Urstadt

Maslow's theory had very little to do with what the "hierarcy of needs" has been used as/for by others. In fact, Maslow went to his grave frustrated that his entire theory was ignored just because of an example he gave that was illustrating a different point. Maslow never said these are our basic needs. The hierarchy people use is merely an example of a different point Maslow was making. But, people have taken this example out of context and misused it, his theory, and Maslow himself. Maslow was angered by it the rest of his life and never could steer the theoretical ship back on course. As for my thoughts on happiness: I choose peace over happiness. But, maybe that's just me.

My wife and I are going through the Jason Bourne movies. We just finished watching Bourne Supremacy tonight.

You're welcome. I doubt you are misremembering. If you are, I'm sure you're not off by much and someone will correct us. :) That's the advantage of a public forum.

I don't recall anything like that. But, no need to research it. I trust you. :) And, yeah, you are right about that being a bit harder to notice. Thank you for pointing that out.

I've wondered in recent years if we will even know when they are preaching. We may never hear about it. We may. But, we may not.

Oh, c'mon, pam. :) Let's see it. Just that you posted this comment means you want to deep down. :)

There is a lot to consider here. How the gospel goes to every nation and tongue is debatable. Via the internet, people have argued that the gospel is very close to going to the whole world, if not entirely by now. So many prophecies may have been fulfilled behind the scenes. I learned on my mission that the basic facilities to make the new jerusalem minimalistically functioning can be up in 21 days.My point is this: while much still has to happen, I am of the opinion that it could happen quickly! As far as temple work, my understanding is that it will continue into the milennium. So, I am not so sure if that needs to be 100% complete. Maybe some others on here can shed light on that. The one that could take some is the separating of the wheat and the tares. At the same time, with how fast this world is deteriorating, it may not be too far away. My family and I were discussing this on a vacation a few weeks ago. The discussion leaned toward 10-25 years away. I don't know. But I do know that when I got off my mission, I believed we were 200+ years away from the Second Coming. Now, I believe it's less than 35. But, I'd be interested in what others have to say, too.

Always nice to see a fellow Linux user. :) Here's a screenshot of my Linux machine.

1) Hit the PrtScr button (usually by your Home, End, F12, and Backspace buttons). 2) Open up Paint, photoshop, gimp, paintbrush, or some other pic editor. 3) Once in Paint, press Ctrl-V 4) Save the file 5) Upload to your favorite pic hosting site 6) Paste the link here.

I would wear that over everything else I've seen on this thread. Lol

Excellent. You are bringing up some key points of a relational ontology. I am happy to clarify a few points. I agree, it does seem that way but rest assured that your objections are well placed. Subject and object are not excluded in relationality. They don't just dissolve into a relationship. Relational ontology says that everything exists in relationship and are therefore co-constituted. So, subject and object exist in relation to each other. Furthermore, we cannot understand the subject or the object without our relationship to it. It is in our relationship to and with them that they become sensible to us. Here are so basic examples:Tall cannot exist without short. Tall exists only in relation to short. Dark exists only in relation to bright. A hammer is just an inaimate object until we understand its purpose. What a hammer is changes based on what understanding of purpose a person has for it. A hammer is only a hammer to someone who recognizes/uses it as a hammer. To someone else, a hammer may be a paperweight or wall decoration. It may merely be scrap for someone who doesn't know what one is. A chair is not a chair if no one in the room understands/knows it to be a chair. Excellent point. Relational ontology agrees with you to a large extent. What this framework adds to this, though, is that while objects can and does exist without certain kinds of relationships, these objects can only be understood through our relationship to/with them. Even our theorizing about them is a type of relationship (e.g., object of study and student). I only know how to treat others because of my relationship to them. Even complete strangers, I know to how to approach them and treat them because I know how to act in my relationships to strangers.Furthermore, some aspects of relationships are inescapable. Tall absolutely cannot exist without short. A rock always exists in relation to its location, the other objects around it (e.g. other rocks, a tree, the lake). Even in relation to other elements (e.g. solids and liquids). Most aspects of relationality are completely inescapable. Even subjects cannot escape relationality. Atheism only makes sense in relation to religion. Physics cannot exist without math. Neither can engineering for that matter. Psychotherapy cannot exist without philosophy. Neither can the laws of our lands. You and I cannot exist without our relationships to others. Even if you never talk to or interact with a single person on this planet, you still exist in relation to others: as loner, outcast, the quiet one, etc. Well, yes, and our understanding of those qualities. The qualities absolutely have a determining effect on the qualites of our relationships, but those qualities are meaningless without our understanding of them. Even if we don't understand an object, it still exists in relation to us as an object that is not understandable. Or we will attach an understanding to it (e.g. cave men using a box tv as a chair, table, or stackable). Those qualities are never excluded, they are just either sensible to us or not. I'm with tou on this. Which gets primacy, though, is hard for me to decide. It seems to that the relationship between subject and object makes them equal. Each is co-constituted (what I was saying above) by the other. Short is co-constituted by tall. I am co-constituted by my relationship with you, and others on lds.net, as well as the world. This co-constitution is what makes us equal. On the other hand, if all things are co-constituted, then you, 2RM, giving objects/subjects primacy is one of the co-constitutive aspects in your relations to both in the world.Have I shed some light on relational ontology for you? Is there anything else still unclear? Do you have any other questions? I do have a concise peer-review journal article regarding this that I could send you, in addition to your studies and our dialogue, if you're interested.

This topic still continues to bother me. Every time I resolve the conflict in my mind, something new pops up to make me question the nature of agency in the Celestial Kingdom. I also tend to go back and forth between agency and determinism, and possibility and constraint. The issue to me is not whether we have agency or not, the issue is to what degree? Or put in different terms, what will be possible and what will be constrained? Hmmm...

They are intolerant of our "intolerance." It's just reverse bigotry and mindless hypocrisy.

Very much so. Yeah, we are in agreement. If I may, I would like to build a little on specific philosophical definitions of intellectualism. While there is really no universal definition from philosophy, many distinct schools of philosophy give morally-laden definitions of it. The definition I provided above from Ryle talks about employing our intellect in a way of "getting it right", which is a position of virtue: it is virtuous in it of itself to "get it right." Socrates talked about "moral intellectualism" while Aristotle described virtues as moral and intellectual. Aristotle described phronesis as practical wisdom, or having a knowledge of universal truths; e.g. do unto others as you would have done unto you. So, in many branches of philosophy, intellectualism is all about obtaining an ethos, or moral compass. This is why I made the statement way back on the first page of this thread that intellectualism, if employed correctly, as 2 Nephi 9:28-29 says, can actually strengthen faith and obedience. But, we agree that that can only come through the direction of the Holy Ghost and the counsel of Christ's chosen prophets and apostles. However, once we get into atheistic and moral nihilism philosophies, then we start treading on a very slippery slope. This is where I do agree that it can be very dangerous, and absolutely unhealthy. Anything belief system that takes a person further from Christ and His gospel drives the spirit away and is very unhealthy in my humble opinion. Furthermore, I very much agree with you that we cannot, and should not, rely on rational thought alone. So many people throughout history have pointed this out time and again. In fact, Plato's concept of self-mastery was impoverished by the fact that he relied too heavily on rational thought, and is precisely why no one could achieve it in the form which Plato envisioned. Experiences=emotion=cognition=behavior=experiences. Ideally, everything should be coming together to guide us. That's why I really like that the affective neurosciences are mapping in the brain how all our faculties come together to help us make sense of our world and our experiences. And, we know through the gospel that the Spirit can guide the process of that equation. Thank you for taking the time to chat with me, Str8Shooter. I am very pleased that we found that common ground, and the truth be told, that barring terminology and a nuance or two, we were pretty much right in agreement with each other.

Yeah it does. I actually really think Sr8shooter and I are saying the same thing, just with different verbiage. If I am correct, he and I both agree that completely living without emotion would be unhealthy, living by the philosophies of men (what he is calling intellectualism and I am calling ideology) instead of the gospel is dangerous, and pure logic and reason are insufficient by themselves. If I am right about this, then he and I are in pretty good agreement. We are just getting tripped up on the verbiage.

Yes, that is the definition of intellectualism mostly utilized throughout all disciplines. It is actually not at all an unhealthy way to live. Many forms of therapy employ similar forms of rational thinking in order to manage our emotions. Elder Oaks has actually said that those therapies, "evidenced-based" therapies, are the ones we are supposed to pursue in counseling.Also, there are 6 faculties of mind: memory, imagination, emotion, attention, perception, and reason. Some people say will and intuition instead of emotion and attention--whatever. All of these serve very specific purposes that are healthy and important. Reason and logic are important for problem-solving and accomplishing tasks/objectives, among other things. These are your intellect (measured by IQ tests). Intellectualism is nothing more than the act of applying our intellect. That is very healthy. Yes, it is devoid of emotion, but emotion and cognition (intellectualism/intelligence/intellect) come together to form an overall response. The affective neurosciences are doing a lot to demonstrate how these learn to work together in a healthy way. I really need to read that talk and find out just what the grannysmithapple Elder Packard was talking about.

I am going to include quite a few citations and references here. My hope is that this will not put anyone on the defensive. My purpose in doing this is to humbly provide a verifiable, as-accurate-as-possible response, without stealing anyone’s intellectual property. Nothing more. This is actually a fallacy that has emerged from social and colloquial uses of the terms “emotional intelligence” or “intelligence” proper. However, intelligence has nothing to do with emotion. Consider the following citations: “There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence. However, over the years, most have fallen into one of three classes: 1) Definitions that emphasize adjustment or adaptation to the environment—adaptability to new situations, the capacity to deal with a range of situations. 2) Definitions that focus on the ability to learn—on educability in the broad sense of the term. 3) Definitions that emphasize abstract thinking—the ability to use a wide range of symbols and concepts, the ability to use both verbal and numerical symbols” (p. 178). And further, “Beyond this, however, many definitions of intelligence are so broad or general as to be nearly useless.” (p. 179, my emphasis) *1 “[intelligence is] the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.” (p. 3) *2 “When we speak of the intellect or, better, of the intellectual powers and performances of persons, we are referring primarily to that special class of operations which constitute theorizing. The goal of these operations is the knowledge of true propositions or facts” (p. 26). *3 “To be intelligent is not merely to satisfy criteria [of intelligence], but to apply them [(intellectualism)]; to regulate one’s actions and not merely to be well-regulated. A person’s performance is described as careful or skillful, if in his operations he is ready to detect and correct lapses, to repeat and improve upon successes, to profit from the examples of others and so forth. He applies criteria [of intelligence] in performing critically, that is, in trying to get things right” (p. 28-29). *3 “It follows that the operation which is characterized as intelligent must be preceded by an intellectual acknowledgment of these rules or criteria; that is, the agent must first go through the internal process of avowing to himself certain propositions [truths] about what is to be done… [h]e must preach to himself before he can practice” (p. 29). *3 The affective neurosciences are demonstrating via deep brain scan imaging how the “thinking” parts of our brains completely shut down the more emotional we become. *4 In his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Daniel Kahneman talks about how our thinking is strained (faulty, difficult to utilize) when we are in a bad mood, or how it is eased (not at peak intellectual performance) when we are in a good mood (p. 59). In this book, he defines two systems of thinking: the first being fast and more emotional and less intellectual, while the other being slow and more deliberative, intellectual, and logical. *5 Now, let’s look at what intellectualism is: intellectualism n. 1. Exercise of application of intellect. 2. Devotion or development of the intellect. *6 intellect n. 1a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding. b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. 2. A person of great intellectual ability. *6 intelligence n. 1a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. b. The faculty of thought and reason. c. Superior powers of mind. *6 ------------------------ I think the first thing one must humbly accept in this debate is that concepts such as intellectualism, intellect, and intelligence have been debated by philosophers, psychologists, cognitive scientists, IQ test creators, and logiticians for 2,500+ years. There is still no real, true agreement on precisely what they are with one exception being that intelligence is in fact a separate faculty of the brain/mind than emotion. Another universal agreement demonstrated above, and since the time of Socrates, is that intellect, intelligence, and intellectualism are quite generally considered to be the same, with the minor distinction being that one (intellect/intelligence) is a capacity a person possesses while the other (intellectualism) is the capacity to use what one possesses. But, as Ryle implicitly pointed out, the two are the same. Now, what is different from intellectualism, but is many times mistaken as it, is ideology. When the two are mistaken, intellectualism can most definitely seem contrary/dangerous to the gospel, because ideology certainly can be that. But, intellectualism proper is not. If we are talking about ideology, then I very much agree that we may find ourselves on a much more slippery slope, especially because ideology is often laden with emotional bias. *1 – Trull, T. J. (2005). Clinical psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. *2 – Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. *3 – Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. *4 – Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neurosciences: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. *5 – Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrer, Straus and Giroux. *6 – The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Then, what is intellectualism?

"The glory of God is intelligence" D&C 93:36

Your doubt is not exactly misplaced. Joseph Smith said it would take milennia after our resurrections to catch up to Heavenly Father. Plus, for many of us, there will be a time and a season between our death and our resurrection. So, I am on board with you that it is doubtful that we will be resurrected and poof, we are magically caught up to Him. Where I get off the boat is when it is said that we will still be sinning.If we re-contextualize our existence as beings-always-growing, always flourishing, to use Aristotle's term, and not just sinning or not sinning, then I definitely share your view. We will not be resurrected and poof, we've reached the pinnacle of all growth.

While there is no doubt that there is some of this definitely happening, I am not so sure we can make this claim universally. When I lived somewhat near San Francisco a number of years ago, I knew a couple of friends who stuck together, in part, because of their shared atheism. They did not share favorable views towards the LGBTQ community. One of them was responsible for bringing physical harm to one of my classmates, and friend, at the power plant behind our junior high school one day after school simply because he professed to be gay.Additionally, the data coming from the HRC also refutes your claim at a universal level. It does also support your claim in acute, isolated situations. Social psychology and sociology research pinpoints the Western phenomenon called ontological individualism (the idea that we are self-contained individuals, capable of existing entirely in a vacuum) as the culprit for all bigotry, prejudice, persecution, waning morals, and our overall disconnectedness as a society. Ontological individualism has destroyed our sense of community, and that has delivered the under-handed blow of social persecution and injustice way more than any other institution currently found in the west. More information about this can be found in Habits of the Heart by Robert Bellah and associates, The Sources of the Self by Charlse Taylor, The New Golden Rule by A. Etzioni, and the Tao Te Ching. You mentioned something about being stubborn. We are kindred spirits. :) There are some things that I am too stubborn to change my view on as well (e.g., continental relationality). As such, I will not sit here on my phone and assume I can pursuade you that religion is more of a background issue than you believe it to be. Especially when there have been plenty of cases that support your position. So I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to hear me out and engage in conversation with me. I appreciate that. And I value your input in our ongoing dialogues about these complex, interwoven issues in our society that, the truth be told, don't have simple answers. I like the supplemental contrast your post-Cartesian perspective and my continental relationality perspective creates in our dialogues, and how it adds to them.

I'm with you to a large extent, but this is a bit messy. Let's take both parts of this comment separately. "Confusing moral messages is nothing to the order of psychological harm" comparatively: I very much agree with you that there have certainly been cases of real psychological harm done from religious persecution toward LGBTQ, even when compared to moral confusion. Just, agreed. Absolutely. However, this is more the exception than the rule. From the late 1950's on, prominent psychologists have written extensively in APA published journals about the psychological harm done by "waning morals" in our society. Psychologists such as C. Marshall Lowe, Jerome Frank, Frank C. Richardson, Blaine Fowers, Paul Ricoeur, Brent D. Slife, Sally H. Barlow, Jeffrey R. Reber, Jack Martin, Jeff Sugarman, Philip Cushman, Martin E. Seligman, and James Hillman (most of whom are self-proclaimed atheists) have published numerous articles and books talking about how more and more countless people are turning toward psychologists and therapists alike as "secular priests" or "crypto-missionaries", and have emphatically demonstrated the serious, life-altering/crippling, complex, various disorders of the self (psychological harm) that have emerged the past 60+ years as a result of culturally waning morals, values, identity confusion (a moral issue), and lacking personal moral compasses (ethos). More and more and more psychologists are turning toward morally philosophical approaches in counseling to address this high demand. I, myself, am one of them. Religious message of "God hates queers" doing more harm: We certainly can make this claim with some clients/patients. However, the vast majority of them report psychological harm from family alienation (religious and atheist) and social persecution. Put otherwise, they suffer more from civil rights issues and social injustices than a religious ones. The majority of LGBTQ suicides the past 5 years have been due to social persecution at universities, from peers, classmates, teachers, cyberbullying, and peer-to-peer bullying. Religion has by and large been more of a background issue, according to the Human Rights Campaign. I was actually at an HRC training back in July put on by qualified trainers from the LGBTQ community. According to them, more then ever before have people from the LGBTQ found peace in God regarding their sexuality. There are Christian non-denominationals that have created youth groups and congregations especially for the LGBTQ community. Heterosexual Christians have begun to participate in these youth groups and congregations at an alarmingly increasing rate. All the info about it can be found on the HRC website, or through materials offered there. I appreciated your use of the word "reasonable" here. The post-Cartesian method is certainly not flawless or perfect, but it is reasonable in that it works to be improved upon, and does absolutely work in some cases! I am very sympathetic to the Cartesian anxiety here. (e.g., "How badly was he hurt?" "Well, your honor, as you can see, he has a fracture spine that has left him paralyzed. This is how much money he has lost, based on his salary, from not being physically capable of working, and how much she stands to lose lifelong. This is how much his medical bills are. This is how much he has had to pay to make lifestyle changes at home." -- very helpful in determining damages in lawsuits, indeed) Considering your affinity for the post-Cartesian method, I appreciated your reference to qualitative judgments when determining damages. And, yes, I do agree with your assessment that the post-Cartesian method can bring a lot to the table when making such judgments. I do want to add one caveat here. You certainly haven't made this claim, but it popped in my mind while I was revising my post here and I wanted to add it: As much as researchers have tried to make it so, psychology is anything but empirical. 2RM, I've really appreciated the multi-thread philosophical discussions we've had these past few weeks. I find your comments thought-provoking and challenging to my own philosophical viewpoints, and therefore edifying. I look forward to continuing over time. Good day to you, Sir.

I appreciated your comments in the post. I just wanted to clarify, if I may, that while I can't possibly know the intents of all LDS, I truly believe that a vast majority of them take pride in being different for a reason other than what I understand you are trying to say here. If I understood you correctly, you are saying that LDS people take pride in being different as some value in it of itself. If this is what you meant, then I'd like to add one caveat. We are pleased to follow what we believe to be the ways of God first and foremost. If this makes us different from the world, then so be it. But, many of us don't take pride in that, we actually mourn it. At the same time, I do not believe that to be your main point, which if I understood it correctly, than I am very much in agreement with it. I believe your main point to be that LDS champion the right to worship and live by the dictates of our own conscious and that there is very little difference between that and the LGBTQ community, or others in general, are attempting to do the same thing. I just didn't want you to think that I failed to look for the main message of your post when I honed in on one small tid bit.

Yeah, I would agree with you on that. I did still have professors who championed true intellectual pursuits and honest critical thinking, but you're right that they were the minority. Bias always enters in. This is why I can't accept the post-Cartesian notions of disengaged reason and objectivity. They simply do not exist in the forms put forth by this school of thought, and the professors you and I speak of lend some evidence to that. We are also in agreement that no intellectual pursuit will ever match or supercede the gospel. However, I have found some that reinforce it. And for this, I am most appreciative. But, it comes down to intention. Is the goal of the pursuit to glorify God, or something else? Thank you for your thoughts, I found them edifying and very amenable to my own. Let me know if you get a different impression, though so that our dialogue may continue accordingly.

I argue that it doesn't resolve the issue nicely. It merely contributes a small piece to the dialogue. But, there are some assumptions of the harm principle that must be addressed first.The harm principle is influenced by post-Cartesian dualism, meaning it wrongfully assumes there is a self/other split. A relational perspective from Continental relationality argues that this is an ontological fallacy. Instead, it asserts that as relational beings, ours actions always affect others. Post-Cartesian dualism assumes relationality is escapable, but this is only possible if you go live on a planet all by yourself somewhere. Even then, you still live in relation to others (on a another planet from others), and in relation to the planet itself, and therefore never fully escape it. Per our inescapable relationality, our actions always affects others in some way or another. It also assumes that harm must be tangible in some way (per Cartesian roots of empiricism). However, relationality does not limit itself to only the quantifiable. Since being itself involves much more than this, and relationality is concerned with ontology, ontic characteristics of being, and facticity, it recognizes more than just the empirically quanitfiable. This vastly broadens what can now be considered as harm. With this dualism assumption re-considered in the backdrop of relationality (i.e., there is no self/other split), harm can now be re-contextualized as anything that harms others or the relationship. Additionally, with harm being considered relationally, and not solipsistically, the added context of how a person perceives the actions of others may become more valid. For example, a spouse may say something seemingly neutral and indirect. But, if the other spouse takes offense, the inadvertent offender must recognize this. How does this apply to homosexuality? Well, some may feel that if the LGBTQ community sends a confusing moral message to their children, then harm is definitely perceived and done. The lifestyle of another is infringing on whatever morals that family is teaching their child. Now, a proponent of the LGBTQ community may turn this around and say that harm is done to them when heterosexual parents say they should conceal their lifestyle so as not to morally confuse the child. To this, I would agree. And, this is why Mill's harm principle is too impoverished to resolve the issue nicely.