power play :)

i'm on my foucault two minutes

Yes, you could make an argument for that - but you haven't.

I'm working on a reply to you and Natasha on my "present project" - it should give some illumination on the role of "power" and "authority" in the epistemic context of French cultural dynamics...

hmm interesting, i'll be waiting, if it's not waiting for me already :)

Things have two faces. if that one face has got more agreement than the opposite one. We call it "true", the relevant thing was got the judgement "true" is the truth.

Truth can be justified.

falsehoods can also be justified, it depends what you mean by justification

In order to consider the question of Truth, we would do well to consider first *it’s occurrence*. I’m not asserting a relativist view that *a truth exists for a situation* (that would be closer to conventional truth/laws/conduct) - but rather a more ‘reasonable’ assertion that there are *reasons for each truth* (Jean-Francois Lyotard). The former would imply that truth is manifest in some subjective reality; the latter would imply that truth can be objective or more accurately, based on objective knowledge – a sense that we CAN and DO recognise the notion of Truth when it occurs.

As individuals and society, we raise judgement to situations, based on *our experience of it* but still *against one or more ideals*: Did I complete an activity as expected? Is this a good or bad thing I committed? Is this a right decision to make? How do I feel about what I did?

Our judgment on each situation is based on *truth as a measurement*. This however, may explain more our *relationship with Truth* and less on what it IS.

This leads me to considering that Truth may indeed be an Ideal – something we strive for and towards - and thus certainly possible to be objective. I AM aware of keeping to some measurement of morality, of ethics, of decency and consideration, of self-awareness – of Truth – and how I stand up to ‘that truth’ at any given point in time.

The next consideration is then of course, the *relationship that Truth has with Time* :) - an ontological truth - and THAT is certainly more a ‘David Hirst problem’ than a problem to be tackled by the likes of me ;)

Oh dear. I shouldn't start things I haven't got time to continue...

KT 042720101135: "Yes, our drive to give an answer to everything has some very funny consequesces, does it not? But then, these are acceptable."

I think the above sentences interest me, and may be some day i may us them as the source for me to continue from.

"answers to every question" , "funny results". ie as was a long back 1984 thought [by me], [i have forgotten, any way that was after reading JM Keynes some a priori probability explained by Bertrand Russel some small book (the only one i read, my reading of such levels is quite limited) in some context of BR explaining commonsense],

there is/must be something a priori to get a result {prior knowledge interdetermining with method}, and there must be some uncertainty in the method, otherwise we will not get sufficiently new-like results.

That is, unless we dont know what we are asking [ie here know is defined from 0.1 k to 0.99 k, ie partial knows], we will not get new results. That is, that while nothing can be generated if there is not at least something preceding, also nothing new can be generated if there is not something unpreceding/uncertain.

Method obviously can compose of both, steps that we know can lead to their logical nexts known or unknown, and steps we may still turn out unknown results.

We ask questions only when we understand the preceding logics, so answers only a matter of subsequent time. In most matters, answers usually unfold themselves after the question is identified/felt.

I dont know what circumstances lead to funny [i generalise it to "uncommon"] consequences you said, but wonder what could to? Funny is also equal to (presently) unbelievable. Where could such answers arise from (if we had known what the questions we had been asking)? This is a matter worth to think about.

The answer contained something new enough to appear as funny/unreasoned. That is the intervening steps between what is usual as the nearest-knowledge, and has been obtained as the new result, is not apparent.

May be we will look into what uncertainty allowed in to the {method} could have derived this answer. Uncertain method means, such those steps that we are not clear about how unfolded. if we study this, probably we are likely to derive the narration (and reduce the fun to obvious) [that's a problem any new-/information generated becomes, as-if simultaneously, into the redundant ie evanescent half-life of].

Now, even if it is heart-breaking, we should not forget, the funny can also be wrong also. I have not studied what leads to a 'wrong' unfolding of answer. But there could not be wrong answers, otherwise than to a question born out of wrong-understanding.

[ i think here i am not talking about questions of the factual type - questions of "concepts"which are not yet boiled down into facts.] [is it possible to treat the exchange rate of dollar at a given point of time, or the temparature degrees of a place at a given point of time, AS "concepts" already boiled down to facts? I think so---eg there must have been a conceptual time interval when Blinding Whiteness was not yet Sun, the "latter"almost a fact now---even if was ethnologic, not to speak of say all the children born and growing up---but, not after literacy?].

My problem is this. I do not necessarily arrive at some answer/locality even after a prolix stream of thought; i usually do no review, i only trust i could not have been wrong; but now my wool gathering is now in public, either i learn yet to conform to the normal discipline, or exit.

I have not yet read the thread fully, and therefore if my typing words has been premature, they may be freely ignored or removed.

I want to ask myself the question.What i set out to find when i started typing words here. Set to found out? May be i have recalled some old thoughts! [conclusions!], not unlikely with some distortions/improvisations. Anyway, i did not sit set out for anything else may be. In that case, thinking/recalling has been done, and may it continue if useful.

#12. KT. 042820102015. You said you are young. then i dont know if it fit for me [not young] follow up using your words. Any way.to do so:

Truth, as simple truth, cannot be interesting. What is meant by Truth, either simple every day what it is of something or the ultimate scientifc truth/description of how the universe, or similar questions. Whether wall is white? If the weather is dry or wet? How galaxies were formed? What are the mathematical properties of highly abstract models like [i dont know what is the spelling] lie groups? I think, a "scientist" cannot restrict himself to mere facts like these; however high science, logic, maths may discover newer and newer truths, if Truth is only a knowing or understanding of what is existing that should not satisfy him.

[nothing wrong if we outgrow the given ie the so-far, not limited by the un-yet, in science or concrete world].

What are the other types of truth generally we are seeking? I do think it must be more than not-lying? or not-knowing-correctly? What is there in that in such simple status? Of course eons may not be sufficient to unravel the "true" scientific description of the universe or life or the original intention, the effort required/expended towards them is not to be devalued, but why the life if not more than truth. If when we write, truth gets elevated to or endowed with next-after-truth ideals like what is the practical use of any particular truth we are seeking. There would be no use/need for a truth if it's unconnected with use and meaning and responsibility and justice [i think i use these words as objective and defined measures ]; or at least, we can accept the study of truth [logic?] can be extended by adding additional qualities to the desirable truth. Mere truth, I think commonsense dismissed eons back, how you would support a truth that would only support a wrong [Thirukkural/Valluvar/Tamil, and i believe, countless commoners, YOU]. It ia all right restricting to the Bare Truth when you are studying it for a intentionally-limiting vocation, but it is also right to liberally study the more Endowed Truth. It is impossible to divorce a respected truth from it's endowed [bestowed?] [or FUNNY?] possibilities.

I may believe in my statements, but i do not even fully remember what truth is and yet have gone ahead to think what next?

The next question is, what are the as yet undiscovered [or next] feelings and ideals? And if we discover such as yet known [ie unknown] goodnesses, we will call them God-made or man-made; and such invention, who would be happier between them G or m? [i do not say i know what i say when i say God].

Sorry, twice uploaded, therefore removing. My count is growing! i think i should better understand how uploading takes place.

#13. Let me start the next here itself.

ST 042820102150 :

i have difficulty with this "disembodied" information. Even though concepts like "every thing connected to every thing" i have also used, now decades after, thinking in terms of "information" about "everything" is "enshrined" everywhere "every cells and Plank-spaces" that's a little difficult [in the sense of narrative abstracted, it may be ok, but nothing more than that]. You cannot extract the information of all the universe from single cell /Plank-particle [that ultimate about-point particle beyond which no more particle will be discovered/produced!], simply because that would violate some conservation[?] laws[?].

How is information independent of matter-energy? Thoughts and feelings do appear to be made of a third variant, but what we know.

I wonder, why i have the difficulty. Simply, quantitative restrictions. Second, i also believe, matter does not only tend towards a state of lowest energy, but also of lowest information. Nothing to be teleologically redundant [ie nothing existing is to be without it's unique purpose. [if so, then what of the redundancy everywhere, why nonsense codons, why so many human beings, why trillions of worlds, why we have to eating, chore-doing, sleeping day after day? why fractals? why symmetry?]. I think we need to grow towards a definition where information and redundancy are measured by a single measure and found equally valuable. For example, if information is the characteristic-valuation description of something, then redundance contributes usabilty-value? and if so what measure can simultaneously describe both bare-information [bare-design?] AND use? Eg if we say such measure 0.5 we should know both the [atleast the] informationality and usability quantitiy. How to distinguish (0.5 d, 0.5 u) from (0.5 d, 0.1 u) even while we may just say 0.5 or some other notation? Or do we have to be satisfied with to giving a name for such a concept but use two measures and both together describe the situation (0.5 of d, 0.5 of u)?

Please bear with me. My style has been stream of thought. i hope i show the end what i said when i started for.

DH: "So, what is 'truth?' Anyone got any ideas ?"

Which question is Pilate's: "So, what is 'truth?'" or "Anyone got any ideas ?"

The first question was really Socrates' question. So I assume you are asking about the second question.

I think all men have ideas. The real question is what sort of ideas do men have? There are propositional ideas, ones expressible in words capable of being judged true or false. And there are non-propositional ideas, ones not expressible as propositions.

#17. I completed reading through the thread. Since i am a beginner to formal reading the following also:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ .

It requires lot more time to properly read, so i cannot; have to make do with whatever perspective gleaned so far.

"it's raining is true iff it is effectively raining in the speaker's vicinity at the time of speaking.

If we deflate this, we get "it is raining" iff it is effectively raining in the speaker's vicinity at the time of speaking; if we take a non-indexical "truth", such as "snow is white", we get "snow is white" iff snow is effectively white.

So, "is true" has the same scope as the adverb "effectively" _ and "effectively" would probably analyse out as "there is some world Wn such that snow is white in that world and such that Wn = "the world" (or "this world"). This would relate "truth" to "knowing which world we're in"

DH: ""it's raining is true iff it is effectively raining in the speaker's vicinity at the time of speaking."

The word, 'effectively' seems to add nothing to the sentence. In that sense it is very much like the clause 'it is true that...' as in "It is true that it is raining in the speaker's vicinity at the time of speaking."

DH: "'effectively' would probably analyse out as 'there is some world Wn such that snow is white in that world' and such that Wn = 'the world' (or 'this world'). This would relate 'truth' to 'knowing which world we're in.'"

So far as I am aware, there is only one 'world.' Thus the 'PWA' analysis above means nothing. Certainly it has no pragmatic meaning... Even if it is true in some "God's Eye" view, 'PWA' can not be verified scientifically, since we have no scientific knowledge of these other 'worlds.'

Indeed, does the term 'this world' have any real meaning in 'PWA?' I think not. Once you start specifying 'this world' the whole structure becomes irrelevant, at best.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

i think, truth is always interesting bcz it revels reality. the language which expresses it might be boring.

truth is relative,too.and tht also makes it interesting. if we consider 'truth' as seeing a phenomena or a matter as it is, with our limited natural and artificial facilities. this makes the truth relative n subsequently, interesting.

While it might not be the most fashionable view, I do tend to understand "true" as "true-in-a-model"; more generally, 'truth' is normative rather than nomological...

If all information is processed through our senses and then through our minds does that not mean everything is subjective, even the data we collect?

The natural purpose of the senses is to alert one to information useful for the survival of the species. Now I do not think it wise for the antelope to ignore the lion it sees because "everything is subjective." Nor do I think it wise for a man to ignore his senses on that basis... the wisest course by far is to treat sensory data as objective, until proven otherwise.

And rather than "everything is subjective", it's perhaps better to say "there's no fact of the matter"

Because everything is filtered through mind, and we know that mind filters senses, and because the nature of mind is subjective it means that truth can only be an illusion. That is truth, and a good starting point to understand that reality the illusion. If the lion eats the antelope the antelope becomes transformed energy, therefore does the antelope truly have anything to protect considering that energy cannot be destroyed but transformed, the mind has become protective only of form therefore the antelope only wishes to protect the illusion that it is separate from the lion, behind the form is the same energy of life, this means it cannot be destroyed.

NO "fact of the matter".

You could also get smarter by saying, there is no fact of the matter and there is no matter in the fact, and that is the truth....ILLUSION.....OUR MINDS.

(I can't make the "NO" any bigger)

Why do you need "NO" to be any bigger?

DH: "And rather than "everything is subjective", it's perhaps better to say 'there's no fact of the matter.'"

I'm sure you know exactly what you mean by that, David.

OR: "Because everything is filtered through mind, and we know that mind filters senses, and because the nature of mind is subjective it means that truth can only be an illusion."

If truth can only be an illusion, then what must error be?

OR: "That is truth, and a good starting point to understand that reality the illusion. If the lion eats the antelope the antelope becomes transformed energy, therefore does the antelope truly have anything to protect considering that energy cannot be destroyed but transformed, the mind has become protective only of form therefore the antelope only wishes to protect the illusion that it is separate from the lion, behind the form is the same energy of life, this means it cannot be destroyed."

Great!! Here is an experiment to test your hypothesis: You go feed yourself to a lion while I protect myself. We shall see whose illusion becomes real.

@BO

Error is having 'BELIEF' of truth, yet knowing that all is an illusion is in fact a truth, and a starting point for philosophical debate.

That really is not a test of the hypothesis, that is merely a test of my own animal instincts, specifically fear of death.

@BO

Error is having 'BELIEF' of truth, yet knowing that all is an illusion is in fact a truth, and a starting point for philosophical debate.

That really is not a test of the hypothesis, that is merely a test of my own animal instincts, specifically fear of death.

OR: "That really is not a test of the hypothesis, that is merely a test of my own animal instincts, specifically fear of death."

Then the wisest course by far is to treat sensory data as objective, until proven otherwise.

Well it has been proven that on more than one occasion people have been put under deep hypnosis and they have been subjected to high levels of pain and not felt a thing on bringing them back, this suggests pain is subjective, I have also done experiments myself in deep meditation and know the full potential of this, it is an experiment that can only be carried out if you are willing to go to an hypnotist and go under, but that depends on your susceptibility to hypnosis or if you can do the form of meditation I have used though it would take a lot of preparation perhaps months to years.

I could say therefore it has been proven to me as being a subjective experience.

OR: "it has been proven that on more than one occasion people have been put under deep hypnosis and they have been subjected to high levels of pain and not felt a thing on bringing them back, this suggests pain is subjective."

It suggests to me that people under hypnosis are deeply suggestible.

What is not felt is certainly not subjective. The lion which the antelope does not see is clearly very lucky and may attack its prey at any time. In the same way, injuries which a hypnotized man may undergo without feeling them will show up later, when the trance is removed.

And if they do not show up? Then the man was not injured.

Please note that I am not claiming that nothing is subjective. I am merely arguing that the safest course with regard to the senses is to hold them to be imperfect, but very real indicators of what is really happening, objectively. Why do I say that? Because their natural function is to inform the animal regarding matters that may be important to its well being and even survival.

"We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the North Pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian. A person may, it is true, in the course of his studies, find reason to doubt what he began by believing; but in that case he doubts because he has a positive reason for it, and not on account of the Cartesian maxim. Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."

~ Charles S. Peirce; Journal of Speculative Philosophy (1868) 2, 140-157.

#H1-101.

1. Nov 24, 2010 4:11 pm Ozay Rinpoche

"antelope becomes transformed energy"

@*. Do we necessarily need to, Or are we {indeed can we be] correct, in treating life and intentions, as REDUCIBLE to energy?

SN: "'formulable essence:' now i think, it may be the {set of properties} that renders something an unique entity [same as your referred 'form!']."

In my humble opinion, no particular set of properties is identical with the form which causes them.

Consider Socrates. He had certain properties. He was the son of Sophroniscus; he fought in the army; he lived in Athens; etc. But he was more than all of those things... he was himself, a man.

You would seem to be reducing everything to mere epistemology, the knowledge of things, without acknowledging ontological status of the things themselves. If that is your intention... well, OK... but I don't see the point.

#H1-164. Thanks Bill O Ref Dec 31, 2010 1:05 am. This is what is wanted. I could rarely discuss with anybody due to want of time as well as of knowing known-people, and my imaginations develop only in isolation/exile. Now you have characterized what my thoughts are like, actually, this should be the starting point for me to start to know the characteristic of my thoughts, and the direction of improvement i should take. For them to be self-undisappointing, the next steps should seamlessly integrate what is my "(individual) heritage/idiosyncratic baggage$$" to the new learnings required.

i am not that much aware as to have intentions, my "individual heritage" just no more than taking accidental roads and branches; i went along happenings almost unknowing to choose, "the way of the clouds" , so to say, as the clouds appear to move, or a leaf appears to float(in air or water).

I understand you suggest that i see only a portion of things , and leave out some other portion. I would start exploring if i can see the portions that so far i had not tried to see.$ Thanks.

It would be fitting only if i take formal training/study, but that's not possible. Let distance does not occlude from you my insufficient literacy. I shall be pleased to depend on your diagnoses.

$After all, otherwise what would happen to my self confidence that i like to think!

$$But i don't know; being only a hobbyist, i an only condemned for more. I should not refuse actuality(!).