not concentrate on the “relative truth” there instead, and more, leave it be relative?
quote: I'm sorry this is so long, but I'm determined to address at least one of the older posts!
Mark my words: I don’t care how long your posts are; as long as you’re interested in the topic I promise to read it all, and reply to the best of my abilities. Of course, if you’re concerned whether others have the patience and/or interest, that’s not for me to muse about.
quote: Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Actually, what I'm saying is how do you decide what is 'enough' education in an egotheistical sense? You say that we shouldn't form beliefs until we have enough information, but that's impossible to pin down. Do you have to learn x amount of history/math/biology? what if you're missing a crucial piece of history/math/biology that's crucial to your personal understanding of the universe? I think the answer to your question is that you have to be an egotheist from the beginning and be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less) or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
Now this is nice! This, to me, is epistemology well put. Let me ponder it and come back with a reply as soon as I’m able.
posted
I'd put them close to the same level of certainty, since I am not able to verify the speed of light personally. I could probably verify the acceleration of gravity on earth, but that's close to the limit of what I personally have the ability to verify in terms of scientific matters. I've never seen the mass of atoms measured, and I don't know why the protons are able to stick to each other in the nucleus. Some people say they know, and I don't have any need to question them. I'm generally aware that they must, of so many of the wonders of modern life wouldn't work right.
In the same sense, I derive a lot of benefits from operating on some principles from the Bible which I can appreciate and understand, I'm willing to allow that the stuff I don't understand or find inconsistent is understood by someone. To the degree it is inconsistent, there just isn't enough information (or as you seemed to be saying on page one, insufficient education.)
quote:But, what about if I strongly believe that I should murder people whenever I want? Is that the same, or the concern about “affecting the rest of the group” changes?
You're asking this? It has always been my position that PGK can be flawed.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'd put them close to the same level of certainty, since I am not able to verify the speed of light personally. I could probably verify the acceleration of gravity on earth, but that's close to the limit of what I personally have the ability to verify in terms of scientific matters. I've never seen the mass of atoms measured, and I don't know why the protons are able to stick to each other in the nucleus. Some people say they know, and I don't have any need to question them. I'm generally aware that they must, of so many of the wonders of modern life wouldn't work right.
In the same sense, I derive a lot of benefits from operating on some principles from the Bible which I can appreciate and understand, I'm willing to allow that the stuff I don't understand or find inconsistent is understood by someone. To the degree it is inconsistent, there just isn't enough information (or as you seemed to be saying on page one, insufficient education.)
Nice argument. I like more and more this discussion by the minute!
So, you’re saying that on scientific matters, there is a certain limit about what you can verify directly and that for the rest, you have to trust the scientists that say they did. I must admit it’s the same for me
But, as we’re on this point, can you give an example of “simple” theological piece of knowledge that you yourself can verify?
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:But, what about if I strongly believe that I should murder people whenever I want? Is that the same, or the concern about “affecting the rest of the group” changes?
You're asking this? It has always been my position that PGK can be flawed.
This was in response to the examples given by Eowyn-sama. The point being that not all knowledge is contained in (EDIT) Science (/Edit), and that behavior is not about what one thinks about the form of the Earth, but more about the way to interact with the rest of the group.
BTW, I strongly agree that PGK may be flawed/inconsistent, as there is no external “force” to be always able to set it “right”, nor any “moral duty” to enforce it.
posted
Whoa, I'm apparently still confused as to what we're saying when we mean 'truth'.
It sounds like (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) we agree that the universe is composed of actual facts and runs on actual rules, both in physical and spiritual matters. God exists or he doesn't, we have souls or we don't, the cup is in my hand or it is in your hand, it's possible to go faster than the speed of light or it isn't, etc. One of these is right, the other is wrong. (I only ask for clarification because I think there's a school of thought that doesn't agree with this)
quote: But, on the matters of spirituality, I do believe that any relevant access to the truth is on PGK level alone. There surely is an absolute truth about any given theological statement, but if we all agree that we don’t have any reliable way to (all) find it, why not concentrate on the “relative truth” there instead, and more, leave it be relative?
Okay, I think this is where the difference lies. When I say truth I mean 'a fact that is the same for everyone, regardless of personal belief'. Can you give me an example of a spiritual truth that only applies to a given person?
Also, I don't agree that we have no reliable way to find spiritual truths. I think that we have no way to find *all* spiritual truths, just like we have no way to find all scientific truths. We have many religions that provide scriptures, teachings, miracles and personal spiritual experiences, and I think most of them have found quite a bit of truth. It's possible (if not probable) that one of these has come far closer to the truth than any other.
Out of time again ^_^
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you give me an example of a spiritual truth that only applies to a given person?
An easy one is God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. I don't think anyone since has really understood what went on there. Before then and since, people who sacrifice children are generally considered... unenlightened.
I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
And I believe that when Gandhi said (some folks say this quote does not have a rigorous provenance, so caveat emptor) "Happiness is when one's thoughts, words, and deeds are in harmony," he is saying something along the lines of PGK, FGK and CGK being unified. Maybe.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Whoa, I'm apparently still confused as to what we're saying when we mean 'truth'.
It sounds like (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) we agree that the universe is composed of actual facts and runs on actual rules, both in physical and spiritual matters. God exists or he doesn't, we have souls or we don't, the cup is in my hand or it is in your hand, it's possible to go faster than the speed of light or it isn't, etc. One of these is right, the other is wrong. (I only ask for clarification because I think there's a school of thought that doesn't agree with this)
If you have noticed the remark of dkw above, there is a distinction that I usually fail to put into words every time, even if inside my head it’s obvious: There is the TRUTH and there is the level of certainty of our knowledge about it. Something is either true of false (that is a very certain piece of knowledge -->CGK, logic helps us ) Egotheism has nothing to say about the TRUTH! Now, for any given statement, we try to find out its truth value (i.e. true/false) and we have the Universe around us to observe and help us decide. And this is where egotheism enters the picture. I see some evidence, and you see some evidence (ideally it would be the same available for the both of us) and we reach our conclusions. (There is one way to reach conclusions in scientific matters, some other way in spiritual ones and maybe another one entirely in the matters regarding the aliens that inhabit the UFOs. ) This debate tries to establish what is “commom” to each of the four levels (C/R/F/P).
Therefore, egotheism tries to put some “order”, without emitting judgements of value, into these different ways of “reaching conclusions and our certainty” of given statements. That’s because egotheistically speaking, your conclusion is either “better”, or “worse” than mine, ultimately each believe what we want to believe. But the way to reach that conclusion might be common to us all, common to your country of origin, common to you and 3 more close friends, or particular only to you. Egotheism tries to help us acknowledge where “we stand”, in each “certain conclusion”.
Further more, the point of “Egotheism” isn’t forcing an “epistemological recipe” (e.g. “mine”), on everybody. That would be self-contradictory.
This debate, from its start, tries to establish the criteria to see IF it is a valid way of approaching knowledge, learning and teaching.
Ok, I’m not trying to elude the answer to your question. I’m not promoting the school of thought that states that there isn’t only ONE TRUTH out there. If I trust logic at all, I have to (and do) reject the notion that TRUTH is relative to the observer.
Yet, and this might be the subject for another thread, there is still another (relatively new) school of thought that promotes the idea that our consciousness and our mere observing the Universe is what CREATES reality, and they back this up with the latest discoveries in Quantum Physics, no less! (for the record: this possibility has nothing to do with Egotheism, as I “defend” it here)
quote:When I say truth I mean 'a fact that is the same for everyone, regardless of personal belief'. Can you give me an example of a spiritual truth that only applies to a given person?
By all means: “My favourite deity exists” What is the truth about that? (I mean TRUTH now)
Could you give me an example of a spiritual truth that applies to all, regardless of personal belief?
quote:Also, I don't agree that we have no reliable way to find spiritual truths. I think that we have no way to find *all* spiritual truths, just like we have no way to find all scientific truths. We have many religions that provide scriptures, teachings, miracles and personal spiritual experiences, and I think most of them have found quite a bit of truth. It's possible (if not probable) that one of these has come far closer to the truth than any other.
Ok, I agree with that. BTW, which religion is closer to the TRUTH? Either way, do you agree that there is a noticeable difference between the spiritual truths and scientific truths, when it comes to being able to share relevant proofs for them?
quote:Out of time again ^_^
I’ll never be out of patience, so take your time
A.
EDIT: PS: I still need to reply to your last paragraph of a recent post, and on the #3 question of your first post. I try not to lose track
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
This brings an interesting point The question that it engenders I present as a purely hypothetical one: (to you all) If you were an omniscient deity, would you choose egotheism as your way of teaching the others the knowledge that you posses?
And another: (not hypothetical) Do you think your favourite deity (if you have one) is following “Egotheism” ?
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And I believe that when Gandhi said (some folks say this quote does not have a rigorous provenance, so caveat emptor) "Happiness is when one's thoughts, words, and deeds are in harmony," he is saying something along the lines of PGK, FGK and CGK being unified. Maybe.
If only I understood what Gandhi wanted to say … Yet, again, an interesting point: How do we affect the people around us? Is it by thoughts, by words, by deeds?
Here’s my take on it: My thoughts don’t affect anyone (but me) unless I say something or act according to them.
My words only affect those who take me seriously enough, that is those that allow me to influence them. Example: If I were a deity and said “You have to kill your own child because I say so” there is a big chance to be affecting the world. If I (suminonA) were to tell you “You have to give me one million dollars because I say so” you’ll laugh in my face and it won’t affect anyone in the least.
My actions always affect the others, either directly or indirectly, and with my intention or without it. I can’t help it, therefore I try to control myself and not “bother” the others, while bringing “joy”, as I see it, to the Universe.
quote: By all means: “My favourite deity exists” What is the truth about that? (I mean TRUTH now)
I'm assuming you're not asking for the truth about whether said deity exists. The statement "My favorite deity exists" is a belief. The person believes it to be true, but this does not affect the actual truth of the statement. It affects the way that person lives their life, so it is important, and I guess what we're getting at is that it is 'true for them'. But that's just semantics, right? Saying that the word 'belief' is equal to 'personal truth', separate from TRUTH.
If so, I'll buy that we each have a PGK, so that certain things are 'true for us' without touching the nature of TRUTH. (I feel kinda silly referring to it that way, but when things get down to semantics you have to be careful :-p )
Having admitted that, though, I still object to the idea that it is impossible to share these truths. Yes, there is something very personal about it, but if personal truths were completely non-transferable then there would be no point to organized religion.
quote: I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
I'd agree with you Pooka, with one stipulation: God's PGK is TRUTH in its ultimate form. Think about it--if you were omniscient and omnipotent, your PGK would have to be the truth.
quote: This brings an interesting point [Smile] The question that it engenders I present as a purely hypothetical one: (to you all) If you were an omniscient deity, would you choose egotheism as your way of teaching the others the knowledge that you posses?
And another: (not hypothetical) Do you think your favourite deity (if you have one) is following “Egotheism” ?
No to both. ^_^ Think about it. If you were omnipotent and actually knew the deepest truths of the universe, what would be the point of saying 'oh, that's okay, you can believe whatever you want, I'll keep this wonderful knowledge to myself'.
Besides, how would you use egotheism to 'teach' anything? Isn't the whole point keeping your beliefs to yourself and claiming that they cannot be shared?
And for the second question, no again. God has given us the Bible, the Church, and many other methods of finding Him. He does not tell us to believe in whatever we wish, he demands that we do our best to find the truth. Again, since he is omniscient and knows the full truth, he can do nothing less than demand that we know it too. He may be understanding when we fall short of the goal, but he still wants perfection from us.
(Sorry if that sounds overly preachy, but sometimes I'm too lazy to add 'I believe' to everything I say about my religion :-p )
quote: My actions always affect the others, either directly or indirectly, and with my intention or without it. I can’t help it, therefore I try to control myself and not “bother” the others, while bringing “joy”, as I see it, to the Universe.
This may be the crux of the debate. If your personal beliefs bring you great joy, how can you not share them with others? That is the real drive behind the desire to 'bother' others--you want them to have the same joy you do. That's not always possible, but the joy is so great that it is often worth trying.
The way I see it, there are 2 main reasons for not forcing other people to your religion/viewpoint/beliefs. (whether we're talking physical force or strong compulsion) First of all, strong evangelism and proselytizing can be a turnoff in the wrong circumstances. (I'm sure everyone has plenty of examples of how this can happen) Not to mention that conversions by force are neither sincere nor beneficial.
And secondly, there's always a chance that the person you're trying to force may have insights that could help you in your own search for truth. If you don't have an open mind, you'll never be able to learn.
But neither of these reasons mean that you shouldn't offer your beliefs and 'personal' truths to someone at all.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we are definitely making steps toward understanding each other
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: By all means: “My favourite deity exists” What is the truth about that? (I mean TRUTH now)
I'm assuming you're not asking for the truth about whether said deity exists. The statement "My favorite deity exists" is a belief. The person believes it to be true, but this does not affect the actual truth of the statement. It affects the way that person lives their life, so it is important, and I guess what we're getting at is that it is 'true for them'. But that's just semantics, right? Saying that the word 'belief' is equal to 'personal truth', separate from TRUTH.
Spot on! (except that I was asking about the TRUTH whether said deity exists, precisely to make you see why its absolute value of truth is NON transferable).
quote:If so, I'll buy that we each have a PGK, so that certain things are 'true for us' without touching the nature of TRUTH. (I feel kinda silly referring to it that way, but when things get down to semantics you have to be careful :-p )
See, THIS is virtually the exact idea that I’m trying to explain in the 4 pages of this thread so far! (Still, Egotheism is more than that).
quote:Having admitted that, though, I still object to the idea that it is impossible to share these truths. Yes, there is something very personal about it, but if personal truths were completely non-transferable then there would be no point to organized religion.
You know what? I’d object to it too, but first you should show me where you have found the claim that Egotheism prevents us to share PGK! Remember that the concern of Egotheism is epistemology, hence the “big deal” about TEACHING!
Another “nut-shell” formula: Sharing is good, indoctrination is bad. The next step being understanding the “semantics” behind that.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: I will say that I believe God is a being with his own PGK.
I'd agree with you Pooka, with one stipulation: God's PGK is TRUTH in its ultimate form. Think about it--if you were omniscient and omnipotent, your PGK would have to be the truth.
Quite a valid point Yet, (and maybe this is a theological question that I shouldn’t ask here), what do you think an omniscient (I never said “… and omnipotent”) deity would want us to do, knowledge-wise: Accept it all as true because the deity said so, or leaving us decide for ourselves if the “proofs” available are enough to convince us? Somehow I thought that the “infamous” free will was just that. And for that reason alone, I’d like to meet an egotheistic deity. (this also responds in part to the following quote: )
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama:
quote: This brings an interesting point [Smile] The question that it engenders I present as a purely hypothetical one: (to you all) If you were an omniscient deity, would you choose egotheism as your way of teaching the others the knowledge that you posses?
And another: (not hypothetical) Do you think your favourite deity (if you have one) is following “Egotheism” ?
No to both. ^_^ Think about it. If you were omnipotent and actually knew the deepest truths of the universe, what would be the point of saying 'oh, that's okay, you can believe whatever you want, I'll keep this wonderful knowledge to myself'.
Besides, how would you use egotheism to 'teach' anything? Isn't the whole point keeping your beliefs to yourself and claiming that they cannot be shared?
And for the second question, no again. God has given us the Bible, the Church, and many other methods of finding Him. He does not tell us to believe in whatever we wish, he demands that we do our best to find the truth. Again, since he is omniscient and knows the full truth, he can do nothing less than demand that we know it too. He may be understanding when we fall short of the goal, but he still wants perfection from us.
I’ll say it again: Egotheism isn’t about “keeping the knowledge” to yourself. It’s about NOT indoctrinating free will endowed people with it!
quote:
quote: My actions always affect the others, either directly or indirectly, and with my intention or without it. I can’t help it, therefore I try to control myself and not “bother” the others, while bringing “joy”, as I see it, to the Universe.
This may be the crux of the debate. If your personal beliefs bring you great joy, how can you not share them with others? That is the real drive behind the desire to 'bother' others--you want them to have the same joy you do. That's not always possible, but the joy is so great that it is often worth trying.
I hope that by now, you see that I agree with that.
quote:The way I see it, there are 2 main reasons for not forcing other people to your religion/viewpoint/beliefs. (whether we're talking physical force or strong compulsion) First of all, strong evangelism and proselytizing can be a turnoff in the wrong circumstances. (I'm sure everyone has plenty of examples of how this can happen) Not to mention that conversions by force are neither sincere nor beneficial.
And secondly, there's always a chance that the person you're trying to force may have insights that could help you in your own search for truth. If you don't have an open mind, you'll never be able to learn.
But neither of these reasons mean that you shouldn't offer your beliefs and 'personal' truths to someone at all.
For the first reason I asked about the “egotheistic” nature of an omniscient deity. For the second reason I’m saying over and over that while you’re not in possession of the TRUTH, you shouldn’t teach your belief as the only one worthy of knowing!
Beware: This is a fine distinction! It’s one thing to share your belief and say it’s “the best” (acknowledging that other POV exist) and quite another to share your belief and say it’s “the only one” ! In the first case, the student could choose to copy your belief or not, while the second doesn’t offer that option. That’s why I call the first “teaching” and the second “indoctrination”.
As a practical example, for me, a good teacher would never say: Evolutionism is the only way to explain the species and their state today, and leave it at that. My favorite (egotheistic) teacher would say something along the lines: Evolutionism is the best way to explain it (reflecting his PGK), these are the reasons why (the “proofs” available in CGK) and there are other scenarios, ID to name one, which uses these proofs (also part of CGK), plus some other scenarios to find in the “other references” section of the “text-book”, which you might be interested to investigate for yourselves . (I hope there would be at least some students that would here it all with interest )
posted
I finally got to respond to your other points that I "skipped" so far:
quote:3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”? (my answer) CGK, RGK and FGK.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: 3) See above, but I'd like to point out that since the definition of all your BK's would be almost impossible to pin down, your answer doesn't seem to be of any real use.
Yep, that’s why I’d like to be able to define (with the help of anyone interested in this debate) the “limits” of CGK, RGK, FGK first. My answer states simply the “flavours” of knowledge that we “need” to teach to the young minds. So, if we ever agree that Egotheism is valid, then we can concentrate on defining them as precisely as we can with added motivation
So yes, my answer seems void, but only in as much as those categories are still empty, either because they really don’t contain anything, or we can’t agree on what they should contain.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Actually, what I'm saying is how do you decide what is 'enough' education in an egotheistical sense? You say that we shouldn't form beliefs until we have enough information, but that's impossible to pin down. Do you have to learn x amount of history/math/biology? what if you're missing a crucial piece of history/math/biology that's crucial to your personal understanding of the universe? I think the answer to your question is that you have to be an egotheist from the beginning and be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less) or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
I must say that the first time I read this argument, I said to myself: “See, a few more arguments like that and you’ll have to admit that Egotheism is an epistemological impossibility!” Luckily, I read it over and over, I thought about what you’re saying, and I realised that the options are still not all exhausted.
I’ll dissect it to small shreds:
(a)
quote: […] or you should never 'become' an egotheist, because you will never be able to know when you have enough information.
True, if you aren’t able to know when you have enough information (as in knowledge), you shouldn’t become an Egotheist. I think, nevertheless, that each and every one of us has that ability, more or less developed. I’ll never ask a mentally retarded person to decide everything for themselves (and even less for others). I think there are reliable tests to see if a person really is disabled intellectually, so this criteria isn’t excessively arbitrary. But anyone that can demonstrate that they are capable of critical analysis and reasoning, should be allowed to do just that, and become egotheists if they want to
(b)
quote:you have to […] be constantly reconsidering everything with each new bit of information, (which you should do anyway, more or less)
That is a basic description of an egotheist, but please don’t jump to the conclusion that “egotheism” = “common sense”. Common sense allows for people to indoctrinate one another, egotheism wouldn’t!
(c)
quote: you have to be an egotheist from the beginning
(this, as an alternative to (a) ) This IS impossible. No one is born an Egotheist (it can’t be a “default state”). No one becomes an egotheist without KNOWING it, that is, without making a conscious choice about that. Why is that important? Simply because not being aware of it, you won’t understand the difference between your epistemology and that of others. And that’s why egotheism is a “meta-system of beliefs” (my definition in the first post of this thread had to be improved as I advanced in understanding and expression capabilities) and specifically talks about epistemology and not TRUTH.
Therefore, the “way out” of the impossibility is by reconsidering the "absoluteness" of (a) and what it says about "enough information".
Let me give a very poor but well known to me example: myself. I was born without being aware of any complex concept, and I consider Egotheism to be such a concept. I am now a self-declared egotheist.
So, somewhere along the lines, I had to be able to become an egotheist, even if from its definition (and this debate thus far) it isn’t very clear (to the others) how.
Maybe a little more background information about my past would help:
I was educated in my family and the educational system of my country of origin for the best part of my early life. Needles to say, everything was more or les “coherent” (not including the religion part) to me, so I never asked myself if what I know might be “wrong” on most of the subjects. The historical conditions made it so that the country was “isolated” (for a large range of definitions of the word), from the rest of the “civilised World”. I knew what I knew and I never suspected there was anything else, elsewhere. Yet things changed and I had the opportunity to leave my country of origin to follow my education among “strangers”. First I was a little scared, but my ignorance took care of insulating me from anticipating the really “scary” things that awaited me there. Needles to say, I “survived” and not only I am glad that I made that step of leaving “everything I new” behind, but I came to the conclusion (from experience) that such an experience is for the most part beneficial to me (and I extrapolate that to anybody).
The conclusion being that, I could only question my “beliefs” when I came to know that there are others, different than mines. It may sound tautological, but I think it is essential for us to acknowledge that it is a valid way of learning.
Do I have the impression that I know everything there is to know in this World ? Not by far, that’s why, by my definition, egotheism doesn’t have as a prerequisite “omniscience”. It just needs “various options” (the more the better), presented in a way that leaves the choices open, especially on matters that are not commonly agreed by all (hence the definition of the levels of the “Ground of Knowledge”.)
And no, I don’t mean present all possible (and fabled) theories as “equally” valuable/true. No, present the theories plus the “proofs” claimed by each of them, and then let the student decide which convinces them best.
A student that chooses to disagree that 2+2=4 inside the arithmetic system of any base superior to 5 should be questioned in terms of intellectual capabilities. (The premises and the rules of inferences being quite non equivocal.)
But a student that doesn’t choose to believe in a specific “theological fact”, because he/she knows there are several other such “facts” that are in flagrant contradiction whit the first, shouldn’t be “burned at the stake” for it.
There, I await for your shredding of my arguments. Don't be shy, I am here to learn more than I already know. (Invitation open to all)
posted
Is there a difference between PGK that something does exist vs. PGK that something doesn't exist?
I think there just comes a point when one lets go of continually asking about the truth an begins to employ it, experiment on it, and otherwise act on it. This is true both of spiritual principles such as Charity and the scientific method. To see something one has believed produce the anticipated result is one definition of joy. In Science one begins with theory and finds evidences of that or performs experiments to test that. It is likewise satisfying to gather data on existing phenomena and discover principles that explain it. (While I don't think I have discovered much, scientific education is a process of assisting people to perceive these principles in a guided atomosphere.) I once attended a lecture on whether a student being guided through an experiment illustrating the Krebs cycle experiences, mentally, anything different from the original discoverer. I believe they must have been arguing that it was the same.
I didn't answer your question earlier about which principles of Christianity persuade me to accept the whole. I'd say the teachings on Charity, the parable of the sheep and the goats, the parable of the true vine, coming to see how these all describe the same thing in different ways is something that I've been experiencing somewhat recently (in the last two years). Before that I was working a lot in concepts of the two great laws of love. (I'm hesitant to share this because, you know, it spotlights how often I am flawed in these things, and that's exactly the point of Christianity, these things are alien to my nature.)
One major turning point for me probably could be expressed in the adage "To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life eternal." That ended a 8 year span of doubt and depression for me, though I guess I first began to come out of it the night (3 years prior) when I realized I could not shoulder the burden of my anger any longer, and cried out to God and found Him. But during those three years, it was the bemused endurance of contradictions, believing God had given me a stone for my bread and a serpent for my meat. So it was not joy, but the endurance of pain.
Going back before that, to what caused me to doubt God, was some events I recounted in my First Landmark post. Basically, my first child died, and then I was psychotic, and a couple of years later my nephew died. I also lost a lot of my faith in science around those times, for truly I had faith in science. I really don't think I believed people died in America anymore.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, for the most part of your previous post, I’d like to say that I’m sorry that you had to endure such tragedies in your (recent) past. I know of many, many cases where people either lost their faith, or found it, when confronted with significant tragedies in their life. And most of the time, their choice (in either direction) was beneficial for them, and for that reason I’ll never claim that having the religion as an option is useless or even “bad”.
Maybe a discussion by PM would be more helpful on any specifics of it.
About your question:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Is there a difference between PGK that something does exist vs. PGK that something doesn't exist?
I’m sorry, but I don’t quite understand what you mean. It was said here several times that our PGK couldn’t influence TRUTH, and I agree with it. Can you give some examples or more explanations?
posted
It is constantly being pointed out that it is harder to prove something does not exist than to prove that it does (thinking mostly of arguments for or against the existence of God, but also the theory of evolution).
I finally looked up what Epistemology is. I would suggest that egotheism is a description of "third culture".
If you are familiar with the principle of linguistic creolization, it is a similar idea. The human mind (which I am using in a non-discrete sense at the moment) has certain requirements for language, and in the presence of limited input, the mind fills in the gaps, creating a creole.
If one were to accept the notion that the mind has similar parameters for a cultural or belief system, and a person is either given insufficient input or forced to change, it could in theory force a similar filling in of gaps.
But it's a very fringey idea, hardly a theory, even.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It is constantly being pointed out that it is harder to prove something does not exist than to prove that it does (thinking mostly of arguments for or against the existence of God, but also the theory of evolution).
Well, there is an essential thing to keep in mind: PGK cannot prove anything, positive or negative, for anyone else than the person holding it above all else.
I mean, if I have a vision of the IPU, I might be very strongly convinced that she exists, but it wouldn’t be sufficient to prove anything to anyone. And if I believe with all the strength that there is no connection between time and space, then it could be my “proof” of that “non-existence”, but that would require me to ignore the scientific arguments (CGK) that “prove” that connection to actually exist.
This is why I say over and over, “truth” is inside, whatever one holds dear on PGK, it can literally blind that person in the face of any kind of proof (on any other level: F/R/C). If one is not using CGK to form their PGK, it’s their choice, but that does not (cannot!) justify imposing that PGK on others (that might have considered the CGK and come to different conclusions).
quote:I finally looked up what Epistemology is. I would suggest that egotheism is a description of "third culture".
From what I know about it, “third culture” was the “forecast” made about the evolution of “intellectualism” in our society, when the division was between “two cultures”: the “true intellectuals” (the literary savvy) and the scientists (who were not seen as “true intellectuals”). So a “third culture” would arise, where the first two were to be on the same level. Yet something else happened: the scientists, instead of writing their work in such a manner as to be “accepted” by the “true intellectuals”, they preferred to “popularise science” and communicate all their “weird” discoveries directly to the public. That would be, by some definition, the Third Culture.
If that definition is the one you use, I would say that the Third Culture could be a by product of Egotheism. I mean, in order to “implement” Egotheism on a large scale (an option that is not necessarily immediate), all knowledge (not only Science, but Religion and all the rest) should be readily available for any interested individual. Yet the mere “availability” won’t induce Egotheism, because many could reject it as a valid epistemology. Also, Third Culture can be brought into reality by many other causes.
This does, however, bring up a point that I won’t try to ignore: It is possible that what I call Egotheism, exists “out there” with some other name. I don’t have exhaustive knowledge on epistemology, and even less on everything related. So I’m open to the possibility that one of these days, someone would say: "Hey, this thing that you think so original is actually <insert the other name>". At that point, I’ll go study it and come back here with my conclusion.
Now that I’m thinking, it did “kind of happened” with “common sense”, “moral relativism”, “hedonism” and now “third culture”. Even if connections might exist, as far as I know there is no equivalence between Egotheism and either of those.
[edited spelling]
quote:If you are familiar with the principle of linguistic creolization, it is a similar idea. The human mind (which I am using in a non-discrete sense at the moment) has certain requirements for language, and in the presence of limited input, the mind fills in the gaps, creating a creole.
If one were to accept the notion that the mind has similar parameters for a cultural or belief system, and a person is either given insufficient input or forced to change, it could in theory force a similar filling in of gaps.
But it's a very fringey idea, hardly a theory, even.
I’m not familiar with the principle of linguistic creolization. It would be interesting to find more about it. From your description here, I could say however that one of the “purposes” of Egotheism (on the teaching side) is minimising those gaps as soon as possible, so each individual could be “ready” to become egotheist (on the student side), if so chooses.
posted
Haiti and the Dominican Republic probably feature the most established Creoles. Haiti uses a Creole based on French, and the DR uses a Spanish Creole. The Creole generally arises from a Pidgin and the assumption is that slaves from a variety of places learned some basic, functional words in the "source" language, and as they raised their children, did their best to teach that to their children. But the basic, functional vocubulary was lacking in pronouns, prepositions and that sort of thing. At least, that's my sketch of it.
I guess my question for you is over the use of the term "ego". Part of my most recent philosophical conundrum involved a reexamination of Freudian analysis and the effects of growing up within that mental framework (which was intended to illuminate the intracacies of the adult mind). It might also be likened to the Creole issues, and also your issues concerning what is an appropriate age for someone to begin to make their own decisions of what to believe.
I think I was 11 or so the first time someone taled about the id, ego and superego. They spoke of it dismissively, but it still took root in my mind.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow I missed a bunch of your post there. By "Third Culture" I meant a hypothetical universal culture experienced by people who are caught between two cultures.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought my read of Third Culture was on wiki too. I'll have too look back... I just now remember why I originally stumbled onto it. It was describing the experience of hearing children of deaf parents. Third Culture Kids Hmm.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, Jonah Lehrer has an interesting take on the Third Culture (variously described as a reform of the Third Culture or perhaps a Fourth Culture) in his new book Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
He has the cover story in Seed Magazine this month (so it isn't available on the web yet) "THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE...IS ART?"
posted
Google may not have a definition for egotheism but the OED does.
Egotheism: The (mystical) identification of oneself with the Deity.
Which makes sense. Monotheism -- a belief in one god. Polytheism -- a belief in many gods. Atheism -- a belief in no god. Egotheism -- a belief that you are God.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Google may not have a definition for egotheism but the OED does.
Egotheism: The (mystical) identification of oneself with the Deity.
Which makes sense. Monotheism -- a belief in one god. Polytheism -- a belief in many gods. Atheism -- a belief in no god. Egotheism -- a belief that you are God.
Ok, for the record: I don’t believe I'm a deity of any form when I say here that “I'm an egotheist”. It’s just me misusing the word. I use it here only with the definition I proposed and improved in this thread.
I just hope that people would not get too confused now. I’ll make an edit of the OP soon.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Yet, and this might be the subject for another thread, there is still another (relatively new) school of thought that promotes the idea that our consciousness and our mere observing the Universe is what CREATES reality, and they back this up with the latest discoveries in Quantum Physics, no less! (for the record: this possibility has nothing to do with Egotheism, as I “defend” it here)
I think you are putting way too much faith in that documentary. The theory that our consciousness creates reality is weaker than string theory. At least there are theoretical ways that we could test string theory in the future.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's always Idtheism. But I have no reason for thinking you would find that appropriate.
Also, I'm uncertain why you appended "ego" to "-theism". Wouldn't metacognition or something along those lines be closer? That's what I was calling it back when I was interested in such things. Not that I'm certain we're talking about the same stuff.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Yet, and this might be the subject for another thread, there is still another (relatively new) school of thought that promotes the idea that our consciousness and our mere observing the Universe is what CREATES reality, and they back this up with the latest discoveries in Quantum Physics, no less! (for the record: this possibility has nothing to do with Egotheism, as I “defend” it here)
I think you are putting way too much faith in that documentary. The theory that our consciousness creates reality is weaker than string theory. At least there are theoretical ways that we could test string theory in the future.
Don’t worry, “fate” has nothing to do with my mentioning it. I am excited because I see other people concerned by the possibility and/or need to find another way of understanding the Universe (I share that concern). I believe virtually nothing about that at the moment, this is why the second landmark is open for discussions in that department
Also, as far as I know, they haven’t found YET a practical way to test String Theory, and that’s because it involves energy levels still un-approachable by the current Particle Accelerators. Building bigger and better is the way
quote:Originally posted by pooka: There's always Idtheism. But I have no reason for thinking you would find that appropriate.
Also, I'm uncertain why you appended "ego" to "-theism". Wouldn't metacognition or something along those lines be closer? That's what I was calling it back when I was interested in such things. Not that I'm certain we're talking about the same stuff.
pooka, your suggestions are welcome. I use this occasion to launch an open invitation to all, to come up with a “suitable” term for this thing debated in this thread. “Egotheism” is already used elsewhere and I don’t want to high-jack the term.
I used “ego” as a prefix, because it has A LOT to do with the self. (Whatever we do, PGK is an essential part of one’s system of beliefs). So I favour the names that contain it
Of course, I realize that in order to find a suitable name, one has to understand the main characteristics of what we try to “baptise”. Therefore I’ll try to give, as succinctly as possible, these characteristics of …<insert new name> - It is epistemological in nature. It concerns the way we learn and teach the available knowledge. - It states that our certainty on the truth value of the available knowledge is not uniform. (hence the concern for defining the Ground Knowledge levels, P/F/R/C) - It states that all knowledge should be available to all, including the “level of Ground Knowledge” each piece of information is supposed to be on. - It also states that after seeing all available knowledge (read: the more the better), the SELF has to make a choice about what to believe (and include in PGK), and thus reach the conclusions about “truth” - It also states that no knowledge is absolute, even if Absolute TRUTH does exist somewhere. Thus, Absolute TRUTH is not transmissible - It also takes into consideration that “perfect” communication is not possible, so even “simple” messages might be difficult to transfer from one individual to another. The more complex the message, the less “reliable” is the “transfer of knowledge”. - It rejects all forms of "indoctrination", where indoctrination is the act of presenting “only one side of the story”. - It doesn’t reject any piece of knowledge, and encourages sharing (how else could we increase availability?) - It doesn’t minimize individual responsibility, rather does the opposite. The larger the social group considered, the more “rules” are to be taken into consideration (more levels).
Well, I’ll leave it to that for now, though I’m sure “all is not said” yet.
From this point forward, I’m encouraging all of you to propose names for this, and I’d like to find, with your help, a suitable one. Comments and “disputes” about these propositions are also encouraged. Don’t forget that using a term that is already used elsewhere is a
Until now we have these candidates:
From pooka: “idtheism” or “metacognition” From myself: “egosophism”
quote:Originally posted by orlox: BTW, Jonah Lehrer has an interesting take on the Third Culture (variously described as a reform of the Third Culture or perhaps a Fourth Culture) in his new book Proust Was a Neuroscientist.
He has the cover story in Seed Magazine this month (so it isn't available on the web yet) "THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE...IS ART?"
Jonah Lehrer is seriously considering ART as a way of understanding things that science is still "behind" in uncovering. (Brain in particular). Not bad at all. (I also think that maybe this would be more suited for the "other" thread ... )
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I guess my question for you is over the use of the term "ego". Part of my most recent philosophical conundrum involved a reexamination of Freudian analysis and the effects of growing up within that mental framework (which was intended to illuminate the intracacies of the adult mind). It might also be likened to the Creole issues, and also your issues concerning what is an appropriate age for someone to begin to make their own decisions of what to believe.
I think I was 11 or so the first time someone taled about the id, ego and superego. They spoke of it dismissively, but it still took root in my mind.
I see “ego” very basically. The self that one is aware of, that is what I call “ego”. So the things that we “feel as true” inside us, they are literally “true for the ego”.
This begs the question : what is "self-awareness"?
A few friends of mine suggested that “self-awareness” is beginning only “late” in life, somewhere at about two years after birth, and manifested when a child realises the image in the mirror is "themselves". I don’t quite agree, I kind of feel that even an unborn child has some kind of “self-awareness”. Can we “measure that” directly? Most probably not.
But still, the “self-awareness” that what “Egotheism*” needs, is more that “pure self”. It’s the self-awareness of being able to make informed decisions about beliefs/knowledge/actions. (Thus, an unborn child can’t be an “egotheist*”).
Warning: fine nuance: it's not the same being able to make an informed decision, and KNOWING that you have that ability!
I call an informed decision something like “I choose this, based on that knowledge, I have this reason(s) to choose it, and I take responsibility for it”. In this view, changing such a choice is possible if we accept to hear more arguments (admitting that there might be something new that we were ignorant of) and re-evaluating our reasons for that choice. It is not only useful for learning, but I dare say a pre-requisite for quality learning.
A.
* Note: as long as we don’t have a name for this, I’ll keep using the terms Egotheism/egotheist as they are defined in this thread, and append the mark <*> to them to acknowledge the “misuse”. Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are already several schools of modern philosophy that fit your description. Perhaps you could decide which one of those best fits?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Hecht finished the great works of Western philosophy over a long weekend. I wouldn't've thought so, but apparently it's not that hard.
-----------
Specifically, I think you're an existentialist (and therefore also a rationalist) with a strong interest in phenomenology. It sounds like you'd like to be an analytic philosopher, so I'd recommend that you read Russell just for enjoyment, but I don't think you'll wind up wholeheartedly jumping on that train. (You may find Wittgenstein interesting, if only in coming up with ways to refute him.) I'd also recommend de Saussure, since semiotics are at the heart of this -- but given that, you may find skipping ahead to the symbolic materialists (like Hofstadter, who's currently got his own thread here) gets you there faster.
If I had to give your philosophy a name, I'd call it positivist existentialism; if I understand what you've said correctly, you believe that morality and experience are personal and consensual, but are also on the fence about whether these consensual experiences inform physical reality in some way. This puts you square alongside Spinoza and Lange.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson, thank you very much for your reply. It will surely give me lost of ideas to explore, and books to read. I appreciate it a whole lot!
(From the ones you named, I had some contact with Spinosa, Russell and Hofstadter.)
Until I educate myself a little more along these lines, the main questions on this thread remain open:
Is this Egotheism* a valid way of approaching knowledge? If not, what deficiencies can be noticed? How do you propose to “fix” them? If yes, can it be “implemented” in the Real world? Should it? How?
posted
"Ego" means "I" (if you want to go back to the Latin and not get hung up on Freud). I'm not sure what the word was for self. I'm aware of the use of "se" as a prefix. But I'm really hungry right now and my long term recall is shot.
I guess I wanted to say that meta-cognition revolved around basic ideas of respecting the integrity of other selves, which I think you are talking about, and "authenticity." Aut- is a prefix meaning self. But, you know, "autism" is kind of taken.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the egotheistical answer to all those questions would be:
1) If you, the thinker, consider it a valid way of approaching knowledge according to its own standards, then it is valid. 2) If not, you the thinker need to decide what's wrong with it. 3) If yes, there is no need to implement it in the real world because, where the Real World works, this has already been implemented.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think the egotheistical answer to all those questions would be:
1) If you, the thinker, consider it a valid way of approaching knowledge according to its own standards, then it is valid. 2) If not, you the thinker need to decide what's wrong with it. 3) If yes, there is no need to implement it in the real world because, where the Real World works, this has already been implemented.
Wow, I have to agree with you, an all three points! (Plus, I have to admit it's a bit "bizarre" to see someone else apply Egotheism* to my own questions. )
One remark though. I formulated badly the third question. When I said “Real world” I was referring to “The world al large”, or even closer, “On a large scale”. That is, not only for the thinker alone, but for the others around. Is it possible for the Egotheism* to become “universal” without “indoctrination” (that is, by its own standards) ?
---
pooka, thanks for the link. I will take a good look at its contents.
quote:Is it possible for the Egotheism* to become “universal” without “indoctrination” (that is, by its own standards) ?
I don't believe so, no.
In Warner's model which involves "The Box" of self-deception, it was not possible to release someone from the box by telling them that they were in the box. Telling them they were in the box set up a new layer of accusation and justification.
P.S. Everyone believes their model is not a form of indoctrination, but of liberation.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it possible for the Egotheism* to become “universal” without “indoctrination” (that is, by its own standards)?
If we're still positing egotheism as an exclusive epistemology, then it's important to understand that it already has. In other words, any time someone correctly claims to know something, they know it because they examined it through an egotheistic lens. This means everyone who claims to know something for a non-egotheistic reason is doing just that: claiming to know something.
The question really is, then, "is it possible to cause people to stop claiming to know things they don't really know without unethically coercing them (by the definition of ethical behavior developed through egotheism?)" I think the answer is probably "no."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's true. If "egotheism" correctly describes how people operate, then they are already operating that way.
But I think it would cause a lot of havoc if everyone had to declaim everything they don't really know.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I use it here only with the definition I proposed and improved in this thread. ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
