Author: Chauncey Riddle

The Basic Unit of Human Communication
Chauncey C. Riddle
Brigham Young University
13 Feb. 1986

Riddle, Chauncey C. (1986) “The Basic Unit of Human Communication,” Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 11. Available at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/dlls/vol12/iss1/11

This paper attempts to give a definitive answer to the question: What is the basic unit of human communication? The inquiry will proceed by establishing communication as a systems concept and will then propose that assertion-in-use-context is the basic unit of human communication, showing the superiority of that unit over others which might be reasonably considered as the basic unit.

In systems theory we may distinguish three kinds of systems, each of which has an appropriate companion definition of communication. We shall assume that in reality there is only one system in existence, which is the totality of the universe. The term system used below should be read as sub-system of the universe. Static systems are geometric arrangements of non-changing parts of sane arbitrarily defined whole. Each static system has internal parts (each of which has some internal relationship with every other part), a system boundary, and an environment. Communication in a static system is unobstructed contiguity of parts of a static system. This is a non-transitive relationship. For example, we say that the kitchen of this house communicates with the living room because there is a doorway which leads directly from one to the other. We say that tunnel A does not communicate with tunnel B in the mine because one must go outside the mind into another static system to gain access from tunnel A to tunnel B.

Dynamic systems are first static systems to which change or functioning of internal parts and the external environment have been added. The dynamic aspect of dynamic systems is construed in terms of input from the environment, internal processing of that input, and output from the system to the environment. Communication in a dynamic system is the effect which one or more parts of a dynamic system has upon any other part. This communication is to be taken as transitive, effect transferring from part to part, contrary to the non-transitive nature of static communication. The unit of dynamic communication may be taken to be effective force applied through time, as in foot-pounds of work per minute. For example, the engine of an automobile delivers an output of foot-pounds of power which is transmitted through the transmission, drive shaft, differential, axles, wheels and tires of the automobile; that power translated into friction between the tires and the pavement propels the vehicle along the surface of the pavement. Thus the engine communicates with the tires to accomplish the work of the automobile. If any linkage part is missing or defective (e.g., if the differential is stripped), then the engine no longer communicates with the tires and the functioning of the system is defective.

An agent system is a dynamic system of which at least one part is an agent. An agent is a being whose acts are discretionary: given any act performed in its specific context, if the actor could have acted otherwise then the actor is an agent. This is an ideal definition, for it presupposes an omniscient observer. For mere humans, agency is attributed when the actor acts first one way am then quite another in apparently identical but time differentiated situations. Communication for an agent system is (1) action of the agent upon the environment to attempt to effect a desired change in the environment; or (2) action by the agent to interpret present input from the environment in order to project a hypothesis as to what will happen next as a basis for communication (1). In other words, agents both send and receive communication as agents. In the agent communication situation the universe is divided into two systems: the agent and all he controls, and the remainder of the universe. Thus agent communication is simply any output from the agent system to the remainder of the universe or any input from the remainder of the universe to the agent system. For example, an agent who reads a newspaper is being affected by an input from the environment in the receiving of communication; he may then write a letter to the editor in the attempt to create a change in the environment by sending communication. Negative examples would be failure of the delivery of the newspaper (so that no effect of the newspaper is possible on the agent) and failure of the letter to reach the editor (thus making impossible any change such as that which the agent desires).

It is now necessary to posit two hypothetical creatures to answer the needs of the two kinds of agent communication posited above. The receiving of communication from the universe by an agent we shall denominate assessment; the sending of communication to the universe by an agent shall be denominated as assertion. Thus an agent receives input from the universe and processes it. This processing is never a simple result of the universe acting upon the agent in a mechanical fashion: the agent is always a creative participant, injecting his desires and beliefs into the construction which he creates to represent in his own mind what is happening “out there” in the universe. Likewise, his attempt to project a cause into the universe which will create a desired change in the universe is clearly a function of the agent’s desires and beliefs. Thus, agent communication is significantly different from either static or dynamic communication. Whereas static communication is wholly a matter of internal relations constrained by spatial contiguity, and whereas dynamic communication is a mechanical type of input and output constrained in a mechanical fashion by the physical properties of the environment and the receiving and producing system, so the input and output of an agent system is internally shaped by the desires and beliefs of the agent (beliefs being a function of the desires of the agent). Incoming and outgoing action is not mechanically determined but is always factored by the unique nature of the desires of the individual agent.

When we compare assessment with assertion we see that both are necessary to communication. But assertion is action, whereas assessment is reaction. Assertion is public and objective, whereas assessment is private and subjective. Assertion is fixed and final for a given time and place, whereas assessment may be ongoing, perhaps never concluding definitively among several possibilities. Assertion is intrusive, offensive; assessment is protective, defensive. Assertion is a reflection of the assessments of the asserter, though assessment may remain mute, silent. Assertion tends to increase in importance with increase of the agency of the asserter, whereas assessment does not necessarily do so. An asserter is found out for what he is, whereas an assessor may simply be a blotter. These contrasts suggest that assertion is the primary factor in agent communication, a better target for fixing a single unit of communication than assessment would be.

Assertion is the intentional act of an agent who attempts to effect a change in the universe (the universe outside of himself) in order to change how the universe affects him. He makes this attempt by a more or less calculated launching ofa perturbation (an effective force) into the universe. This assertion can take a verbal or nonverbal form, the universe seeming to be indifferent to which form it is. Thus an assertion can be a sentence, an exclamation, any noise, any gesture, any movement of body, perhaps even a thought process, should thought processes be detectable by am therefore influential on sane aspect of the universe.

We must also distinguish between assertion in the abstract and assertion in the context of a specific usage by a given agent in a specific environment. Abstract assertions are in reality not assertions but only hypotheses. They are potential assertions, having the form of assertions but lacking the pertinent autobiographical and contextual realities to make them real assertions. All real assertions are thus assertions by an agent in a specific, unique, historic situation. One final preliminary stipulation is necessary. We shall make a basic inclusion of human communication within agent communication. This inclusion cannot be made categorically, for not all humans are agents, and it is typical of adult human beings to be agents. Therefore this stipulation will suffice for the present concern.

It is now possible to state the thesis of this paper precisely. This is the thesis: The basic unit of human communication is an assertion in its historic context of actually being propounded by a real agent. We shall use this concept of assertion-in-use-context as the focus of attention for the remainder of this paper, and shall refer to it by the acronym AIUC.

We shall now state basic laws which apply to the AIUC.
1. Every AIUC is unique, individuated by space, time, quality and author.
2. The summed series of a given author’s assertions are his history. (assessments are presumed to be reflected in subsequent assertions.)
3. Every agent is propounding an assertion at every moment.
4. The AIUC of a given moment is the being of the agent.
5. The measure of the agency of an agent is the sum of the agency of the agent assessors which respond positively to his assertion, plus the sum of his effect on non-agent reactors.
6. The limiting factor on the expansion of the agency of an agent is his ability correctly to assess the desires of other agents as an instrument in the fulfilling of those desires of other agents.
7. AIUC is the unique vehicle of message.
Messages are assessments of AIUCs. Messages exist only in the minds of assessors. They are different from intentions, for authors may intend one thing then see that their own assertion must be assessed to have a different message than that which they themselves intended. Messages are the reaction of each sentient, intelligent observer to a given AIUC, including the reaction of the asserter.

Messages have the following components:
1. The asserter’s intent is hypothesized.
2. There is a propositional decoding of the assertion.
3. There is an attribution of strength (urgency, importance, authoritativeness, truthfulness, rightness, all these positive or negative) for that assertion.
4. There is an estimate of the impact or result on the universe of that AIUC being assessed (present result and probable future results.)
Propositional decoding is the observer’s mental action of translating the signals of the AIUC into a concatenation of concepts which the observer deems to be a full and adequate representation of what the asserter is saying. This translation may have two or more versions. One version may be the “literal” meaning of the asserter’s words which is then contrasted with the deeper or “real” meaning. When someone say’s “How are you?” upon meeting you for the first time in the morning, it is usually best to ignore the literal interpretation of the words spoken and answer only the “real intent,” which is often simply an acknowledgement that they recognize your presence. This propositional decoding is not necessarily a translation into a standard spoken language. It may be this in same cases. But it is always a translation into the personal concept language of the individual.

The personal concept language of the individual is those concepts which have been formed out of experience and need by each person. If people have many experiences in common, the concepts with which they think about those common experiences will tend to have greater similarity than if they do not have such experiences in common.

The hallmark of understanding of one another’s concepts is the ability to cooperate. When people work together over a period of time, language becomes adequate to facilitate extensive cooperation. This, for instance, is what makes government of the people and by the people possible. When a group of people are familiar only with oppression and tyranny, when they have learned to survive that tyranny only by being selfish and devious, they do not have the mind set nor the cooperative habits and attitudes which enable them to govern themselves peaceably. Another way of saying this is that there must be a language of freedom and responsibility in successful use before a people can enjoy freedom and responsibility.

The construction of a message by an observer is very much like the process that takes place as one watches a person draw, and shoot an arrow. If one wishes to understand the archer, one must figure out the archer’s target, assess the nature of the arrow (poison tipped, well-fashioned, etc.), have some sense of the power behind the arrow (full or partial draw, 20 lb. bow or crossbow, etc.), and estimate the damage the arrow will inflict on what it strikes as well as the future consequences of that striking. If the arrow is aimed at us, the urgency of determining the message is great, and those slow to translate sometimes do not survive. It is noteworthy that the shooting of an arrow is always an assertion, an AIUC, since all actions by a person are such, as noted above.

It would be extremely helpful if one were able to construct the true and correct message related to each AIUC which one observes. Most persons are aware through the passage of time and the confirmation or disconfirmation of subsequent events that their message constructions vary widely in their degree of accuracy. Intelligence would have us study this matter to learn to be as accurate as we can be at all times, hoping and striving for complete accuracy, but still being cautious enough to recognize that we probably will not attain such extraordinary perceptiveness as mortals. The substitute for this unerring perceptiveness which most people desire to have is power. The more power one has, the less one needs to be accurate in judging the assertions of others (up to a point). A potentate commands, not needing to cooperate; whatever interpretation he places on his own AIUC will often stand for the truth even if not true. Of course, the downfall of potentates often comes when they blindly paint themselves into a corner in not correctly assessing the intent of someone close to them who intends to usurp their power.

True message portrayal is the province of the gods. Belief that one’s message portrayals are true is the province of fools and those who think they are gods. Mere mortals must simply do the best they can, shoring up their guesses by redundancy, tentativeness and humility as needed.

True or false, partially true or insufficiently so, whenever we utter our interpretation of another person’s AIUC we are asserting ourselves, and it is then up to our observers to guess what we really mean and how correct we are in interpreting the AIUC which we report. The fabric of society is thus one great AIUC fair wherein everyone is taking in everyone else’s AIUCs, making judgments and hanging out their own AIUCs for everyone else to judge and comment on. No wonder the course of wisdom is sometimes to remain silent.

The message one creates for the AIUC of another is the meaning one attaches to the AIUC. No AIUC is self-revelatory. All meaning is attributed by an observer. With a multiplicity of observers there will undoubtedly always be a multiplicity of meanings for any AIUC. Meaning, like message, which meaning is, is always specifically related to the context of assertion.

Thus words and sentences in mention-context have no meaning. Hypothetical or mock-up meanings can be made up for them. But ordinarily they are not intended to be used, which is to say, to have meaning. There are meanings-in-general of words and phrases, which are the modal uses of the linguistic item in question in historic contexts of use. But there are no proper meanings, no necessary or correct meanings of any linguistic structure.

It is important now to compare AIUC with other candidates for the position of most fundamental unit of language. Comparison will be made with phoneme/character, morpheme/word, phrase, sentence, proposition and message.

Phoneme/character: An isolated phoneme/character may mean anything because it means nothing. These are units of syntactic structure, and they play a necessary and decisive role in the use of language. They are the critical factors in creating and determining morphemes and words. But they are not the basic units of language because apart from their use in or as morphemes or words they have a mention-value only.

Morpheme/word: A morpheme or a word apart from an actual use in a living context has no meaning but may have several potential standard meanings and always has an infinite number of potential use meanings. These cannot serve as the basic unit of language because each, until used, can have no meanings.

Phrase: A phrase is yet incomplete, having the same position and shortcomings of morphemes and words.

Sentence: Sentences in use are assertions in use, even as words and phrases in use may be assertions in use. But to isolate a sentence from a specific use context is to leave it as potential language, not real language. Assertion-in-use-context is an actual linguistic unit, have a manifold richness of meaning indicators both in the body language of the speaker and in the spatial and temporal context of utterance. So we must reject sentence as our candidate for most basic unit of language.

Proposition: Propositions are whatever they are construed to be by their authors, ranging from true descriptive assertions to the essential informational content of any assertion. Propositions are thus specialized sentential usages and suffer the same problems relative to AIUCs as do sentences.

Messages: Message is always the subjective reaction of a participant in the assertion context. Linguistic structures in mention context do not have messages, and messages related to use context are always answers to the question as to what is being asserted. These messages grow and improve with time and the interpretive ability of the observer, even relative to a given AIUC, and they may also deteriorate with time. To make the subjective reaction of the observer the unit of language would be to beg the question, for to ask what is the basic unit of language is to ask what is the basic unit of meaning.

We are thus left with assertion-in-use-context as the basic unit of human communication. Only that unit is an objective starting point for human inquiry, for the interpretation process. Only the AIUC has the reality and richness to provide determinative clues as to what a given person really means by mankind an assertion is some manner in some particular context.

There are other points which favor AIUC as the basic unit of language.

This use of AIUC is continuous with common sense. Common sense is not always a touchstone, but to defy it is to assume the burden of proof in any matter. But it does seem that we all know that our language teachers are saying something important when they tell us, time after time, that the specific meaning of some syntactical usage must be determined by context.

The AIUC gives us the most behavioral target possible for our interpretive quest, even allowing the electronic capturing of the nuances of speech utterance, body language, physical context, etc. Such capturing is never complete, for the full context of any utterance is all that has gone before and much of what comes after. But we can generally agree on the assertion as an assertion in a specific context, even if we cannot agree on the interpretation.

The use of AIUC is metaphysically parsimonious. It does not necessitate the invention of such creatures as “deep structure,” “objective referents” or “platonic categories.” It simply points to language use as the self-expression of particular human beings in particular contexts.

This use of AIUC recognizes agency in both the speaker and the hearer of language. Thus communication is not forced into the narrow reductionistic or mechanistic frame which robs it of its agentive spontaneity and creativity. This freedom allows language to rise above human resources and to partake of whatever supernatural potential for language the speakers and hearers may have at their disposal. While this point is a debit rather than a credit for a person of naturalistic philosophic bent, it enhances the linguistic understanding of that majority of mankind who savor contact with the supernatural.

AIUC as the unit of language facilitates consideration of non-verbal languages and non-language actions as part of the actual communication phenomenon. Considered attention to these often-neglected aspects of communication has given dramatists power through the ages and advertisers commercial application in modern advertising techniques, which, even with all the advertisers pecuniary diverting of basic principles, still function as prime examples of expert communication.

This use of AIUC is also helpful in that it helps to prevent hubris in the human species by reminding us that there is no human voice that is final and authoritative—about anything—and that every assertion in its actual context of use is always the personal bearing of personal testimony. Much as we would desire to be the last word, to state eternal truth the way it really is, we must simply settle for saying the best we know and for hoping that someone can successfully construe what we mean to their own edification.

The conclusion of this matter is the hope that focus on AIUC will provide an enhancement to the use and understanding of language by seeing it ecologically, as it really grows in a real world.
February 13, 1986
Communication: A Systems Concept, 1986
February 1986

Question: What is the most useful unit on which to focus as the basic unit of human communication?

Static system: A non-functioning sub-system consisting only of stationary parts and their relationships.

Communication in a static system: unobstructed contiguity of parts of a static system. Unit: discrete situations of unobstructed contiguity.

+ e.g.: The kitchen communicates with the dining room in this house.

– e.g.: Tunnel A does not communicate with tunnel B.

Dynamic system: A static sub-system having moving or effective parts, having input, internal process and output.

Communication in a dynamic system: The effect that one or more parts of a dynamic system have upon one or more other parts of the system. Unit: Effective force applied through time: foot-pounds of work.

+ e.g.: This thermostat communicates “turn on” and “turn off” signals to the furnace.

– e.g.: Because the power is off the thermostat cannot communicate with the furnace.

Agent system: A dynamic sub-system of which at least one agent is a dynamic part. (Agent: a dynamic system the output of which is not more than partly determined by input to that system.)

Communication in an agent system: The attempt of an agent to effect a desired change in the universe by performing an act (input to the rest-of-the-universe-sub-system by an agent in order to change its output). Unit of agent communication: Assertion+: the output of an agent which becomes input to the universe-system (the all-but-this-agent subsystem of the universe).

Assertion: The intentional act of an agent who acts to create a change in the universe. Assertion is the vehicle of message. It is a sentence, an exclamation, or any non-verbal intentional act. Assertions are physical and ostensive. Messages are mental only.

Message: The interpretation of any assertion in which the following operations are performed by an agent on the occasion of observing an assertion in context:
1. The asserter’s intent is hypothesized.
2. There is a propositional decoding of the assertion.
3. There is an attribution of strength (support, + or –) for that assertion.
4. There is an estimate of the impact or result on the universe of that assertion occasion (present result and probable future results).
Propositional decoding: Interpretation of the assertion into a concatenation of the concepts of the observer which the observer deems to be an adequate translation of the assertion from some physical language into his own concept language. The observer’s own concept language is not language specific in relation to the public languages of the human community.

Analogy: An assertion might be likened unto the shooting of an arrow (indeed, the shooting of an arrow by an agent is always an assertion). Message components:
1. The target and intended effect of the shooting of the arrow.
2. The specific nature of the arrow projected at the target.
3. The force imparted to the arrow in its projection.
4. The actual and probable future effects of the arrow as judged at the time when its force is spent.
Messages are constructed (created) attributions concerning as asserter and the asserter’s assertion by a participant in the assertion experience context. They should be ex post facto reconstructions of past events (hear or experience first, judge later). They may truly or falsely portray the assertion in context. True message portrayal: One-to-one correspondence between actual assertion and assertion context as judged by a perfect (unbiased) and omniscient observer.

False message portrayal: erroneous constructive portrayal of an assertion and its assertion context as judged by a perfect (unbiased) and omniscient observer.

Messages are always private mental constructions. To express those private mental constructions in any overt way is to assert, to make an assertion, which is to try to create a change in the universe by doing work (dynamic communication). Assertion is the dynamic communication of an agent, therefore is also agent communication.

Meaning: The total message a person creates for a given assertion. Meaning is always attributed (never inherent), and is always use-context specific. Words and sentences in mention context have no meaning. This is to say that though there are meanings-in-general (meanings that represent statistical modes of historic use-contexts), there are no general meanings (necessary or correct meanings) for words or sentences. Words in mention-context only have potential meanings, and that potentiality is infinite in theory but limited in practice.

Thesis: Assertion-in-use-context is the basic unit of communication.

Support

Successful assertion is always an assertion-in-use-context unit. Understanding or correct apprehension of meaning is always mental reconstruction by a participant in that context of an assertion-in-use-context (hereafter referred to by the acronym “aiuc”).

Aiuc vs. phoneme character: An isolated phoneme/character can be made to mean anything because it means nothing.

Aiuc vs. morpheme/word: An isolated morpheme/word has typical meanings but there is no way to know apart from context which typical or which atypical use is intended.

Aiuc vs. phrase: Phrase has all of the problems of morpheme/word.

Aiuc vs. sentence: Sentences in use are assertions, but not all assertions are sentences. Sentences in mention have only potential, not actual meaning. (Except that sentences in mention are actually cases of sentences in use and the user may indeed intend them to have a particular meaning, and the observer may indeed insist that his “meaning” attribution is appropriate. But there is nothing to which two observers who disagree could refer to settle their dispute. Aiuc always has something more than personal opinion to which persons can refer to help settle disagreements.)

Aiuc vs. proposition: as usually construed, propositions are taken so narrowly as to eliminate much meaningful human communication. As construed here, propositions are only part of the necessary complete unit of meaning.

Aiuc vs. message: Message is always the subjective reaction of a context participant. That message may improve or deteriorate through time relative to a given aiuc. The aiuc is the object of interpretation, and needs to be as fixed and as objective as possible to facilitate progressively better interpretations.

Aiuc vs. meaning: Meaning is the whole point of contention. To decide what is the most felicitous unit for communication is to say what is the basic unit of meaning. To settle on meaning over aiuc would be to beg the question.

Other points which favor aiuc as the basic unit of communication:
1. This use of aiuc is continuous with common sense; we know that meaning can best be determined only in use-context.
2. The use of aiuc allows as objective or behavioral a target for interpretation as possible, yet supplies a sufficiently rich situation to enable us often to come to agreement as to interpretation.
3. This use of aiuc is metaphysically parsimonious, not necessitating the ad hoc invention of such creatures as “deep structure”, “objective referents”, or platonic categories.
4. The use of aiuc recognizes agency, both in the asserter and in the attributor of meaning. Agent communication is thus not forced into a mechanistic reductionism.
5. The use of aiuc facilitates consideration of non-verbal languages and non-language actions as part of the actual human communication phenomenon.
6. This construal of aiuc helps to prevent hubris in the human species by reminding us that there is no human voice that is final and authoritative, about anything, and that every assertion is a species of bearing personal testimony.
QED!
February 11, 1986
Letter to Wendy (Fictional), 1985

Provo, Utah
10 Dec 1985

Dear Wendy,

Thanks for your letter describing the family get-together. I’m sorry we could not be there; we will try next Thanksgiving.

You asked me to explain what is happening in the Church Education System. Since why it happened is as instructive as what has come to pass, let me give you both in brief compass.

Looking back, it is difficult to imagine the rapidity with which change has transformed the Church. The beginning was inauspicious. It was the quiet announcement in the Welfare Session of April Conference 1978 that the time had come to implement the law of consecration. It is safe to say that the Church Education System would be impoverished and threadbare were it not for that step. True, it took several years to see any noticeable difference; but that difference is so plain now that it is our principal missionary opening. For as the more faithful members of the Church came forward and deeded over all of their property to the Church and then assumed roles as the Lord’s stewards, it was as though a new race of people came into being—thousands of families began to be like President Kimball had been. They were so full of spiritual power that it showed in every act, in every word. They radiated the love the prophets have always idealized, because they had made the Savior truly the center of their lives. The healings, the prophecies, the miracles, controlling fire and the weather are well known. Less well known but amply manifest is the kindness, the willingness to share, the complete unselfishness of these superhuman souls.

But it was in their work that the biggest harvest was realized. Whether missionary labors, auto repair, school teaching, farming or what have you, everything they touched turned to spiritual gold. They invented new and better ways of doing things (some seemed so simple after they had shown the way) because they did what they did only to transmit the Savior’s love to their fellowmen, seeking no reward for themselves, even wincing under thanks.

So that was the engine that made the power possible for all the other changes to take place. It took some time for it to dawn on me that this—the law of consecration—was the little stone which Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel saw cut out of the mountain without hands. It was cut out with hearts and is this very day rolling forth, breaking in pieces and consuming with love the kingdoms of this world. Indeed there is mighty opposition, the hate and persecution you describe was inevitable. But the work of the Savior will not be deterred.

The second great change followed naturally from the first. It was a change little talked about but truly revolutionary in import. The faithful members stopped talking about the Gospel as a thing, a what. In fact, they almost stopped talking about the Gospel, period. Not that the Gospel message was less important. It was that the message was less important: too sacred to say much about, but urgent in its need to be employed. So the Gospel became a “how.” It became the way one taught a child or tamed a horse or grew a garden. It was the way one solved an engineering problem or perfected a welfare distribution system or negotiated with those bent on destroying the kingdom.

The crowning evidence of this change is reflected in our missionary work. We now speak little of theology or precepts. We concentrate on teaching the people other things, on helping them with their problems. They are so astounded by the solutions and the obvious power of the missionaries that they ask to know the Gospel. The story of Ammon of old has become the norm rather than the exception.

The key to this is the power the missionaries have to discern the hearts of the people. As they address their fears and wounds, a wonderful solvent of faith releases their hearers from the chains of their fathers, and the Holy Spirit becomes delicious to them.

Some see only the power involved. They are awed, and like Simon wish to buy the gift. The missionaries tell them that the price is a pure heart, which cuts some to the quick; they actually and readily repent, because they did not know that purity of heart was anything but a myth until they saw it in action. Then the idea was so powerful that they were overcome just as King Lamoni was. But the hard-core simonists just became angry. Like the silversmiths of Ephesus, they try to incite mobs against us.

The third change was the demise of the concept of teaching. True, “teaching” is not completely dead, but in the Church it is feebly gasping out its days. The emphasis now is upon learning. Each person is honored as a learner. Instead of modeling great teachers, we model great students, and those who achieve great learning and ability are rewarded not by others, but by the good they can then do for others. Teaching itself is not longer an ego-trip, the erstwhile teacher is now a facilitator who works unobtrusively to help each learner maximize effort. People learn what they are ready for now, not what the teacher feels like dispensing. They learn at their own rate, and according to their own ability. The aural learners have aural exposure, the motor learners move, etc.

The secret of this revolution is that we finally took section 50 to heart, and realized that it is the pattern for all learning, not just learning the Gospel. When both learner and facilitator are moved by the Holy Spirit and consumed by the love of the Savior, can you imagine the result? Seeing through algebra in an afternoon, learning a language in a week, comprehending the principles of communication in one apt demonstration! It boggles the mind. Even those who are not “speedy” don’t feel badly. They rejoice so in the attention and love manifested towards them and they so appreciate the Spirit that they progress with delight. There are no “dumbbells” anymore and, interestingly, almost every soul is an above average learner in some facet of development.

So good riddance to the days of put-down teaching, “spread-them-out” grading on the curve, and limited quotas for programs. Facilitators are brothers and sisters, not lords and masters, and a good spiritual time is had by all.

You can probably guess the nature of the next great change. It is that everyone in the Church who is faithful becomes a facilitator. To be such is such a superb way to bless and honor those whom they love, that one could not stand to be without it. How do you learn to be a facilitator if there are no “teachers” anymore? Very simply if not easily. One simply finds or selects a good facilitator and starts to imitate them. That works because the essence of facilitation is showing forth love for the learners, thus releasing them from their fears, hurts, doubts and anxieties, which releases their spiritual learning potential. Facilitation turns out to be mainly the teaching of a soul with the pure love of Christ. It is communicating in a Gospel way, not about the Gospel, but using it. It is faith, hope, charity, justice, mercy, sacrifice and consecration all wrapped up in handshakes, carefully chosen words, abstemious example, gentle cheerfulness, boundless courage and sure direction.

The other part of the facilitation is the skills and information which the learner desires to acquire. If the facilitator is learned, the desire is simply met. If the facilitator does not have what is desired, that “what” becomes to facilitators desire also, and the two of them search eagerly, gladly, confidently, for the result. For they know that “when two or three are gathered together in my name, there will I be also.” And there is nothing that the Savior or his servants don’t know.

The fifth change follows as the night the day. If every adult member of the Church has learned to be a facilitator, what do they spend their time doing? Facilitating, of course. Every time two Latter-day Saints get together their actions are two-fold: they get busy on some project to improve something, and one is facilitating the learning of the other (sometimes they reverse roles on different skills.) My how the work gets done. My how able everyone becomes. With one heart and one mind they pursue the words of righteousness and the poor become rich in every way. (Sounds heavenly, aye? That of course is because it is. This is the day for which Isaiah longed.)

Well now, with that background, the Church Education System should make more sense. Let’s begin with the missionaries.

A few years ago the Church started calling “educational” missionaries, just as they had called building and health missionaries previously. But a marvelous thing happened. The “educational” missionaries who had learned to be facilitators very quickly were baptizing as many or more than the proselyting missionaries. As the authorities of the Church examined what the best proselyting missionaries were doing and what the facilitators were doing, they found that the methodology of both was identical: they “showed the Gospel in their actions rather than trying to teach it at first. They simply addressed themselves to the needs of whoever is was they were talking to, striving to bless them in their spiritual, emotional, intellectual or physical problems, whatever the need. They had spiritual power to deliver help because they had consecrated all, especially their hearts, to the Savior. They did not try to distinguish “golden” from other contacts. They simply tried to help each person they met. But there were a couple of basic rules: they would not give money, and they would not do for someone what that person could be taught to do for himself.

The upshot was that all missionaries became facilitators and all facilitators became missionaries. That is why we have the interesting double pattern of missionary effort in the Church. Young people fill missions early (late teens) then return home, marry, finish their education, spend thirty years working and raising their families, then they retire and take up residence somewhere in the world as facilitators. Some are young enough that their families go with them. The norm now at BYU is to retire at age 55 and become unpaid facilitators. Military retirees also go on “remainder-of-days” missions instead of seeking a second career.

The backup for these facilitators is the mission or stake library. In the early part of this decade the Church began to put resources into curriculum development, many millions of dollars. That effort was matched by technical advances which made economical delivery feasible. So the result is that any facilitator can go to a stake or mission center and either check out or send for a carefully constructed and sequenced learning package whereby one can learn to do every honorable thing or to understand any subject known to man and to be able to have it conveyed in a choice of media. When you couple that human and technical triumph with the spiritual resources the missionaries have, you can see what an overwhelming educational force that is. Ignorance and inability flee as the hoarfrost before the sun.

The result of this missionary-facilitator-educational push is that areas of the world are tending to even out enormously. The poor people in the world are no longer the despised peons. They are the stable middle class which sustains the commerce and culture of much of the continent. In a few years millions of people in the world have jumped from the stone age to the twenty-first century. The hapless in every nation now have hope, for there plainly is a way.

All of this has brought about interesting changes in the institutions of the church. Because of the melding of the missionary-facilitator roles and skills the mission training center were merged with the nearby CES institutions. In one of two years of college every young person, converts included, learns to be a facilitator, and thus is ready for missionary service. When they return, they are helpful as student instructors. In fact, they faculty of BYU has been reduced by half (they were sent on missions) and the difference is made up by student returned missionary facilitators.

As all of this was happening, the church schools lost their accreditation. To rise to the occasion, the church schools simply abandoned the whole idea of credit (which derives from credo—I believe) and replaced it with ability, I can do. Transcripts now state simply what the graduate can do. This plays havoc with transfer of credit, but that backfired on the enemies of the Church also. Because of the high quality of CES education almost no one transfers out. And because CES graduates are so able, they have no trouble getting into graduate schools or into jobs. But most of them go neither into graduate schools or “jobs,” the majority become independent professionals who contract out their services.

So that is why the Mission Training Center at BYU was merged with BYU. BYU became an MTC, and when the campuses in Mexico City, London, Sao Paulo, Hamilton and Orlando were built, they were constructed with a dual purpose in mind: a missionary learning center for the young people of the church and having the temple and temple marriage as the center of all learning.

Which brings me full circle. All of this power was unleashed by the glad entering into formal consecration by the more faithful members of the Church. Because of that faithfulness, the Savior provided the spiritual and temporal resources to make all of this a glowing reality rather than the vapid dream it would have remained otherwise.

By their fruits shall ye know them. Does all this convince you that that leap of faith, to consecrate all, is worth it? I give you my witness in the Savior that this not only leads to Life: It is Living.

Love,
Chuck

December 10, 1985
Having A Testimony of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ

Principles of the Gospel in Practice – Sperry Symposium – 1985
CHAPTER SEVEN

Chauncey C. Riddle

The purpose of this paper is to describe the nature of a testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. To have a testimony is to know for a certainty that that message is a true message from the true and living God. An understanding of testimony is seen here as an invaluable aid in gaining and strengthening a testimony, should one desire to do so.

Two thousand years ago when Jesus of Nazareth hung crucified in the Roman province of Judea for everyone to see, there were two distinct interpretations of what was being seen. Some saw the Son of God, the Savior of all mankind, hanging in agony to do the Father’s will. Others saw a pretender from Galilee who had blasphemed God by claiming to be his son and was receiving his just reward. That difference is a witness to the principle that human knowledge does not come by sight only. And it emphasizes the importance of knowing for a surety in all matters of moment. Can we be sure, and if so, how? To answer those questions we must examine what we know about human knowledge. What we are concerned about is the common sense about human knowledge: those matters to which every intelligent, observant human being is able to assent. You, the reader, are called upon as a witness to the truth of the following account.

1. Human beings and human knowledge.

We note first that the human being has two parts or aspects. First, there is the outer part wherein the human body plays a conspicuous role; here we humans observe, touch, and communicate about the external world in which we live. This world consists of the earth and nature, other persons, and the human artifacts which compass us. The second part of a human being is the inner world of our own personal thoughts, feelings, and desires; in it are the good, the holy, and the beautiful as well as the bad, the evil, and the ugly. The first is the public arena in which we act and react with the physical universe. The second is the private realm of our ideas, ideals, dreams, and plans. Both of these realms are important. Were we to fail to function relative to either we would be in serious difficulty. Abdication in the private realm is to cease to be autonomous and to become an externally controlled and motivated automaton. Neglect of the public realm fosters incompetence, which in the extreme is called insanity. But normal coping with human life is a careful integration of these two, a cooperative personal response of an intelligent and feeling inner self as it deals with important ideas and values and relates them to the opportunities and demands of an external, real world through a real physical tabernacle. In a world of challenges, opportunities, and dangers, one must draw heavily upon each and coordinate them in order to meet those challenges and dangers successfully and to capitalize on one’s opportunities.

Corresponding to those two aspects of the human being are two kinds of knowledge or belief. (Much of what we think we know is but belief.) In the public, outer realm we have ideas about the physical world, other people, and things. These ideas we gain through communication with other persons whom we respect (authority), from our thinking about what others say– especially noting that others don’t agree in what they tell us (reason), from our own sensory observations about the outside world (empiricism), and from our noting which ideas and procedures seem to work in the world (pragmatics). We take in evidences from all these sources, knead them into a unified picture of the world and file that picture in our memory. We update or correct that picture at will. That picture is our reality, the best we can do in relating to reality. Some of us are very careful, searching out evidence and piecing the evidence into a consistent whole with diligence. Others of us are fairly casual about the whole thing, not even minding inconsistencies and gaps, changing our ideas only when painful necessity forces us to amend our expectations of the world.

The other kind of knowledge, the personal sort, is very different. It is heavily involved in values, ideals, desires, and satisfactions. Perhaps the most important facet of this inner world is our experience of the holy. Many persons have a sense that there is something special, something deserving of reverence within their inner realm of consciousness. This may or may not have been initially influenced by other persons. But every human being must cope with this influence and learn on his own how it acts and reacts in his own inner world. What each person needs to learn and will learn if attentive is what happens when he or she yields to the influence of the holy. Part of that learning comes from contrasting yielding to the enticements of that which the inner self feels to be evil, opposing the holy in oneself. Each of us also experiments with yielding to our own desires, trying to ignore feelings of good and bad, right and wrong. Sometimes we don’t even make decisions: we just let things happen. Out of all these experiments and experiences we learn much about ourselves, about what brings happiness and what brings unhappiness, and about that which is prudent, desirable, and effective.

Since each of us is a person who operates in two worlds, our minds must integrate these two kinds of knowledge in order for us not to be double-minded. That integration is an ideal, perhaps never fully completed. The struggle to gain correct notions in each realm and then to correlate them is the challenge of human life, the basis of drama and pathos, happiness and joy.

It is important to note that the experiences we have as humans do not uniquely determine what we believe either in the outer or the inner world. Our own desires are important. Our desires enable us to search for the kind of evidence which we wish to have, to reject evidence which goes contrary to our desires, and to integrate only those materials which we wish to, and to the degree to which we desire. We literally create our own universe within the bounds of those experiences which are too painful for us to ignore. Those bounds are quite generous, allowing us much freedom. Each person’s synthesis of the universe is thus a genuine reflection of his or her own desires.

But if desire is a powerful selecting and ordering factor, so must be our minds. Because much of the evidence we gain from other humans is contradictory, because reason itself is captive to the premises which we furnish it, because our senses do give us ambiguous reports, because what works is never a sure indication of what is, and because we can fool ourselves as to what really happens inside our personal world, we must use all of the power of mind and discernment that we can bring to bear. Skepticism is our friend, insisting that we duplicate evidence, that we rethink, that we probe and try and experiment afresh, that we challenge every idea. Only a healthy skepticism enables us to separate the true and the good from the welter of appearance and opinion. But skepticism, too, can exceed its proper bounds. As it cuts it may begin to decimate that which is reliable and substantial. If we let it, if we so desire, it easily slips into a cynicism that indiscriminately derogates everything. Each of us must balance faith with incredulity, trust with wariness, exuberance with soberness, creativity with responsibility, passion with temperance, hope with realism. Only thus can we create an understanding of the world which will allow us those successes we desire.

2. Knowledge in matters of religion.

Let us then suppose that we have become intelligent, coping individuals, that we are making a reasonably good stab at being responsible persons, that we are assets to our communities, and that we are intelligent about truth and value. Our synthesis of the two kinds of knowledge is then beginning to serve our needs and challenges. In this state of intelligent awareness of the universe we are basically prepared to address the most important kinds of questions, those of religion. For religion is about ourselves. What kind of person should we make of ourselves? What habits of feeling and valuing, of thinking and believing, of doing and making should we foster in ourselves? Our own habits are our character. Our character is the most precious achievement and construction of our mortal existence.

Let us further suppose that our challenge is to ascertain the truthfulness of that particular religion, the restored gospel, church, and priesthood of Jesus Christ as revealed first to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., and then to a host of others in these latter days. Specifically, let us focus on how one can know that the restored gospel is the true message about salvation for all men from the true and living God. For that message to be true one would need to gather and synthesize enough information to be sure that there is a true and living God, our Father in Heaven, who has sent us his beloved, only begotten Son, whom we should hear. What we hear is that we should believe in the Son, repent of all our sins, choose faithful obedience to him as our sole means of acting, and strive to become perfect in our character (to endure to the end)–all under the personal companionship and tutelage of the Holy Spirit and through the ordinances administered by the authorized priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While that seems much to prove, it all boils down to one principal feature: Does the Holy Ghost bear witness to our inner self of the truthfulness of these things? As we begin to obey, does that Holy Spirit continue to guide us in paths that we ourselves, judging by our own sense of what is holy, know are good and true?

As there are two kinds of evidence and knowledge about things in general, so there are two kinds pertaining to the hypothesis that the restored gospel is true. We shall examine each of these kinds of evidences in turn, beginning with the evidences from the external world.

The first kind of evidence which comes to bear is that of authority. What do the responsible, intelligent people whom we know who have investigated the restored gospel say about it? If they assure us that it is true, we have an important piece of evidence. If they bear negative witness, we must also account for that. But we can only make responsible judgments about other person’s testimonies, positive or negative, when we have gained further evidence of other kinds on our own. We need to have independent evidence as to whether or not the restored gospel is true or false before we can evaluate any person’s testimony. The testimony of other persons is always inconclusive if there is no other evidence available.

Next is the evidence of reason. What kinds of answers to theological questions go with the restored gospel? Are those answers self-consistent? Are they consistent with the Holy Bible? Is the Book of Mormon consistent with the Holy Bible? Is there a completeness of answers so that every important question has an answer? Is there some consistency about the answers which authorities of the restored Church give? As our reason searches and compares it begins either to be satisfied or dissatisfied. To become either is an important kind of evidence. But this evidence is not conclusive. We can evaluate it only when we get more information from other sources. We cannot know if we should be satisfied or dissatisfied until we know on other grounds whether the restored gospel is true: Then we can evaluate our own reasoning.

We turn to observation. What can our senses tell us of the truth of the restored gospel? They can tell us that there is an interesting artifact produced by Joseph Smith that we can examine: the Book of Mormon. As we read and examine it, we must ask: Whence came this volume? Could a person who never attended school fabricate out of his imagination such a complex, detailed history which is so internally consistent and which fits into the historical and geographical evidence of today, much of which was not even known to the world in 1830 Detractors of Joseph Smith are unanimous on one point: he was too ignorant to have written it. By whom or how, then, did it come into being? So far the only proffered explanation that fits the known historical facts is the one given by Joseph Smith himself: he received it as a revealed translation of writing on ancient plates of gold. What of the three witnesses who also saw the plates? Their testimony must count for something, especially since each in turn was excommunicated from that Church, yet none ever denied his testimony. There is sufficient meat here for every intelligent mind to cogitate upon. Yet this area is in itself not conclusive, even if we find that we cannot discount Joseph Smith’s explanation of the book. We must yet seek further evidence.

Another kind of observation which is important is the order of the universe. The motions of the heavens, the intricacy of the plant and animal orders, the complexity and perfection of the human species all raise questions as to their origin and maintenance. Do these things bespeak the hand of a great creator, or are they simply the blind career of chance concatenations of atoms? Some persons are convinced one way, some the other. The net result is that we see again that observation needs interpretation: no set of empirical evidence is self-interpretive or self-warranting. We must seek elsewhere for surety while not forgetting our observations.

Turning to consideration of pragmatics, we see that there are seeming sociological consequences of accepting the restored gospel. Those who profess belief in the restored gospel have marriage, divorce, birth, and death statistics that are different from the public at large. They seem to have a distinctive cultural pattern that is in accord with the New Testament standards. They prosper wherever they go if they are left alone. These are interesting and valuable correlations. But they do not prove the case. We must yet seek further evidence.

We see that none of the four external kinds of evidence yields unambiguous assurance of the truthfulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. While their combination is more powerful than any type by itself, even that conjunction does not yield solid proof. The reason is that each of these is an external evidence. The essence of the restored gospel concerns what goes on inside a person, not outside. We must then turn our attention to the inner realm, not forgetting nor discounting the outer realm, but holding its evidence in abeyance for the moment.

Inner knowledge concerns the personal private experiments which a person can perform. Before one can experiment he must either believe or desire to believe. One must risk something. This is not to suggest that one must persist in blind faith. But one must begin with the hope that God will answer his prayers. If one believes or desires to believe, he can at least perform the experiments. The experiments will give evidence which will become so sure that his faith is not blind ever after. Each person who is willing to experiment can determine for himself whether the gospel hypothesis is just another romantic dream or is truly a reality.

With at least temporary belief, one can then perform the crucial experiment, which is to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, ready to do whatever one is instructed to do. If one has not already received it upon hearing the message of the restored gospel, the first message from God will likely be that peaceful, burning assurance which the Holy Spirit gives that the restored gospel is indeed true. What one must then do is to believe even more. To believe even more is to pray again, to thank the Father, and to ask what to do next. As the next instruction comes and the experimenter obeys in faith, he embarks upon a path that is rewarding and satisfying. That cycle of belief, prayer, revelation, and obedience is so self- reinforcing and so satisfying to those who delight in doing the will of God that they never need seek for the path of progress again. They need only to persevere. Now they know that the restored gospel is true, for its promise has been delivered. They have received the promised Holy Spirit unto faith and repentance. Because their souls are enlarged and the yearning for and the guidance of the holy in their lives is now satisfied, they know they are on the path of pleasing God and of coming to Him.

Faithful prayer leads to promptings that come even when one is not praying or meditating. These promptings come in the same voice and with the same peaceful assurance as the answers to prayer. To experiment with following them is the course of intelligence for those who have enjoyed that companionship of the Holy Spirit. As again they experiment they learn the rewards of further sensitivity to the holy. They also learn to compare the results of yielding to those promptings to yielding to their own desires, especially when those personal desires are abetted by that opposing evil spirit which enjoins selfishness upon one. The knowledge that. comes from faithful obedience to the promptings of the Holy Spirit reinforces and buttresses the already sure knowledge one has from answers to prayers.

To promptings are added special insights, understandings, and interpretations. As one ponders the gospel message and searches the scriptures many questions arise. As these arise the answers also often flow, sometimes because of prayer, sometimes without asking. What they bring is a completeness, a comprehensive overview of the world and the universe as God would have us see them. We begin to understand that nothing is wasted in the economy of our God, that all truth is interconnected, that everything works for the good of those who love the God of righteousness. The satisfaction of understanding and the esthetics of glimpsing the greatness and the goodness of the divine system help us to begin to understand ourselves for the first time and to know even more surely the truthfulness of the restored gospel.

Understanding brings a comprehension of man’s potential, a vision of what he could become through the gifts and promises of God. As these gifts are sought and used for the work of godliness there comes an understanding of God’s power and a realization of the promises. As healings, miracles, tongues and interpretation of tongues, prophecy, discernment, power over the elements, and nobility in the soul show forth the handiwork of God, knowledge builds upon knowledge, and the established, buttressed, well-founded edifice becomes so sure and secure that no power of man or of hell can shake it.

The import of this discussion is that a testimony, a sure knowledge of the truth of the restored gospel can only come in the inner, personal knowledge of a person. What then is the place of the external evidences? They do have their place.

3. The weaving of a testimony.

Let us now change the figure of speech from a building to a fabric and discuss the weaving of that fabric. The beginning of the weaving process is to establish the warp. These are the strong threads, the real substance of the cloth, and they are usually anchored at each end in a vertical row, then spread alternately in two directions to provide space for the shuttle to draw through the horizontal threads of the woof. If the threads of the weaving are fine yet strong and carefully spaced yet tightly woven, a cloth of superior utility is created.

We may liken the strong warp threads of a cloth to the internal evidences which come from our own personal experiments with the holy and the evil, the good and the bad. If we perform those experiments with skeptical care we will accept only those evidences or threads which are strong, true, and reliable. We must also avoid the cynicism which would have us discard that which we perceive surely to be true. And we must have enough threads to mass a sufficient warp. After one experiment we know almost nothing. But after thousands and thousands of experiments we know that we can trust the Lord. As we marshall those threads in a record of the actual experiences which created them, we create a warp of substance, strength, and capacity.

To the warp we may now add the woof threads of the external evidences that we previously gathered but found to be insufficient of themselves. We have many or few of these strands, but obviously, more and stronger threads are better. These are the testimonies of others, the reasoning we have done to observe the consistency and completeness of the restored gospel, the observations we have made of the handiwork of God both through men and in the natural order of the universe around us, capped by the practical evidence of the utility of living the restored gospel. These evidences, though not sufficiently strong of themselves to constitute a testimony, when carefully woven into the strands of strong and sure knowledge, become genuine assets to the whole. Then one can know which doctrines are found to be consistent and can reject the unwanted baggage of the doctrines of men which becloud the matter. Then one can see that it is truly the hand of God which brought the Bible and the Book of Mormon into existence and which has created and does now maintain the starry heavens and the course of nature. Then one can see that the wicked are punished by their own hands and that the righteous reap the rewards of the children of God. To have a testimony is to live, to see, and to know in ways never available to persons who do not have a testimony. ‘~”~

Should one weave such a fabric of strength and beauty it will serve him well. For such a testimony is not gained by taking thought; it is not the product of observation, but of doing the will of God. It is a personally constructed artifact made of individually experienced items selected with the greatest of care and the highest standards. It is not just a cloth, as it is not just a knowing. It becomes the robe of righteousness, that which every soul must have to attend the wedding feast. It is the newly formed character, the fiber of the being of a son or a daughter of God. What we are is what we do and what we know. Our own character is the robe of righteousness which enables us to dwell in eternal burnings. To be saved is to receive the divine gifts that are necessary and to weave a new character for ourselves in the pattern of the divine nature of our Christ himself; then He can present us spotless before the Father. To gain a testimony is to repent, to create a new self through faith in Jesus Christ.

The necessity of the connection between testimony and righteousness is found in the nature of God himself. He is a God of truth, but truth without righteousness is a monster. Thus, he is first a God of righteousness and then a God of truth. Those who wish to become as he is must follow that same order. He promises to fully satisfy the desire of those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. He has no kind words for those who are merely curious. Creating a testimony means doing the works of righteousness. In the process of doing those works one comes to know and understand first the truth of his own inner experience and feelings, then the truth about this physical world in which we live; after that he may learn of heavenly things beyond the ken of mere mortals if he asks in faith. Righteousness is of Christ, for he is the sole fountain of righteousness in this earth, as also he is the Spirit of Truth. To love righteousness is to seek and to gain a testimony of the restored gospel, which then enables one to do the works of righteousness.

The perfect example of the necessity of seeking a testimony through righteousness is found in the lives of Laman and Lemuel. Each of them was furnished with an abundance of evidence of divine things: they saw and heard an angel, they saw miracles, they felt the power of God shock them, their lives were saved by divine intervention. Yet they gained no testimony from their experiences because those experiences were not part of the experimentation of faith. The whole of these experiences was in the external world–to them. They did not seek the Lord in the inner realm and thus had no evidence in the inner realm of their own souls. They could interpret away all of the external evidence and did so. They simply refused to repent. After this world, in the spirit prison or at the bar of judgment, they will have enough evidence to know that the gospel is true and will finally admit to that truth. But then it will be too late to show sufficient love for the Lord and for righteousness to be saved in the celestial kingdom.

4. Questions and answers.

1. What are the qualities of a testimony? A strong testimony is one in which the bearer has certainty that the God of Heaven hears and answers his prayers as he attempts to live the restored gospel. Only those with strong testimonies are able to make the sacrifices that the Lord requires to perfect their souls. A weak testimony is one in which the bearer has as yet little confidence; enough perhaps to continue experimentation and exploration, but not enough to stand tribulation nor the finger of scorn. A sure testimony is one in which the bearer has amassed enough internal evidence to surmount all reasonable doubt that the restored gospel is true. A strong testimony is an assurance of the heart; a sure testimony is an assurance of the mind. A present testimony is one that is a living present companionship with the Holy Spirit. A past testimony is the memory of marvelous former experiences with the Holy Spirit. A strong and sure and present testimony enables one to live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

2. What then can a person do to strengthen his own testimony? Gaining and strengthening a testimony begins with the heart. If a person does not desire to be righteous, he needs to repent until he has that desire. When his heart is right, he will search for those whisperings of the spirit which are the precious lifeline to all godly things. Sensing their holiness, he will begin to follow the whisperings unto doing the works enjoined, thus becoming a person of some degree of faith. Though he might encounter negative evidence, such as the contrary witness of other persons, seeming contradictions, and venality on the part of professed members of the restored Church, his own faith in the whisperings will lay, positive spiritual evidence beside each of those negative externals until he sees that the truth of the gospel shines through the spotty facade of those negative impressions. Each person is free. Anyone who desires the negative to predominate will have it so. But anyone who treasures that which is honest, true, virtuous, of good report, and praiseworthy will soon find that his joy in his own increased ability to do the works that the Savior commends far outweighs the negative. The Holy Spirit reveals that those who bear negative testimony of the gospel are under the influence of the adversary; their negative testimony is thus a backhanded positive testimony of the gospel’s truthfulness. Seeming contradictions become the occasion for greater understanding in which the marvels and mysteries of the gospel are unfolded to the faithful seeker, thus becoming a positive strength to this testimony. The venality of Church members when interpreted by the Holy Spirit becomes an occasion for sympathy for those persons, a further attestation that the way of righteousness and truth is straight and narrow indeed, and few there be that find it.

So, do I keep the Sabbath day holy? Do I honor my parents with all that the Holy Spirit enjoins? Am I honest in all of my dealings with my fellowmen, pressing down, shaking, and heaping up the measure which I give them? Do I reach out to the poor in money, strength, wisdom, understanding, and honor, sharing with them out of the abundance of heart, mind, strength, and substance with which the Lord has blessed me? Do I fill very mission gladly, exuberant and wise in the assurance that I have of the merits of my Master? Do I love my spouse, my children, and my neighbors with that same pure love that the gods of heaven shower upon me? Do I do all things unto the Lord, knowing that I am his but have no merit, wisdom, or goodness of my own? Do I fulfill my Savior’s instruction in the faith of love so that I can overcome the forces of this world? Do I allow my conscience to smite me down to humility and repentance whenever the thorns of selfishness or arrogance snag my robe?

Every decision of daily life affords me the opportunity to prove that good and acceptable will of my God. As I add faith to faith, obeying in humility in every decision I make from moment to moment, the gifts and blessings and rewards of God flow so abundantly that I come to realize that in the path of such faith I never need hunger or thirst again. He who loves purely is sufficient to my every need. I need to search and wonder no more except to be sure that I continue to please him. I neither doubt nor flounder. I know I am on the path. I must only endure to the end, until my faithful service has brought me to the measure of the stature of the fullness of my Savior, for he is the end, indeed.

3. Is it possible for me to talk myself into a testimony, to desire one so much that I create a false testimony? That surely is possible, just as a person might believe that he is Napoleon or is invisible. But the evidences would not be there. Neither internally nor externally would sufficient confirmations come to allow one to believe a false testimony to be a true one unless one is unable to evaluate evidence. Some persons are clearly unable to evaluate evidence, even in the external, physical world. They do indeed often come to strange opinions about religious matters. That is why it is important to establish one’s sanity in the realm of ordinary, earthly matters before one attempts to stand as a witness to anyone else of the truth of sacred, spiritual matters. Our Savior, knowing the sometimes precarious nature of new faith and testimony, has assured us that he will always establish his word in the mouths of two or three witnesses. Sometimes those witnesses are several kinds of internal and external evidence, which then give us a firm rock upon which to stand.

4. Is it possible to transfer a testimony? It is never possible to share the essence of our testimony with another person, for that essence exists in the private, inner realm which can never be shared. But our sincere and truthful witness, though external to our hearers and therefore a sandy foundation for their testimonies, may be accompanied by the second witness of the Holy Spirit. That second witness is internal, the essence of real testimony. On that rock they can proceed to build surely.

5. Which concepts are closely associated with that of testimony and would assist one to gain a better understanding of testimony? Testimony is a type of knowledge. Similar concepts are those of evidence, assurance, record, monument, and proof. Contrary concepts are those of doubt, discredit, counterindicativeness, and insecurity. The complement concept is that of uncertainty. The opposite is complete ignorance. The perfection of testimony is full knowledge of complete certainty. The prerequisites for testimony are (1) revelation from God, (2) belief in that revelation, and (3) obedience to the instructions of that revelation. (Those are the elements of faith, for faith is the prerequisite to testimony.) The constituents of testimony are the internal and external evidences for the truthfulness of the restored gospel that we have gained and see through the eye of faith. A celestial testimony (the only kind that saves anyone) is based squarely on an abundance of cooperative experience with the Holy Spirit. A terrestrial testimony is based on an abundance of external, physical evidence for the truthfulness of the restored gospel. A telestial testimony is based on a fear that it might be true and an unwillingness to search out the evidence, either internal or external. A perdition testimony is that of a person who knows full well that the restored gospel is true (a past sure testimony), but bears witness to others that it is not true.

5. Summary and conclusions.

A. The essence of a testimony of the restored gospel is present, inner, continuous cooperation with the Holy Spirit in the cause of relieving misery in this world (the work of righteousness). Public, physical evidence about the restored gospel is helpful only when carefully evaluated by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and useful only when tightly woven into our continuous, inner, present cooperation with the Holy Spirit. The function of external evidence in the cause of righteousness is not to assure anyone of the truthfulness of the gospel, but to attract attention to the restored gospel so that a person will personally perform the inner experiments which do bring a sure testimony.

B. Testimony comes only through faith. When we hear the gospel, our first evidence that it is the word of the Lord comes as we receive the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that it is true. If we then act on that witness, asking to know what to do about our doubts–asking anything in the willingness to believe and obey the holy within us, we ask in faith. Asking in faith brings the revelations of the true and living God to anyone who will so ask. Out of these revelations is born the abundance of experience that assures us of the reliability of God’s revelations–which is a testimony.

C. Only hunger and thirst for righteousness is a sufficient motive to experiment on the gospel message in faith. Those whose only interest in the gospel is an academic curiosity can never perform the experiments in faith. No amount of external evidence can, will, or should convince them of the truthfulness of that message. The gospel message is aimed specifically at the sheep: those who live first to love others, as does the true and living God.

D. A testimony is always a construction, a personal artifact. It is built out of a person’s life experiences and is the record of what that person has sought, hoped for, and selected out of the welter of opportunities that this world affords. If a person has received the personal witness that the restored gospel is true, then that person’s testimony, positive or negative, is a clear reflection of that person’s character.

E. A testimony is always nontransferable. While one may indeed bear witness of his inner experience, that inner experience forever remains his private domain. But as one bears true witness, the Holy Spirit can and will witness to the hearers of the truth of that person’s witness, which is the beginning material for the testimony of each of those hearers. To some it is given to believe on the testimony of those who know.

F. Any person who has a sure testimony of the restored gospel, and thus of the Holy Spirit, can endure by means of the laws and ordinances of the gospel to a sure knowledge of the Son and of the Father. But one must endure in faith.

September 1, 1985

Radical Utility—A Theory of Language, 1985

March 1985

Principle of radical utility: Usefulness shapes and controls the nature of every language in every aspect.

Language is a technology, by far the most important technology known to man. As with all technology, it is thus an instrument of power, enabling men better to fulfill their desires. The three principal human uses of language are: 1) to share with others; 2) to control others; and 3) to fill up time (phatic use of language).

Language: A set of phonetic, (graphic), (physical), morphemic, syntactic and discourse patterns which are conventions of a given culture used socially to facilitate the fulfillment of desire by the participants in the culture.

Parameters necessary to a language:

1. A community of persons who have a common desire and therefore a need or opportunity to cooperate.

2. A common physical context (to provide primitive definitions by ostensive means).

3. A culture: a common set of values, beliefs about the universe, and appropriate actions (to delimit communication).

4. A set of signals. (Phonemes, letters, gestures, etc.)

5. A defining procedure. A means of associating signals with elements of the physical context to provide potential meanings for those signals.

6. A lexicon. A set of defined signals (typical words associated with typical meanings).

7. A syntax. A set of typical patterns of word and sentence formation used to control meaning.

8. A rhetoric. A set of typical patterns of sentence concatenation used to form conversations and speeches in order to control communication.

Natural language: Any language currently learned by any population as a mother tongue.

Artificial language: Any language specially constructed to meet the needs of an artificially contrived group of persons. All dead languages are artificial languages.

Meaning: The message components which are the basis of sending and receiving of communication. Words have only potential meaning. Only messages have meaning. All messages have expectation as to what will happen next.

Grammar: The rules for producing typical patterns of syntax in sentences in language use.

Rhetoric: The patterns of sentence usage which characterize typical and expert use of language in actual discourse.

Other principles of language:

1. Principle of indeterminacy: There are no correct or incorrect semantic usages, syntactic structures or discourse patterns. Language may come to be used in any way at any time by any person. There are no formal constraints as to what might be effective use of language.

2. Principle of nominalism: Meaning does not inhere in any symbol. Dictionaries give typical potential meanings of a word, not actual meanings. Actual meanings exist only in the minds of speakers and hearers in actual contextual use of words. (Words used have meaning; words mentioned do not.)

3. Principle of typicality: For a given language and a given time/place/culture there is a pattern of typical phonetic, semantic, syntactic and discourse usage, the mastery of which makes one a full-fledged member of that language community. Typicality maximizes the utility of language for ordinary purposes.

4. Principle of atypicality: Mastery of the typical patterns of a language makes it possible to employ language atypically with great power. In every society there is a reservoir of unfulfilled desire. An individual who says new things in a new ways to channel (or harness) that unfulfilled desire assumes a leadership role. The atypical usage must be very close to typicality (thus the leader must have mastered typical usage) but enough different that hearers generate new hope for the fulfillment of unfulfilled desire. Atypicality includes creativity in science, art, literature, politics, etc. Too great an atypicality causes incredulity in hearers. Atypicality which increases one’s social influence is expert use of a language.

5. Principle of parsimony: When language is used for sharing or control, efficiency is important. Thus these uses of language tend to represent a minimum use of energy (words and structures) to accomplish the desire of the speaker. In the phatic use of language inefficiency is important and thus parsimony does not here obtain.

6. Principle of ellipsis: No speaker does or can express all that he means in any finite discourse. The meaning of any utterance is ultimately the total universe of the speaker.

7. Principle of entropy: There is always a loss of information in the process of sending a message. The receiver cannot reconstruct all that the sender intends.

8. The principle of integrality: Every assertion and discourse has three essential parts: A feeling component, and informational component, and an action component. These three factors are always present for both speaker and hearer. In some situations the feeling and action components tend to be repressed, but they are nevertheless present. This integrality of language usage arises out of the integrality of the human being. Every conscious human being is at any given moment feeling something, thinking something, and doing something. The purpose of language use is to affect that integrality in others.

9. The principle of attraction: The community using a given language grows (in relation to rival languages) in proportion to the relatively greater utility of that language.

10. The principle of generality: The more widespread and the greater the number of language experiences a population has in common, the more widespread will be the patterns of atypicality.

11. The principle of diversity: The more a sub-population desires to separate itself from a community, the more non-typical become its language patterns. Non-typical patterns are used when there is a need to:

a. Discourse in a specialized way about recondite matters (jargon).
b. Prevent the general population from understanding or penetrating an “in” group (dialect).

12. The principle of admittance: The entre into any social group is to master the typical language patterns of that group.

13. The principle of accession: The key by which to acquire the total culture of any group is to master its typical language patterns.

14. The principle of stability: Typicality in a language is strengthened by faithful usage and by expert use of atypicality.

15. The principle of metamorphosis: Non-typical use is the engine of change in language. All natural languages drift.

Factors which work for the metamorphosis of typicality in a language:

1. New environmental experiences.
2. Desire for exclusivity.
3. Desire for novelty.
4. Influential persons who speak non-typically.
5. Social interaction with other cultures.
6. Preponderance of spoken over written use of the language.

Factors which work for the stability of typicality in a language:

1. Constant physical environment.
2. Desire for inclusivity.
3. Appreciation for ancestors/conventions/traditions.
4. Influential persons who speak typically or atypically.
5. A written literature which is highly honored and widely read.

Signals (codings) used by a language vary on a scale from totally referential to very presentational.

1. Totally referential:	Binary codes Alphabets
2. Moderately referential	Glyphs Pictographs
3. Moderately representational:	Pantomime Pictures Graphs Onomatopoeia
4. Very representational:	Drama/Movies/Television Role playing

Referential coding maximizes efficiency in communication. Representational coding maximizes efficacy in communication.

Naming (coding) in a language may be random or rational.

Rational coding:

1. May assign related names to related referents.
2. May assign names based on descriptions from a foreign lexicon.

Random coding occurs by historical accident.

Defining: The process of:

1. Pairing a given word or phrase with successive potential meanings as does a dictionary.
2. Pairing a given word or phrase with another indicator of the precise class or concept which a user has intended when the original use has failed. Only the user can define the meaning.

There are four standard means of defining:

1. Ostension: Pointing to a representation of the meaning in the physical environment.
2. Synonomy: Using another word or phrase having the same meaning.
3. Denotation: A verbal pointing to a referent which represents the meaning intended.
4. Connotation: Using a genus (the larger class to which a class belongs) and a differentia (those properties which individuate the thing being defined from other members of the genus).

Linguistic production: The creation and delivery of discourse by a self and its body.

Levels of linguistic production:

1. Basic level: The arena of the imagination surrounded by the imagined universe of the self. Within that arena, certain alternatives have come to the attention of the self which it does not presently enjoy, such as an idea it desires to entertain, a sensation it desires to have the body deliver, etc. Using the basic desires of the self, the volition (will) of the self chooses a particular potential to seek to make real. (A particular desire becomes the focus of the attention of the self.)

2. Strategy level: Still in the arena of the imagination, the self creates an intent and a plan to fulfill the desire; this intent is:

a. A feeling (a strength of desire) and a goal.
b. An action hypothesis (a proposal to affect the universe in order to get it to fulfill the desire).
c. An image of what the expected result would be if that plan for affecting the universe were implemented.

3. Tactics level: Still in the arena of the imagination, the self creates a specific assertion (to implement the action proposal of 2b above) which it proposes to launch into the universe to fulfill its intent (desire) and which it believes will actually produce the desired result. Several hypotheses may be considered, the one deemed most useful in the value parameters of the self being the one selected.

4. Logistics level: Using speech habits already established, the self encodes sentence(s) and plans a discourse to implement the assertion(s) selected at the previous level.

5. Implementation level: Using body habits already established, the self enphones the sentence(s) encoded at the previous level.

6. Anticipation stage: The self alerts itself to notice, through sensation, what reaction the universe has to the action it has launched.

Levels of linguistic interpretation (the complement of production):

1. Detection of a signal or signal complex from a source deemed to be an agent; delivered to the self in sensation.

2. Recognition of the signal pattern; identification of the words, phrases, sentences.

3. Creation of a hypothesis of sentence interpretation, a hypothetical assertion attributed to the speaker.

4. Creation of a message hypothesis concerning what the speaker is doing

a. A hypothetical intention for the speaker.
b. A hypothetical action being performed by the speaker.
c. A hypothesis as to what is expected next, either in the context or of the interpreting self.

5. An understanding of how the speaker’s action and intentions relate to the universe, including what options that creates for the hearer.

6. A reaction of pleasure or displeasure at what the speaker has done.

March 11, 1985

Theory of Communication, 1985
March 1985

1. Definition: Communication: The effect or relationship one being has on or with another.

Kinds:
- Static: One thing contiguous with another.
- Dynamic: One thing affecting (making changes) in another being.
Static communication is always reciprocal. Dynamic communication may or may not be reciprocal.

Intentional communication=agentive communication.

2. Definition: Human communication: One human being affecting the body of another human being.

Kinds of active human communication:
- Visual affect
- Auditory affect
- Substance affect
- Taste
- Smell
- Chemical
- Solid object
- Addition or deprivation of heat
- Kinetic communication (hitting, pushing, etc.)
Prominent myth about human communication: Human communication is the exchange of ideas.

This is a myth because we humans can only directly affect another person’s body, not their mind.

3. Spiritual communication: One being affecting another being by non-physical means.

Principal kinds:
- Good: Radiating the good spirit, thus influencing other beings to do godly (righteous) things.
- Evil: Radiating the evil spirit, thus influencing other beings to do evil (selfish) things.
Postulate: Human beings are always spiritual beings and always under the influence of at least one other spirit, either the spirit of God or the spirit of Satan. Each human being radiates to others either a good or an evil spiritual influence.

4. Communication between human beings is always a combination of human communication and spiritual communication. (The effect of spiritual communication gives rise to the myth of transfer of ideas.)

5. Agent communication always has specific parts:
- a1. Sender intention: what the sender desires to accomplish.
- b1. Sender main idea: the mental image which prompts the sender’s action.
- c1. Sender assertion: the physical action launched by the sender to affect the target of communication.
- d1. Sender affect: the net result of what the sender accomplished in asserting.
- a2. Receiver intention: what the receiver desires to achieve as a response to what the receiver believes the sender intends.
- b2. Receiver main idea: what the receiver thinks as a result of what the receiver thinks the sender had as a main idea.
- c2. Receiver assessment: the urgency or importance or strength which the receiver places on the communication from the sender in light of what the receiver knows and imagines.
- d2. Receiver affect: the specific response of the receiver to the sender’s communication.
6. Postulates of communication:
- a. To exist is to communicate. Not to affect anything nor to be affected by anything is not to exist. All real beings communicate with something other than themselves.
- b. How a being communicates defines its being, since anything exists only in communicating.
- c. In a given situation, one being may not act, but only be acted upon by another. But to be a being, it must be potentially able to act. If it is never able to act for itself, it is not a separate being but only a part of the being which acts upon it.
- d. The effects of communication upon agents are effects only of accident. Ordinary human communication never does or can change a hearer-agent’s essence.
- e. An agent being has two potentials, one good, the other evil. The choices and actions (the communications) of the agent fix upon that agent one of the two potentials. Thus the agent partly creates himself or herself.
- f. Salvation is communication from the Savior to an agent who has consistently chosen good over evil, inasmuch as he or she was able to do so, to make the person wholly good (holy).
- g. Communication is always an entropic process. More is sent than is ever received.
7. Total Communication: takes place when two beings interact so completely that they become as one being.

8. Ways to achieve total communication:
- a. Communicated in every way.
- b. Communicate about everything.
- c. Communicate in every environment.
- d. Be redundant.
- e. Communicate only good (unselfishness).
Exercises for communication

1.   Why is no human communication intelligible? Because it acts only on the body of the recipient.

2.   When is there too much communication? In a physical fight.

3.   When is there too little communication? When someone needs help, and none is given.

4.   What is the connection between communication and reality? Reality is what is communicated.

5.   What is the connection between communication and morality? All communication either helps or hinders the recipient.

6.   What are examples of total communication? God exalting one of his children.

7.   How does one communicate love? One being blesses another, leaving them better off afterward.

8.   Devise a strategy for communicating to any other person your concept of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Be an example of living by faith in Jesus Christ.
March 11, 1985
Theory of Self, 1985
CCR March 1985 Theory 12

(Note: This theory is constructed from the perspective of an omniscient observer. Since the author is not an omniscient observer, it represents his hypothesis as to what an omniscient observer would say about the following subjects.)

Self: A normal conscious human being considered as semi-attached to his/her body, and to some degree an independent agent.

Body: A personal material intermediary between a self and its universe.

Universe: Everything a self believes to exist outside its body.

Only three kinds of things exist for the self: 1) One’s self, 2) One’s body, and 3) One’s “other”: the universe. This is the egocentric predicament.

The basic functions of a self are volition, feeling, thinking and acting.
- Volition is the choices of the self for feeling, thinking and acting.
- Feeling is value placed on ideas, which value 1) stimulates thinking, and 2) generates emotions in the body. Feeling and emotion increase the power of the self to act.
- Thinking is the creation and ordering of ideas.
- Acting is deporting the body relative to the universe.
A self is a will, a volition. Aspects of a well-furnished self:
1. A set of desires. Used for:
        Preferring: Selection among alternative concepts in the realm of the ideal (“other things being equal”).
        Choosing: Selection among percepts or alternatives believed by the self to represent real alternatives believed by the self to represent real alternatives of the universe.
        Feeling: Value intensity attached to preferences or choices accompanied by emotions in the body.
2. An imagination: an arena for creation and processing of concepts, percepts, constructs, and assertions including a construct of the universe (the latter being a taxonomized [chunked, with each category named] construct constructed by the self which is believed to be a good representation of the real truth about the universe. This image is created and is continuously repaired and amended in accordance with the preferences and choices of the self as the self interacts with the universe through its body).
3. A logic processor. Concepts are related in whatever systems of order the self has mastered and finds expedient to use.
4. A language processor in which assertions are encoded and signals are decoded using whatever systems of code which the self has mastered.
5. An action processor in which choices are made for deporting the body of the self, these choices then being triggered into motion.
6. A memory bank in which are stored:
  - Beliefs about the true universe (past, present and future).
  - Hypotheses under consideration and on the shelf.
  - All concepts ever created by the self.
  - All assertions ever created by the self.
  - A lexicon of codes.
  - A repertoire of systems of order.
7. Sets of habits of the self created by consistent patterns of choice for:
  - Preferring, choosing and feeling.
  - Thinking, including imagining, believing/disbelieving, memorizing, forgetting, etc.
  - Patterns of acting (deporting one’s body to relate to the universe to fulfill the desires of the self).
Thinking: Creating and processing ideas in the self.

Processes of thinking:
1. Sensing: Receiving ideas from one’s body. Product: Sensation
2. Conceiving: Creating and acting upon ideas in the imagination. Product: Concept.
3. Perceiving: Interpretation of sensation by pairing a sensation with a similar concept. Product: Percept.
4. Desiring: Placing a value on an idea by pairing it with a concept member of a value continuum. Product: Desideratum.
5. Constructing: Creating possible selves, bodies or universes by concatenating concepts (repeated pairing). Product: Construct.
6. Asserting: Creating hypotheses about self, body or the universe by pairing concepts in a relationship of prediction. Product: Assertion.
7. Believing: Pairing a construct or assertion with a concept on a real-unreal continuum.
Principal constructs created by the self:
1. The self. (Structure and functions)
2. The body. (Structure and functions)
3. The universe. (The present structure and functions)
  God
  Other selves.
  The past.
  The present.
Basic capacities and concepts of the self:

Root capacities:
1. Ability to abstract patterns from ideas.
2. Ability to differentiate similar patterns from dissimilar patterns.
3. Ability to distinguish contiguous patterns from non-contiguous patterns.
4. Short-term memory (seven items or less).
5. Long-term memory.
Concept Development: (“®“ = “yields”):
1. Cognition of a pattern. (Stored in short-term memory.)
2. Repeated recognition of pattern ® an essence, type, class, substance (stored in long-term memory.)
3. Dissimilarity of recognized pattern ® an accident (a quality).
4. Recognition of patterns of accidents ® qualities
5. An essence + context ® (dissimilar background) ® existence
6. Essence 1 + Essence 1 + common context ® number (quantity established on the basis of contiguity/noncontiguity).
7. Number + Number ® patterned relations of numbers
8. Patterned relations of numbers + imagination ® arithmetic, other systems of order, including different concepts of space (established on basis of contiguity/noncontiguity).
9. Essences + space ® structure (a type of essence).
10. ( [Essence 1 + context 1) + (Essence 1 + context 2]) ® (possibility of) change (time). (Other changes also contribute.)
11. (Structure 1 + space 1 + time 1) + (Structure 1 + space 2 + time 2) ® function 1 (locomotion).
12. (Structure 1 + space 1 + time 1) + (Structure 2 + space 1 + time 2) ® function 2 (metaphysics).
13. (Structure 1 + accident 1 + time 1) + Structure 1 + accident 2 + time 2) ® function 3 (action).
14. ((Structure 1 + function (1v2v3)) ® (Change of function (1v2v3) of structure 2) in a recognized pattern ® cause
Summary: Basic kinds of concepts:
1. Patterns established on basis of similarity/dissimilarity and contiguity/non-contiguity
2. Essences (substances, classes, types)
3. Accidents (qualities)
4. Structures
5. Functions
6. Relationships
7. Spaces
8. Times
9. Causes
Concepts are classes used in the imagination of the self.

True: That property possessed by a construct or assertion wherein it is held by its creator self to represent correctly the universe created by the self. May or may not be based on evidence.

Really true: That property possessed by a construct or assertion wherein it represents correctly the universe as seen by the omniscient observer.

Individuation: Determination of the uniqueness of an idea.
- A concept is individuated when it represents a single, unique property or when it represents the unique intersection of a set of properties (is dissimilar to all other essences or concept patterns).
- A percept is individuated when it is clearly differentiated from its perceptual context by figure/ground comparison.
- A construct is individuated by the uniqueness of its attributed structure and function.
- An assertion is individuated by the unique intersection of ideas created by the predicated pairing.
Existence: That property of a concept, percept, or construction wherein it is deemed by its creator to have been successfully individuated in the creator’s mind. To be thought is to exist.

Really existing: That property of a concept, percept or construct wherein its nature as individuated by its creator is seen by the omniscient observer to be correctly and sufficiently individuated.

Real: That property of concepts, percepts or constructs wherein its imagined referents in the universe are believed by the creator of those concepts, percepts or constructs actually to be instantiated in the real universe.

Really real: That property of concepts, percepts or constructs wherein its imagined referents are real to the omniscient observer.

Assertions are of three types, each with several subtypes:

1. Disclosure: The characterization of self.
- - Exclamations: Wow!
  - Valuations: That is a good lad.
  - Preferences: Quiche is the greatest.
  - Choices: I’ll have the sirloin.
  - Plans: I’m getting up at five in the morning.
  - Intentions: Someday I’ll get around to doing genealogy.
2. Directive: Attempting to control the actions of others.
- - Commands: Stop!
  - Questions: What time is it?
  - Definitions: Escargot means snail.
  - Maxims: A stitch in time saves nine.
  - Art forms: Devices to attract and hold the attention.
3. Description: Portrayal of the nature of the body or of the universe. (For the intent of constraining the beliefs of other selves.)
- - Fact: Identification of a present phenomenon (percept). This is an albatross.
  - Law: An inductive generalization about a body of perceived or reported facts. Albatrosses lay eggs.
  - Theory: The creation or non-perceptual constructs as mechanisms to explain and deduce the laws and facts of an area of inquiry. Albatrosses lay eggs because they are descendants of reptiles. (Naturalistic theory construction.)
- Principle: The adduction of fundamental postulates to guide theory construction in an area of inquiry. All life forms are differentiated descendants of simple life forms. (Naturalistic principle adduction. The desires of the self control which theories are constructed and which principles are adduced. Theistic or other principles and theories could be used to accomplish the same logical ends.)
Structure of assertions

All assertions consist of:
1. A single class (concept or construct) which is the subject class: Adult geese.
2. Another single class (concept or construct) to serve as predicate, with which the subject is paired: Creatures which mate for life.
3. A specified relationship of predication asserted to hold between the two classes. The parameters of predication are:
- Specification of a class relation: inclusion, exclusion, coextension.
- Specification of which members of the subject class are asserted to have said class relation to the predicate: all, none, some, three, etc.: All who can find a mate.
- Specification of the time frame during which the said predication is asserted to hold: Beginning when geese came to be real, ending when geese cease to be real.
- Specification of the area or volume of space in which the said predication is asserted to hold: The planet Earth.
Finished example: Since geese came to exist on the earth and until they cease to exist, all adult geese which can find mates, mate for life.

Note on assertions: The sentence above is not an assertion because assertions exist only in the self and are ideas only. A well-formed assertion is the most careful, exact and defensible idea that a given person can form. An assertion is of value as it aids the self in thinking or as it helps the self to accomplish a specific objective when that assertion is encoded and launched into the universe.
March 11, 1985
The Bearing of Philosophy on Theorizing about Language – March 1985
1. Philosophy is the study of the questions and answers that pertain to the fundamental issues of human life. The three most basic questions to ask and answer for any human being in any problematic situation are: How do you know? (Epistemology); What is the reality of the situation (Metaphysics); and, What is good or right to do in the situation (Ethics). We shall explore each of these provinces of philosophy noting how each bears on thinking about language.
2. Epistemology: The study of how human beings succeed and fail in attempting to come to knowledge about themselves and their universe. The main and standard means of knowing for any individual are as follows:
  a. Authoritarianism: Establishing belief on the basis of information obtained from other humans.
  b. Rationalism: Establishing belief on the basis of what is logically consistent with what we already believe.
  c. Empiricism: Establishing belief on the basis of what I can sense here and now (in the frame of prior beliefs).
  d. Statistical Empiricism: Establishing: Establishing belief on the basis of arrayed masses of sensory evidence.
  e. Pragmatism: Establishing belief in those ideas which cannot otherwise be verified but which are functional in fulfilling present desire.
  f. Mysticism: Satisfaction of the hunger to know the truth by substitution of a feeling about things.
  g. Revelation: Personal communication from a person who is not a human being to establish belief about the universe.
3. Scholarship: Construction of belief about things not present using documentary evidence available.
  Principle constraints: (Current rules of the community of scholars.)
  1) All extant relevant documents must be examined and accounted for.
  2) Primary sources are to be given precedence over secondary sources.
  3) All interpretation and construction must be done in a naturalistic frame. (No supernatural, no right or wrong, no secrets.)
  4) All extant relevant documents must be examined and accounted for.
  5) All theory construction must be rational (self-consistent).
4. Science: Construction of beliefs (facts, laws, theories and principles) about the present state and the nature of the universe and its parts on the basis of statistical empiricism and adduction of theory.
  Principle constraints: (Current rules of the community of scientists.)
  1) Every science must be based in empirical data. (No private or mystical evidence.
  2) Laws and theories must account for the facts in a consistent manner.
  3) All data must be accounted for in construction.
  4) All observations must be repeatable (at least in principle); all experiments must be reproducible.
  5) Construction must be done in a monistic, naturalistic frame.
  6) Construction must assume uniformity of space, time, causes and rates.
Epistemological considerations relevant to linguistics:
1) Can a theory of language be built without allowing introspection?
2) Is the real test of a theory of language peer acceptance or pragmatic power? (Science or technology?)
3) Is there an intellectual test for truth? (There are intellectual tests for error.)
4) What is the relationship between concepts and words? Message and code? Meaning and assertion?
5) Is there such a thing as knowing what someone thinks? Knowing that we know such?

4. Metaphysics: The search for the ultimate reality of things, asking questions which cannot be decided on the basis of reason or empirical facts. It is necessary to have a metaphysics to think, but one can never prove that his answers are correct. The metaphysical stance of most persons is usually determined socially. Standard answers to metaphysical questions usually take one side of a polarity.

Important questions and their standard polarities:
a. Is the universe one or many systems? Monism vs. dualism (or pluralism).
b. Is the universe Matter or idea? Materialism vs. idealism.
c. Is there a supernatual? Naturalism vs. supernaturalism.
d. Does law govern the universe? Determinism vs. tychism.
e. Does a God exist? Theism vs. atheism. If one does, what kind of being is he/she/it?
f. Is man natural or supernatural? (Evolution or divine creation).
g. Is man an agent? Agency vs. mechanism.
h. Limited or infinite variety in the universe? Types or individuals only.

Metaphysical considerations relevant to linguistics:
1) Is there a unique human neural linguistic facilitator? If so, what are its limits?
2) Does language have a natural or supernatural origin?
3) Are humans agentive or mechanical in using language?
4) Are the universe and language determined or indeterminate, nomothetic or idiosyncratic?
5) What is the status of universals and particulars? Do names always refer to universals or not?
6) Is there a spiritual component to some or all communication?

5. Ethics: Consideration of what men should, could or ought to do to be wise. What is good for man and how is it to be obtained? Is good the same as right, and if not, how is it discerned and obtained?
Standard answers:
a. Cyrenaicism: The good is maximal physical pleasure guided by desire.
b. Platonism: The good is to know the truth guided by reason.
c. Aristotelianism: The good is the mean between excess and defect in those things appropriate to the nature of man, to be found through reason.
d. Stoicism: The good is to be unperturbed by pleasure or pain, to be achieved through reason in seeing that all things are rigidly predetermined.
e. Epicureanism: The good is a proper balance between higher pleasures (intellectual and social) and lower pleasures (physical), to be discovered by reason and experimentation.
f. Moral sense: The good is to do the will of God as found by following one’s conscience.
g. Kantianism: The good is a good will, to be achieved by doing that which everyone should do if in your situation, as discovered through reason.
h. Utilitarianism: The greatest sum of physical pleasure for the greatest number as found by reason and science.
6. Restored Gospel: Good is what each person wants, right is the will of God learned through personal revelation.

Ethical Considerations relevant to linguistics:
1) Is there a connection between morality and linguistic ability?
2) What is the lesson of the Tower of Babel?
3) What does it mean to bear false witness?
4) Is goodness/badness rightness/wrongness part of all communication?
5) Should language be stable?
6) Should language be regular?
7) Should there be a universal language?
8) Is every person entitled to hear the Restored Gospel in his own tongue? What is a tongue?
9) Should linguistics be prescriptive as well as descriptive? (Is it science or technology?)
10) Is there a divine language? Is it the same as the Adamic language? Is it conceptual only?
March 11, 1985

Testimony, 1985

January 1985

1. Human beings have two parts or aspects:

a. Outer: The physical body, which deals with earth and nature, other humans, human artifacts.
b. Inner: Thoughts, feelings and desires; the good, the holy, the beautiful; the bad, the evil, the ugly.

Import: Each realm is very important: to neglect either is to fail as a human being.

2. There are two kinds of human knowledge (belief) which correspond to the two aspects of man.

Public, physical knowledge, guided by:	Inner, personal knowledge, derived from:
Authority: What learned people say.	What happens when I yield to what is holy to me.
Reason: Ideas which are self-consistent.	What happens when I yield to what is evil to me.
Observation: What I personally sense.	What happens when I yield to my self-desires.
Pragmatics: What works in the realm of sense.	What happens when I just let things happen.

3. When one has proved to be a responsible person and thinker in the everyday world, one is better prepared to make judgments in relation to the truth or falsity of religious hypotheses.

Problem: Are the Restored Gospel, Church and Priesthood of Jesus Christ true? Does the holy in my life assure me of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, and does the Holy Spirit guide and comfort me as I attempt to live it?

4. I can gather two kinds of knowledge to test that possibility. Examples:

Public, physical knowledge:	Inner, personal knowledge:
Authority: Hearing the testimonies of reliable, trustworthy persons whom I know.	Prayer: expressions of gratitude, requests and answers.
Reason: completeness and consistency of the understanding of human life in the Restored Gospel.	Promptings: Faith and its results.
Observation: The existence of the Book of Mormon. The order and complexity of the universe.	Insight: Interpretations and understandings.
Pragmatics: Fulfilling of prophecy. Success of the believers; consequences of sin.	Gifts of the Spirit: Warnings, powers, blessings.

Import: Public knowledge can never force one to believe the Restored Gospel. Example: Laman and Lemuel.
Since the Restored Gospel is essentially about inner things, only inner knowledge can establish its truthfulness.
Import: Inner knowledge comes only as I experiment with inner things. I experiment only as I desire to do so. Therefore I gain the evidence that makes a testimony possible only as I desire to do so.

5. Question: Can I talk myself into a testimony? Answer: Can I talk myself into believing I have eaten when I have not? As I can test and prove things in physical knowledge, I can test and prove things in inner knowledge if I am willing to perform the necessary test and to make careful accounting of the results.

6. Physical, public evidence can greatly strengthen inner, personal knowledge of the truth of the Restored Gospel. Inner, personal knowledge can be likened to the warp of woven cloth. Public knowledge becomes the woof which when tightly woven into a strong warp, adds strength and substance to a testimony.

7. Qualities of testimony: Strong: Base for great faith and sacrifice. Weak: Cannot stand opposition. Sure: Sufficient evidence to surmount reasonable doubt: Daily contact with the enlarging and beneficent power of the Holy Spirit (Alma’s test). Unsure: Not enough experiments performed (faith) to be sure of the dependability of God. Present: Cooperation with the Holy Spirit today. Past: Memory of sure cooperation with the Holy Spirit, but no present cooperation.

8. Summary and Conclusions:

a. The essence of testimony is present, inner experience with the Holy Spirit. Public, physical knowledge about the Restored Gospel is helpful but only when tightly woven into daily cooperation with the Holy Spirit.
b. Inner experience, evidence, comes only through faith (after initial witness of the Holy Spirit). Doing!
c. If a person hungers and thirsts after righteousness, he or she will perform the inner experiments necessary to gain a sure testimony of the Restored Gospel. Lacking that desire, no one can gain sure and lasting evidence.
d. A testimony is always an inner, personal, non-transferable thing, a selected summary of the inner experiments of the person. Witness may be born, but the evidence cannot be transferred.
e. Any person who has a sure testimony of the workings of the Holy Spirit through the laws and ordinances of the Restored Gospel can also endure to a sure knowledge of the Son and of the Father, if he or she so desires in faith.

January 11, 1985

Principles of Interpreting Scripture, 1984

December 1984

The following principles are important in learning to interpret the scriptures of the Restored Gospel.

1. The fullness of the scriptures is the key to knowledge.

The scriptures do not bring knowledge of themselves, for they are only sets of inkblots on paper. But as those inkblots are examined prayerfully in the name of the Savior, that study becomes an occasion for revelation from the Father through the Holy Ghost. Those revelations are the word of God, which is His law. Willing, heartfelt obedience to that law is faith in Jesus Christ. As a person lives by that faith, a person gains knowledge of the being and ways of God. The fulness of the scriptures provides all a person needs to ponder to get enough revelation to begin the process of knowing God. Thus the fulness of the scriptures is the key to knowledge. (Luke 11:53, JST Version)

2. There is a parallelism between things physical and things spiritual. All things physical have a spiritual counterpart.

Whenever the scriptures tell a story or mention a physical object, whatever is being discussed physically has a spiritual counterpart which should be sought. For instance, the ark which Noah built to save the animals and righteous souls from the great flood is a representation of the new and everlasting covenant of God which will save every righteous soul from the flood of evil which is called in the scriptures “the world”. Every so-called temporal commandment has a spiritual counterpart and purpose. For instance, the word of wisdom as given in D&C 89 is a representation of the wisdom of God which will save every person spiritually, even as the temporal commandments help a person physically. (D&C 29)

3. It is the spiritual side of existence which governs and drives the physical side, not vice versa.

It is sometimes tempting to think that physical things govern themselves, that the physical universe is a great clock which just ticks on with all of its gears meshing. A fundamental contrary truth of the scriptures is that everything physical is governed by the spiritual order of existence. For instance, it is natural to assume when a storm comes that it is simply the natural play of atmospheric physics at work. While indeed there are aspects of atmospheric physics at work, all is governed and controlled by the hand of God. Thus there never was a storm which did not accomplish exactly that which God wanted it to perform and commanded it to perform. To please God, we must recognize His hand in all things. (D&C 59)

4. We should liken the scriptures unto ourselves.

The real fruit of all scripture is to help each individual to receive and to be faithful to the present revelations of God as they are received by that person at a given moment. The value of reading the scriptures is, then, to inquire of the Lord constantly as to how what we are reading applies to our present situation and predicaments. Knowing the scriptures does not of itself save us in any way. But making application of the scriptures to our daily lives in this manner is the very thing which will save us if we are faithful unto those revelations. (1 Nephi 19:43)

This principle is a species of a more general principle which would have us liken all things unto ourselves. Whenever we see anyone speaking or acting, we should ask ourselves what we would and should do as covenant servants of the Savior in that situation. Whenever we see a problem to be solved, we should ask how that problem could best be solved in the Savior’s way. Since the formation of a Christlike character is our most important and most precious accomplishment in this world, and since that character is formed basically by making correct decisions, likening all things to ourselves and making Christlike decisions in all things greatly increases the density of our character forming decisions in daily life. Thus likening all things to ourselves hastens the process of taking upon ourselves the divine nature and prepares us for making correct decisions when those decisions are our own stewardship reality.

The scriptures are especially helpful in the process of likening all things to ourselves because there we see in addition to the usual worldly mistakes of men the godly acts of good men. To be constantly in the presence of holy persons would be a great advantage in learning to make correct decisions in this life. While most of us may not actually live daily with a prophet of God, we can live in our imagination with the prophets of the scriptures and burn into our souls the values, beliefs and action patterns of those godly men.

December 11, 1984