[MD] Ham's theory of Truth

[Ham Priday]

On May 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Marsha wrote:


> Hello Ham,
>
> To get back to truth, your definition of truth is not based on
> a state of permanence and not based on a measurement of time,
> so on what is your definition of truth based?  You say truth
> equates to reality, but if all is truth how is it recognized?

My definition of Truth (with a cap 'T') is the same as RMP's definition of 
DQ, as I understand it to be his "primary Reality".  "Patterns", on the 
other hand, are secondary manifestations or appearances of Quality as 
experienced by human beings.   It is my view that only by being presented 
with a diversity of "impermanent" phenonema representing Truth can man be a 
free agent of Value.  Relative truths, like "quality patterns", point to the 
primary Reality, causing us to realize the Value of something greater than 
our S/O world, although that "something" is absolute and therefore beyond 
human experience.

I know you dislike biblical quotes, but the apostle Paul's instruction to 
the Corinthians  contains a very insightful statement that bears on this 
valuistic concept:

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to 
face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully 
known."    --[1 Corinthians 13:1]

Subjective experience consists of "knowing in parts", and our reality is 
intellectually compartmentalized into concrete pattterns, objects, phyla, 
species, epochs, processes and hierarchies that define the order of 
existence.

What I'm saying is that Ultimate Reality (which I call Essence) is 
undivided, whereas experience is differentiated and relational.  Thus, in 
the process of experience we come to recognize, value and know certain 
aspects Essence that, intuitively, can lead us to the realization of a 
greater reality.  The dimensions of time and space that subtend existential 
reality and the fact that the universe is intelligently designed are 
additional aspects of Essence (cosmic truths) that lead to this realization.

Does this analysis add any enlightenment to my Truth theory?

Best regards,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On May 5, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

>>> I understand the only way towards an Ultimate Truth is to
>>> discover the falseness of static patterns(experience): not this,
>>> not that.  There is no permanence to static patterns(experience)
>>> so in what sense could they ever be true.  Could it be that
>>> patterns that last longer are somehow more true?  But that
>>> would mean time is the measure of truth, and time is itself
>>> a static pattern of value.
>>
>> I don't think we can "discover falseness" any more than we can discover 
>> truth, for the former is only the negation of the latter.  If we can't 
>> know what is true, how can we know what isn't?   In other words, if Truth 
>> is fallible, so is Falsity
>>
>> But, as your post is the only response I've received so far (thank you), 
>> I shall try to think in "patterns" so that I can address your question. 
>> Time is no "measure of truth", no matter how long a principle remains 
>> valid. Besides, in positing a truth, it should be possible to state that 
>> 'X' will be true until superseded by 'Y'.
>>
>> The problem I have with your epistemology, Marsha, is that it rejects 
>> both Truth and the knowing subject.  That makes you something of a 
>> nihilist when it comes to fundamental principles.  Your "interactively 
>> patterned " Reality is a house of cards without foundation or purposeful 
>> design, except (perhaps) for what is purported to be Quality's "evolution 
>> toward betterness" which you will never live to see.
>>
>> Truth for me equates to Reality, just as do Value, Sensibility, and 
>> Intelligence.  But because human experience is on the outer fringe of 
>> Reality, we can only know these essential components (patterns) 
>> incrementally, or relationally, and never in their absolute  state.  Yet, 
>> as free agents, we are aware of "provisional" truths in the same way that 
>> we're aware of "relative" values, and these are useful (pragmatic) 
>> principles in guiding our lives-- especially since it is man's nature to 
>> seek Truth and Value in existence.
>>
>> We have a pretty good handle on Value, thanks to pilosophers like 
>> Socrates, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Pirsig, but the indefinite nature of 
>> Truth continues to be a source of confusion in philosophical circles.  It 
>> was my hope that by realizing Truth as a cosmic principle of experiential 
>> reality, we might overcome some of the dialectical problems associated 
>> with it. Apparently I was wrong, judging by the lack of response to this 
>> suggestion.
>>
>> I do appreciate your interest, though, Marsha.
>>
>> Essentially yours,
>> Ham