"Debt" or "obligation" incurred by spirits coming to earth.

Clear said:

Hi Orontes : I think you and I are speaking of and referring to two different theories :

For example, you describe : “… a being who has, or will have, no knowledge of a prior existence?”. Your model makes it more difficult to justify prior obligation and I agree with your point regarding your model.

However, In the early judeo-christian model I have discussed, the spirit of man had an existence with a degree of knowledge prior to being placed in the mortal life and will have a clear recollection and knowledge of his prior existence after this life. The model I am referring to is NOT the same model you describe.

However I am, as ever, very grateful for some of the thoughts you have given me. I have learned some very profound things by reading your posts.

Clear
τζφυτζω

Click to expand...

Hi Clear,

I’d like to explore your model. If one asserts a being moving through different epistemic stages along the lines I think you are going for it would look like:

1)Pre-existence ---------2) Mortality-----------------3) Post-Mortality

This is one being occupying three distinct stages each with their own epistemic conditions. Now 1) informs 2) and 2) informs 3) (as in one’s First Estate informs the Second Estate and the Second Estate informs the eternities to follow). However, 2) has no knowledge of 1). Therefore, independent of whether 3) may have full recollection of the entire process of stages, how can 2) be under any obligation vis-à-vis 1) without knowledge of 1)? In other words, how can an obligation justly apply without knowledge under your model?

Orontes commented :

“ I’d like to explore your model. If one asserts a being moving through different epistemic stages along the lines I think you are going for it would look like:

1)Pre-existence ---------2) Mortality-----------------3) Post-Mortality

This is one being occupying three distinct stages each with their own epistemic conditions. Now 1) informs 2) and 2) informs 3) (as in one’s First Estate informs the Second Estate and the Second Estate informs the eternities to follow). However, 2) has no knowledge of 1). Therefore, independent of whether 3) may have full recollection of the entire process of stages, how can 2) be under any obligation vis-à-vis 1) without knowledge of 1)? In other words, how can obligation justly apply minus knowledge under your model?”



Hi Orontes :

A) REGARDING MORAL OBLIGATION IN A PROCESS OF MORAL PROGRESSION

Please keep in mind that I have little strict philosophical interest in early judeo-christian traditions and beliefs but rather my interest is mainly historical and I am looking history through the perspective of and with the motives and biases of a Convinced Christian/LDS convert. I don’t have any particular interest in philosophy for its’ own sake. That said, I think your model is too simplistic and does not take multiple other other factors into account.

For example, your model narrowly assumes that the embodied spirit “has no knowledge” of any prior existence. From an LDS OR a historical standpoint, I do not think this is a correct model since it excludes other considerations and unconscious knowledge.

For examples :

1) Knowledge : The embodied spirits’ inability to access specific pre-mortal moral memories does not mean that he has no knowledge regarding premortal moral considerations any more than a person with selective amnesia forgets all prior knowledge. Like the amnesiac, the embodied spirit simply may not be able to access all prior knowledge to their consciousness. Yet obviously, they use prior knowledge they have.

For example : Just as a selective amnesiac may know how to ride a bicycle without any conscious memory of having learned to ride a bike, an embodied spirit may know how to feel moral stirrings and motivations without any conscious memory of having learned moral considerations in a pre-mortal existence.

Not all obligations cease upon an amnesiacs loss of memory. For example, if the amnesiac mortgaged a home, the home remains mortgaged and payments must be made for legal ownership regardless of the amnesiacs ability to remember having mortgaged his home. If the amnesiacs memory returns, then the restored memory neither restores nor increases his prior obligation, but merely restores his memory as to why he made the choice to take on the obligation of mortgage.


2) Moral Guidance : The embodies spirit still has access to on-going moral guidance (which may echo prior moral choice and obligation).

For examples : The LDS concept of the inherent moral intelligence of a spirit itself; the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost as moral guiding forces are also a model for sources of on-going moral obligation throughout one’s life. If the spirit witnesses to a person that he should make a specific moral choice (i.e. don’t beat this child, don’t rob and steal, don’t kill this person, etc.) and the embodied spirit recognizes that the guidance is the better choice, then a moral obligation is created.


3) Re-cognition : If the LDS concept that we are simply re-learning what we already knew is valid, then moral learning in this life must represent a different sort of learning. I view it as a clinical experience where we are to experience and learn to use what we were already introduced to.

For example : You could use your physicians basic medical training as a base model. The physician-student spends two years in didactic training with lectures and pictures and then leaves the class room to take two years learning about actual clinical and actual experiential use of base data he had learned in classes. The second two years are, to a great extent, a clinical “repeat” of learning, however the use and experiences with the same data are different.

4) There are multiple other phenomena which contribute to the spirits moral characteristics.

For examples : Spirits have developed varying degrees of Intelligence, varying kinds of social interaction and habits; differing degrees of logic and reasoning; differing degrees of insight and understanding; differing levels of moral wisdom and ability to use moral knowledge, etc. All of these may impact degrees of moral obligation.

I very MUCH agree with you that a being who has no knowledge, no consciousness, no awareness, etc, can have no obligation for things they are unaware of. My point is that to hold up a narrow definition of “knowledge” (i.e. conscious knowledge) and to use this single characteristic as sole basis for a discussion and judgment regarding potential moral obligation that might accompany a pre-mortal spirit into an embodied realm is too simplistic of a model. It is, also, not consistent with early judeo-christian historical traditions as I understand them.



B) REGARDING PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS VS HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS :

I did travel to the philophy forums once but decided that the discussions generally were void of significant historical data and they usually became so bogged down in battles of one-upmanship involving subtle nuances of logic and reasoning that the individuals rarely came to any useable historical conclusions. If you simply wish to have a mere philosophical discussion, then I am not the person you need to discuss those non-historical issues with. If you have an interest in a historical discussion that offers significant historically viable data that will move our understanding of early Judeo-Christian religion forward, then I am quite interested in that sort of discussion.


Orontes, I have enjoyed many of your data related posts and have learned much from them and am grateful for your knowledge base.


Clear
δρεισεω

Hi Clear,


If you've no interest in the logic of your investigation I won't pursue it. I thought your considering the idea included such. Even so, I will reply to your last response just to give you a bit more perspective and then leave it unless you want to look into it further.


Notions of knowledge: you object that knowledge should be restricted to conscious knowledge, but that there are realms of unconscious knowledge etc. I would submit that unconscious knowledge is simply a subset of conscious knowledge. It is something a subject does not need to focus on, but may. Your example of riding a bike is an example, having learned balance, propel speed etc. may mean a subject no longer thinks about such, but could at any time. None of the elements to riding a bike are hidden. It's simply a question of focus. If you wish to assert there is subconscious knowledge (meaning knowledge that is by definition hidden from the subject but is still knowledge, I would counter such does not exist. A subconscious is a construct of Modern Psychology that I have serious questions about the legitimacy claims as a science.


You break the idea of embodied spirits having knowledge of prior existence(s) into four subcategories.


"1) Knowledge: The embodied spirits’ inability to access specific pre-mortal moral memories does not mean that he has no knowledge regarding premortal moral considerations."

I would assert that pre-mortal moral considerations/memories that can't be accessed/verified cannot apply any obligation. I have no direct knowledge of any pre-existence. I have never met anyone who claims any. The idea of a pre-existence has all but vanished from Judeo-Christian Theology. If there were reference points beyond prophetic assertion, one would think such an erasure would not have occurred. Moreover, how does one determine a moral stirring or consideration has a pre-mortal origin beyond simple assertion? It seems to me that moral awareness and any attending obligations apply as long as one is in a moral rubric. There is no need to appeal to something beyond that context.


Per persisting obligations regardless of awareness: a mortgage obligation is tied to contract law. As such, it is a legal obligation (that can be changed at any time the law changes) that applies to any guarantor of the contract that is a breathing social security number. I don't think this example works for moral obligations.


"2) Moral Guidance : The embodies spirit still has access to on-going moral guidance."

I think the 'still' in your statement is problematic. If infants, toddlers etc. are not considered moral beings, then there cannot be persisting moral guidance. The same would apply to retarded etc. who never develop to assume accountability. The Light of Christ applies to moral beings only. This is why tigers are exempt. There is nothing in the concept itself that requires appeal to a pre-mortal state.


" 3) Re-cognition : If the LDS concept that we are simply re-learning what we already knew is valid..."

I have heard this idea before. It has a certain pedagogical appeal, but it is not doctrinal. It is platonic however. Plato used this very notion in the Republic. Even so, should one accept that one relearns things known from the pre-existence, that does not require one to claim there was/is obligation during the time one hadn't relearned some concept.



"4) There are multiple other phenomena which contribute to the spirits moral characteristics."

We know that people that suffer brain lesions can have altered personalities, tastes in music, food and changes in values (including moral considerations). Whatever elements one appeals to as informing a moral being, it is the status as a moral being that allows obligations to apply. It remains problematic to assert there is moral obligation that exists independent of the known or knowable. An informing element(s) may be necessary, but is not sufficient to ground obligation absent moral awareness proper.

post two of two


LOGIC DOESN’T PREVENT MISTAKES IN BASE PREMISES

For example, in post 7, you begin with the premise that I am “rejecting the larger linguistic/cultural tradition (Jewish and Greek)”.

However I had just explained that there were “contaminations” in cultural traditions. I was attempting to reject the contaminations in these religious / cultural traditions rather than rejecting all jewish cultural traditions in toto. Logic does not prevent us from making these sorts of conceptual errors and inserting these errors into our “logical conclusions”. Logic is thus, highly dependent upon subjective factors, knowledge base, clear understanding, etc. The application of logic is subjective and personal and dependent upon a multitude of other factors …

For example, you described my example as applying to “ … a being who has, or will have, no knowledge of a prior existence? “ . However, in my model the spirit had and will have knowledge of a prior existence. You were criticizing a model different than what I suggested.

I assume this incorrect assumption was due to an error I made in communication or an error you made in understanding. Yet the question you asked and the logic you apply regards an erroneous premise. Logic is still subject to errors in understanding and a defective knowledge base. Even impeccable logic will come to an erroneous conclusion with faulty data.

In posts #16, 17, and 18, I pointed out the significant theological consequences of the misunderstanding (and in this case, a mistranslation) of a single word, using the example of προ-οριζω being translated as “pre-destination” and the profound theological consequences that resulted. The poor translational rendering of προ-οριζω as "pre-destination", both creates and supports a doctrine which did not exist in the earliest Judeo-Christian theology, yet, those believing in strict pre-destination are be able to claim that their doctrine of pre-destination is completely logical in their context and in their opinion while it may be illogical to another theist. The application of Logic is subjective and personal.

For example, your bias is that “ A subconscious is a construct of Modern Psychology ” and you have “ serious questions about the legitimacy claims as a science. “ Whereas, my own bias is to accept the existence of thought and action and bodily functions that are below the level of consciousness. I can accept that your personal logic concludes a different model while my personal logic concludes confirmation of the accepted medical model. However, I can admit that my bias can simply be part of my background.

I’ve practiced medicine for more than 30 years. This medical model of the existence of subconscious functions were part of my training and is the base model for and accepted by medical science and associated medical industries (such as patient treatment, prisons, mental hospitals, pharmaceutical industries, etc) for the entire modern era. My son is a physician, my wife and daughter were nursing professors in universities.

We, and all of our colleagues in medicine speak of and refer to subconscious thoughts and actions on a relatively constant basis since so much interaction and personal action take place on this level. This medical model has simply become part of our biases.

However, If you are correct and medical science is incorrect on this specific point, then this will not disappoint me to discover you are correct and science is incorrect. I will simply change my model to reflect the new and better data. This is the way medical discovery should work and it is the way historical discovery should work.

I hope all of this makes clear that my distaste with using “personal logic” as a tool for “investigating” historical traditions has nothing to do with you and everything to do with its’ inability to come to any efficient and correct conclusions.

Thus, when you say to me “ If you've no interest in the logic of your investigation I won't pursue it. “ I am grateful you will not pursue this subject from that tact and waste valuable time that might keep us from more efficient pursuits of authentic data and knowledge.

Thank you Orontes

Clear
δρσενεω

Hi Clear,

I read through your replies. I did not and do not have any counter thesis am I pursuing. Rather, my early posts were simply providing ideas you might want to consider i.e. looking to Attic Greek and Hebrew to get a larger sense of the history of the verbiage you appealed to in Koine. I do think asserting an inherited obligation from the pre-existence is problematic. I think it is something you would need to consider if you were to present an argument to others.

As to logic: I am a rationalist. Part of what this means is I do not believe the irrational can align with truth. For example, I do not think God can create a married bachelor given the meaning of the word. Logic is concerned with validity: a conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. What assumptions one works from and what premises is often where the focus in discussion may move, but I do not think that means logic has no value. Rather, that is part of the clarifying process as minds look to a given issue. Regardless, my intent was to help.

Hey there guys. Long time no see. And by that I mean I've never seen you at all lol. But I haven't been on for awhile either.

I just wanted to add a very small comment. I believe that whenever we receive light it carries a responsibility to adhere to that light. So coming here and enlisting in this program of earthly education carries its obligations. A phrase that indicates this is "with real intent." We cannot seek truth with the intent to sit back and enjoy the view. We must seek truth intending to act on it.

When Joseph Smith prayed and experienced the first vision, his purpose was to find out which church was true so that he could join it. I had a remarkable experience when I asked about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. First I asked if the people, stories, and places in the book were real, if they really took place. The answer was nearly immediate- Yes. But then I asked what was to me the more important question: What about the promises? What about the prophesies and teachings? Could they be relied upon? We're the marvelous things taught in this book puns and reliable? Could I depend on them? The answer was unexpected: "Do you really want to know? Are you prepared for the responsibility that goes with the knowledge you are asking for? Are you willing to accept what it will ask of you?"

I had to think it over for a while. When I realized it was something I wanted, whatever the cost, after all that's why I was here, the answer came swiftly and powerfully that every word of doctrine and prophesy could be relied on.

Kind of unrelated I know but wanted to share. I've learned that knowledge and light always carry with them responsibility and obligation.

DavyCrocket2003 said:

Hey there guys. Long time no see. And by that I mean I've never seen you at all lol. But I haven't been on for awhile either.

I just wanted to add a very small comment. I believe that whenever we receive light it carries a responsibility to adhere to that light. So coming here and enlisting in this program of earthly education carries its obligations. A phrase that indicates this is "with real intent." We cannot seek truth with the intent to sit back and enjoy the view. We must seek truth intending to act on it.

When Joseph Smith prayed and experienced the first vision, his purpose was to find out which church was true so that he could join it. I had a remarkable experience when I asked about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. First I asked if the people, stories, and places in the book were real, if they really took place. The answer was nearly immediate- Yes. But then I asked what was to me the more important question: What about the promises? What about the prophesies and teachings? Could they be relied upon? We're the marvelous things taught in this book puns and reliable? Could I depend on them? The answer was unexpected: "Do you really want to know? Are you prepared for the responsibility that goes with the knowledge you are asking for? Are you willing to accept what it will ask of you?"

I had to think it over for a while. When I realized it was something I wanted, whatever the cost, after all that's why I was here, the answer came swiftly and powerfully that every word of doctrine and prophesy could be relied on.

Kind of unrelated I know but wanted to share. I've learned that knowledge and light always carry with them responsibility and obligation.

Click to expand...

Hello Davy,

I think your insight is right as long as the knowledge includes a moral element. Moral issues entail notions of ‘ought’ by definition. I do not think there is any necessary inferred obligation from knowledge or insights separate from the moral arena. For example, knowledge about the moon’s surface or how to tie a shoe alone doesn’t require any obligation.

Are you using light as a synonym for knowledge or as a subset of knowledge?