Hello Ham, To get back to truth, your definition of truth is not based on a state of permanence and not based on a measurement of time, so on what is your definition of truth based? You say truth equates to reality, but if all is truth how is it recognized?
Marsha On May 5, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > Dear Marsha -- > >> I understand the only way towards an Ultimate Truth is to >> discover the falseness of static patterns(experience): not this, >> not that. There is no permanence to static patterns(experience) >> so in what sense could they ever be true. Could it be that >> patterns that last longer are somehow more true? But that >> would mean time is the measure of truth, and time is itself >> a static pattern of value. > > I don't think we can "discover falseness" any more than we can discover > truth, for the former is only the negation of the latter. If we can't know > what is true, how can we know what isn't? In other words, if Truth is > fallible, so is Falsity > > But, as your post is the only response I've received so far (thank you), I > shall try to think in "patterns" so that I can address your question. Time > is no "measure of truth", no matter how long a principle remains valid. > Besides, in positing a truth, it should be possible to state that 'X' will be > true until superseded by 'Y'. > > The problem I have with your epistemology, Marsha, is that it rejects both > Truth and the knowing subject. That makes you something of a nihilist when > it comes to fundamental principles. Your "interactively patterned " Reality > is a house of cards without foundation or purposeful design, except (perhaps) > for what is purported to be Quality's "evolution toward betterness" which you > will never live to see. > > Truth for me equates to Reality, just as do Value, Sensibility, and > Intelligence. But because human experience is on the outer fringe of > Reality, we can only know these essential components (patterns) > incrementally, or relationally, and never in their absolute state. Yet, as > free agents, we are aware of "provisional" truths in the same way that we're > aware of "relative" values, and these are useful (pragmatic) principles in > guiding our lives-- especially since it is man's nature to seek Truth and > Value in existence. > > We have a pretty good handle on Value, thanks to pilosophers like Socrates, > Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Pirsig, but the indefinite nature of Truth > continues to be a source of confusion in philosophical circles. It was my > hope that by realizing Truth as a cosmic principle of experiential reality, > we might overcome some of the dialectical problems associated with it. > Apparently I was wrong, judging by the lack of response to this suggestion. > > I do appreciate your interest, though, Marsha. > > Essentially yours, > Ham > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
