There was a bit of a discussion over on Times and Seasons that while initially seeming silly, actually had a bit of philosophical import. A talk by Elder Pace back in the late 80's was taken by some as a critique of "intellectualism." I think the talk has been divorced somewhat from its context. There were numerous talks on this theme then. One of my favorite concerned those who "looked beyond the mark." Certainly there are those who get so caught up in the minutae of history that they "miss the forest for the trees."
I suggested a talk by President Kimball called "Absolute Truth." I bring this up here, not because I find the discussion at Times and Seasons significant, but because I find the issue of absolute truth significant. It seems that there are two different issues. One is if there is an "absolute truth" and what on earth we mean by that. The other is whether we can know absolute truth, if such a thing exists. The problem, of course, is that the term absolute truth is thrown around a lot, usually as a pejorative label. Usually ones opponents are always held to be denying absolute truth.
I posted some excerpts from a short lived series of articles on hermeneutics. They were designed to try and show how Kabbalistic hermeneutics proceeded using a few simple examples. They are rather interesting if you've ever read any of Derrida's readings of other texts.
There is a somewhat interesting discussion over at The Metaphysical Elders regarding what makes a person that person. They've approached it from a rather unusual perspective. The "Scientist" discussed why the dream of DNA unlocking a person's nature is a pipe dream. His point was that the DNA alone wasn't what causes the genes to be expressed. Rather there were other elements in the cell which were just as important. From here we had the "Semiotician" trying to talk of DNA and cytoplasmic elements as "logoi." Unfortunately either I wasn't quite sure what he was talking about or else thought it an odd way to speak. "Logoi" were sort of the metaphysical words found in Greek thought, whether Stoic or Platonic. They are the archetypal "words" of reality. They can be variously considered as rules, principles, laws, order, reasons, abstractions and so forth. To me it sounded as if the "Semiotician" was trying to say that a spirit was a platonic-like form influencing DNA. He clarified his comments somewhat, although I wasn't that satisfied with them, to be honest. However last night he posted a rather long explanation which makes a little more sense.
As I understand him, any part of existence is a kind of information that also is undergoing change. He uses the example of pool balls. We can think of pool balls as actual balls, or think of them in terms of the information that describes them. When physicists consider such entities they reduce the information to its simplest form and then can predict how the balls will interact and perform according to Newton's laws. I think the "Semiotician" is saying that we can consider the information describing the balls and the laws that they obey as all information. Some information is about state and other information is about how those states can change (natural law). As such they are all logoi in the old Greek sense. Rather than thinking them as we normally do, we should instead conceive of material as information. To me this still smacks far too much of idealism or worse yet Berkeleyism. But he does take the rather interesting track of saying that we regularly experience words reacting with matter - when some word is read and the body behaves. I must admit that in such a conception, the difference is perhaps not as great as I thought. We're used to trying to think of words as material - bits of light that then interact causally with the eyes and then the brain and so forth. But I suppose we can just as easily think of it the opposite way - meanings that then get transfigured in various ways. I'm not sure it is that helpful a way of considering it, but it is interesting.
The other related bit of who we are this week was at Times and Seasons. There Kristine brought up the issue of Mormonism and homosexuality. That's a topic I usually avoid. Partially because as I've said before I don't really find ethical debates that interesting (or helpful). But partially it often seems like a debate founded on passion rather than clear conceptions. (On both sides) Surprisingly the way the discussion went it actually was very interesting. Most interesting was a comment by Kristine that she couldn't really imagine homosexuals giving up their form of sexuality because that was so essential to who they were. The implication was that homosexuals would be homosexuals in the resurrection. Now that to me was a huge assumption, and one I happened to disagree with. But the more underlying issues of what makes me me were most interesting. How much of my biology is me? I ask since clearly one aspect of what I think of as me is my sexuality, yet surely I was me long before adolescence. It really is an interesting question. I won't repeat my comments on the topic here, but people may find them somewhat interesting.
There are many significant issues for Mormonism here. There is a rather common assumption that in heaven I'll be just as I am now, only better. But I'm not convinced we ought to take it that far. How I am now is quite unlike I was at 9 years old. I daresay that I couldn't even imagine what it would be like to be me as a 36 year old when I was 9. That isn't just because of that huge change that adolescence brings with many of its manifestations of sexuality. My attraction to my wife, for instance, certainly is a huge part of who I am. But I also expect that attraction to change and deepen as I get older. It may well be that the line between biology and information is as blurry as the "Semiotician" over at the Metaphysical Elders suggests. At what point is it worth talking about my biology and hormones and what point my ideas, my dreams, my memories? I appear to be a hopelessly muddled mass of all of them. I can't recall much of my earliest years, yet somehow that made me who I am. Me, as I am now, contain those memories manifest, just as much as I contain my DNA manifest. There is some holism to what makes me me that makes any separation difficult to conceive. At some point the analysis breaks down and I am forced to think that perhaps everything that effects me makes me who I am, along with everything I affect.
I found an interesting resource on semiotics that some might find interesting. The Semiotics Resource Center has numerous entries. Unfortunately it is very much a work in progress and seems quite unfinished in most areas. I have the feeling it is one of those projects started by some students that was more than they had counted on. (As much work as style and programming are for a web site - conent is always the hardest) Probably the most interesting part of the site are the online "classes" from the University of Toronto. The one I found interesting was the Semiotics of Buddhism which analyzes Buddhism in terms of semiotics and more traditional western categories. It once again has problems (a few links are bad). However it was very interesting and offered numerous interesting parallels to both the theurgical approach to philosophy found in certain early forms of neoPlatonism as well as some of Grice's critiques of Searle in terms of Speech Act Theory. The role of the sign on performantive acts is quite important in Buddhism and is typically taken as more important than more traditional senses of meaning which are most valued in the west.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble