Re: MD Truth

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 21 2003 - 21:18:32 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD Truth"

    Hi

    Heidegger calls truth aletheia. Which is to uncover or reveal,
    where lethe=the river of forgetting, so that truth is to remember,
    or to reunite what has been alienated from each other, i.e.
    overcoming what SOM has torn apart, or in Pirsig Quality=truth,
    so that quality contains/brings together subject and object as
    not separate.

    regards
    David M
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
      To: moq_discuss@moq.org
      Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 3:38 PM
      Subject: Re: MD Truth

      Hi Mark,

      --- Valuemetaphysics@aol.com wrote:
    > Forum,
    > Truth is closely connected, perhaps inseparable from reason and
    > rationality.
    > This being the case, would it be helpful to view truth as an
    > instrument?
    > Truth is valuable as a methodology; there appear to be a great number
    > of rational
    > methodologies from which to choose.
    > Does this indicate that reason is value driven?

      I think so, yes. And truth is indeed inseparable from reason and
      rationality, but to see truth one perhaps needs more ingredients, such
      as intuition. We have Goedel's theorem saying that (logical) truth can't
      be caught in a finite net. A minority of scientists has used this
      theorem to argue that because humans can see truth in mathematical
      statements and more, we're not bound to rational rules.
      This is a statement that is contested by many, in the AI field, and here
      on the MoQ-forum also. I don't care to bring up this discussion again,
      but there are two related assumptions that are either explicity or
      implicitely made in the discussion. a) some people assume that seeing
      truth is a cognitive quality by itself (based on but not determined by
      logical steps), as opposed to people who see truth as merely a
      pragmatical convention when a certain theory works (in the mind or in
      reality). b) Some people assume that the basis on which we found truth
      is on the conscious side, others assume that there is unconsious
      processing that biases or even creates on the conscious side the feeling
      or judgement of truth.

      The two assumptions, whether held 'true' or 'untrue', are related in the
      sense that once you assume that humans can't see truth based on
      consciously laid bare assumptions and logical steps, but assume that
      truth is processed partly unconsious or even pulls a joke with the
      informational content of our brain which is conscious, indeed the best
      we can say about truth is that it is that which 'works'. (Sorry for this
      long sentence).
      I think there's not only on the process of seeing concrete logical
      steps, but also the process of intuition. Intuition is like seeing
      vaguely a whole perceptual field, concrete rationality is like seeing
      sharply only an isolated part of the field. You can assume that
      intuition is just not seeing what 'is out there' good enough, but that
      what is 'out there' is defined and precise nevertheless. This relates
      very much to the assumptions of SOM. You can take intuition as being a
      form of quality by itself, not subdued by an objective world out there,
      but simply as a way of apprehending certain features of reality (that
      goes beyond the subject-object split).
      Anyhow, it could be the case that the act of choosing methodologies is
      an intuitive process, unless you assume that there can be found a
      methodology to choose the best methodology!

      Hope this makes sense a bit. You incidentally hit upon something that
      intrigues me a lot. With some things often brooding in one's mind, it's
      sometimes hard to bring it out and put it into words... there's a lot
      more to be said about this. Wonder what Moq'ists have to say about these
      matters.

      Greetings, Patrick.

      Hi Patrick,
      Thanks very much. I like this:
      'I think there's not only on the process of seeing concrete logical steps, but also the process of intuition. Intuition is like seeing vaguely a whole perceptual field, concrete rationality is like seeing sharply only an isolated part of the field.'
      Intuition seems pretty close to where DQ is at work, and this is an experience we may choose to reflect upon in everyday life?
      Problem solving? There, it just sprang into my head. Problem solving. We may choose our goals but rational enquiry must be directed towards them and not choose them - that choice is based upon Quality?
      Mark

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 21 2003 - 21:40:48 BST