To Bo:
Thanks so much for your extended answers (March 10th)
to my questions and my apologies for taking so long
in responding to them; gone somewhere else. I'm
commenting for the time being only on your ideas of
truth, which are, for me, the most noteworthy of your
Post. You write:
" Truth and
objectivity is the same, I know of no truth that's not
objective -
unless one reverts to SOM's of looking upon the old
myths as "their
form for reason". The real question is: Is there an
intrinsic
difference between subjectivity and objectivity
(mind and matter)?
The MOQ says that the fundamental "fault" is the DQ/SQ
one thus it
follows that intellect's S/O divide isn't fundamental
yet nevertheless
intellect's postulating such a chasm has brought us
modernity."
You claim that truth and objectivity are the same
and that you don't know of any truth that is not
objective. That's quite a pronouncement. My first
reaction was to say that's simply old-fashioned
Classical Positivism and just dismiss it. However,
I'm past the age when I'd dismiss ideas just on the
grounds of the labels attached to them. I mean, to put
a label like 'positivist', 'reductionist' ,
'creationist' and, if label disliked, dismiss
summarily the idea. That's the easy way out but it's
bad for learning new things. So, instead, let me
pursue your ideas and see where they can lead (and
please correct me if I go off track).
Claiming that no truth is such if it's not arrived to
through objectivity, would put 'scientific truths' at
the top of the scale. This, because by applying the
scientific method, we take the most extreme
precautions to approach objectivity (note I said to
approach and not to attain).
Problem with 'scientific truths' is that they are
provisional; they hold only for the Present, not for
the past nor for the future. A more strong word for
'provisional' would be ephemerous; ephemeral truths. A
bit more than a 100 years ago, atoms were considered
indivisible, the smallest units of matter, a bit later
the smallest units were protons, neutrons and
electrons and nowadays positrons, neutrinos, plus
others 'inos' and 'ons'; all these 'scientific truths'
arrived at maximizing objectivity. In 50 years from
now, we'll probably have other elementary particles
conforming the atoms.
So much (and not much) for truths arrived at
through objectivity. Alongside them we have other
propositions which are not based on objectivity.
Propositions like "God created the Universe" or
"Humans have immortal souls". You'd dismiss those on
the said grounds although most of Humanity consider
them as Truths of the highest order.
Under the same criterion one would have to dismiss
what I'd call 'personal truths' like in This is the
best beer I've ever had! which for the person in
question might be of the kind of 'the truth and
nothing but the truth' but far from objectivity.
I could go on mentioning other kinds of truths but
I suppose that, from the above, it seems to follow
that 'truths' are not really such a big deal, as some
philosophers contend, since the grounds on which
truths are based are pretty flimsy. (which, in more
learned words, is I think one of the tenants of
Pragmatism).
The above then, falls in line with the
paragraph you quote in yours (March 16th) that you
qualify as the "bone":
"But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate
reality
then it becomes possible for more than one set of
truths
to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute
"Truth."
One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual
explanation of things with the knowledge that if
the past is
any guide to the future this explanation must be
taken
provisionally; as useful until something better
comes
along. One can then examine intellectual
realities the
same way he examines paintings in an art gallery,
not
with an effort to find out which one is the "real"
painting,
but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of
value.
There are many sets of intellectual reality in
existence
and we can perceive some to have more quality than
others, but that we do so is, in part, the result
of our
history and current patterns of values."
Which I take to mean: we drop 'absolute truths"
because they are unattainable; we are left only with
'relative truths' which are either provisional (the
objective ones) or eternal but unverifiable (the
mystical ones). We are left merely with "sets of
intellectual reality" of which, as perceived, some
have more quality than others. Since quality thus
perceived is the result of our history and current
values, it is also ephemeral. We can expect no more
then than trying "to make sense of the world as
observed".Only that the last sentence may be taken to
be what,in colloquial language, Science is all about.
If I haven't gone "off the track" somewhere in the
above, it would appear that Science and the MOQ have
more in common than what previously assumed.
___________________________________________________________
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
