Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Sun, 26 Oct 1997 06:36:35 +0100
Hi Doug and LS:
Doug wrote:
> If you stand in SOM, I see how you can make the observation about 'many
> truths' which you made. However, I do not see you standing in SOM.
> Much the opposite -- you understand, as Bo has said, MoQ better than
> most of us (TLS).
>
> I do not frame my 'many truths to you,' in SOM. My context for that
> phrase is MoQ.
>
> To me both MoQ and QM prefer a precondition - 'many truths.' Perhaps I
> should add the word 'potential,' but if we intuit MoQ and not SOM, Mtty
> seems OK, by itself, without the extra word 'potential.'
>
> Also, 'Mtty' IMhO subsumes SOM's one, absolute, deterministic truth as
> just one of the infinity of truths. This places SOM in its proper
> perspective: just one SPoV relegated to some obscure tiny corner of the
> unifying and inclusive MoQ.
>
> That is how I think about it. If it lacks MoQesque, please help me see
> how.
>
> One more item: I see QEs as 'decisions.'
Doug:
Many thanks for your kind comments. I feel we're both trying to push the
envelope of the MoQ into uncharted spaces (as are others on the LS),
struggling to overcome the limits of SOM intellectual patterns in order to
pierce the resistant core of the ineffable.
Your "contexts" solution is elegant. I think it's similar to "modes," a
word I've used once or twice without realizing its significance until you
excellent email of Oct. 15. I still have trouble keeping track of multiple
contexts, but take some relief from your caveat that "This is NOT easy."
I'm also attracted to Gene Kofman's fuzzy logic although it's mathematical
context raises a curtain of opacity that I who has trouble adding up
restaurant check find difficult to penetrate.
As you pointed out in a previous post, "many truths" contains the inherent
danger of promoting the idea of "truth is relative" as a postulate for the
virtue of tolerance. We must guard against the implication that because
there are many truths, one can never be right, thereby killing the quest
for the good, the true and the beautiful that we MoQites value so highly.
All this is a very round about way of saying I see your "many truths" as
being entirely compatible, indeed essential, to the MoQ. But permit me to
add some thoughts to your statement, "I see QEs as 'decisions'".
"Decisions" implies some sort of deliberation, a pause for reflection, a
considered opinion, a mulling over of options. Better I think to see QEs as
esthetic judgments--immediate, intuitive, undeliberate and involuntary,
leaving no room for conscious application of standards, criteria, rules or
precepts.
In other words, I see QEs as instantaneous whole judgments totally free of
static patterns whereas "decisions" suggest to me a secondary step, a
derivative of a QE.
I'd welcome your thoughts. And thanks for your many wonderful contributions
to the LS.
Platt
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:06 CEST