[MD] Seriously, Dan

[John Carl]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think for the sake of clarity that dictionary definitions are the
> place to start; there are a number. I'm not here to bore you though.
> Let's instead strive for preciseness. What I seem to be asking is: as
> a member of this 21st century western culture, do you have confidence
> in the truth of reality?
>
>
The TRUTH of reality?  Well to be precise, no.  I do not believe in the
truth of reality.

They're  of two differing realms, for one thing.  Reality, for me, is an
image-oriented construct and truth is a logos-oriented construct.   The word
and the image are of different provenance.  For instance, if I want to see
if something is real, I open my eyes.  If I want to know if something is
true, I open my analytical brain.  The eyes can lie, the brain can be
mistaken, but I keep 'em seperate for clarity's sake.

This is Jaques Ellul's teaching, which I've expounded upon before (and
before and before and... but hey, Bo repeats himself on occasion too) and I
believe you and I have wrangled over a time or two, Dan, so some of this
should sound vaguely familiar.  And it feels a bit pedantic to go on about
it, but you did ask for precision.

Reality in my cosmology, is a S/O construct evolved in mammalian
consciousness.  Truth is exclusively of an human intellectual value system.
Beliefs have more to do with reality than truth does.  Thus I do believe in
my reality, but I recognize the limitations of beliefs in that the
image-oriented belief system is and ought to be, subservient to the
truth-oriented intellectual system.

Does this clear things Up?  lol

If not, you know where to find me!

John