Blog

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!

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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:

• 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.