[MD] The Quest for Quality

[Ham Priday]

Hello Craig --

I see you want to destroy my philosophy piece by piece.  OK, I won't flinch 
at what seems illogical to
Craig.

> [Ham]
> 1) absolute truth is inaccessible to the finite mind
> Where are you going with this principle:
> 2) all definitions are accessible to the finite mind
> 3) :. no absolute truths are definitions
> or perhaps
>
> 2') there are no non-finite minds
> 3') :. there are no absolute truths

I wrote about this in a piece I did for my Values Page some time ago, and 
dug it up to quote you some excerpts:

A pre-Socratic teacher by the name of Protagoras came to the conclusion that 
all truth is relative on the basis of his observations of the relativity of 
human perception.  What tastes sweet to one person may taste bitter to 
another.  What sounds melodious to me may sound discordant to you, etc.
He expressed his relativistic theory as "Man is the measure of all things, 
of the existence of things that are and of the non-existence of things that 
are not."  Protagoras could say this because, for him, reality was 
subjective.  That is, everything  in exiastence is quantified and 
interpreted by man.  And so it is with the general question: What does it 
mrean to say that a statement - ANY statement - is true?

Since empirical knowledge is based on our differentiated experience of 
physical reality, "objective" truth (of the kind that Socrates was concerned 
with) works - in fact is necessary - in a relational context.  However, we 
cannot logically apply truth or fiction to a transcendent reality which is 
as subjective as it is objective.  Actually, you see, this is asking the 
wrong question.  For if Truth is what is Real , it is first necessary to ask 
what is meant by Reality.  If our physical world is not the ultimate 
reality, as the Philosophy of Essence maintains, what is true in the 
objective world may be false insofar as ultimate reality is concerned.  In a 
reality in which objectivity and subjectivity are identical (as in Essence) 
there is no "different point of view", and whatever else Truth may confirm 
from a relational perspective, it is Absolute in (i.e., one with) Essence.

So, to address your syllogism . . .
(1) absolute truth is inaccessible to the finite mind
(2) "definitions" are accessible to man (because they define difference and 
are constructed by man)
(3) Absolute Truth is not a definition (because what is absolute is 
undifferentiated, thus incapable of definition)
(3') :. there are no absolute truths (in existence)

There are other ways to approach this conclusion, but I'm hoping this will 
suffice.  As you see, I am a relativist when it comes to both morality and 
knowledge.

Thanks for your analytical perspicacity.

Essentially yours,
Ham