From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean's experiential hallucinogen (will John try it?)
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:05:00 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep3.153637.14677@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Sean...Sean...Sean...
> 
> WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING MAN?!?  :-)

I'm not really sure how to respond to that one!

> 
> Think.  kfjh kkk sdfgkjhs sdfgjh fdsddfk kfdg fdfkj #$ ljhds kjkfgs  sgk dfgj
> ! fkgk kdfsgj sglkkkjfdig kjfglriuhsg kjigu fglk  fgh urirt   rtl  lruh lkerl
> rtlahgjfhgkfjdgkdfjg rturehtukfjghsdjghfdgf   f f     fgkj aaa lkut fgsdfkj
> fdgkjf dglkfgjhslg  ghlkgrliug  fg.

Really?  How kind of you to say so!    * blush *

> You just experienced sensory input.  It is not really different from the
> input you are now experiencing, but you are giving meaning to this set of
> letters.  Both are of approximately the same duration, both have variance and
> pattern.  They are both valid experiences.

It is indeed different from the paragraph above. The random letters have no
referent in my memory other than as letters. Letters organized in the fashion
of your second paragraph have referents in my memory 1. as letters (same as
first paragraph) 2. as identifiable patterns, "chunks."  These "chunks"
(words) have referents in my memory also, referents which have nothing to do
with the individual letters in each word. This is the magic of language.

> The first is the way you view yourself and reality.  They are something to be
> observed to which no absolute meaning can be given.  To try and make sense
> out of it would only be guesswork and for that reason fundamentally flawed.

This seems fairly accurate so far...

> If you really lived removed from interpretation you would be the bumbling
> idiot I described earlier. 

There is a difference between making an interpretation and regarding that
interpretaion as being absolutely true.  Indeed, I make interpretations
of experience, primarily according to the English language, but also
according to the contents of my memory. Everybody who speaks a language
does this. 
 
> You cannot do this though, so an interpretaion is
> given but without certainty.

Strictly speaking, it IS possible to look at the world around you without
interpreting. It takes time to figure out how to do this, but it is possible.
It takes a weird kind of effort...but this is another subject.

> The passages are different though!  The first 
> came about by chance - a random tapping on the keys.  The second was carefully 
> designed to convey meaning and ideas that must be interpreted, but in an 
> absolute sort of way.  A false interpretation would negate the meaning.

Hmmm...this is getting interesting...

> Reality could be, as you say, like the first: brought about by chance,
> without absolute meaning, and given to any random interpretation depending on
> ones whims.  Or, reality could be, as I say, like the second: brought about
> by God's design, with absolute meaning, and given to any random interpretaion
> of which only one accurately portrays the intended meaning.

For starters, these are not the only two possible options. Reality could be,
say, an eternal process operating with a certain, unvarying regularity
of manifestation. One would call this an eternal, uncreated, deterministic
universe.  Reality could be the unfolding of the life of one big Mind,
as certain Eastern doctrines say.  There are infinite possibilities.
To say it's "either God or chance" is to reveal how thoroughly one has 
been conditioned by 19th/20th century modes of Christianity.

The fact is - there is no way to know. You don't even know this minute
whether you are dreaming or not. For all you know, you might be 
a disembodied brain sitting in a jar in a lab somewhere in the Lesser
Magellanic Cloud. There is no way to probe beneath the surfaces of our
experience - because each new probe is just another manifestation of
perception. You cannot find out what is "beyond" perception. Perception
is all there is. 

> One cannot live removed from interpretation - you are not capable of raw
> experiences.

In fact, this is incorrect. 

> The intended absolute interpretation of existence, which makes
> such a large amount of sense on so many different levels of thought, has been
> revealed. 

I'm not denying that the Bible provides a coherent interpretation of experience.
However, certainty about the _absolute truth_ of this interpretation is
just plain old delusion. Because you don't even know if you're 
dreaming this whole life of yours. And if you say "I DO know, I'm NOT
dreaming!" then you're only fooling yourself - you're certainly not 
fooling me. 
 
> The Bible is the key to crack the code, graciously provided by the
> designer of the message. 

The Bible can tell us nothing ultimate. Even if your particular sect (and it
is a sect) of Christianity has the correct interpretation of the Bible, and
the Bible IS everything you claim it is, we still remain in ignorance
about the ultimate nature of experience. "Well, God made it!" Well - 
where did GOD come from? "He's eternal - he didn't come from anywhere!"
Well - we've replaced one mystery with another. We still don't understand
the nature of reality. 
 
> Note that the desire and ability to comprehend
> absolutes and the ability (in fact aptitude) to attach absolute concepts to
> abstract experiences (like this post) is built into human nature.

I will agree with this. We certainly do have both this desire and this
capability. There are many, many other hypotheses that account for this
observation other than yours, however. And there ain't no way to tell
who's right. Or if ANYONE's right.
 
>>Strictly speaking, what I said was:
>>1. _I_ can't know anything for sure. (an observation, not a doctrinal 
>>assertion.)
>>2. Assuming that the universe is not a Sean-centred solipsism, other people
>>exist, and apparently function in much the same way as me. Note: this is
>>an ASSUMPTION I make for the sake of discussion. I am not asserting this
>>as a fact.  
>>3. Assuming 2, YOU can't know anything for sure, either. 
> 
> You must attach at least tenative meaning to some, if not all, experiences.
> The meaning that you give my words in your mind must be universal in order
> for communication to be achieved. 

The fact is, we have no idea if communication is EVER achieved. I suspect it
happens pretty darn rarely. Say you convince me to sign up and be a
member of the holy elect. You have no way of knowing what bizarre concept
of God lurks in my brain. So I use the same words as you and we all 
happily rejoice in our shared faith. Wheee....but each believer's brain
contains entirely different concepts of God, truth, faith, love, etc. etc.
and the communion you all think you share is in fact another illusion.
Now - you can overcome this to a large degree by enforcing conformity of
thought and doctrine, and by prolonged and repeated techniques that 
essentially amount to brainwashing, but you'll never get the images in
every believer's mind to match up unless you raise them together in barracks
and even THEN you won't get it 100%. Perhaps you can achieve Christian unity
through cloning....that may be possible in a few years. 
 
> Notice that does not mean there cannot be
> misunderstandings, only that by far the majority of the concepts get through
> in their intended form. 

If you could see into the minds of your fellow believers you would jump out
of your socks to see what mental referents THEY attach to the concepts
you all adhere to. Just as they would if they could see into YOUR mind.

> Modern Christianity is not perfect, but it is the
> best interpretation of the message of God's relationship with man and the
> meaning behind existence.  

So you say. Forgive me if I take a look at what other people say before I
sign up. People like St. Thomas Aquinas, who would shudder to see what you
have made of Christianity, St. Augustine, Jesus of Nazareth (whose words
are recorded in many other books besides the ones you venerate.)

Want to know who you _really_ worship?  St. Paul. You have bet your eternal
salvation on the veracity of St. Paul's claims to apostleship. If he
was wrong/a liar/deluded, than you are toast, comrade, because the
theology you so cheerfully embrace comes from the Pauline letters. SOME
of which are known fakes.  The message you preach is Paul's message,
Paul's interpretation of Jesus's life. Paul - a MAN. Like you and me.
Better hope you're right, John. Eternity is a long time.

> The only two ways to live ones life are to accept
> or reject the obvious message.  You have chosen to reject it.
 
I indeed reject St. Paul's claims to apostleship, and I reject the Pauline
theology. Do I reject the Gospels? No. But I think Paul misunderstood
Jesus about as totally as is humanly possible. 

> If you are more comfortable reading the first type of message, go right on
> ahead.  The second type is available though, and much more interesting!

The second type is indeed available...but to consider one's interpretation
of experience to be _absolutely true_ is just plain old fashoined delusion.
(and remember my assumption #2, before you call me an absolute relativist)

> As with all analogies this one sucked donkey hoof but I think you see what
> I'm driving at.  Please consider.
> 
> John M.

MAYBE Pauline Christianity is true. MAYBE your brand of Bible-based American
Protestanism (only about 200 years old, BTW) is the final word on human
existence. Maybe. But this is beyond question: anybody who claims to be
CERTAIN about it is lost in delusion. 

p.s. your analogy wasn't so bad...:)
 
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca

"Gladly would we anchor; but the anchorage is quicksand." Emerson