Greetings Joe,
If I look to the West, truth looks one way, and if I look to the East the
truth looks another way. I never want to be the one who assumes truth to
be: This is what I think, this what I feel, so this is the way it is...
I would have never thought so, but I am beginning to think that the closer I
look, the further I get from any kind of "truth". The generality is closer
to the truth, the specific instance is just made up story, myth, or maybe a
beautiful song, or poem. But I don't know...
Marsha
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Truth and the Linguistic Turn
On Tuesday 27 May 2008 10:17 PM Marsha writes to Krimel:
Krim: It allows an purely naturalistic universe in which things
evolve slowly from the bottom up.
DM: Does anyone here disagree?
[Krimel]
I suspect some do but do they? Anyone? Anyone?
[Marsha]
I do not like the top-down or bottom-up model. I like the Net Of >
Jewels
Model: The universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in > which each
is
only the reflection of all the others in a fantastic > interrelated
harmony
without end.
[Krimel]
Could just be me but this makes not a bit of sense. I can't for the >
life
of me see the middle way between top down and bottom up leading
anywhere.
Greetings Krimel,
[Marsha]
I haven't taken the net of jewels model to represent the middle way. It's
how I see it, 'interconnected reflections', or interconnected, overlapping
patterns. I have never been terribly comfortable with a hierarchical
structure because it forbids the possibility of overlapping categories.
Though, it is favored in the sciences, isn't it? And very patriarchal.
Besides, where is it you want to be lead? Who's on top? How utterly
boring?
Marsha
On Wednesday 28 May 2008 6:42 PM Matt writes to Ron:
<snip>
[Matt to Ron:]
If I'm reading you correctly, then we already agree on a lot. It sounds to
me that in the above you are making a distinction between "certainty" (which
we have of experiences) and "verifiable certainty" (which is something we
need for knowledge/truth). I understand the latter by way of your further
statement later, "To me, there seems to be a discrepancy from certainty and
whether or/Not it is true or false."
I take the above to be in full accordance with my, "And it is agreed by most
philosophers (and all laypeople) that knowledge and process of finding truth
begins with our experience of the world. But what is the utility in placing
truth in the moment of presentness if it might be false when it becomes the
past in the next moment?" The first statement is the agreement on "we all
start from the first-person stance." I would take your answer to the
question to be, "None, there is no utility in placing truth there."
Hi Matt, Marsha, and all,
[Matt]
"And it is agreed by most philosophers (and all laypeople) that knowledge
and process of finding truth begins with our experience of the world.
[Joe]
I like Marsha¹s point of view: there are different ways of viewing the
world! Nicoll talks about a distinction between ³impressions² and
³associations². The distinction he is drawing is echoed in Persig¹s
statement: ³Culture hands us a set of glassesS.² When I was young my first
impressions became organized into associations of behavior in society!
Later in life impressions fall on these associations, instead of consciousy
and my outlook becomes mechanical from a very young age.
[Matt]
But what is the utility in placing truth in the moment of presentness if it
might be false when it becomes the past in the next moment?"
[Joe]
If I don¹t allow my consciousness of the ³present², but only my associations
of the past, I will have no hint that my behavior depends on mechanical
associations learned at my mom¹s knee. I am acting like a child, with no
hint that I am acting mechanically, not consciously from developed
faculties. It has always worked before. If I make no mistakes in going
beyond my youthful associations, I live my life in mechanical sleep. I
live, but am I alive?
[Joe]
IMO Matt and Marsha arrive at the same page, life, from different
perspectives: variety is a difficulty of life, or variety is the spice of
life. How many varieties does life come in? Is the inorganic a ³present
variety² of life? Why isn¹t evolution discovered in a ³process of finding
truth in our experience of the world?²
Joe
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/
