[MD] Ham's theory of Truth

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

Maybe a perfect time for:

"While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns.
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served."

And on to my statement that one can only approach the 
Ultimate Truth by discovering what is false.  Time:  not this, 
not that.   

Respectfully,
Marsha 

 
It's true!  It's true!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDAVjUCvNfI  
 
 
 
  
 
 
On May 5, 2010, at 8:09 PM, MarshaV 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?  
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 5, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
> 
>> Dear Marsha --
>> 
>>> 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 Besides, in positing a truth, it should be possible to state that 'X' will be true until superseded by 'Y'.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
>> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___