Comments on: The Shape of Agency Part 1

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:26:33 +0000

Moderately. I’ve read some of his papers but I don’t know the nuances of his views.

I’ll get into the philosophical views once I do the metaphoric plumbing.

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:00:20 +0000

“I’m consciously avoiding the philosophic debate by focusing more on a literary analysis of the underlying metaphor.”

That’s probably best. I guess I’m mostly just thinking out loud.

BTW, how familiar are you with Robert Brandom’s work?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:30:05 +0000

I’ll get to the topic of mediation in a subsequent post. I touched on the idea that the boundary isn’t absolute. I think that ends up tied to the question of mediation. However typically in the philosophical tradition the boundary is absolute. (That’s the topic for the next post)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:24:06 +0000

In the context of locating agency within a ‘sphere’ or ‘space’ it would seem to suggest that it is not an unmediated process. This is a common perspective in the social sciences notably in linguistic anthropology where language as a form of social action plays a significant role in shaping inter-subjectivity in social groups, and is not seen as the sole property of individuals..
The view of agency as acting, and not being acted upon, fails to acknowledge the reflexive dimension of acting whereby we act upon and experience ourselves, as we act.
From this perspective it would seem that the task is to more specially define the nature of the sphere, particularly in terms of the kinds of relational work that is afforded in the contexts that are evident. After all, no one just ‘acts’.

By: Clark

Clark — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:11:22 +0000

Just to note I’m consciously avoiding the philosophic debate by focusing more on a literary analysis of the underlying metaphor. What I think happens is we have our philosophical conceptions that cloud how we read the scriptural notions.

By: Walker Wright

Walker Wright — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:51:57 +0000

Chris Jones has an interesting post at Juvenile Instructor on the 19th-century context of “agency”: http://juvenileinstructor.org/mormonism-and-agency-a-historical-query/

By: fbisti

fbisti — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:29:25 +0000

While the OP is complex, fairly comprehensive and well written. I disagree. I think most of what is there is “free will” to act and not be “acted upon” not Agency. But, I don’t have the depth of understanding to be confident with regard to all of that.

However, I am quite confident in my understanding of Agency. It is, on the face of it, simple. Agency is the inherent nature of humans–in whatever state of existence (pre, post, mortal)–to change themselves.

In my terminology, one can be said to choose to be kind, humble, and honest, but it is more accurate to say one is *being* kind, humble, or honest. I make that distinction because becoming righteous (or, since it is a continuum, more righteous) in all these many ways, is a process of changing ourselves (otherwise known as repentance) and willing ourselves to be (internally, “in our hearts,” etc)—not just to act as if—that. This is not an attribute subject to being “a gift” because we are co-eternal with God, He didn’t create us. However, lack of knowledge (“of good and evil”) or mental illness might limit it, as, it seems it does young children. It is inherent, intrinsic, uncreated. We are “agents unto ourselves.”

Once a person has sufficient “knowledge” he/she can will themselves to being more or less “righteous.” It is our natural state/ability. Hence we are “accountable”–responsible–for the nature of our character, our intent, our desires, etc. at any given moment. We cannot be tempted beyond our ability to withstand simply because of Agency. God did not put some governor on Satan that is unique to each of us. Judgment consists simply of taking the measure of our righteousness. There is no “judgment bar,” no actual book of life to be opened–that book is our character. My theory with regard to those we term “not accountable” is that their character isn’t actually changed by their actions and intents/thoughts due to no “knowledge” or mental illness. So their character is also a function of their agency.

I think that is simpler. Maybe not.

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:27:21 +0000

Great post, Clark. The idea of a sphere is something I’d never focused on too much.

On my reading, I think “sphere” is essentially the same as “stewardship”. It is a morally structured space defined by the boundaries of (il)legitimacy.

There are some things it is illegitimate for me to do and others it is illegitimate for me *not* to do them. The vast majority of possible choices, however, are completely open and free, falling within my own “sphere” of moral legitimacy.

Let me elaborate a bit more by repeating what I’ve said in other threads.

X is morally wrong iff:
1) My moral community *DOES* condemn/punish X, and
2) My moral community condemns/punishes those who *DO NOT* condemn/punish X.

Similarly, Y is morally free iff:
1) My moral community *DOES NOT* condemn/punish Y, and
2) My moral community condemns/punishes those who *DO* condemn/punish Y.

The window of which the BoM speaks in this life is basically an assignment of who and when condemnation/punishment at the corresponding 1st and 2nd orders can and cannot be legitimately meted out.

To be sure, all of what I’ve said goes well beyond what the scriptures actually say. Just one perspective that people can take or leave as they like.