Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: 20060909#parlement
-
11/09/06 23:10
Truth
+1
In the wikipedia article on truth, here is the part I prefer:
> There also have more recently arisen “deflationary” or “minimalist” > theories of truth based on the idea that the application of a term > like true to a statement does not assert anything significant about > it, for instance, anything about its nature, but that the label truth > is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, > or to form certain types of generalizations
End of quote.
> 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.
Truth as a relative and changing point of view. I like that, a good starting point.
> – 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.
This optimum seems strange, how do we know it is really optimum? Isn’t it simply optimum by definition?
Is it always increasing?
My point of view on reality: as long as we haven’t traveled to every single part, atom, quark, quanta, of our universe, we won’t know for sure that somewhere sometime there is not a mouse hole taking us to a bigger and more real universe :-D
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> +1 > > In the wikipedia article on truth, here is the part I prefer: […] > > G: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.
> Truth as a relative and changing point of view. I like that, a good > starting point.
-M: No, Emmanuel, truth is eternal and unchanging. Its merely our perceptions of truth that can be relative and changing.
> >G: […] and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to > > reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth.
-M: Yes.
>ec: This optimum seems strange, how do we know it is really optimum? Isn’t > it simply optimum by definition?
-M: What is the difference? You are using defined words to communicate this idea, regardless, correct?
>ec: Is it always increasing?[…]
-M: Yes.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
At 07:55 PM 9/12/2006, Mark wrote:
>-M: No, Emmanuel, truth is eternal and unchanging. >Its merely our perceptions of truth that can be relative and >changing.
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?
With no agreement on what the word refers to, obviously one can argue indefinitely and without resolution.
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.
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.
+1
-
> >-M: No, Emmanuel, truth is eternal and unchanging. > >Its merely our perceptions of truth that can be relative and > >changing.
>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: 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: 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: 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. :-)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
At 06:45 AM 9/13/2006, Mark wrote:
> >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.
Good. Is there one such thing or are there many?
> >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.
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.
> >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.
Good. You have just agreed with something, agreement with which, with one further detail, would define you legally as a Muslim.
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. (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; 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.
> >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. :-)
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.
+1
-
> > >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.
- 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
+1
-
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….”
>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.
+1
-
> >-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’.
> > >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
+1
-
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.
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]….
+1
-
> > >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’.
> >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
+1
-
-
-
-
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.
- 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
+1
-
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.
+1
-
-
-
> Then I may say that a statement is true.
This would merely state your agreement with this statement. Nothing else.
I absolutely have a relativist point of view on things :)
Even Descartes has:
> in a dream, one’s senses perceive stimuli that seem real, but do not > actually exist. Thus, one cannot rely on the data of the senses as > necessarily true. Or, perhaps an “evil demon” exists: a supremely > powerful and cunning being who sets out to try to deceive Descartes > from knowing the true nature of reality. Given these possibilities, > what can one know for certain?
We can be sure of nothing. We can merely try to understand the universe and ourselves, our understanding being a reconstruction, relative imperfect and incomplete.
But nonetheless useful.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
+1
-
-
-
> Is it always increasing? > > My point of view on reality: as long as we haven’t traveled to every > single part, atom, quark, quanta, of our universe, we won’t know > for sure that somewhere sometime there is not a mouse hole taking us > to a bigger and more real universe :-D > > echarp – http://leparlement.org/top-politics
Of course it does not have to increase, yet faith into truth and path towards it is needed if you want make progress at all. If you say, no it does not matter, you wont progress for sure. So, out of pragmatism, believing into path is normal, as some put the same argument for believing into God.
Nevertheless, putting this part into relation to open systems could be really usefull for our future development of the whole philosophy that might come out of TOP. Yet, in this very moment I do not feel confident about making that way. I hope that will change in our sooner future.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:45:08PM -0700, illegale wrote:
> > Is it always increasing? > > Of course it does not have to increase, yet faith into truth and path > towards it is needed if you want make progress at all. If you say, no > it does not matter, you wont progress for sure. So, out of pragmatism, > believing into path is normal, as some put the same argument for > believing into God.
What truth do you have in mind? What faith?
What are the advantages of faith? (as far as I’m concerned, it is a disadvantage)
> Nevertheless, putting this part into relation to open systems could be > really usefull for our future development of the whole philosophy that > might come out of TOP. Yet, in this very moment I do not feel confident > about making that way. I hope that will change in our sooner future.
TOP still seems about comportments and sociology. It’s an ethical statement isn’t it?
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
echarp wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:45:08PM -0700, illegale wrote: > > > Is it always increasing? > > > > Of course it does not have to increase, yet faith into truth and path > > towards it is needed if you want make progress at all. If you say, no > > it does not matter, you wont progress for sure. So, out of pragmatism, > > believing into path is normal, as some put the same argument for > > believing into God. > > What truth do you have in mind? What faith?
Openstanding perfection is definition of truth I am talking about. Yet, I am not willing to get into further disscussion in this very moment as long as my focus is on TOP right now.
Faith – strong trust to something.
> What are the advantages of faith? (as far as I’m concerned, it is a > disadvantage)
Let me give you a short answer for part I feel the most imporant due to its usefullness.
We talked about determinism/free will. You where determinist and that aproach gave you a faith that you can go further with analysis and conclusions about reality with no fear you are doing mission impossible work. You do believe that every thing has cause and consequence that can be notices. And that gives you clear focus of going on, which is not a case of those who are pro free will.
So, as long as I am concerned, faith (in determinism) is not bad thing at all, but quite contrary.
> > Nevertheless, putting this part into relation to open systems could be > > really usefull for our future development of the whole philosophy that > > might come out of TOP. Yet, in this very moment I do not feel confident > > about making that way. I hope that will change in our sooner future. > > TOP still seems about comportments and sociology. It’s an ethical > statement isn’t it?
I suppose you are right, yet, I will use my words in order of being sure of it. TOP enables new paradigm of thought and action in order of fulfilling needs and desires of any person. This is shortly related to term “politics of good” I am talking in explanation of transparency. Yet, openness, as thought of open knowledge/info base, gives us an essential need of continual progress having no chance to dogmatise any thing. There is a great deal of consequences where it leads to.
ATB,
Gale> > echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
-
-
