Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA05257 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:27:30 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:41:36 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIGEMPCGAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200006192233.SAA10759@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Joe E. Dees
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 June 2000 8:38
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Cons and Facades - more on truth
>
>
>
> > There IS a sense of 'truth', a feeling 'rightness',
> 'correctness' that we
> > all have and that feeling is very EITHER/OR, absolute, even if it can be
> > wrong.
> >
> Feee-Lings! Ohh, ohh, ohh Feee-Lings! ;~) I thought we were
> discussing not what one felt to be true, or wished to be true, or
> believed to be true, but what one could logically, rationally and
> reasonably maintain to be true, and this requires evidence of some
> sort or other beyond one's emotional proclivities (unless what one
> is maintaining is not the truth of X, but that one feels X is true).
> >
>
Logic and rationality are not 'feelings free'. Logic and rationality are
based on syntax processes linked to the basic feeling of correct/incorrect;
we do not go past these distinctions, we do not amplify them, we do not
exagerate them and so many seem to think that these feelings are not
feelings at all but states 'outside' of feelings. They are not. What I call
secondary thinking acts to take a distinction and exagerate it or suppress
it, the aim is to bring-out an aspect for closer examination or to
de-emphasise a boundary to bring out background. This secondary thinking
will lead to a loss in precision in that you move from a single context
IS/IS NOT to a multi-context COULD BE where we move into the use of
probabilities and fuzzy logic. This may qualitatively seem rich ground but
it is also more subjective and so approximations biased.
You can see this movement from rigid IS/IS NOT to more approximate states in
the development of logic where the original universe of discourse (single
context) combined with the use of dichotomisation (A/~A and 1:1 format)
gives way to more context sensitive logic, thus propositional calculus leads
to predicate calculus and then into modal logics and fuzzy logic, the latter
where we use probabilities but this does not remove the assertion of an
absolute truth, since you have moved past that area, you have moved from
primary to secondary thinking.
What you have in rationalism is a perceived state of emotional neutrality
where positive and negative 'cancel' each other out (using the wave metaphor
to describe feelings). This neutral state 'maps' to specific persona types
who favour this mode of thinking as well as the mode being available to
other types with biases to different modes. (In the MBTI, a personality
typology system, rationalists are called NT temperaments, combining
intuition and thinking, the thimnking is the A/~A and the intuition is the
drive to discover what is behind expression)
The rationalist type of thinking stems from the combination of sensation
seeking (the expression, something local, and often fails to distinguish
text/context or else asserts a single context) and identity seeking (looking
behind the expression -- context sensitive, non-local). The psychological
tie is to sensation seeking that has had a bad experience or simply lacks
trust in themselves. This forces (a) the creation of a boundary and (b) the
objectification of processes (nominalisation where a verb becomes a noun)
such that we can map things and in doing so create a tool with which we can
solve problems (the NT type is into problem solving, solution seeking); our
explorations into sensation seeking is now done with by cautiously
pushing-out the boundary with the aid of a map which we update as we go.
(thus the map is truth captured on paper etc that we then make available to
others in our group/species).
There is NO SEPARATION of feelings from logic etc. other than the one you
seem to make (as do a lot of others where local object distinctions are
seperated from the source of 'different' interpretations). It is revealing
that you split feelings from the 'logical, rational, reasonable' suggesting
that feelings are in the realm of the illogical, irrational, and
unreasonable and yet the neurology/psychology demonstrate that feelings are
foundations of the experience of 'logical, rational, reasonable'.
IMHO you have cut yourself off from what makes you human. I think it could
be useful to trace the roots of such concepts as 'logic' or 'rational' or
'reasonable' since the process leads you to discover that these are words
linked to a particular perspective, one of many, and that perspective is
single context, object-oriented thinking that aims to clearly identify
something, to distinguish an IS from an IS NOT. It is in the realm of what I
call primary processing and it has a syntax bias and a strong emphasis on
precision and at times a degree to the exclusion of
relational issues (manifest in your rejection of feelings :-))
The development of feedback processes (memory etc) allows us to 'go beyond'
the syntax into semantics where we move into multi-context, more qualitative
processing that works to exagerate (+ or -) the object and so move us into
personal and cultural subjectivities that include context sensitivity (which
is what abduction deals with in that it is NOT particular-to-particular but
more particular-to-general in that the context we link to the text is a
general regardless of it being a particular context. I think your confusing
levels in your comments about this, the RELATIONSHIP of text to context is
particular-to-general. The IDENTIFICATION of which context the text fits-in
with identifies a particular but that particular is characteristically a
general. All three methods, induction, abduction, deduction, map to a 1:many
relationship where the 1 is held constant and we vary the many. This process
is fundamental to our neurology where we play with the what(one)/where(many)
dichotomy).
The area of semantics is the area of SECONDARY thinking (and includes the
play of the deduction/abduction loop). Secondary thinking assumes meaning is
present at all times since it assumes that the primary thinking process has
applied the 'correct/incorrect' dichotomy, the syntax process precedes the
semantic process. This means that random processes which have nothing
'behind' them, if allowed to 'slip-through' the screening process will be
given meaning since the assumption of the secondary process is that anything
that does get through must in some way be meaningful. The emphasise on
probability processes ensures that some 'rubbish' WILL get through since the
process itself is secondary and works with dichotomisations such as
meaningless/meaningful which is replaced with a qualitative assessment of
worthless/priceless -- strongly subjective terms.
Genetic diversity alone will allow for a developing bias where semantic
processing is seem as primary and that will lead you into such concepts as
there is meaning 'out there' independent of 'us' and everything is connected
to everything else and there are no absolute truths since all is in flux etc
etc
BTW I liked the absolute way you stated that there is no absolute truth etc
very Popper, but then Popper's thinking starts in secondary space since
extreme primary space is 'unscientific' due to it being too positive where
the concept of negation is not even considered. Science DEMANDS
dichotomisations to work with since it is rooted in a lack of faith and as
such needs to make comparisions, to get behind things and discover the
algorithms and formulas that lead to expressions that can be tested -- the
testing emphasis showing the underlying root of science, lack of trust in
ones experiences that was then abstracted into the discipline of Science.
The moment you move into secondary thinking you move into probabilities and
that move will include your approach to such concepts as truth; truth
becomes 'fuzzy' but when viewed from a hierarchic position then there are
absolute truths within the given contexts of personal, cultural, universal.
The fuzzyness emerges when you try to cross the boundaries and so confuse
contexts which can lead to 'errors', this universal truths should span all
levels but personal truths remain personal.
In this sense there ARE absolute truths (experienced as a feeling that is
100% 'true') you just have to make sure that the text-to-context link is the
'correct' one.
best,
Chris.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 20 2000 - 09:28:13 BST