[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[Ham Priday]

Hi Craig --


 [Ham, previously]
> Since all knowledge is derived from experience,
> Truth is relative to the individual

[Craig]:
> Is this your argument?
> 1) knowledge is truth
> 2) all knowledge is derived from experience
> 3) :. all truth is derived from experience
> 4) experience is relative to the individual
> 5) :. Truth is relative to the individual

Extracted statements are dangerous, especially when defining something as 
complex as epistemology.

1) My argument (to Ron) is that Truth is an absolute which is not accessible 
to finite creatures.  For pragmatists interested in predictive reliability 
and relational (cause-and-effect) processes, "truth" is the knowledge, 
axiom, or dynamic principle that works to solve or answer a particular 
problem.  So, while "knowledge is truth" as it applies to the differented 
world, it is not Absolute Truth in the metaphysical sense.

2) Yes, knowledge of facts, principles, and events is the fund of 
information from which the intellect draws to make conclusions.  All 
knowledge is derived from experience.

3) What humans call "truth" is generally based on experience (i.e., 
experiential reality).  Logic and mathematical "truth" are intellectual 
precepts that reflect this experience.

4)  Yes, experience is proprietary to individual awareness, the psychic 
nature of which is value-sensibility.  Nothing is experienced that does not 
start as value-sensibility, which means that value is the ground of 
experiential reality.  As Pirsig rightly said, "If a thing is not valued, it 
does not exist."

5) Ibid: As stated above, insofar as Truth = Knowledge, it is relative to 
the locus of experiential existence, which is the individual.

Thanks for the questions, Craig.  How credible do you think my answers are?

Regards,
Ham