[top-politics] 20060909#parlement

[top-politics] Re: 20060909#parlement

Serge — 2006-09-10 14:03:49+0200

Hi,

I personally favor the very simple and functional definition of truth given by Erich Fromm. In short, truth can be defined as a functional approximation of reality. The closer to the truth you are, the better you are able to grasp on your environment. As one can see, this is coherent with the widely shared view of what illusions/delusions are, and how they affect one’s ability to deal with their environment in a productive manner.

Actually went and modified the entry about truth on wikipedia, here’s the bit on Fromm I added if you want a fuller explanation:

Fromm’s theory of truth

Read more… / Lire plus…

Erich Fromm finds that trying to discuss truth as “absolute truth” is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on “optimal truth”. He considers truth as stemming from the survival imperative of grasping one’s environment physically and intellectually, whereby young children instinctively seek truth so as to orient themselves in “a strange and powerful world”. The accuracy of their perceived approximation of the truth will therefore have direct consequences on their ability to deal with their environment. Fromm can be understood to define truth as a functional approximation of reality. His vision of optimal truth is described partly in “Man from Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics” (1947), from which excerpts are included below.

the dichotomy between ‘absolute = perfect’ and ‘relative = imperfect’ has been superseded in all fields of scientific thought, where “it is generally recognized that there is no absolute truth but nevertheless that there are objectively valid laws and principles”.

In that respect, “a scientifically or rationally valid statement means that the power of reason is applied to all the available data of observation without any of them being suppressed or falsified for the sake of a desired result”. The history of science is “a history of inadequate and incomplete statements, and every new insight makes possible the recognition of the inadequacies of previous propositions and offers a springboard for creating a more adequate formulation.”

As a result “the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period.” Fromm furthermore notes that “different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth” and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth.

Best regards,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: Truth

Mark Rosst — 2006-09-17 00:54:30+0200

> > >L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” > > > >-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from > >Abraham.

>L: “Venerates?” That smacks of worship…. “Respects” does not.

-M: ‘Respect’, in the context of religious authority, I would call ‘veneration’.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> >This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). > >They largely differ over where this line stops.

>L: Indeed. Christians and Jews-and-Muslims — the latter being quite > close — have differing definitions of prophethood. The Baha’i > introduce a whole new concept which is in my opinion alien to Islam, > but not so alien to Christianity. (The Baha’i consider the Prophets > to be the “Manifestation” of God, which gets very close to the > Christian concept of the Incarnation. Jesus himself, of course, was a > Jew, and quite a good one at that.) But, again, this has to do with TOP?

-M: We are nailing down our worldviews – this enhances communication.

>L: There is a connection, but it is getting pretty thin. The connection > is my claim that people can come to agreement much more than is often > thought, if they can take the time and have the space in which to > examine what they believe deeply, rather than merely noting surface > appearances and differences. > > >-M: Our Shiva is the same as “God” and “Allah”. > >I am a monotheist. The other dieties are just personifications of > >aspects of one Godhead. And your quote there is considered authoritative in my tradition.

>L: It ought to be. That’s where I got it (or, more accurately, from the > synthetic Vedanta tradition,…

-M: My tradition is based more on Trika Shaivism than Vedanta, but there are much more similarities than not. (Laksman Joo cataloged only five significant differences.)

>L: the Sanskrit begins “ekam sat vipra bahudra vedanti sarvam khalvidam buddham tat tvam asi….” If I remember it correctly.)

-M: Fun stuff, eh? :-)

>L: But I could also state it from my personal experience. Truth is one. > People call it various names. But all agree [where the conditions > permit it]….

-M: :-)

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Truth

AbdLomax — 2006-09-14 23:24:16+0200

At 04:53 PM 9/14/2006, Mark wrote:

> >L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” > >-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from >Abraham.

“Venerates?” That smacks of worship…. “Respects” does not.

>This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). >They largely differ over where this line stops.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Indeed. Christians and Jews-and-Muslims — the latter being quite close — have differing definitions of prophethood. The Baha’i introduce a whole new concept which is in my opinion alien to Islam, but not so alien to Christianity. (The Baha’i consider the Prophets to be the “Manifestation” of God, which gets very close to the Christian concept of the Incarnation. Jesus himself, of course, was a Jew, and quite a good one at that.)

But, again, this has to do with TOP?

There is a connection, but it is getting pretty thin. The connection is my claim that people can come to agreement much more than is often thought, if they can take the time and have the space in which to examine what they believe deeply, rather than merely noting surface appearances and differences.

>-M: Our Shiva is the same as “God” and “Allah”. >I am a monotheist. The other dieties are just personifications of >aspects of one Godhead. >And your quote there is considered authoritative in my tradition.

It ought to be. That’s where I got it (or, more accurately, from the synthetic Vedanta tradition, the Sanskrit begins “ekam sat vipra bahudra vedanti sarvam khalvidam buddham tat tvam asi….” If I remember it correctly.)

But I could also state it from my personal experience. Truth is one. People call it various names. But all agree [where the conditions permit it]….

[top-politics] Re: Truth

Mark Rosst — 2006-09-14 22:53:57+0200

> >-M: My definition of religion and related words irks many people: > >-faith: Primarily, an attitude toward belief felt to be secure, through > >acceptance and sufficiency for action. > >-worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world > >-religion: a faith-based worldview.

>L: This would be “Diyn” as used in the Qur’an, commonly translated as > “religion.” However, religion, as used by most people, refers to a > body of belief and practice that “binds” people together, hence the etymology.

-M: I would call that ‘organized religion’.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> > >L: Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with > > which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim. > > > >-M: Me, a Muslim?: > >1. I have a Koran > >2. I enjoy reading it > >3. I like Muhammad > >4. I love God dearly > >5. I am protective of Muslims > >6. But I am not Abrahamic > >7. My chosen religion is Shaivism

>L: So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.”

-M: Someone who venerates the line of phrophets which extend from Abraham.
This includes Jews, Christians, Muslims(and maybe even Bahaii). They largely differ over where this line stops.

>L: Many Muslims would immediately assume that, if you say that your religion is Shaivism, > you therefore worship something other than God, which, of course, > would make you a mushrik, usually translated as polytheist, but > really means “one who makes shares, something that shares power [with > God].” Whether or not this would be true of you would depend on > details that you have not revealed, nor am I asking…. I do not make > the assumption I described, and, indeed, that assumption is > frequently incorrect. From the Sanskrit, “truth is one, it is known > by different names, but all the enlightened agree….”

-M: Our Shiva is the same as “God” and “Allah”. I am a monotheist. The other dieties are just personifications of aspects of one Godhead.
And your quote there is considered authoritative in my tradition.

> >I am a worshipper of siddhas(perfected masters), people who have > >achieved spiritual perfection (moksha) through spiritual practice. > >We are fond of the Muslim-Sufi poet-saint Rumi.

>L: Rumi was not a mushrik. That is, he worshipped none but God. There is > ambiguity aplenty in the term “worship,” within it lurks substantial > danger, and this was a familiar topic for our friend.

-M: OK. I have not studied this matter in detail.

> >-M: OK, I am a believer. > >And we both seem to be lovers of God. :-) > Or seek to be. Easy, not.

-M: OK. :-)

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Truth

AbdLomax — 2006-09-14 06:19:09+0200

At 07:59 PM 9/13/2006, Serge wrote: >It’s interesting that by trying to propose a simpler approach of truth >that allowed for a constructive and practical debate, we end up with a >debate between truth being either something relative or on the opposite >something somewhat religious or faith-based (when faith has countless >times opposed reason in the search of truth).

That was not “faith.” That was “belief.” Big difference. Huge difference. “Faith” that opposes reason is not faith, it is, in fact, denial. The very opposite of faith.

[top-politics] Re: Truth

AbdLomax — 2006-09-14 05:53:38+0200

At 05:29 PM 9/13/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: My definition of religion and related words irks many people: >-faith: Primarily, an attitude toward belief felt to be secure, through >acceptance and sufficiency for action. >-worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world >-religion: a faith-based worldview.

This would be “Diyn” as used in the Qur’an, commonly translated as “religion.” However, religion, as used by most people, refers to a body of belief and practice that “binds” people together, hence the etymology.

> >L: Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with > which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim. > >-M: Me, a Muslim?: >1. I have a Koran >2. I enjoy reading it >3. I like Muhammad >4. I love God dearly >5. I am protective of Muslims >6. But I am not Abrahamic >7. My chosen religion is Shaivism

So? I’m not sure what it means to be “Abrahamic.” Many Muslims would immediately assume that, if you say that your religion is Shaivism, you therefore worship something other than God, which, of course, would make you a mushrik, usually translated as polytheist, but really means “one who makes shares, something that shares power [with God].” Whether or not this would be true of you would depend on details that you have not revealed, nor am I asking…. I do not make the assumption I described, and, indeed, that assumption is frequently incorrect. From the Sanskrit, “truth is one, it is known by different names, but all the enlightened agree….”

Read more… / Lire plus…

>I am a worshipper of siddhas(perfected masters), people who have >achieved spiritual perfection (moksha) through spiritual practice. >We are fond of the Muslim-Sufi poet-saint Rumi.

Rumi was not a mushrik. That is, he worshipped none but God. There is ambiguity aplenty in the term “worship,” within it lurks substantial danger, and this was a familiar topic for our friend.

>-M: OK, I am a believer. >And we both seem to be lovers of God. :-)

Or seek to be. Easy, not.

[top-politics] Re: Truth

Serge — 2006-09-14 01:59:03+0200

Hey,

It’s interesting that by trying to propose a simpler approach of truth that allowed for a constructive and practical debate, we end up with a debate between truth being either something relative or on the opposite something somewhat religious or faith-based (when faith has countless times opposed reason in the search of truth).

Here’s an example – the solar system:

Antiquity: first attempts at trying to figuring out what’s what with the fireball in the sky, some say we turn around it, other that it turns around us, the latter win the argument and the ptolemaic view remains the dominating one for a while.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Copernicus, Galileo: Proof that we do turn around the sun

results: gravity is discovered, eventually planes are built, relativity discovered, and satellites sent into space. How? Relying on elements of reality that we have come to understand with a degree of truth important enough to allow us to successfully master some aspects of the aforementionned reality.

Now I hope this clarify what is meant by truth as an optimum of understanding of reality. I also hope this post won’t serve as a basis for a renewed abstract discussion, which has gone on for centuries between philosophers and will probably go on forever. If we could accept that there are things that are true (earth goes around the sun) and some that aren’t (earth is flat) beyond any doubt, then maybe we can use the word truth when talking for example about information feeding into a TOP deliberation with a common constructive understanding of what is meant.

Best regards,

Serge

[top-politics] Re: Truth and philosophy / controlling minds

Mark Rosst — 2006-09-13 23:44:51+0200

>Lomax wrote: > Mark’s response is good, I’d say, but I would quibble with one point. > What he is describing would better be called “strong certainty,” > rather than “absolute certainty.”

-M: I have a strong certainty about absolute certainty.

>L: Absolute certainty cannot be based on inference, which only suggests hypotheses and never certain conclusions. Indeed, Mark did correctly qualify his statement, and I missed it. He wrote “close to absolute certainty.” Not “absolute certainty.” Of course, close modifies absolute in a way that makes it not absolute. Merely very strong. Still, in ordinary speech we do commonly use “absolute” to mean “very clear” or the like.

Read more… / Lire plus…

-M: The idea here is that the logic of communication nails positions down to absolutes, even when the problem of induction limits our abilities to know with absolute certainty(and all of this I am highly certain of). So A=A and not A=~A.

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

>Mark wrote: > >Lomax wrote: > > >Mark wrote: > > > > > 12:51 < echarp> can you show any eternal truth anywhere? > > > > > >-M: We can get close to absolute certainty. > > > > >L: Are you absolutely certain of that? Or even close to it? > > > >-M: No, but I am highly certain of this. > > > > >L: If so, on what is this certainty based? > > > >-M: Life experience and inference.

[top-politics] Re: Truth

Mark Rosst — 2006-09-13 23:29:29+0200

> > >L: When it comes to “truth,” people argue apples and oranges. That is, > > > they don’t first agree on what truth is. Is it a thing? (a dharma, in > > > Buddist terms). Is it a quality of statements? Is it a relationship > > > between statements and some thing? > > > >-M: Its a thing.

>L: Good. Is there one such thing or are there many?

One, in terms of an aggregate evolutionary trajectory – that we particapate in as being the prime vector of God’s grace and evolutionary capacity.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Many, there are many components of this truth, but it is all in the context of the one truth that we participate with.

> > >L: With no agreement on what the word refers to, obviously one can argue > > > indefinitely and without resolution. > > > >-M: Agreed, its good to start debate with definitions and argue the > >definititons if nessicary.

>L: It is essential to come to an agreement about definitions before > attempting to go further, particular with something as multivalent as > “truth.” Generally, if people really do seek to discover agreement > underlying their differences, they must find a way to agree on the > definitions. If necessary, they can invent new terms that are not > loaded with prior implications. It can be quite a process.

-M: My definition of religion and related words irks many people: -faith: Primarily, an attitude toward belief felt to be secure, through acceptance and sufficiency for action. -worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world -religion: a faith-based worldview.

> > >L: I tend to write about truth and about Truth, distinguishing them by > > > the capital letter. Truth is a dharma, indeed, it is the foundation > > > dharma, reality itself. Truth is a synonym for Reality and for God. > > > And, by the way, this is on solid religious foundations for a Muslim. > > > But that’s not the point here.

> >-M: These are things that seem foundational to your worldview, so this is relevent. And if I understand these statements, I agree with them.

>L: Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim.

-M: Me, a Muslim?:

I have a Koran
I enjoy reading it
I like Muhammad
I love God dearly
I am protective of Muslims
But I am not Abrahamic
My chosen religion is Shaivism

>L: It’s quite a detail, though, and I’d be surprised if you were in a > position to agree with it, so I certainly don’t expect it. The detail > is that Truth has sent a message to us through the prophets, a truth > reminding us of its existence, and that Muhammad was one of these…

-M: I am aware of these points. I am a worshipper of siddhas(perfected masters), people who have achieved spiritual perfection (moksha) through spiritual practice. We are fond of the Muslim-Sufi poet-saint Rumi.

>L:…(Some would say “the last,” but the credo does not actually say that, > it merely says that Muhammad was the Messenger of God, and it is > clear from general context that there were others; indeed, from the > traditions, there is an element of prophecy remaining after Muhammad, > and that is “clear vision.”) To agree with this statement, as a matter of “testimony,” requires recognizing the author of the Qur’an, and most don’t actually do > that, they merely wish that they did. It is not easy. For me, I had > to learn Arabic;…

-M: I am learning some Sanskrit.

>L:…before that, from the translations, the Qur’an looked like something quite different. It looked like a relative reflection. But, of course, what I was seeing was the understanding of the translators, not the Qur’an itself. But some do still infer, > with a clear inference, from what they can get in English. But, again, I don’t expect it. Rather, from a Muslim point of view, one who acknowledges the Truth > itself, but who does not affirm the Messenger, is simply a > “believer.” Which, in the Qur’an, quite explicitly includes others > than those who recognize Muhammad as a Messenger.

-M: OK, I am a believer. And we both seem to be lovers of God. :-)

> > >L: Then I may say that a statement is true. This is far more complex. I, > > > quite simply, don’t have time to address it tonight, except that I > > > could make a possibly provocative statement…. why not? > > > A statement is true if it leads one who reflects on it to a more > > > direct relationship with Truth, and that relationship confirms, > > > rather than denies, the statement. > > > >-M: OK. :-)

>L: This response is unusual, actually. I can tell that Mark has a > difficult path to follow, and I wish him safety and peace in his journey.

-M: Thank you, and likewise. :-)

shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA

[top-politics] Re: Truth and philosophy / controlling minds

AbdLomax — 2006-09-13 17:49:09+0200

Mark’s response is good, I’d say, but I would quibble with one point. What he is describing would better be called “strong certainty,” rather than “absolute certainty.” Absolute certainty cannot be based on inference, which only suggests hypotheses and never certain conclusions. Indeed, Mark did correctly qualify his statement, and I missed it. He wrote “close to absolute certainty.” Not “absolute certainty.” Of course, close modifies absolute in a way that makes it not absolute. Merely very strong. Still, in ordinary speech we do commonly use “absolute” to mean “very clear” or the like.

At 06:59 AM 9/13/2006, Mark wrote:

>Lomax wrote: > >Mark wrote: > > > > 12:51 < echarp> can you show any eternal truth anywhere? > > > >-M: We can get close to absolute certainty. > > >L: Are you absolutely certain of that? Or even close to it? > >-M: No, but I am highly certain of this. > > >L: If so, on what is this certainty based? > >-M: Life experience and inference. > >shanti >Mark, Seattle WA USA > > >