Advertisement
Below is a precisng defintion of truth . Yes, it is long-winded but bear with it ---it isn't just a bunch of jargon . I wish I knew a shorter way of explaining it without compromising accuracy . It is a crock of STEAMING TRUTH ! Now those who would say--it's a crock of something allright--save it. It is a crock of TRUTH !
TRUTH : Is the condition whereby the use of significance (in a particular moment--or over a span of several moments) is thoroughly subordinated (in terms of relevance of content) to the requisite *significant form* that pertains to it (be that use of significance be presented only in the internal dialogue of an individual being OR be that use of significance be expressively presented to another) .
posted by:
TRUTH : Is the condition whereby the use of significance (in a particular moment--or over a span of several moments) is thoroughly subordinated (in terms of relevance of content) to the requisite *significant form* that pertains to it (be that use of significance be presented only in the internal dialogue of an individual being OR be that use of significance be expressively presented to another) .
posted by:
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Thu, November 22, 2007 - 5:05 PMSUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE ABOVE DEFINITION
SIGNIFICANCE --Is the raw aboutness of *an identity* involved with its proximate relation patterns as they are presented BEFORE any meta-narratives are applied to order that aboutness .
It would help the discussion also that the definition for the term 'significant form' be presented again since it fits in with the definition of significance .
SIGNIFICANT FORM --A specific arrangement of *bounded similarities and differences* (involving specific conjunctions and disjunctions) among the presentational components that make up an item of possible experience---that can be then witnessed AFTER meta-narratives are applied to the item .
The key phrases include (in the case of the word 'significance') '
BEFORE meta-narratives are applied '
and (in the case of the phrase 'significant form' ) the phrase that reads:
'AFTER meta-narratives are applied ' ,
as well as in the case of the definition for the phrase 'significant form ' the phrase which reads ,
'similarities and differences' (involving *specific conjunctions and disjunctions*) .
Significance--involves BEFORE metanarratives are applied
Significant form --AFTER meta-narrative .
What is a meta-narrative? ---a reader may be asking .
A meta-narrative is just a fancy word to describe a narrative which describes or predicates something about another narrative. A narrative itself is just a word that refers to a describing or some sort of re-presenting of the ideational content of some item that is observed or thought about .
The aboutness that is relevant to understanding what a specific item of significance has as its content (the "what-it-is") refers to its items that are most apparent when separated from any consideration of the more drawn out relations .
The relation pattern which sets apart the defintional focal point of the "what it is" that we might call an identity, is *just barely* a relation pattern in that its intensional focus does NOT address directly the content of very many meta-categories (that's another fancy word which means categories that include other subordinate categories) . The relation pattern(s) called proximate relation pattern is what sets its focal point in a frame of reference and is concerned with plotting it as a coordinate on an axis of intensional meaning (if you don't mind that coordinate point metaphor) .
In contrast to the raw significance, a significant form refers *somewhat* more to meta-categories and tries to refer the specific piece of significance to a higher order category in a taxonomy of categories that include other categories ---(though that must be done in a linear manner without skipping any intermediate steps but, instead, in a sequence of relevance in terms of the intensional linking of concept to the most reciprocal meta-concept ....) .
There is a nifty word that is a key word to honing in on what subject matter all the talk about significance, and significant form, involves . The word is the word SUBTEND . The significant form subtends the significance . -
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Sat, November 24, 2007 - 10:55 AMJason, my friend... it seems you've once again wandered into the M.E.G.O. zone. As much as I love ideas, sometimes your posts leave me clawing my chair in some kind of desperate manner, trying to process your obscure sentences. (And since the chairs belong to the local library, not me: that's not a good thing.) Of course, as somebody who's very much into nontraditional literature, I'm no stranger to dense, difficult and obscure writing, but that's all fiction, and thus open to interpretation, and much of it can be assumed as the artist's attempt to express the inexpressible, implying essentially that human thought is never clear or precise . . . but the bottom line is: that's fiction; it's art, and therefore free to be misinterpreted as wildly as a reader might desire . . . and if you're writing essays, especially a statement that tries to define with absolute clarity the word "truth" . . . well . . . I think you need some clarity.
Don't take it too critically, of course; I'm sometimes guilty of convoluted writing myself (and often an inability to adequately explain to people in actual "physical" words what the fuck is in my head . . . they don't know what they fuck I'm talking about, but they won't admit it until I ask them if they know what they fuck I'm talking about) . . . sometimes I'll read notes I've written months or even years before and I'll think: "What the fuck is this person getting on about?" So I sympathize, and I'm really not sure whether you're deliberately being convoluted or if it's just difficult for you to express what you're thinking in a clear way, or even if -- and this is something I'm guilty of a lot of times -- you have the tendency of assuming that the person you're talking to knows what you're talking about, as if your brain and theirs are somehow linked.
I don't know.
As a side note: A lot of time you use these obscure phrases, and it's hard to know if they're official esoteric phrases or if you've made them up -- in either case I like it, so don't think I'm telling you to get rid of that stuff. If you have to make up your own terms, then you have to make up your own terms. There's no getting around it. I make up my own terms, sometimes, as well. -
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Sat, November 24, 2007 - 4:42 PMHello Mr.Human ,
But the phrasings are NOT obscure and muddled . The phrasings are clear . Sorry if that sounds like it is such a quote unquote "predictable" . I know there are a lot of replies on the various message board where one partcipant will reply in a way that has the tenor of saying "Naahnt ah " to someone else saying "yes--ha" , or vice versa , but let me assure you that is not the case here . I recommend that you get out a flat rectangle of paper like unto a large bookmark and put it over the part of the text that is underneath the particular sentence or line you are reading if you re-read the essay above. I often have to do that in order to process long-winded treatises that have a lot of sentences that look like they border on being run on sentences. I have to do that when I am reading the essays of Alfred North Whitehead and those of Edmund Husserl .It helps .
Often one has to reread it slowly many times over in order to distill the meaning . If you have any questions I would be glad , in time (and barring extenuating circumstances) to explain particular clauses, phrases, sentences , parenthetical references . I'm going to be staying at an aunt 's apartment come late tommorrow afternoon and will be there until Friday of next week , where I will presumably not have internet access. The house where I currently reside is going to be tented for termites . -
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Mon, November 26, 2007 - 2:51 PMI've got to agree with Mr. Human here. It's quite simple - if you wish to be understood, you should be as clear as possible. If you've gone deep into the dark places and found some treasure, then the act of bringing it back to the surface obliges you to formulate it in a comprehensible way. Otherwise it will form only the basis of your own private truth, and that way lies solipsism. -
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Sun, December 9, 2007 - 8:48 AMBARNABY POSTED :I've got to agree with Mr. Human here. It's quite simple - if you wish to be understood, you should be as clear as possible. If you've gone deep into the dark places and found some treasure, then the act of bringing it back to the surface obliges you to formulate it in a comprehensible way. Otherwise it will form only the basis of your own private truth, and that way lies solipsism .
THE RESPONSE :
Though it is long-winded it is NOT an opaque use of terms when you parse it slowly and carefully. As with Human , I would gently recommend that you take a flat sheet of paper or a bookmark and put it under the lines of text below the line your reading at the moment so you don't get overwhelmed with the bigness of the paragraphs .That's often what I have to do when I'm studying a long-winded essay . Then after having read , reread ,rearead again and again slowly that line move the paper down to reveal the next lower line of text and then do the same .
Barring computer malfunctions or other extenuating circumstances , if you have any specific questions about specific terms, phrases, clauses , sentences and so forth , I'd be gald to offer further explanations , brother Barnaby . -
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Sun, December 9, 2007 - 8:34 PMYET MORE ADDENTA
There is a statement in axiology (value theory) by Hartman which dovetails in a meta-conceptual sense with the insight about Truth being the parity between significance and the significant form that governs it ---given that the best approach to values is based on fostering truth NOT emotive or instinctive inclinations (though the right deployments of emotion can be a good overlay when it does NOT constrain the process of evaluation) .
Hartman has written something apparently quite ingenious when he wrote ,
...Value...is defined as a formal relation, namely, the correspondence between the properties possessed by a subject and the predicates contained in the intension of the subject's concept.(3) Robert S. Hartman
Normative value would then provide an organizing of such first level values into a kind of *meta-conceptual mosaic* of those first level values !
The writing of Hartman in regard to this topic in indeed a revelation of sorts .
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Sun, December 9, 2007 - 9:19 PMA FURTHER ADDENTA :
...Value...is defined as a formal relation, namely, the correspondence between the properties possessed by a subject and the predicates contained in the intension of the subject's concept.(3) Robert S. Hartman
The reading of the statement above from axiologist Robert Hartman has become something of a revelation of great proportions ---since the sort of value theory I 'm proposing has fosterance of Truth as the meta-goal of the endeavor . It is also quite relevant in so far as that the relation between (a) the properties possessed by a subject and (b) the predicates contained in the intension of the subject's concept would dovetail in terms of sharing a similar meta-conceptual relation with the relation between X(a) raw significance and x(b) the significant form that governs it
The properties possessed by a subject would invite a similar sort of designation of epistemic status as the directedness of some conceptual content being greater to
other prior to meta-concepts being added (which is what raw significance is) and the predicates contained in the intension of the subject's concept (would be congruent)
-
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Sun, December 9, 2007 - 9:28 PMCONTINUING FROM THE PREVIOUS POST
would be congruent with the meta-concept of significant form .
-
-
-
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Fri, October 31, 2008 - 8:46 PM>>But the phrasings are NOT obscure and muddled . <<
This is an example of the kind of error you make frequently.
I recall working with a film producer who said, when told that the audio levels in a certain scene were bad, "No, they're not."
The technician attempted to remain calm, and said, "well; I and others can't make out any of the dialog in that scene."
The producer replied without hesitation, "Yes, you can."
The room was stunned silent. All of us agreed that the levels were off; the producer insisted that we were all mistaken and that we could, in fact, hear the dialog. Not one of us was prepared to agree. He did not change his mind, however. Incidentally, the film failed miserably. Tens of thousands of dollars and a great deal of industry were (imo) wasted. There was valid content in the movie, and a message that one could even describe as "important" in a way, but no one got that message, because the producer was not prepared to understand that he was not responsibly attending important criticism. His insanity was such that he actually believed that he knew better than any listener what was audible and what was intelligible.
He was wrong.
Some matters are subjective - whether or not your essay is obscure and muddled is not a question you can settle without conscious input.
Other subjective matters (aesthetics, morality, cultural validity, for examples) are, similarly, not subject to your definitions and sole judgment. You are, quite literally and completely, wholly unable (and unqualified) to judge the content or quality of another's experience. That you believe you have this ability is confusing to some, but, you don't, in fact, have this ability. I'm careful to use this phrase "in fact", in this case, because it's factually true - an absolute truth - that you cannot satisfactorily determine whether or not something is beautiful, or ugly, or persuasive to others, without input. When conscious input from other people and/or factual reality contradicts your suppositions / beliefs - it is for *you* to assess and modify those suppositions / beliefs. Any other stance is - as has been repeatedly exhaustively demonstrated and illustrated for you - logically absurd, incorrect, and, in some cases, utterly fantastic.
So, we can know that your assertion, "the phrasings are clear", is demonstrably in error, as proven to you by the gracious and patient reportage of your fellow respondents. As intelligent and very well educated people have been tendering you this same critique, repeatedly and in numerous venues, for some few years now, one could conclude that it is certainly past time for you to regard plain facts, accept that you are unable to modify the reality that others experience in their private minds through will or edict alone, consider the possibility that you write in an often obscure and occasionally nonsensical voice, and educate yourself in the use of language so as to amend this failing. -
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Tue, November 4, 2008 - 7:15 AMLoki Posted : Other subjective matters (aesthetics, morality, cultural validity, for examples) are, similarly, not subject to your definitions and sole judgment. You are, quite literally and completely, wholly unable (and unqualified) to judge the content or quality of another's experience. That you believe you have this ability is confusing to some, but, you don't, in fact, have this ability. I'm careful to use this phrase "in fact", in this case, because it's factually true - an absolute truth - that you cannot satisfactorily determine whether or not something is beautiful, or ugly, or persuasive to others, without input
Response: (1) . Why should anyone believe the statements that you, Loki, have posted in the above paragraph ?
(2) Ultimately there is NO yours nor mine to intangibles like defintions . It is okay to use such possessive pronouns figuratively in regard to such intangible , abstract terms ---but it is folly and wrongness to take them literally. Beware of the ownership fallacy . A better turn of phrase would be if you had typed , "the definitions that you support' or 'the defintitions which you and those who agree with what you agree with support' .
At least then you would be making a somewhat more plausible use of language in the counter-argument you wish to present and avoid lending language to the risk of being interpreted as sneaking in presuppostions that promote the ownership fallacy .
(The ownership fallacy being the fallacy which wrongly presumes that intangibles such as beliefs are a part of the personal self of the person who supports and/or expresses them ) .
(3) . Interpreting the thesis which began the present thread, requires careful parsing of the phrasings to tease out the sequences of thought . -
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Tue, November 4, 2008 - 6:09 PM>>Why should anyone believe the statements that you, Loki, have posted in the above paragraph? <<
because unlike you, he is accessibly crazy.
-
Re: PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'
Thu, June 11, 2009 - 8:25 AM>>(1) . Why should anyone believe the statements that you, Loki, have posted in the above paragraph? <<
A] they are factually true.
B] they have been made to you by 100% of highly educated and responsible critics.
C] they can be corroborated by credible observers.
D] they are confirmed by evidence.
>>(2) Ultimately there is NO yours nor mine to intangibles like defintions (sic).<<
Whereas normally this can be argued as at least nominally "true", in your case, sadly, it is not. You make up meanings for words you find pleasant to use, for your own delight. It's terribly frustrating for anyone that tries to read your nonsensical cranks.
Your further attempt to explain fallacy to me is laughable. You are the very model of a rhetorician without a shred of credibility - and this is only *partly* due to your addiction to fallacy.
>>(3) . Interpreting the thesis which began the present thread, requires careful parsing of the phrasings to tease out the sequences of thought .<<
No; it only requires recognition that you are in error, and that your assertions - as is often instantly and succinctly explained to you - can be rejected without evidence. You have made no point; you are a poor / highly flawed philosopher, at this time. -
-
Loki, straighten up and fly right , young man !
Thu, June 11, 2009 - 8:32 PM>>(1) . Why should anyone believe the statements that you, Loki, have posted in the above paragraph? <<
Loki Posted :A] they are factually true.
Response : Mr. Loki Freign, restating what you have already claimed with an air of solemn finality and NOT providing any specific , demonstrative argument to back it up is either pathetic bluster , mystification or a welter of both !
Loki Posted :B] they have been made to you by 100% of highly educated and responsible critics.
Response : Loki is guilty of the fallacy of the false appeal to authority ---another form of mystification .
Loki Posted :C] they can be corroborated by credible observers.
Response: Corroborated by what specific criteria ????
Loki Posted : D] they are confirmed by evidence.
Response : What alleged evidence are you referring to ?
>>(2) Ultimately there is NO yours nor mine to intangibles like defintions (sic).<<
Loki Posted :Whereas normally this can be argued as at least nominally "true",
Response : NOT merely nominally true, it is a seminal truth !
Loki Popsted : in your case, sadly, it is not. You make up meanings for words you find pleasant to use, for your own delight. It's terribly frustrating for anyone that tries to read your nonsensical cranks.
Response : On the contrary they are precising definitions which distill the meta-concepts foreshadowed by the conceptual patterns extant in the terms of the lexical definitions . See the Introductory textbook on Philosophy by Peter Kostenbaum on precising definitions .
Loki Posted :Your further attempt to explain fallacy to me is laughable. You are the very model of a rhetorician without a shred of credibility - and this is only *partly* due to your addiction to fallacy.
Response: Demonstration please .
>>(3) . Interpreting the thesis which began the present thread, requires careful parsing of the phrasings to tease out the sequences of thought .<<
Loki Posted :No; it only requires recognition that you are in error, and that your assertions - as is often instantly and succinctly explained to you - can be rejected without evidence. You have made no point; you are a poor / highly flawed philosopher, at this time.
Response : Unless you can provide specific deductive evidence/ demonstrative argument to vindicate that claim, then you wind up looking like the guy who disseminates -------HOGWASH !
(How do you like them apples ? Stop smoking pot and learn some sound epistemology , instead, young man. ) -
-
Re: Loki, straighten up and fly right , young man !
Fri, June 12, 2009 - 10:21 AM>>NOT providing any specific , demonstrative argument to back it up is either pathetic bluster , mystification or a welter of both !<<
I needn't. The burden of proof lay on you - interestingly, this is always the case with your wild imaginings-posed-as-essay.
>>Loki is guilty of the fallacy of the false appeal to authority <<
Incorrect. Educate yourself post-haste.
>>Corroborated by what specific criteria ???? <<
There is no merit to this question. In future, I will use the glyph § to indicate that I will not now or ever waste time on educating you on a given point of logic, formal or otherwise. This is your cross to bear, not mine.
>>Response : What alleged evidence are you referring to ? <<
§; Herewith I will use the glyph π to signify that all you have ever posted to the internet on every forum on every network stands as the reply to your question / demand.
>> Response : NOT merely nominally true, it is a seminal truth ! <<
No, it isn't. Burden of proof. Herewith, I will use the glyph £ to signify that the burden of proof obviously lay with you.
>>On the contrary they are precising definitions...<<
§£
>>Demonstration please . <<
§π
>>Unless you can provide specific deductive evidence/ demonstrative argument to vindicate that claim, then you wind up looking like the guy who disseminates<<
§£π -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
It figures . Loki when he apparently cannot or will NOT come up with a plausible argument types ,"the question has no merit". Don't you know that people see through that vapid bluster you put forth?
Fri, June 12, 2009 - 12:10 PM>>Loki is guilty of the fallacy of the false appeal to authority <<
Loki Posted :Incorrect. Educate yourself post-haste.
Response: Notice the complete lack of a specific rebutal from Lokifreign,shown above . Pathetic !
>>Corroborated by what specific criteria ???? <<
Loki Posted :There is no merit to this question. In future, I will use the glyph § to indicate that I will not now or ever waste time on educating you on a given point of logic, formal or otherwise. This is your cross to bear, not mine.
Response: Is that the best you can come up with for a reply ---claiming there is "no merit to the question" that you are unable or unwilling to give a plausible answer to ???? Pathetic . You don't think that anyone else sees through that tactic you use ? That reply you gave shown in the excerpt above just goes to show that you are still using much the same phony approach to discourse that you do when in recent years past you would bandy about fancy words like "pedantic" and "sophistry" ---to swerve away from questions that you apparently couldn't, or wouldn't, come up with a plausible answer to !
You are an intelligent man , inasmuch as you are something of a wordsmith and have a level of cognitive agility. Yet you waste much of the intelligence on finding ways to obsfucate . Obsfucation plus mendacity = the approach of Loki in the tribe forums (much of the time ...perhaps a very few exceptions). The approach you take to the matters discussed in the present forum [and lots of others] has what Big Daddy in the movie based on the Tenesseee Williams play called the smell of mendacity . A "dumb person" in the low IQ sense of the word 'dumb' --who nonentheless takes an earnest approach to inquiry would have more epistemic virtue than a person such as you who intentionally persists in misusing the intelligence they use for obsfucation and mendacity !
You have rejected the duty that a person has to maintain consistent thought. Remember ambivalent /ambiguous thinking is the hobgoblin of small minds . Consistency is right . Relativism is wrong !
It is never too late for you to straighten up and fly right . Like Nat King Cole sang ,
'Straighten up and fly right ! Straighten up and get right !'
[If circumstances permit, I will hopefully get a chance to debunk other statements that you put forth in the latest response post. Highlighting how pathetic it is for you Loki to claim "the question has no merit" is enough of a broadside for now to show how flimsy the patently ANTI-intellectual approach that you Mr. Loki freign
put forth. ] -
-
Re: It figures . Loki when he apparently cannot or will NOT come up with a plausible argument types ,"the question has no merit". Don't you know that people see through that vapid bluster you put fort
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 1:46 PMSo , Mr.Lokifreign ,
Are you now persuaded ? -
-
-
Re: §£π is another cop out from the bag of tricks
Mon, July 6, 2009 - 7:45 AMLoki Posted: §£π
Response : When you cannot or will not come up with a plausible answer type some cutesy glyph .Ain't that just peachy .
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
First Post
Sun, November 2, 2008 - 2:53 PMEvery kind of writing is good save that which bores, Voltaire
-