Jamie wrote:
> Brilliant!
> in itself, the apocryphal story clears nothing up, but the underlying
> principle is clear: the best each of us can attain is a well-tuned
> subjective viewpoint.
Ah, but what are we tuning this subjective viewpoint to?!
> Such a viewpoint (for an "intelligent individual")
> contains a theoretical construct called "objective reality". When this is
> well developed, it is in close agreement with others' "objective reality".
Hmm, interesting. I wonder why there's so much agreement?!
> But the only way it could be Identical would be if we were able to
> simultaneously occupy some other's space-and-time. given that (to the best
> of my knowledge) we can't, then there are circumstances whereby there is
> survival value attached to the notion that someone else's subjective
> viewpoint may be equally as practically valid as my own. This is inherent in
> a communicative species ( : pack animal). In a species that has evolved as
> highly individual "sociopaths" (even "psychopaths") such as sharks, for
> example, such a story would literally have no meaning. But then there would
> be little or no language to express such ideas in, anyhow.
Okay, obviously everyone isn't going to view reality the exact same way, but
this doesn't make everyone's viewpoint true. If I maintain that the earth
is flat, I am holding a false belief. I verify this not by checking to see
what other people believe, but by looking at the empirical evidence that
proves the earth is round.
There has to be a measuring stick here people. We each hold a set of
beliefs about reality, and in that sense, there are multiple "subjective
viewpoints." If that's all you guys are saying, that's fine, but to call
them "truths" is absurd. We measure the validity of our beliefs by how well
they conform to our experiences. The point is, these experiences come from
ONE source: Quality. We can't decide what Quality is. It simply is. We
experience patterns of value and then construct more patterns of value
(intellectual ones) to explain them....
Hmm, I just had an interesting revelation. The quality of intellectual
patterns is determined by how well they explain other patterns. In fact,
that's the whole point of intellect: knowledge.... wisdom.... truth.
Science drives toward understanding how inorganic, biological, and social
patterns work. The mind (through science) is trying to understand value.
That's it. Truth, then, may seem to be an intellectual pattern, but this
isn't precisely the case. Beliefs are intellectual patterns. Truth is
merely the level of value that beliefs have. If beliefs conform to reality
(the other patterns of value), then they are true and have high quality.
Of course, there's still only one truth. Reality (Quality, patterns of
value, or whatever) IS a certain way. Beliefs are true/good if they reflect
this reality. Hmm, true=good. Interesting.
Of course, truth is only one type of good....
Evolutionary Goals of Quality:
inorganic: order
biological: life
social: law
intellectual: truth
Dynamic Quality, nevertheless, pervades all. The nature of inorganic order,
biological order, and social order is ever-changing, and so must be the
truth that explains them. That is, our beliefs might be true one day and
false the next -- Bill Clinton will no longer be President a year from now.
:)
- Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST