[FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”

[Prof David West]

Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with
Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the
past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a
lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of
assertions and assertions are, at minimum,  ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am
making no such claim, as will be explained later.

There can be no Truth.
       Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated
- ‘truths’ are possible.
       Until the Universe achieves  ‘heat death’ (at which time there
might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only
ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible.
       All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally
illusory.

There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed.
       To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded
privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic,
scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?”

There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating
or sharing, Truth; were It to exist.
       Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the
Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.”
       More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said
about software and software development. Specifically that a program was
the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed
it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans
engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to
documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other
minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and
simultaneously, empathy.)

As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an
intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing
orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the
‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every
living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of
the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this
belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are
those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of
discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above.

A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse:
“Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be
their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within
them.”  Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to
epistemology and metaphysics.

None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same
essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one.