On Nov 28, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Steven Peterson wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > > On 11/28/11, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since patterns (truths) have no independent existence, I might agree that >> there is no basis on which to call anything true. Good or bad? Sure, from >> a static perspective, but not true. >> >> This might add something interesting to the discussion. It's an interesting >> lecture by, a philosopher, a Professor Cahoone: >> >> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sg-SGofRFo&feature=related > > Steve: > You say that there is no basis to call anything true. What sort of a > basis ought something have to warrant being called true?
None. As I think I've mentioned before, it is said the best way to approach the Ultimate Truth is by discovering what is false. That there is no truth is a big bubble to burst. > Why does "true" have to mean anything more than that a claim has held up > against all objections that have been raised and that we have hope it > will continue to stand up to objections raised in the future? We hope the best ones hold up into the future. > How can a claim to truth be more adequate than to stand up to such scrutiny? It should be said it, a claim, stands up under scrutiny. > To what else should such a claim need to be adequate other than our > own human needs and interests? And understanding of the interconnectedness of all needs and interests. > What non-human power could demand that our claims be thought of > as something more than tools for human use? None. Marsha ___ 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
