On May 6, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
> On May 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Marsha wrote: > > >> 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? > > My definition of Truth (with a cap 'T') is the same as RMP's definition of > DQ, as I understand it to be his "primary Reality". "Patterns", on the other > hand, are secondary manifestations or appearances of Quality as experienced > by human beings. It is my view that only by being presented with a > diversity of "impermanent" phenonema representing Truth can man be a free > agent of Value. Relative truths, like "quality patterns", point to the > primary Reality, causing us to realize the Value of something greater than > our S/O world, although that "something" is absolute and therefore beyond > human experience. > > I know you dislike biblical quotes, but the apostle Paul's instruction to the > Corinthians contains a very insightful statement that bears on this > valuistic concept: > > "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to > face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully > known." --[1 Corinthians 13:1] > > Subjective experience consists of "knowing in parts", and our reality is > intellectually compartmentalized into concrete pattterns, objects, phyla, > species, epochs, processes and hierarchies that define the order of existence. > > What I'm saying is that Ultimate Reality (which I call Essence) is undivided, > whereas experience is differentiated and relational. Thus, in the process of > experience we come to recognize, value and know certain aspects Essence that, > intuitively, can lead us to the realization of a greater reality. The > dimensions of time and space that subtend existential reality and the fact > that the universe is intelligently designed are additional aspects of Essence > (cosmic truths) that lead to this realization. > > Does this analysis add any enlightenment to my Truth theory? > > Best regards, > Ham Good evening Ham! This sounds good to me, Ultimate Truth (Quality) can only be approached by discovering what is not true - truth: not this, not that... Marsha > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > >> On May 5, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > >>>> 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
