Hi Walter, Scott and all,
JONATHAN
> [...] a common "objective" discussion about
> truth is always a discussion WITHIN AN AGREED CONTEXT. The "validity" of
> context itself is outside the discussion - making it rather subjective.
>[snip]Context has to be
> implicitly agreed, and has to provide a comfortable working environment.
> This a quality judgement - coming *before* subjectivity vs. objectivity.
>
WALTER
> Great writing Jonathan. I'm intrigued by this 'Quality judgement'. It's
the
> (often) unconscious agreement/acceptance of the environment the Truth is
in.
> History has proven that this context can change or better shift immensely.
Take
> for example the first maps of the world being flat in stead of round. It's
the mythos
> that defines our truths ... that defines our Good.
There ARE attempts to define or objectify context.
SCOTT
>In reading through some of the "Life" posts, it occurred to me to wonder if
>Kurt Godel has been mentioned in this forum? Godel is, or was, the
>mathematician who supposedly proved that knowledge is forever incomplete:
we
>can never know everything.
Godel has come up several time before, and is very relevant here. Godel
showed that any attempt to define/objectify a system requires the
introduction of unproven assumptions (the context). As soon as you try and
fully determine those assumptions, you need to introduce still more
assumptions. Thus, Godel basically "proved" that context can never be
completely defined.
WALTER (to Jonathan)>
> You go on, writing: "However, the context isn't all subjective either". I
strongly
> agree with you, but I want to ask you on what you think this context is
based
> then? I've been poundering on this for some time. I'm affraid it comes
right back
> to the discussion that Struan once started and we never really finished
(see
> part of 'Pirsig on human nature'-june 99). This is an excerpt of the
posts:
>
> Struan:
> We are discussing nothing less than the whole concept of everything
being quality,
> assuming we use the term in anything more than the most banal sense where
> we could simply restate it as everything is X.
>
The question becomes "Is it valuable to try and define context even we know
that there is no end to it?"
I believe that it *is* sometimes valuable to define context. This adds to
knowledge. Sometimes the defficiencies of former implicit assumptions only
become apparent when one tries to define those assumptions. Unfortunately,
this involves gains and losses. A couple of nights ago I attended a banquet
at a museum, and was treated to the museum's Planetarium show - an
entertaining mix of science and special effects. By chance, I happened to
sit next to an acquaintance whom I know to be an astrophysicist, so
naturally I turned to her for an "expert" opinion. Her response was that her
knowledge in this case rather *spoiled* the show for her. As Pisig wrote in
ZAMM, you never gain something without losing something.
Thus, defining context can be both good and bad. It depends on what good
coms of it. IMO it was GOOD that the progress in astronomy put an end to
most of the stupid practices and beliefs arising out of mumbo-jumbo
astrology. However, it can be plain irritating when some academic ruins a
piece of art or literature by analyzing it to death.
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:35 BST