[MD] Ron, Rorty and Truth

[MarshaV]

On May 20, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Frank Booth wrote:

> [Marsha]
> Call me stupid if it makes you feel good, but it seems to me 
> the best that can be done is to start shifting the world-view from 
> truth as about subjects and objects, or ideal forms, to truth 
> as ever-changing, interdependent, impermanent, relative 
> patterns.
> 
> [Frank]
> Hi stupid.
> 
> Didn't work. Still feel like shit.

Not at all.  


> 
> There are two things:
> 
> There is a specification of Truth.
> 
> And there are things which satisfy the parameters of the specification of Truth.

I don't understand your interpretation.  I've adapted my understanding of truth/Truth from
my reading of Buddhism.  Convention truth, or relative truth, is static patterns, 
Ultimate Truth is Emptiness and is Quality.  Conventional truth and Emptiness are 
interdependent, and within the MoQ, static patterns patterns and Quality are interdependent. 
I have no understanding for your "specification".   


> 
> Obviously two very different things.

They do sound like different things and rules for manipulating them.   


> The classical specification for Truth is a synonym for STATIC.

Is this Aristotle's definition?  
 

> You want the specification to be a synonym for DYNAMIC.

Should there be a question mark at the end of that sentence, or do you 
want to explain?


> But the classical specification of Truth is a high quality Intellectual pattern, possibly the highest. It seems to get us somewhere.

Within the static structure of levels. 


> And what distinguishes the Intellect from the Social is greater freedom, i.e. DYNAMISM, EVOLUTION.

And would you say that it is greater freedom that _distinguishes_ the social from the biological?  Distinguishes?   


> An interesting contradiction.
> 
> But I claim that the specification for Truth specifies the empty set.

If you are talking in any way of static patterns, I might agree they are empty of independence, in fact, they are relative.

> 
> IN FACT IT MUST!
> 
> Otherwise we would have some "thing" that would serve as the fundamental axiom and we would be able to build from it the ultimate metaphysics that would explain everything we want to know.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> ( cascade of cheers and applause, the sound of cash registers overheating and slot machines exploding, wild horses stampeding )
> 
> We need that empty set. Can't do without it.


I suppose this means you weren't being serious.  




Marsha