[MD] Ham's theory of Truth

[MarshaV]

On May 6, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 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
 
 
Good evening Ham!   

This sounds good to me,

Ultimate Truth (Quality) can only be approached by discovering 
what is not true - truth: not this, not that...   

  
Marsha
 
 
 
  


 
 
 
 
 
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
>> 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
> 
> 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


 
___