[MD] On Truth

[118]

I would like to further explore an understanding of truth within the
MoQ framework.  This was brought to mind by Arlo's recent post in a
discussion wih Craig.  I have placed some of that post below as a
placeholder and launching point.

What I present following Arlo's paragraphs is in no way meant to be a
truth about truth.  Consistent with the MoQ teachings, what I present
is meant to be persuasive, not true.  This is the manner of rhetoric.
The argument is meant to be PLAUSIBLE NOT TRUE.  The tools of rhetoric
are many, and include the art of writing effectually and even
seductively.  Within the framework of MoQ, such tools are more
important than networking intellectual aspects of truth, such as logic
uses ("if this is true then that must be true").

But first Arlo's comments:

On 5/21/12, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Arlo]
> What we consider "true" is not absolute (in an objectivist view) nor is
> it 'whatever you want it to be' (in a subjectivist view), but a pattern of
> value that 'works' in such and such context, but certainly it can and does
> change.
>
> "[James] said, "The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in
> the way of belief." "Truth is a species of good." That was right on. That
> was exactly what is meant by the Metaphysics of Quality. Truth is a static
> intellectual pattern within a larger entity called Quality." (LILA)
>
> As for what Pirsig meant by provisional, he answered that directly in LILA.
> "...this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something
> better comes along." Provisional means 'useful until something better comes
> along'.
>
> In fact these statements could be combined with no loss or alteration of
> meaning.
>
> "Truth is a static intellectual pattern, a high quality explanation, within
> a larger entity called Quality, that must be taken provisionally; as useful
> until something better comes along."
>
SNIP
[Arlo, on cartography...]>
> When you say one is the 'true' map of West Indies, you seem to suggest that
> this 'trueness' extends beyond the shared usefulness of those who find such
> a designation useful, and I think this type of objectivism is what the MOQ
> stands against. When something is 'true' within a shared context, this is
> really just a statement of usefulness within that context. But you seem to
> be saying that there are some things that are 'true' that extend beyond
> these contexts and are 'true' for all contexts - which is objectivism.
>

[Mark's post]
Please remember that I am dealing with what is plausible, not what is
true.  Plausibility is brought forth through rhetoric.

There is some propensity to encase truth within the fabric of the
intellectual level.  As such, we speak only of conceptual truth as is
used by the social level.  This is a working definition which leaves
much unanswered.  It confines truth to the superficial mechanistics of
social interaction enabled by the intellect.  It creates an object out
of truth and thus relegates it to the world of static quality; in
doing so it loses what truth means at the individual level (our
level).

Indeed, James' quote from above: "The true is the name of whatever
proves itself to be good in the way of belief", is perhaps a better
way to present truth since it brings in the aspects of "belief".  For
indeed, if I were to summarize James' attitude, he would insist that
one believe first, and then see what comes of it.  He could make such
leaps.  Let me say at this point that this post is not any kind of
religious nonsense, but attempts to invite a more fundamental analysis
of truth within MoQ.

As objective or static as we like to propose things are, such
proposals are pointing to rough representations within conceptual
understanding.   I suggest that intellectual truth can be considered
as a simple synthesis of a more fundamental process.  That process is
our relationship with this existence.  One can ask: Why is truth
extant?  Is there a greater presence of truth outside of the static
presentation of such?

I am of the opinion that the conscious intellect is a static
manifestation of a dynamic process.  Such intellect is a repository
for memory, which forms a place holder for subsequent interaction.
The conscious intellect as visualized in this way, represents the
congealment of a dynamic process.  This process occurs prior to the
formation of static concepts such as truth.  As such, the brain works
mainly through non-intellectual processes, which, by the way, can be
explored through meditative techniques.  Within this paradigm, choices
are actually made in a dynamic (unconscious) setting before out
intellectual appreciation of such.  Once the choice is made, the
intellect provides an explanation for such choice.  This is no
different from one realizing intellectually that the stove one has
just jumped off of WAS hot.  Such an idea places great importance on
the subconscious which can be representative of DQ.  This region is
under as much control as our conscious intellect.  The time frame for
the lapse between a subconscious choice and an intellectual
realization of such choice has been measured as I have presented in
posts previously.  (This is not established "fact" within the
scientific community).  Such lag duration is not important; what is
important is that such a lag exists.

With such paradigm one can conjecture that awareness of truth occurs
prior to its intellectualization.  This is easy to imagine with regard
to taste.  That is, that we intellectually realize something tastes
good AFTER our subconscious has decided it likes it.  We do not use
the intellect to determine if something tastes good or not.
Alternatively, we are cold before we intellectually realize it.  The
trasference of such simple examples to the more conceptual truths is
not quite as obvious.  While I can present "convincing" arguments on
this, I will simply propose the following:  When we understand
something to be true, it is not because the intellectual evidence for
such a thing is sufficient, for it will never be.  It is because the
new truth "seems" right.  After such "seeming" the attempt is made to
construct an intellectual argument around that "belief".  This is the
realm of "belief". This is not to say that the intellect is not
important, since it feeds the subconscious with memory.  Indeed, such
memory is used to be able to read this post.

An exploration into truth using the teachings of psychology can
provide a "reason" into the perseverance of truth as an existant.  As
such one can envision a biological reason for truth.  Through simple
trial and error, a child learns what works and what does not.  Simple,
somewhat non-intellectual, beginings of truth as a tool arise there.
The child has (or is) will, and can learn when this will is effective
and when it is not.  Such learning enables the child's will to better
direct itself.  At this level we are dealing with the ease with which
the will is expressed.  If by accident a toy makes a pleasing noise,
the child's will is directed towards teasing such a noise out once
again.  The child then realizes that squeezing the toy results in
noise, and such truth is stored in the memory.

At a fundamental level there is a connection between truth and
successfully expressing one's will.  If it works, it is true.  At this
level it is possible to conjecture truth arising from the interaction
between a human and the environment.  It is this connection between
one's will and the environment allows me to speculate on as a
repository for a fundamental truth.

The expectation of will and the presentation of the environment must
be in harmony for truth to exist.  While this may seem quite obvious
(if it works, it is true), it is possible to enter in to the realm of
DQ as an explanation for truth through this paradigm.  To do so, we
must assume an intimate connection between the self and the
environment.  This connection is so intimate that it is impossible to
tell where the environment ends and the self starts.  In fact, there
is a fuzzy area between both that belongs to neither.  This I will
term the Self/Other interface.  One example could be when we inhale
oxygen, at what point is the oxygen ours as opposed to the
environment's.  We use such oxygen not only as a sink for electron
transfer, but also as a building block for our bodies.

Through this S/O interface, the self can exert influence on the
environment and the environment can affect the individual.  Since this
interface is neither self or other, we have to apply a nomenclature to
it suggesting that it is "no thing".  We can also speculate that this
S/O interface can bring about self and other, but I will leave this to
another time, for it deals with a fundamental property of Quality.
Within the S/O interface we have the process of "becoming".  That is
either the self becoming the environment (say, throwing a ball), or
the environment becoming the self (say, feeling cold).

It is at this place, which implies a "no man's land" event, where it
can be said that DQ resides.  There is no subject and no object, but
something in between.  Going back to the Will and Environment being in
harmony for truth to exist argument from above, one can speculate that
this harmony resides within this interface.  It is the effectiveness
of this interface which provides a sense of truth.  That is, harmony
exists at this interface.  This interface is the source for truth.

The bottom line is that one can contemplate that intellectual truth
begins outside the intellectual faculty, and the intellect is a
recording device.  In many ways, this intellectual faculty confuses
the truth, and draws one away from a more natural mystical truth.  The
intellectual indoctrination each of us begin receiving in early life,
and for some time thereafter, acts as a barrier between mystical truth
and intellectual truth, even thought both are the same.  Because of
this, the sense is that "Man made these truths", which is misguided.
The idea of Quality is meant to break down this static barrier, and to
once again become tuned to what is.  No man can live on static quality
alone.  Such creatures are called robots.

In conclusion, the underlying truth is not the intellectual truth, but
is where such intellectual truth comes from.  It can be considered
more of an Absolute Truth for it cannot be tampered with by the
intellect.  It is not "whatever we like", it is what IS.

Mark

>
> 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
>