Deborah MacPherson schrieb:
> Hi Ingvar,
>
> If it was possible to have any type of statement that was without any
> qualifications completely true I believe this would require numbers
> and mathematics, and may not be possible using words. (01)
I do see, believe me, the point you and Pat want to make. I just wanted
to (as other philosophers has done before me) fasten attention to the
fact that you become involved in self-referential problems. With your
statement "Reality is messy and long" you seem to want to say something
that really is "without any qualifications completely true ". (02)
best,
Ingvar (03)
> The "tidy end of the spectrum" as Pat said, with an acceptable degree
> of ambiguity to facilitate interpretation, convey ideas, and look at
> similar relationships in different ways.
>
> Parts of reality that are not in need of editing is a super tough
> question. I can only imagine short instances like playing with a puppy
> that is bound to grow up soon, holding hands watching a sunset kind of
> thing - temporary. Sustainable, reusable reality made into truth over
> long periods of time requires examination and editing... the editing
> process makes ideas stick, unedited messy reality slips away sooner or
> later, is too large to consider, eventually forgotten and replaced
> with whatever is new on the radar.
>
> Debbie
>
>
> On 5/18/07, *Ingvar Johansson*
> <ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>
> Deborah MacPherson schrieb:
> > Yes Pat - Nailed it. Thank you.
> >
> > Debbie
>
> He didn't nail it completely. What about your statement "Reality is
> messy and long"? Can it (to quote Pat below) "only describe a
> limited part of the actual world of reality"? If you say 'yes', then
> there may be parts of reality that are not in need of "editing" in
> your
> sense. And if you say 'no', then you have an example of a
> statement that
> is without any qualifications straightforwardly true.
>
> best,
> Ingvar
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/17/07, *Pat Hayes* <phayes@xxxxxxx <mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx>
> <mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx <mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx>>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > If I may intervene here (before someone starts up
> > a fan) I think that everyone here in fact agrees,
> > but they are using the terminology in exactly
> > opposite senses. Let me try to state what I think
> > is the agreement in neutral terms.
> >
> > There is a world out there. It is quite amazingly
> > big and complicated, however you look at it. If
> > you think of it as physical then every cubic cm
> > of it in the immediate vicinity has about 10|14
> > atoms in it all buzzing around in a quantum
> > dance, not to mention all the photons. If you
> > think of it as social then it has hundreds of
> > millions of people engaged in all sorts of
> > activities every few seconds, all from different
> > cultures and zeitgeists and so on. If
> > biologically, just the lichens are enough to make
> > you feel dizzy. However you think of it, its WAY
> > too big to describe fully or to even think about
> > without getting a headache. And anyway, in order
> > to think about it, we have to use some way to
> > describe it to ourselves. We have to think about
> > it using some set of ideas or concepts or
> > thoughts or words, or whatever these things are
> > that we have in our heads and use to think with.
> > And these - call them our ideas - are both
> > limited and limiting.
> >
> > *They can only describe a
> > limited part of the actual world of reality*:
> >
> > there is just too much of it to think about it
> > all. Moreover, we can't think about reality
> > "raw", as it actually IS, without using some set
> > of ideas. So what we think about it - reality,
> > that is - is always in some sense colored, and no
> > doubt distorted, by the ideas that we have to
> > think about it with. Indeed, if there are some
> > aspects of reality about which we have no ideas -
> > and there almost certainly are, for all of us -
> > then we can't think about that part or aspect of
> > reality at all. And we may not all have the same
> > set of ideas, so our thoughts may be
> > incommensurate with one another.
> >
> > (Now, one position is that since we can only
> > think with ideas, and cannot ever get hold of raw
> > reality uncolored by some mental framework, that
> > even to postulate the existence of a reality is
> > wrong or maybe unnecessary or un-Ockhamist. All
> > there are are the thoughts that we all have.
> > We've had that particular argument on this list
> > already: I mention it only to show how it fits
> > into this picture, or at any rate into the
> > picture frame.)
> >
> > I think that what Debbie means by the above is
> > only this: that reality is large and messy, but
> > that 'truth' is always the truth of some
> > idea/thought/ontology/assertion, so is always at
> > the tidy conceptualized, thinking end of the
> > spectrum. And Bill and Don are puzzled, because
> > they are living at the tidy end and think of
> > truth as a relationship to reality, so the word
> > used alone seems to them to be more concerned
> > with the reality than the concept or thought. But
> > the only sensible way to talk about truth,
> > surely, is that it is a relationship BETWEEN
> > concepts/thoughts/ideas/assertions and reality.
> > If you chop off either end of this relation, the
> > notion of truth isn't really meaningful any more.
> > If there is no reality, then truth has nothing to
> > be true with respect to. And if we aren't talking
> > about some conceptualization, then all there is
> > is the actual world, and of course that is
> > 'true': but that statement is vacuous.
> >
> > Pat
> > --
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
> > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
> > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
> > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Subscribe/Config:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto: ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> > To Post: mailto: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > *************************************************
> > Deborah L. MacPherson
> > Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
> > Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
> >
> > **************************************************
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto: ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> > Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ingvar Johansson
> IFOMIS, Saarland University
> home site: http://ifomis.org/
> personal home site:
> http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> <http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/>
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *************************************************
> Deborah L. MacPherson
> Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
> Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics
>
> **************************************************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (04)
--
Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
home site: http://ifomis.org/
personal home site:
http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|