Feedback from ppl:
matthew wrote;.....................>
> > Brilliant!
> > in itself, the apocryphal story clears nothing up, but the underlying
> > principle is clear: the best each of us can attain is a well-tuned
> > subjective viewpoint.
>
> Ah, but what are we tuning this subjective viewpoint to?!
>
> > Such a viewpoint (for an "intelligent individual")
> > contains a theoretical construct called "objective reality". When this
is
> > well developed, it is in close agreement with others' "objective
reality".
>
> Hmm, interesting. I wonder why there's so much agreement?!
A:- because we are all the product of remarkably similar evolutionary
processes, possesed of remarkably similar perceptual mechanisms
>
> > But the only way it could be Identical would be if we were able to
> > simultaneously occupy some other's space-and-time. given that (to the
best
> > of my knowledge) we can't, then there are circumstances whereby there is
> > survival value attached to the notion that someone else's subjective
> > viewpoint may be equally as practically valid as my own. This is
inherent in
> > a communicative species ( : pack animal). In a species that has evolved
as
> > highly individual "sociopaths" (even "psychopaths") such as sharks, for
> > example, such a story would literally have no meaning. But then there
would
> > be little or no language to express such ideas in, anyhow.
>
> Okay, obviously everyone isn't going to view reality the exact same way,
but
> this doesn't make everyone's viewpoint true. If I maintain that the earth
> is flat, I am holding a false belief. I verify this not by checking to
see
> what other people believe, but by looking at the empirical evidence that
> proves the earth is round.----------
A That's just the point: To all intents and purposes, (and because of the
nature of the 'general belief' [what I've elsewhere referred to as 'group
subjective experience], and our relationship with such) for a period in
human history, the earth WAS flat. Only a lunatic (or heretic) wiould have
maintained otherwise), in the face of all the 'evidence'. I know this sounds
perilously close to Berkely's position, and indeed I don't think he
seriously proposed what people think he did.
>
> There has to be a measuring stick here people.
A: - interesting analogy; -no measuring stick is actually precisely/exactly
correct; without a stated 'margin of error', eg. +/-1mm, or 1 molecule, or
whatever.
I've said this before: there is no such thing in the world of scientific
observation as an EXACT measurement, or value,or whatever. ONLY in
mathematics is such exactitude possible
We each hold a set of
> beliefs about reality, and in that sense, there are multiple "subjective
> viewpoints." If that's all you guys are saying, that's fine, but to call
> them "truths" is absurd. .................
A:- But these are the only truths any of us can have,.....
We measure the validity of our beliefs by how well
> they conform to our experiences.
A:-....one could equally say we measure our experiences by how well they
conform to our beliefs; in fact humans generally are a mixture of "top down"
and "bottom up" approaches to the comparison between one's predictive models
(perceptual mechanisms) and external yardsticks such as 'popular belief',
objective reality, etc.
In fact, I should point out that this is exactly the argument about the
nature of the universe-and-our-place in it that has raged for >2,500 years;
and most of the arguments do actually boil down to whether 'higher truths'
are a conceptual elaboration of what we empirically observe, or conversely,
higher reality ( /ideal forms,etc) has an independant existence, to which we
as creatures 'blinded by our own subjective needs' could barely aspire.
This was expressed most cogently as dualism by Descartes, and my reading of
Pirsig was that it was exactly this false dichotomy that he was trying to
circumnavigate.
The point is, these experiences come from
> ONE source: Quality. We can't decide what Quality is. It simply is. We
> experience patterns of value and then construct more patterns of value
> (intellectual ones) to explain them....
A:- Can't disagree with that!
>
> Hmm, I just had an interesting revelation. The quality of intellectual
> patterns is determined by how well they explain other patterns. In fact,
> that's the whole point of intellect: knowledge.... wisdom.... truth.
> Science drives toward understanding how inorganic, biological, and social
> patterns work. The mind (through science) is trying to understand value.
> That's it. Truth, then, may seem to be an intellectual pattern, but this
> isn't precisely the case. Beliefs are intellectual patterns. Truth is
> merely the level of value that beliefs have. If beliefs conform to
reality
> (the other patterns of value), then they are true and have high quality.
>
> Of course, there's still only one truth. Reality (Quality, patterns of
> value, or whatever) IS a certain way. Beliefs are true/good if they
reflect
> this reality. Hmm, true=good. Interesting.
>
> Of course, truth is only one type of good....
>
>
> Evolutionary Goals of Quality:
>
> inorganic: order
> biological: life
> social: law
> intellectual: truth
>
>
> Dynamic Quality, nevertheless, pervades all. The nature of inorganic
order,
> biological order, and social order is ever-changing, and so must be the
> truth that explains them. That is, our beliefs might be true one day and
> false the next -- Bill Clinton will no longer be President a year from
now.
> :)
>
> - Matt
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST