[FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
Steven A Smith
sasmyth at swcp.com
Tue Oct 17 11:46:08 EDT 2017
Dave -
You and I have not spent much time face to face discussing any matters,
much less ones as grave as "truthiness" and "the welfare state" and
"convergence via means, rational or otherwise" but the conviction with
which you made many statements in this treatise is compelling and
perhaps its own example of the topic at hand. Following your
point-numbering below...
1. I find your (counter) example of "en vino veritas" to miss the point
of the quote. I take the point to be that sometimes one must lower
their inhibitions with wine (or exhaustion or extreme passion, or
another drug of choice) to speak more directly to their own personal
(local?) truth (rather than adjust it to fit the presumed "shared truth"
of the participants?). Maybe this is a precise example of what you and
Nick are trying to discuss here. Perhaps you truly believe (without a
doubt and not to be persuaded, now way, no how) that alcoholic spirits
simply undermine the imbibers ability to express themselves clearly,
whilst I believe that to be only part of the effect and that the lowered
inhibitions *sometimes* trumps the loss of linearity of thought and
facility of expression to yield "veritas". The asyncrony and
psuedonymity of online discussions has a similar effect for some, I find.
3. "My antipathy for rule, convention, certitude in almost any form is
very real and very essential to my sense of self. You have no
comprehension of the sense of alienation this conviction engenders."
This statement is both incredibly familiar, yet equally foreign to
me. I might want to claim that I might have a parallel comprehension
of the alienation *built in*? to this conviction? This is the aspect of
Libertarianism that I identify most strongly with, or am most moved by,
in spite of having found few if any "card carrying Libertarians" that
don't just drive me up the wall with their lack of compassion or ability
to *live* their ideal of "enlightened self interest" (not intended as
bait for Glen to remind me the fallacy/falsity of this reserved term in
my lexicon, but I'm open to it if necessary).
This point is *divergent* from the "truth about truthiness" I think, but
perhaps is important because it is about *conviction* which might
displace *truth* in some way? To the extent that "conviction" and
"truth" imply answers, I find them both a distraction from "finding the
right question".
You also reference " the "rational" world view that has dominated, not
only science, but Western culture..." but I'm not clear on what you
consider to be the complement to that? Surely it is more than the
"wishful thinking" babble many of us has become accustomed to hearing
from many who deliberately eschew "rational thinking". I don't wish to
be painted with the brush of being confined TO the strictly
western/linear/rational mode, but neither do I care for the psychadelic
colors that usually pass for the alternative.
4) What IS required before two, independent, conscious beings can take
up a dialog which at least has the opportunity to be convergent? In my
own view, perhaps all we can hope for is to weave a roughly parallel
braid of observations, assertions and chains of logic tying them
together, not unlike the braided F Ring of Saturn? Drunken babble
rarely seems to have convergence *as a goal*, however, the very
narcissistic nature of that mode sometimes allows those listening to the
babbler to understand their position/opinion/feelings/beliefs more
acutely than in a "rational dialogue intended to yield convergent
understanding".
5) Feeding the bears" or "Your study leads you to believe that humans
are biotes PLUS something else. I, being a sociopath, cannot share those
experiences, observations, analyses, or conclusions."
I'm not sure what your working definition of sociopath is in this
case, but if I take it as literally as I can using my own definition, I
would surmise that you mean: "It is convenient to ME (dmw) to draw a
simplified analogy between humans living in a complex socioeconomy to
the ecosystem of a national park or suburban intrusion on wildlands and
thereby justify my pre-existing judgement that helping those in apparent
need is a fundamentally flawed idea, sure to yield *more* rather than
*less* suffering". The point being that your analogy (and any other
arguments) are contrived or chosen to support your pre-formed
conclusion, rather than being an honest reflection of the logic used to
get to that conclusion.
I have felt (roughly) as I caricature your position (in the past), but
was always uncomfortable with the huge gap between the source and the
target of this metaphor. I *still* believe that within a competitive
(pseudo) "free market economy", that systems which undermine the
motivation to participate directly in the productivity of the larger
system are risky and should be thought through very carefully with those
issues in mind. This is not the same as predicting that every recipient
of welfare will simply adapt to become MORE dependent on welfare and
ultimately (like bears habituated to living among humans) need to be
handled by even more extreme (incarceration, etc.). In our (possible)
transition to a post-consumerist/capitalist economy, ideas like
"guaranteed minimum income" look pretty much identical to "welfare", yet
perhaps make more sense if one recognizes that we might be approaching a
level of mechanization which literally displaces the need for *most*
human effort in the production of basic needs. I would suggest that
your mode of thinking is more likely to lead to "dumping excess humans"
into the hoppers of the Soylent Green factory to feed the remainder
while there is a chance that there is a "return to the Garden of Eden"
possible if in fact, the need for human toil has reduced as much as it
seems to have.
In the spirit of this thread, the question might be truthiness and
convergence? I can listen to your arguments against "welfare", but
those which I have already mulled thousands of times, probably won't
pull me back toward your position (having been somewhat aligned with
yours as I understand it). But can YOU listen to my arguments? Perhaps
you feel you have "heard them all" and dismiss them like the bleatings
of a bleeding heart tourist trying to feed Wonder Bread to a Grizzly
through the window of their car in Yellowstone and blaming the Park
Administration for "not taking better care of these bears!".
I would claim that as long as we stick to the metaphor/analogy of
"welfare" as "humans feeding bears", we probably *won't* learn anything
new from one another. Is learning something new similar to
convergence? My (never-ending) discussions with Glen (here and
elsewhere) and a few others in my life follow the pattern alluded to, of
convergence to a braided ring which is dynamic and ever changing in
detail but still remains relatively coherent in general form.
*In summary*: I agree with you (if I understand) that a single, shared
truth, is at best a construct of convenience, a strawman shared
understanding *similar* enough to a collection of our separate,
*personal understandings* to allow communication, and that communication
needn't promise convergence, but perhaps it needs some level of
*coherence* to motivate anyone to proceed? I hear you indicating that
when others insist on strict convergence it is something of a show
stopper for you, and while I feel the same pressure, my response is
*usually* to look at their desire for convergence to allow *me* to look
for some coherence, and perhaps to persuade them to accept the *dynamic
convergence* implied by my braided planetary ring. I engage with others
to (hopefully) learn something new, and accept our *differences* as
(potentially) useful hints of where I have something fundamental to
change my thinking on. Those fundamental shifts are rare enough, but
critical to me to remaining vital as a human being. New insights were
cheap and easy to come by in my adolescence but after a few mini-careers
and a couple of college degrees and a couple of partners and a couple of
children, I found them very scarce. I still find them somewhat scarce,
but in the dearest of ways... which draws me to those who I *don't*
share that much understanding with, on the off chance they have
something new to offer me.
And that's the Truth!
- Steve
On 10/17/17 5:03 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick, at the risk of a mere dialogue that would be better served face
> to face in a month or so, I will respond. All the time with a
> friendly smile on my face and a desire for common understanding in my
> heart.
>
> I won't re-lard, but respond in order:
>
> 1- I was going to use 'in vino veritas,"but as an example of a
> language (drunken babble is a language of sorts) that you would not
> accept as a vehicle for communication intended to result in
> convergence. But the point of what I said is simply to impute intent
> on your part when selecting which words you use to convey your
> thoughts. [See comment 2-.]
>
> I did not "presume the truth of some matter." I made an assertion and,
> as noted in my initial post the only truth in such a thing is purely
> local to me, not shared. But all assertions / declarative statements —
> including yours — share this same 'local truthiness' and are not to be
> taken as assertions of shared, or possible shared, notions that, if
> they converged, would take on the property of "truthy."
>
> 2- I made no mention of "belief" and so I am mystified as to why the
> first sentence of your response makes a point of " beyond what you I /
> any group might believe." I did use the term opinion, which in
> colloquial and common use is often a synonym for belief — however, I
> used the term only because you used it first in describing Pierce's
> approach. When I read your use of the term, I took it as a stand-in
> for one or more of the following: experience, observation,
> measurement, calculation, even analysis. I intended to use the word in
> the same exact way. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent when you used
> the word.
>
> True, the core thesis you present is an operational defintion of
> "truth" but that intent to define is embedded in, and the rest of the
> thread is engaged in, the use of that operational definition to
> determine if some proposition or the other is truthy.
>
> 3- It is not a pose. My antipathy for rule, convention, certitude in
> almost any form is very real and very essential to my sense of self.
> You have no comprehension of the sense of alienation this conviction
> engenders.
>
> It is not that everyone agrees with you, but that you all share at
> least one thing in common and that is your acceptance of the
> "rational" world view that has dominated, not only science, but
> Western culture in general since the inception of the "Age of Reason."
> There remains lots of divertissement within the realm of the rational
> to assure pleasant passage of time for all.
>
> 4- Clever self deprecation simply obfuscates the fact that you see no
> utility in pursuing conversation / sharing experience / seeking
> convergence unless those efforts are undertaken within and are
> consistent with your particular world-view. I am being quite
> uncharitable here as I know my assertion is not always true at least
> in degree. You might take up meditation (altered state of
> consciousness ahead) or you might go to church (at least as long as
> the church in question was not fundamentalist requiring reptilephilia
> and glossallalia.)
>
> 5- Re: convergence on things like public policy, a simple example.
> Say we both study biological organisms and we not things like a change
> in environment, creating a new, exploitable niche, will prompt
> bio-organisms to adapt (even evolve) to exploit that niche. We further
> observe human beings - as biological organisms and converge on the
> "truth" that they are biological organisms. We have 'converged' in
> our understanding and have established truth. (?) At this point our
> observations / experiences diverge. Your study leads you to believe
> that humans are biotes PLUS something else. I, being a sociopath,
> cannot share those experiences, observations, analyses, or
> conclusions. We sit down to discuss public policy - the need for
> welfare perhaps - and we are immediately stuck because we have no
> common ground, common "language" with which to proceed and hence no
> convergence is possible and no truth as to the matter.
>
> I would see welfare as a case of "feeding the bears," certain to lead
> to nothing except the proliferation of dependent bears as they, being
> biological organisms, adapt to exploit the "welfare niche." You would
> see it quite differently. But, how do we proceed? What process would
> you (or Pierce) suggest be used? Or do we simply acknowledge that we
> have no basis for convergence and therefore, no 'truth' is possible? I
> would be OK with that, but no one else will. Instead each faction will
> insist on the certitude/truth of their respective opinion and insist
> that public policy be grounded in their idiosyncratic truth.
>
> The preceding is an extreme example, especially as to the reason we
> cannot find a common language and proceed, somehow, to convergence.
> But, at least, it has the virtue of a concrete embedded difference
> that prevents convergence. Too often, in almost all public policy
> debate the inhibiting difference is simply a refusal to listen to the
> other and insisting that the only means for finding convergence is
> everyone adopting one side's language and worldview and crafting the
> conversation on that basis.
>
> dmw
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 01:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, Dave,
>>>
>>>
>>> See larding below. I have to say, this still doesn't quite sound
>>> like you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>>
>>> Clark University
>>>
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof
>>> David West
>>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 12:27 PM
>>> To: friam at redfish.com
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
>>> Nothing!”
>>>
>>>
>>> Naw back at ya. I am not picking a fight or being contentious just
>>> to be contentious. I am trying to be a little dog nipping at the
>>> heels of assumptions and presuppositions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because this list is not a scholarly forum where you spend an
>>> exquisite amount of time picking your words and making your
>>> statements as precise as possible I am assuming that your language
>>> reveals said assumptions/presuppositions. So when you use rational
>>> man, I think you really deep down mean exactly that. And when you
>>> shy away from that as in the post I am responding to, you still
>>> cannot get away from your core position.
>>>
>>> */[NST==> This I would characterize as an approach to discourse
>>> roughly equivalent to “in vino veritas”. It is the assumption that
>>> the most accurate representation of a person’s view of the world is
>>> its most unguarded presentation. Notice that your sentence above
>>> presumes a truth of some matter, “Thompson’s Real View”. So far as
>>> I am concerned, that presumption concedes the ONLY POINT I have been
>>> arguing for in our discussion … so far. It concedes the MEANING of
>>> the word “truth”. You will notice that unlike yourself, I have not
>>> in this conversation EVER argued (yet) for the truth of any matter,
>>> other than what we are referring to when we refer to truth. <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> We have two people with two idiosyncratic opinions. Each
>>> communicates his/her opinion to the other and they interact trying
>>> to discern what each other means in order to see if their individual
>>> opinions are the same, or somewhat the same, or substantially the
>>> same. If the conversation leads both parties to agreeing with each
>>> other that their individual opinions are really the same, shared,
>>> opinion — even if stated somewhat differently — voila, we have
>>> Truth. I think this is a fair restatement of what you say (and say
>>> when channeling Pierce).
>>>
>>> */[NST==>No, David. It is absolutely Unfair, and I am surprised to
>>> hear your say it. When we speak of truth, we speak of something
>>> beyond anything that you, or I, or any particular group of people
>>> might believe. But, contra Descartes, we do not speak of anything
>>> outside of all possibility of human experience. What we speak of is
>>> that humans will converge on in the very long run, if indeed they
>>> ever converge. No convergence, no truth, because, on Peirce’s
>>> account, that is what the term, truth, means. Please, David, do not
>>> continue beyond this point in this message without acknowledging
>>> that my thesis is a thesis about the MEANING of the term, Truth.
>>> And that we have not yet begun the discussion concerning whether
>>> there exists any such thing. Until we see eye to eye on that, the
>>> discussion is stupid. It would be like a discussion in which I
>>> would say, “a unicorn is a horse with a horn in the middle of it’s
>>> nose” and you keep replying, “NO, NICK. There ARE no unicorns.
>>> Until we have agreed on a definition of a unicorn, the question of
>>> its existence cannot even come up.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> However ... the first imposition on the process focuses on the
>>> language we use to communicate/interact. I believe that Pierce, you,
>>> and all of the scientists and mathematicians and CS types on this
>>> list are going to insist on using a very narrow set of languages and
>>> would prefer just one
>>>
>>> - mathematical logic. Definitely one with well defined terms and
>>> formalized grammar, i.e. one that is "rational."
>>>
>>> */[NST==>You are posing here as the romantic outlier, a pose that
>>> both Glen and Marcus, and many others of us would like to contend
>>> you for. All I can say is, if everybody on the list agrees with me,
>>> why am I arguing with them all. <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> Well of course you say; how else could we proceed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, one possibility is that you come over and we drop acid
>>> together - or better yet the one hallucinogen derived from the
>>> Ariocarpus cactus that empirical evidence suggests yields consensual
>>> hallucinations - and we use that 'language' to see if our opinions
>>> converge.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are nuts, you say.
>>>
>>> */[NST==>It would be convenient for your argument if I said that,
>>> but I don’t. I would say only that at 80 I have a hard enough time
>>> moving through my world without taking hallucinogens, and so I
>>> probably won’t do that. Also, I can’t immediately think of any
>>> reason why accuracy of perception or happiness would arise from
>>> mucking with my cognitive capacities, such as they are. It aint
>>> much, but it’s what I got. <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> AHA! I say. You are privileging YOUR means of communication and
>>> simultaneously asserting that Truth can only be found within the set
>>> of possible conversations conducted using YOUR language and YOUR
>>> rules of conversation/interaction. */[NST==>I haven’t [yet] said
>>> anything about how truth is found; only something about how it is
>>> defined. <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, let us return to your signal. Imagine we have a thousand people
>>> listening to it. 999 of them use your statistical/probability tests
>>> and agree that is is simply noise - a random signal. I, on the other
>>> hand, recognize that the signal is the voice of God, speaking the
>>> Language of the Birds, and He is giving me clear and precise
>>> knowledge.*/[NST==>Well, you are welcome to that knowledge. I guess
>>> I agree with Peirce that knowledge is, at its root, social. So,
>>> idiosyncratic knowledge is kind of a contradiction in terms.
>>> <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> So what is True? Is the signal noise or is it knowledge?
>>>
>>>
>>> And further suppose that I write some bad free verse that manages to
>>> bypass the conscious and speak directly to the subconscious and the
>>> 999 slowly begin to agree with my position vis a vis the signal? At
>>> what point does the Truth shift from noise to knowledge? (BTW, I
>>> would argue that their simply agreeing with me based on what they
>>> understand of my poetry, is insufficient - they must actually
>>> experience and directly perceive the signal before we can be
>>> accord.)*/[NST==>Well, assuming that you have accepted my DEFINITION
>>> of truth as that upon which the human community of inquiry will
>>> agree in the very long run, we can ask for what constitutes EVIDENCE
>>> that something is true. /**/çnst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> The main point I made in my polemic, and continue to make: Pierce,
>>> science, 'reasonable and rational' beings can never find more than
>>> local Truth, for themselves, and it is immoral to impose that Truth
>>> on others.*/[NST==>You sentence only makes sense if you havre
>>> already stipulated to my DEFINTION of truth, right? <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> Ceding a point - Pierce, and scientists, are not wrong when they
>>> assume that their approach leads to truth as long as they restrict
>>> the domain of application to things like Physics, Math, and Logic. I
>>> vehemently react, negatively, when they blithely assert that the
>>> same approach is appropriate for finding truth in epistemology,
>>> morality, social conventions, public policy, governance, etc. etc.
>>>
>>> */[NST==>If that is the case, then Peirce would assert, I think,
>>> that there is no truth of such matters. He disliked literary
>>> criticism and other fashion-driven enterprises for just that
>>> reason. However, I think he and perhaps some of his followers,
>>> believed that opinion with respect to some of the matters you
>>> mention above will in fact stabilize in the very long run. If it
>>> would, then indeed there is, by definition, a truth of these
>>> matters, also./*
>>>
>>> *//*
>>>
>>> */Nick <==nst] /*
>>>
>>>
>>> dmw
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> > Naw. Come on Dave. You're just picking a fight! I don't meed the
>>>
>>> > "rational man" at all. All I need is that people either will, or will
>>>
>>> > not, share an opinion in the very long run, and that opinion, by
>>>
>>> > definition, if shared, is what we mean by truth. And the edge I am
>>>
>>> > talking about here is emotional. I am not pressing this view with
>>>
>>> > the ferocity that you take me for. Persistence, perhaps, but not ferocity.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Nick
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>
>>> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
>>>
>>> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> > From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David
>>>
>>> > West
>>>
>>> > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:44 AM
>>>
>>> > To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>
>>>
>>> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely
>>>
>>> > Nothing!”
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > Hi Nick,I write from Vienna. I will be back in Utah next week and at
>>>
>>> > FRIAM for a couple of weeks starting in mid-December. You can apply
>>>
>>> > cold compresses then, or just toss me in a snow bank.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > The "edge" that you do not recognize is present in your response.
>>>
>>> > First, you propose a probabilistic/statistical "method" for discovery
>>>
>>> > of the 'certainty' of a property of the signal. Why? What makes that
>>>
>>> > method privileged? I.e. what is it about Probability that merits using
>>>
>>> > it as a Philosopher's Stone? More egregious is the use of the term
>>> "rational man"
>>>
>>> > — this is what I meant about allowing only some individuals at the
>>>
>>> > conversational table.
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > see you in December
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>> > > David,
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > Somebody has obviously riled you up, wherever you have gone to.
>>>
>>> > > Please come back so I can administer cold compresses.
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > I can recognize in what you write below the vague outlines of things
>>>
>>> > > I have said about Peirce, but your representation of me has a kind
>>>
>>> > > of edge I don't think I ever would have given it. Try this:
>>>
>>> > > Imagine that you have a fancy antenna and that it is picking up a signal
>>> from outer space.
>>>
>>> > > Imagine you are interested in the frequency of the signal. Now, I
>>>
>>> > > say, the signal can either be random or systematic. Let's say that
>>>
>>> > > the last ten readings on the signal give you a reading of 256hz +/-
>>>
>>> > > 1 hz. Now, it's entirely possible that such a sample of measurements could be
>>>
>>> > > produced by a random signal. But now let us double the number of
>>>
>>> > > readings, and let us also notice that the variation of the
>>>
>>> > > measurements has also diminished by the square root of two. Now
>>> double again, and
>>>
>>> > > diminish the variation once again by root 2. And so on. While we both
>>>
>>> > > would have to recognize that there is no certainty that the signal
>>>
>>> > > is not random, still the probabliliy keeps increasing that such a
>>>
>>> > > sample is drawn from a population of measurements with a mean of
>>>
>>> > > 256hz. It's that way with truth. It's quite possible that our
>>>
>>> > > experience is random, and no amount of consistency can ever
>>>
>>> > > convince a rational man that the randomness of any particular chain of
>>> experiences is not random.
>>>
>>> > > However, as experience increases in consistency, the same rational
>>>
>>> > > man will be more likely to bet that that chain of experiences will
>>>
>>> > > be confirmed in the very long run of human experiences. On Peirce,s
>>>
>>> > > account, that is what it means to say that something "is the truth"
>>>
>>> > > It is to bet that this string of experiences that we are now in the
>>>
>>> > > midst of will be confirmed in the very long run of human experience.
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > Notice that I never asserted, for a certainty, that there is
>>>
>>> > > anything at all that is True. I only gave a Pragmatic[ist]
>>>
>>> > > definition of what truth would be if there ever were any.
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > Come back. We miss you.
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > Nick
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > Nicholas S. Thompson
>>>
>>> > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
>>>
>>> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>> <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> > > From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof
>>>
>>> > > David West
>>>
>>> > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:02 PM
>>>
>>> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>>
>>> > > <friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
>>>
>>> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!”
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > 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.
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > ============================================================
>>>
>>> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>>>
>>> > > cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>> > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> > > ============================================================
>>>
>>> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
>>>
>>> > > cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>> > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > ============================================================
>>>
>>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>>>
>>> > at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>> > ============================================================
>>>
>>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
>>>
>>> > at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>>
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171017/534f16f7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list