Hi Marsha,
2009/4/22 MarshaV <[email protected]> > At 06:35 AM 4/22/2009, you wrote: > >> >> > >> > There is no true me. (T)ruth is the discovery that I am false. Yes? >> > >> >> you are a pattern of value - and you said all patterns are true - are you >> eating your words now? >> > > Greetings KO, > > It is a matter of conventionally true and Absolutely True. Conventionally, > I am (boringly) an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and > interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static > patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality. That would be the > uncapitalized version of true. (T)rue with a capitalized 'T' is that the > _independent (inherent) existence_ of such a self is false because it has > dependent origination and is a conceptual construct. The 'self's' existence > is dependent on thought. There is no contradiction, but I may be very poor > at explaining. > I get the gist of what you are saying but still think, as we have been over before, that use of the word 'true' here does seems inappropriate to me; i suppose i am used to the logical meanings of true and false - you know like : All men are mortal; Socrates is a man therefor Socrates is mortal. Also the idea of truth in whether a person is disguising their real intentions. I can dig that a cat has buddha nature but not that a cat is true. I just want it to be understood clearly,neutrinos and oxytocin aside, that > > Science has investigated and studied how to manufacture desire, > manufacture > > the "wanting", public manipulation; advertising and propaganda, baloney > and > > garbage, are the child of Science too. > > > > For a metaphysics that is suppose to be grounded in Radical Empiricism > and > > Pragmaticism, how is one suppose to act on information created by Science > > when it cannot be experienced and is profit-driven? Trust? Is this an > > unimportant question? Maybe this should be answered by those who want to > > say that Scientific patterns are more than just conceptual constructs. > What > > does Science know, and how does it know it? > > Again, i think that what you have said above is down to some of the dishonest people using science - not science itself. As i see it science is the attempt to accurately model observed phenomena with the aim of prediction. Science uses many methods having the similar problem of 'affirming the > antecedent'. Affirming the antecedent is valid only if the original propositions are true. Science is dynamic because with more observation we see that some of the original propositions have exceptions and can be refined. > I know, I've heard all that rigamarole about simplicity, elegance and > beauty, but that's just a human value, a conventional prejudice. The better > answer may be complicated and messy, or seem complicated and mess because of > our lack of better understanding. The elegance and beauty is part of nature and observations show that nature is parsimonious. Science did not invent gravity - but science makes gravity more useful > since > we understand better how it behaves > Which gravity, Newton's or Einstein's? Gravity, in either case, is just a > useful conceptual construct, abstract patterns of value. There is no such > independent thing. If you think it is something else, please explain what > it is. People recognised the tendency of things to fall to the earth long before Newton put numbers to it. When a cat plays with a mouse, batting it about with its paws, it instinctively knows that the mouse will fall down again. Before humans existed apples still fell to the earth. -KO 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/
