thought

A brief thought: I thought of Bill Maher just a minute ago. A few weeks ago I said in a conversation that I disagreed with about 20% of what he says, but later that day I realized what I meant to say was that I disagreed with about 20% of his apparent mindset. As much as I rally around many of his ideals, I can't help but feel that he is very close-minded. Self-righteous. Like many of the well-known people who I agree with about 80% of the time, he believes himself to be (I'm pretty sure this is a near-exact quote) the only person with his head screwed on right. Well actually I'd suppose most people have that belief to some extent (including me). Anyway the point is that as I thought about this close-mindedness I came up with this sentence: the more open-minded a man is, the more capable he is of converting his enemies. I think I would also argue that the more open-minded, the greater potential to reach truth one has - whatever it is that you want to define truth as, your deviance from the direct path is determined by your weight of bias. So, no matter what ideals you pursue, you are more likely achieve the greatest happiness, as well as inspire the most people to join you, the more you disavow yourself of personal infallibility.


Also, open-mindedness inhibits institutionalization, or brainwashing. How can you be brainwashed if you incorporate the possibility of fallacy into your paradigm?

More society

Primary relationships, i.e. very close relationships, employ a pragmatic system of interaction. Tertiary relationships, or those with people we don't know at all, are most commonly handled idealistically because there are no distinguishing features between any individual of any tertiary party other than their potential to be anywhere between completely fine and completely inimical. Secondary relationships are with those who we may know "casually", such as normal friends, co-workers, employees of frequently frequented establishments that you've gotten to know on a first-name basis, take a very uncertain middle-ground that differs from relationship to relationship. With this perspective, I think I better understand how insanely difficult social and economic policies can become in a society of such numerous and complex social structures, and quite honestly I believe most of the American public (yes I'm generalizing) is not equipped to comment on or tamper with such policies. I don't mean they're not mentally equipped, but rather they don't have enough understanding of said social structures and other important social factors, and (more generalizing) are generally not found possessing the intellectual and psychological framework to process this information correctly, i.e. are too biased. I'd almost say there's decent merit in requiring a passing grade in a standardized college-level introductory sociology course in order to allow people to vote, or for that matter enter political forums or be a journalist for a news station or a political talk-show host, etc. I say standardized because I'd want to brainwash people I believe an understanding of the objective principles of the "science" of sociology is fundamentally important to accurately process information about other societies and the interaction between them, and so I would want the curriculum  to be unaffected by the emotional input of its teachers, a thing which I think sociology would tempt of the more emotionally loose professors.

Society

Recently I had a partially heated discussion with two of my roommates. I didn't have a specific point I was trying to make, rather I was hoping to dispel some of the misconceptions manifested in my cohorts. The discussion began because I commented on a story given to one of my roommates in an email. Here's the basic idea: At the request of his students, a professor implements a grading system where the scores are averaged and awarded to everyone. Test scores drop because the students who don't study demoralize those who do, and the story ends comparing this to Obama turning the country socialist. In hindsight I should never have had that conversation, because I realize my friends were not equipped with the proper mindset to accurately analyze this field. I realize this is my word alone, but I am adamant about this opinion. This post is more about some afterthoughts and refinements that were made as I reviewed my argument.

I don't know if I consider myself "socialist". Here's how I see it: You cannot rally around the flag of capitalism 100% and be a "true Christian" (I use this term loosely to describe empathetic people). Capitalism by default means that some people will be screwed no matter what. One of the ideals of socialism is to account and provide for those people, even if it means bringing the outrageously well-off people down a bit to do it.

Here I must bring up a point that was made in the discussion. I used the example of tribal societies to show the positive outcomes of socialistic ideals put into practice ("social context", an extremely important concept for this discussion, was a word I used many times, but that appeared to have been acknowledged exactly 0 times). The counter argument was that it was obviously terrible because so many of these societies were destroyed or absorbed by the agricultural societies (I had to explain to them this period of social history). I then brought up the fact that there were still societies like those that exist today, so therefore the society itself was fine in that regard, but that it was the world around them that changed. The reply: well that just shows that those societies are inferior to the agricultural societies. I don't know how I couldn't make this argument at the time as it is pathetically obvious. The great depression, one of the many economic dips inherent in a capitalist society, caused many people who were formerly possessors of what we consider the standards of living to drop below the poverty line, in many cases the absolute poverty line; so much so that not only was heavy government regulation necessary, but bread lines and other government handouts were necessary. Basically, people were suffering, not necessarily because their way of life was unsustainable (if you are to insist that capitalism is sustainable, and also assume that the majority of people at this time were not directly responsible for the over-speculation and other major contributors to the economic crisis), but because their social circumstances changed.

I'm short on time. There's one other idea I had. The example of the professor failing his class has a host of critical differences from American society, something which I don't have time to mention. But, as my brother pointed out recently, we have a tendency to mentally group people - you might use the categories of primary, secondary, and tertiary. Basically the farther away from primary people are, the less human they naturally register in our minds unless overridden by a higher though process. Example: Muslims vs. your family. Consciously you may recognize them all as humans and thus equal, but that is contrary to the natural reaction. So, I assume the professor's class must have been your average large class where people form their many personal social groups and consider everyone outside of them lesser. On the other hand, such a system would have worked marvelously in my Arabic class, because it was small enough and full of smart enough people to where we were all one close social group, and issues like a lack of desire to study could be addressed, which would be nearly impossible in larger groups due to the natural social grouping process exhibited by us humans.

Started out thinking of art and then generalized

Humans attribute meaning to the world around them according to what they have learned to attribute meaning to. One influence in this learning is a tendency to secure a personal identity during the socialization process. They first create meaning on their own, and then these meanings are adjusted in an effort to fit personal social needs. The frequency and time between these two steps will vary according to external circumstances and degree of socialization, i.e. advanced socialization will diminish the time between the two steps - personal meaning is immediately exchanged for social meaning, and external circumstances will determine how often a new item enters the mind for examination.

Thus the less successful one has been in the socialization process, the more likely he will not understand how to interact with the society he lives in.

My Testimony

The criticisms that come against Christianity or any other religious faith usually are a matter of perspective. A believer will answer issues on the assumption that the doctrine of his faith is correct... and actually that is the story of experience of every human being, being considered religious or otherwise. That is our mortal inheritance, the fallacy of induction: since you cannot know everything, it is tempting to assume that that which you do not know follows the same logic as the things that you do know, which is illogical to assume (or at least, I assume so) as has been undeniably demonstrated by history. If we don't make this assumption, then you accept that anything is possible. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that seeming issues with Christianity are often seen in two major categories: it was God's will, or you're just paranoid and want to perpetuate your own sense of identity which has been built around the idea of God. As a Latter Day Saint, I feel I will add my input to the subject which happens to be a central pillar of my testimony. Some of the things that I am asked about when it comes to the veracity of the LDS church come to this standoff that I have talked about. Of course I have thought for a long time about such issues and my conclusions are, in the end, supportive of the Church and the Gospel. In trying to analyze my own bias in these issues, I realize that a few of my arguments do not conclude on what might be called empirical reasoning; as in, it usually involves phrasing of this sort: I don't really know for sure, but I am willing to believe there are reasons which we are not aware of for which these things happened. This same argument is not unusual at all in different contexts; this is how the idea of "scientific thought" grew out of spiritualistic philosophy and medicine. Indeed this is the argument that corrects spurious relationships - we acknowledge the fallacy of induction and (ideally) move to increase our understanding of the subject.

Still, so far I have not moved away from the ledge of perspectives. I was just reading the very first verse in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 1:1, which says: "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days." This caused me to reflect on my own testimony because I felt I could relate very well with Nephi's explanation. I feel I have had many, many spiritual experiences, ranging in intensity... but there are things that I have experienced and written down that defy all the natural logic I possess; these are what Tom Rogers might call "hooks", or what in this context might be called "things that unambiguously take you off the ledge". I brought up Nephi's words because he mentions "many afflictions" before giving his testimony. I suspect he might have used "highly favored of the Lord" as a reference to being blessed with divine help to interpret his afflictions wisely, although that's just a random guess. Anyway, I related to this because the "hooks" or "ledge-pushers" stored in my brain and paper all started out with something going wrong, in some cases very, very wrong. But they were core to the eventual positive outcome (which, in my opinion, is kind of an obvious point. I mean to say, I think the questions of "why does bad happen in the world/to me" requires not understanding what makes good things happen in the world, or, on a slightly different platform, why homeostasis is the antithesis of things like 'desire', 'drive', 'achievement', 'progress', 'dreams', 'joy', and all of the things that make the human experience enjoyable).

So I guess I just wanted to write what was on my mind, which is this: I believe in my faith, and my faith-supporting conclusions, not necessarily because of how solid each argument initially sounds, but because I feel I have been given more solid evidence for them than any evidence to the contrary.

I think that's kind of the idea pretty much the main purpose of the Book of Mormon. I don't see how this has passed over so many heads...

I think I've already expressed many of these things in former writings. Well maybe in this post I've connected and solidified some things.

Art

So I was perusing youtube recently trying to find certain pieces of piano music for my class when, in the right portion of the screen where all the related videos are (and in this case was mostly just pictures of sheet music since the videos for these pieces are often just follow-alongs in the music) I spied an unusual piece of sheet music which inspired me to investigate.

I learned that this piece of music was a part of Sylvano Bussotti's piano sonata, "Pour Clavier". I also learned that this piece did absolutely nothing to persuade me to the cause of this form of "modern music", despite the uploader's assurance that it was "a monolith of the modern piano repertoire", even rivaling other piano sonatas "in terms of sheer greatness". After a listen, I posted this comment in review: "In my opinion, the less distinction a piano piece has from, say, a piano left out in the middle of a hailstorm, the less reason it has to exist." In reply, the poster of this video wrote "In my opinion, the more incapable a listener is from differentiating a piece of music from a piano in a hailstorm, the less that person is worth. Period." after which he blocked me from further reply. I was indignant at first... I was upset that this person was getting away with shameless two-fold hypocrisy - one for unambiguously depreciating the value of a human life for no other reason than that person forming an opinion of art different from his own, while at the same time vehemently defending the very ideal of subjective interpretation of art, and two for assuming the position of professional art critic while childishly mocking those who gave negative comments. Previous to this time I had somewhat firmly established a philosophy on art and music, but this experience helped me to refine that philosophy.

One of the comments accepted by the poster of this video brought up a point: "This is not even a matter of pretty or ugly. We're talking about music here, and thus a way to express what you consider an approach. Way more an approach than 'ugly' or 'pretty'. Why not 'small', or 'big' ? or 'blue' or 'yellow. Probably because during all your life some have taught you to measure art with a somewhat absurd concept of 'pretty' and 'ugly'". Ok, so it's all up to the person what they get out of this music. And sure, you could say that this music is small and yellow. Heck, you could say it's anything. So meaning is derived not from the form of the art but instead from the observer. Or you could take the opposite argument from the very poster of the video - meaning comes straight from the form of art; why else would he criticize my apparently erroneous understanding of the music? If this music is supposed to have form that is so drastically distinct from a piano in a hailstorm, then there is significance in every second of silence, every note played, every line and - dare I say - scribble on the sheet music. Were one note moved a half-step off, would the purpose of the whole piece be frustrated? Anyway, the point is that both sides of the argument demonstrate different facets of art, i.e. both form and interpretation could be argued as important to art and to different degrees. So, as I thought about this, I had the thought that the distinction between true art and everything else was what it suggested to the observer. I suppose even if a work of art is in the form of something we consider normal or natural (i.e. form doesn't matter), the suggested interpretation of it could be significant. For example the poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" employs a very natural and familiar setting, but makes suggested interpretations of this setting that indeed have great potential to expand one's life experience. But in the world of non-vocal music, the medium of communication is the instrument, so suggesting something must, as a language must, be understood by the listener in order to mean anything and thus have positive potential. In a way it is akin to telling a joke, in that the context is important for people to understand in order for the full effect to take place. If you create a brand new form of notation that is not intuitive and must be explained to everyone, that's like telling an inside joke - which is fine until you assume that everyone who doesn't get it must be dull or ignorant.

Missed comment

I just noticed a comment made last October in my "Another string of thought" post. It points out that Latter Day Saints claim that the Book of Mormon is "the most correct book on the face of the earth" which would infer that the Bible is below the Book of Mormon in truth. This does not ring well in the ears of the rest of Christendom. Here is my response.

The Articles of Faith of the LDS church state that we "believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly". I will paraphrase a quote from a church authority whose identity I have forgotten: the words of the Bible as they were produced from the pen of the apostles was perfectly accurate. Now, the filters of multiple translations have caused many passages to lose their original meaning and have thus been rendered incomplete in truth. Examples of this are not terribly hard to find.

Exodus 7-14 mentions frequently that "the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh". If this is true, then why didn't God soften the heart of Pharaoh, instead of seemly forcing him into doing the evil that would cause his own destruction?

Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18 say that no man has seen God or can see God and live. Yet several accounts of man seeing God are recorded in the Bible - one of them is a few verses behind the former scripture reference: "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Other accounts and references are found in Job 19:26, Acts 7:56, Genesis 32:30, Isaiah 6:5, and others. How else do you think we have a prophetic description of the risen Lord in the Book of Revelations?

Ephesians 2:8-9 says that man is saved by Grace and not by works, that God gives the gift of salvation. Different sects of Christianity differ on how to interpret this scripture, but most who say that salvation comes by Grace alone argue between 'predestination' - that God has already chosen who He is going to save - and the need to put forth faith - a simple acknowledgement that God exists - to obtain salvation. But according to Revelations 20:12-15, people whose works have been judged to be evil, regardless of their level of faith or predestination status, will be "cast into the lake of fire."

These are some of the more obvious doctrinal conflicts that occur within the Bible. As Christians, Latter Day Saints hold the Bible to be the Word of God, but we acknowledge that during a period of great apostasy, Biblical truths were altered. We assert that the Book of Mormon is a record of complete truth, as it came to Joseph Smith from Spirit of Revelation. That said, we do not believe either book holds the entirety of the Word of God. Article of Faith 9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." We believe that God does not speak to a few people at a few points in history and then "shuts the heavens" so to speak. Why wouldn't God reveal everything at once instead of having a stream of revelation only when there are enough righteous people and prophets to listen, as seems to be the pattern in the Bible (Chronicles 36:15-16; Jeremiah 7:25-26)? And why would He stop after the death of the Apostles of the early church? Was there suddenly nothing left to reveal? Did the people suddenly become righteous and stop corrupting the doctrine to what they thought it should be (Galatians 1:6-10; 2 Timothy 4:3-4)? But I digress. What I wanted to say is this: we believe both books of scripture are necessary for us to know the truth of God, that they support and testify of each other, and that neither stands alone as a complete volume of the Word of God. Like the synthesis of the Old and New Testaments, the histories contained within both books create a more complete image of God.


Before I end, I want to mention one other thing. As I was reading the post in question, "Another string of thought", I found that I did not like the way I wrote some of my commentary. Of course I leave it the same doctrinally, but I felt I was too unnecessarily judgmental of some of the people to whom I made reference. I have since been working to improve in that area, seeing that I have no authority to make any such judgments.