Quote JA The main trick is to not find one aspect of anything but three. The mixing up problem is any time there is a misunderstanding about which of the three we are talking about, or it is not clear that there is three different viewpoints,End.
-------------------------------------------- Adrie 2 aspects ,the third is the combination of the former 2. so , Peterson is wright,Matt is wright, and DMB is wright. True for no reason!(chaitin) i will give you a link, can you pay attention to the endparagraph?and especially the endsentence? -Analytical knowledge (Peterson) -Inductive knowledge( Matt, ) -The two combined!( DMB) http://www.settheory.com/intro.html 2010/12/24 Jan-Anders <[email protected]> > Hi Matt > > The three classes was very nice displayed > > Matt: > Here is Rorty's epistemology in a nutshell: > > Knowledge is (1) justified (2) true (3) belief. > (3) Belief? A belief is a habit of action. (Pierce) > (2) True? What is true is what is good to believe. (James and Pirsig) > (1) Justified? What we are justified in believing is what we have good > reason to believe. (disambiguation of James) > > This is all just a disambiguation of James rather than a contradiction > of James considering we have "The TRUE is the name of whatever proves > itself to be good in the way of BELIEF, and good, too, for definite, > assignable (JUSTIFICATION) reasons" > > When James talks about the need to have "definite assignable reasons," > in retrospect, we can read him as talking about requirements for > knowledge rather than truth. For a person to be said to have knowledge > it is not enough to get lucky in stumbling onto the truth. One has to > have good reasons for believing it. > > James has all three aspects of a JTB notion of knowledge here which > allows us to say A. ...that what we are justified in believing is not > necessarily true. > B. Justification is our only concern in practice since justification > is our only route to truth. > C. The word "true" preserves the cautionary note that what we are > justified in believing may turn out to have been false as well as the > common sense notion that "getting lucky" (holding an unjustified > belief that turns out to be true) does not count as knowledge. > > Jan-Anders: > > Both the Dynamic Quality and just any Static Quality has three classes like > this 1,2,3 and A(3), B(1) and C(2) as above. > > All are there as parts of the general conditions that separates the > possible from the impossible. These conditions consist of three independent > classes or dimensions. > Try to imagine a conditions as a magnetic field from north to south that > covers the complete universe and directs all energy to follow the conditions > about mass and energy, the first law of enthropy for ex. All energy is > following these conditions and appear as the conditions tell. 1+1=2 and > 2-1=1. Energy can not be created and not be destroyed. > Now imagine that there is another completing magnetic field working in a > perfect normal angle to the first so that like from beside it affects all > energy and existing beings in another way independently from the first > magnetic field. This second field of conditions are about how the energy can > be located to each other. Any isolated piece of energy can be placed here > and there following another kind of mathematics. The maths of arithmetic and > trigonometrics. Triangulas and things. Elements and Molecules for example. > The answer to why the oxygen in water molecules are placed just there and > not just anywhere. > If we have two independent "magnetic fields" of conditions working on all > things in the universe we can see that there is place for another. If we > call it the first North-South and the other one East-West, there is place > for another in the Up-Down direction. A third set of conditions which > separates the possible from the impossible. This set or class of conditions > are affecting the formed energy in another way independently from the two > first. This is about what kind of freedom to change there is for anything. > This set of conditions is the one needed for time to occur for example, > other wise the whole universe would have been a complete static matter. The > maths of statistics, quantmechanics and so on. > > We have conditions for energy, order and action simultaneously. All managed > by the general conditions that separates the possible from the impossible. > These conditions are for everything, things, thoughts and concepts. That's > how James and Rortys epistemology correspond. > > 1. The real mass, energy or number of it. > 3. The shape or the form of it. > 2. The expression of the form or the value to other "its". > > I showed as example the little word it, how it is made up of two letters, > they must be presented in a certain order and still can have any meaning to > you depending on the circumstances of our communication. > > The conditions for mass or number, quantity and so on is independent of how > the mass is organized. A tetraeder can be built by apples, trigonometric > points or planets. The value or usefulness of a screw can be represented by > various combinations and any one of them is exchangable. > > B. As I see the aspects above is the justification about the reality > behind. > A. The belief is the form of our concept made out of the accessible facts. > C. The true is the value of the expression. Take it or leave it. > > A disambiguation of this is not working because it is not a double but a > triple. It should better be known as a distribiguation. Which means that the > three aspects of the reality, the Buddha or the Quality should by this > remain viewable in three dimensions. > > The main trick is to not find one aspect of anything but three. The mixing > up problem is any time there is a misunderstanding about which of the three > we are talking about, or it is not clear that there is three different > viewpoints, then the discussion fails because the premises are different. It > is like one person talking about the weight of a pig and the other think > it's a > > The Earth is not flat, it is round. Time is not just a line between two > events, time is like a glome, a hypersphere with three dimensions. Truth is > abolute, approximative and acceptable simultaneously. Quality is not > straight but bent around a whippin post. > > I play with this sometimes and that is what makes sentences like "Something > is what it is worth waiting for.." > > Christmas is making all things busy. We are making a big gathering tomorrow > with some friends. Horse-sleighing, -15 centigrade and a lot of snow here. > Beautiful light colors in the sky. Fine whiskey, hot Jagermeister and winter > beer. > > Happy Xmas to all of you. > > > Jan-Anders > 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 > -- parser 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
