Certainty, Discernment, and Analysis: Assessing Symbolism and Semiotics. Part 1.

Certainty, Discernment, and Analysis: Assessing Symbolism and Semiotics. Part 1.

“Those who pursue the approach of eternalism, of course, are not the authors of this superior—the only—approach to human problems. The scriptures tell of the true Designer and his premortal competency—of Jesus Christ and of his preeminence (not only as to his goodness but as to his brilliance): “For he is more intelligent than they all!” Jesus is not only the very best, he is the very brightest, and those who follow him have abundant assurance about the Shepherd who is leading them. Those who follow him soon realize what Peter realized at the time of a major defection among the disciples. When Jesus inquired of those who remained, “Will ye also go away?” Peter’s reply reflected one of the realities of the universe: “… Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68). - Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Eternalism v. Securalism.

Certainty

One of the major problems facing the modern day truth seeker is the ascertainment and justification of foundational assumptions, such that reliable, realistic, and relevant questions can be posed, discussed, and resolved. This problem, most simply, can be posed as the problem of “certainty” (i.e. how one can know anything at all). This area of inquiry has accumulated a vast amount of theory, research, and analysis over time and is arguably the question of the ages, and one that many feel is beyond human capability to grasp and answer in its entirety.

In our time this problem can be understood as man’s search for truth. Specifically, in the realm of philosophical theory, this area of inquiry is known as “epistemology.”  Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge and understanding. As a field of study it is concerned with the nature of and scope of knowledge, it questions what knowledge is, how one acquires knowledge, and the extent to which anything can be known. Those who engage in epistemological inquiry attempt to determine the distinctions between truth and belief and the justifications or lack thereof for both.

“Usually secularism does not err deliberately, nor can there be a denial about the need for the expertise or concern that are often brought to bear by sincere secularists. But the caveat—“the wisdom of man is foolishness”—includes not just man’s faulty tactical logic, but his tendency to proceed from erroneous basic and strategic assumptions. Having erred tragically with regard to those assumptions, it should be no surprise that conceptual cul-de-sacs are encountered so frequently by the well-intentioned.” -  Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Eternalism v. Secularism 

A former professor of mine helped to clarify the conceptual problems that this type of analysis presents and perhaps why such an inquiry is/or should be a fundamental requirement for all serious seekers of truth. The problem is known as the Turtles All the Way Down Dilemma. The basic premise of the dilemma is found in the infinite nature of the question “How do I know that it’s true,” as applied to any proof provided to support a prior truth claim. That is, we may provide “proof” to support an assertion of truth, but I can always ask of the supposed “proof,” the question, “how do I know that it’s true?”  The fictional story of the infinite turtles shows this problem.

Turtles All the Way Down

A great philosopher was engaged in a conversation with a scientist. The two discussed the possibility of knowledge and the limitless possibilities that man’s technical prowess and scientific power could attain. The philosopher asked the scientist, “On what basis do you think you can achieve all these things?” The scientist responded that he knew that he could because of the natural order that his scientific observation had displayed to him. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy, and that based on these observable facts, he could extrapolate the process and apply to all other areas of inquiries and achieve certainty on the same basis.  The philosopher responded “what you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”  The scientist replied, “that is absurd, I know that is false.” The philosopher said in response, “how can you know that it is false, when you’re standing on it? Take a look for yourself and see.” The scientist walked to the edge of the world, and attempted to look underneath the world to see if a giant turtle was supporting it, but couldn’t get a good look from that position, so he stepped off the edge to get a better view. After taking a look, he responded with incredulity, “you are right! The world is supported by a giant turtle!” The philosopher smiling, replied, “how do you know? What are you standing to support your new position?” The scientist shocked and dismayed quickly looked down to see what he was standing on now that he had stepped off the surface of the earth to get a good look at its foundations. Starting to understand he replied, “I am standing on another turtle.” Before the philosopher could reply, the scientist said, “how do I know that it’s a turtle? Because it’s turtles all the way down!”

This problem presents a seeming paradox to the reasoning and understanding of man. Epistemologists have attempted to answer the problems presented by way of three options known as the Munchausen Trilemma. In attempting to ground oneself on a certain foundation, one has to either resort to circular argument, (i.e. we assume something to be true before offering proof and offer proof to prove what we’ve already assumed) regressive arguments, (i.e. each offer of proof requires further proof which we keep giving presumable forever) axiomatic argument (i.e. we accept universal precepts and proceed on the basis of their truth).

Most of us do not do enough critical analysis of the very foundational assumptions we make about the nature of reality, if any at all. Perhaps this is because we have accepted certain axioms as the basis for our particular beliefs, thought processes, and actions, so that we do not think we need to reassess our positions. Perhaps this is because we have become so immersed in a particular cultural, educational, religious, or social context in which certain ideas and concepts become accepted as “common sense.” The foregoing analysis however should provide a basis for at least a cursory analysis of the ideas that we have come to accept as “common sense.”  The foregoing analysis however, should suggest that even before we conduct that sort of overarching analysis, we should determine upon what foundation we are starting from, that is which turtle we are standing on. Additionally, the problems that this type of inquiry presents to the human mind should lead to an existential crisis, a questioning of all matters of a fundamental nature. Rene Descartes, the famous philosopher experienced a similar type of existential crisis that led him to doubt everything to find the proper basis for certainty. His journey of doubt and skepticism led him to declare, “Et Ergo Sum (i.e. I think therefore, I am).” Essentially, he attempted to find a basis for certain knowledge, and found his basis for certainty in the fact that he knew he was doubting (i.e. he was using his mind to reason and to think). I would assert that there lies an even more fundamental basis for certainty than man’s ability to reason, that there is another turtle underneath man’s ability to reason, that is, man’s ability to choose.

Human Moral Agency is the Basis for Obtaining Truth

I would assert that the most basic foundation for knowledge, understanding, and achieving certainty is found in the concept of human moral agency. Human agency is the notion that humans have free will, choices, or possibilities. Whatever humans do – however they think and behave – the notion of agency says that they could have acted or thought otherwise. 

The opposition to this worldview presents itself in the form of mechanistic materialism (i.e. that humans, their thoughts, and actions are the product of mechanistic forces, whether created by environmental or biological forces, the nature vs. nurture theory). In this sense human moral agency cannot truly be the basis for our thoughts, beliefs, and actions, as they are all subject to the conditions of the brain or other deterministic functions. If taken to an extreme position this assumption denies the actual possibility of true and meaningful human moral agency, the same sense that a boulder tumbling down the side of a hill has no choice in its present course but that which is determined by the laws of natural order. Humans do not experience their lives in this way, but as meaningful (or boring), satisfactory (or unsatisfactory), and purposeful (or unpurposeful) at various times and to various extents, but we all experience these feelings, states of being, and emotions universally.  The power to choose is the natural and eternal state of man and forms the basis for his ability to reason upon that which is presented to his mind, heart, body, that is, his very soul. In this sense that which man chooses to believe or disbelieve is a matter of choice.

“For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so . . . righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness, nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one . . . having . . . neither sense nor insensibility.” 2 Ne. 2:11.

Thus, man’s ability to reason in this life cannot be preeminently prior to his ability to choose because there would be nothing for man to reason about or between. However, these two seemingly contradictory concepts are co-eternal, but for the purposes of this analysis it makes sense to give preeminence to mans ability to choose because his reasoning must necessarily proceed from his basic assumptions (because of the veil) about the nature of reality.

The Two Narratives

“For the purpose of this brief discussion, eternalism is defined as that view of man and the universe which not only acknowledges, but exults in, the existence of a Heavenly Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who have authored and implemented a redeeming plan for mankind. Secularism is herein defined as that view of man and the universe which is essentially irreligious with regard to the existence of God and cosmic purpose for man.” – Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Eternalism v. Securalism

There are two narratives that one may freely choose from and that demand our discernment in the same sense that a judge adjudicates between two opposing arguments. In civil litigation two parties are engaged in a dispute about an alleged act or acts that have violated a purported right of the other party. The plaintiff accuses the defendant of an unlawful act and requests relief based on the violation. The defendant sets forth his defenses to the accusations and requests that he be released from liability. Both parties are essentially asking the finder of fact (the judge or jury) to determine the "truth of the matter" and make a decision based on that which is determined to be "the truth of the matter"(granted this is also always an approximation based on a number of evidentiary, legal, or factual factors).  This is in essence the calling that we are called to in this life, to be judges, to make determinations based on that which is presented to us as foundational assumptions that necessarily guide our reasoning, our determinations of that which is “proof,” convincing, persuasive, or determinative.

 The first narrative presented is founded in holy scrip and consists of the testimony (admissible) of men specifically called to be teachers of truth. These men testify on the basis of the knowledge that they have received through revelation, both meta-physical and physical, concerning the reality of God. These men have without equivocation testified of the nature of reality, its foundation, its assurances, its blessings, and the process one needs to be able to receive the sure word of prophecy (i.e. certainty) with regard to their truth claims.            

“For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?  . . . So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the world of God.” Rom. 10:13-14, 17.

“And now my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.” 2 Ne. 2:14.

The second narrative presented is founded in the understanding and reasoning of man that assumes the impossibility of obtaining knowledge about the meta-physical and at its core in fact denies the existence of the meta-physical. These truth claims are often “proven” and celebrated on the basis of the very same reasoning that denies them in the first place, man’s imperfections and limited reasoning. This narrative assumes certain definitions about what constitutes proof and necessarily excludes any type of “proof” to the contrary.  If followed to its logical conclusion, certainty can only be a relativistic certainty; bounded by the individual differences of those holding these positions (i.e. what applies to you cannot apply to me because we are different).

“Where, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one of the other.” 2 Ne. 2:16

Faith or Disbelief

“Whatever sense we make of this world, whatever value we place upon our lives and relationships, whatever meaning we ultimately give to our joys and agonies, must necessarily be a gesture of faith. Whether we consider the whole a product of impersonal cosmic forces, a malevolent deity, or a benevolent god, depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously, to conclude from that evidence.”  - The God Who Weeps, How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, Givens,Terryl and Fiona.

The two opposites about which we are able to reason and choose is between exercising faith (or disbelief) in one of the two narratives.

“The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. . . What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance." - The God Who Weeps, How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, Givens,Terryl and Fiona.

Given the two divergent systems presented to us in more or less complete fashion, the fundamental issue then is the application of the requisite faith. In regard to the first system, faith, then is the substance of things hoped for more than it is the evidence of things seen or not seen.

“in nearly all the important transactions in life, indeed in all transactions whatever which have relation to the future, we have to take a leap in the dark, . . . to act upon very imperfect evidence . . . I believe it to be the same with religious belief . . . if we decide to leave the [questions] unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer that, too, is a choice; but whatever choice we make, we make it our own peril.” – James Stephen 

Without the requisite faith it is impossible for one to come unto God, as it is done on his terms and not our own. This type of faith is based on a foundational state of being, a foundational law, a willingness of belief, belief in the words of credible, sincere, and authorized witnesses.  When exercised according to this law, man is rewarded and receives a good report, and a more sure word, that is, certainty.

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 1 Cor. 2:4-5.

“Wherefore . . .  having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken. . .”(Jacob 4:6), until we have “faith no longer,” because we know, “nothing doubting.” Ether 3:19. 

What then is Truth?

Only the first narrative attempts to totalize the whole of existence into a thoroughgoing belief system. The second narrative essentially denies that possibility. As such, the first narrative must necessarily provide definitions, explanations, and rationales for its position. The first narrative asserts that truth is, “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” D&C 93:24.  This is a statement of objective truth, that there is real versions of history, that things in and of themselves have meaning that require discernment, and that the future can be determined. However, truth is inextricably tied to man’s ability to choose and why it is prior (or rather co-eternal) to man’s reasoning, “Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light,” (D&C 93:13) because of “disobedience . . . and because of the tradition of their fathers.” D&C 93:39.  Here then are the two narratives represented categorically as light, and that which is based on the traditions of men.

Truth is therefore defined as that which is “light.” While there are easy symbolic representations inherent in this description, I would like to attempt to ground the idea of light as truth in a more fundamental way. Whether this “proves” the point is solely up to the reader and what he or she chooses to believe, but hopefully provides a sound basis for exploration of the idea of certainty.

Light as Truth

 Light as a quasi-physical entity has been defined by Wolfgang Pauli as “an excellent symbol for the source of energy of the collective unconscious.” Atom and Archetype, p. 14. Pauli goes on to say, that “The psyche . . . as a medium participates in both Spirit and Matter. I am convinced that it (the psyche) is partly of a material nature. The archetypes, for example, are Ideas ( in the Platonic sense) on the one hand, and yet are directly connected with physiological processes on the other; and in cases of synchronicity they are arrangers of physical circumstances, so that they can also be regarded as a characteristic of Matter (as the feature which imbues it with meaning).” Atom and Archetype, pp. 100-01. Essentially, Pauli is saying that physical atomic particles actually have an effect upon the mind, body, and soul (consciousness) of humans individually and collectively. Modern physics researchers are attempting to and seem certain that they are on the verge of finding the “God Particle.” Light is now technologically able to transmit and encode data and is the precise way in which we receive the information that encodes our minds, hearts and souls. Further, this idea is infused in the mystic religions of antiquity, especially the Bible, that reality is infused with divine energy and power, which functions as the essence, and meaning of things and which can be perceived. Regardless of the implications that physics researches attach to such a finding, it is interesting that sub-atomic particles are regarded by the LDS as the basis, substance, and essence of truth. It is even more compelling in that light is a measurable substance in all of its states, physical, figurative, hypothetical, and spiritual. (see also http://jaysanalysis.com/2012/12/04/light-and-the-feel-of-numbers/).

“The radioactive nucleus is an excellent symbol for the source of energy of the collective unconscious. It indicates that consciousness does not grow out of any activity that is inherent to it; rather, it is constantly being produced by an energy that comes from the depths of the unconscious and thus has been depicted in the forms of rays from time immemorial” Atom and Archetype, p. 14.

Assuming the basis of truth and certainty lies in the first narrative is solely an act of faith, faith upon the words of those who testify and witness of its certainty. That message is symbolically represented as light both in a metaphorical and literal sense. The message is therefore given “unto you . . . that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship. D&C 93:19.  Who is that the LDS worship in this regard? Light? Yes.

“Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John. This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom; Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his son – He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.” D&C 88:3-7.

“And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space – The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of god who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.” D&C 88:11-3.

The message and faith of the ancients is nothing more or less than the witness and testimony of Jesus Christ. The message which they communicate is the identification of the source of certainty, understanding, knowledge and intelligence. Additionally the message they convey is about telling us how we are to worship.

“ . . . that which is governed by law is also preserved by law . . . That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself . . .cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment.” D&C 88:35.“All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.” D&C 88:39

“He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.” D&C 93:28

We are to worship according the law given, are not justified on any other basis, and if we do, we will know the truth of all things. This is done “according to the scriptures . . . the only sure foundation,” (Jacob 4:16) which foundation “is Christ, the Son of God.” Hel. 5:12.

In the first narrative then, certainty can only be attained based upon man’s choice to exercise faith in the testimony of witnesses, act upon the testimony as required by law, and certainty is achieved. Depending on the assumptions one makes about the nature of reality will therefore lead into differing systems of inquiry and analysis. The first requires an honest assessment of what can be known, what the basis for one’s current understanding is, and an assessment of the two narratives in light of what one purports to already know. The first narrative is therefore an experiment that can be tested but requires complete intellectual humility. The second narrative would require certainty first and a degree intellectual dishonesty (how can humans purport to know what they know as demonstrated by the turtle story) and is therefore categorically different and distinct. Discernment between the two systems of thought should therefore be relatively easy once we conduct the experiment.

According to the first narrative then, discernment is required, and the basis for that according to the law given will be the subject of the next blog entry, followed by several tools necessary for conducting analysis and discernment in all aspects of life.