The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

“The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery.”
― Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Anomaly654
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: midwest US

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by Anomaly654 » Sun Oct 21, 2018 4:52 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:25 am
I am thinking of putting a glossary of terms together - this will help me absorb what you are writing more clearly.

I can have the glossary open in one tab and your writings open in another tab.

Generally speaking, I can understand what you are saying with good clarity but I would like to logically analyse the semantic structure and be able to reciprocate more solidly with you. I think this is necessary given the technical nature of your writing. Your writing is a whole subject to be explored.

I hope you do not mind.

I do this in my field all the time.
I will work on a glossary as well. Am currently working on a paper of essentially the content posted here, to be posted at academia.edu when finished, but will work on glossary as well. Also want to point out the recent posting of part two above; occurs to me you might not have seen it since I did it as a 'fresh' post without posting as a response.

I would appreciate input from you if you have time and are willing as to what doesn't work with I've posted. What are its weaknesses from your perspective, how can and should the mechanism of value be modified for improvement, what are its glaring inconsistencies? Don't want to hear why it works, but why it doesn't. Nothing is ever learned from agreement. Thanks En-De.

User avatar
Anomaly654
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: midwest US

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by Anomaly654 » Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:17 pm

In rereading from the links provided in the Semiotics thread and in posts therein I realize my thinking has been that value "travels" from one information bundle (external info) to another (agent intellect). Was aware of the representational nature of these exchanges, but haven't followed them through very carefully. Not sure at this point if or how much the application of semiotics affects the value mechanism hypothesis, but intend to continue reading to see if I need to adjust anything before posting paper online. Any thoughts from you on this would be appreciated, En-De.

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by encode_decode » Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:08 pm

Sorry for the delay, I have been quite busy.

I am more than happy to take a look at everything and offer my thoughts.

I have already read part 2 and I will reread both parts again - making sure I am concentrating when reading.

I will keep you posted.
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by encode_decode » Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:02 pm

I am back. I think the first thing I would suggest is that one has a reason for writing up such a philosophy.

What I am saying here is we need to explore your motive - the very thing that got you interested in the first place and where you would like to go with it now. Such an inquiry . . . an introspection of oneself . . . is not as easy as it seems. It is important to understand your own motives as they provide a driving force for what you are doing - there are of course other driving factors that can be considered, none however, as important as your motive.

This should be something that is not written into your philosophy exactly as you would answer based on a question distilled from the format I am providing.

Next would come the groundwork that what you have written is based upon - more on this later - for now I will hint that it is something that leads into what you have written so far. This needs to grab the receivers attention - the more plain and simple the language is in this section the more successful the whole discourse becomes.
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

User avatar
Anomaly654
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: midwest US

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by Anomaly654 » Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:54 am

encode_decode wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 8:02 pm
we need to explore your motive - the very thing that got you interested in the first place and where you would like to go with it now. Such an inquiry . . . an introspection of oneself . . . is not as easy as it seems. It is important to understand your own motives as they provide a driving force for what you are doing - there are of course other driving factors that can be considered, none however, as important as your motive.
This is a bit confusing. Why would it interest anyone what the author’s motive is behind a clearly analytic metaphysical hypothesis? Wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) the content either be interesting or uninteresting on just the basis of the ideas presented?

Actually, I was motivated to explore an unorthodox theological or doctrinal position, which I spent a few years doing. About 10 years later I was self-employed and work was slow, so took a winter job sitting in a 10x8 guard shack near a dam on the Mississippi River from 6pm to 6am with nothing to do except wave at 8 millwrights who drove in to park and work at the dam. Read most of Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles out of boredom. Also read a lot of philosophy I was downloading and printing to take to the guard shack. Reading St. Thomas’ take on truth I came across Avicenna’s single sentence. That was an epiphany for me which led to an exploration of the metaphysical reasons for the theological position I was struggling with. I had to learn philosophy fundamentals part time in between raising a family and making a living. Thank God the internet came along when it did. The mechanism of value was pursued as the embellishment (or maybe ground?) of a theological approach to a certain Christian doctrine.

Next would come the groundwork that what you have written is based upon - more on this later - for now I will hint that it is something that leads into what you have written so far. This needs to grab the receivers attention - the more plain and simple the language is in this section the more successful the whole discourse becomes.
I understand the bit about simple, clear language. Not very good at it as I suspect you’ve noticed. But what do you mean exactly by “groundwork”? Do you mean I should show more support for these ideas from past and contemporary thinkers on the subject? The problem is, aside from Daniel DeHaan who wrote a paper on Avicenna’s methodology to truth (PDF I found online that is no longer available except by permission and download directly from author) I haven’t found anyone else who takes this approach to value.

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by encode_decode » Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:41 am

Give me a day or two to ponder your response.

You have pulled forward a couple of interesting points of conversation and I do not want to waste any of your time.

When thinking about what analytic metaphysics is for: I am drawn to the idea of mixing the ontological with the conceptual to help appeal to intuition.

I think intuition is close to the starting point of where ideas are first generated - there has to be something internal that motivates us to push forward with such intuition into creating ideas and concepts and hopefully into structured explanations from where this intuition originated from and to me that seems to be important.

I want to now take a more in depth look at what you have written prior to your last post and pull out what may or may not work from a logical standpoint.

I will be back soon.
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by encode_decode » Thu Nov 22, 2018 2:25 pm

I am not wanting to delay my thoughts for much longer. After being stuck for words to write in response to things you have brought up I am left with the following . . .
Anomaly654 wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:54 am
This is a bit confusing. Why would it interest anyone what the author’s motive is behind a clearly analytic metaphysical hypothesis? Wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) the content either be interesting or uninteresting on just the basis of the ideas presented?
I see the same dilemma. I guess another way of putting what I was meaning is: what is the justification of the analysis? What is the reason for the analysis?

After spending some time thinking about this I come to the following conclusion: I guess there need not be a justification for such an analysis.
Anomaly654 wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:54 am
I understand the bit about simple, clear language. Not very good at it as I suspect you’ve noticed. But what do you mean exactly by “groundwork”? Do you mean I should show more support for these ideas from past and contemporary thinkers on the subject? The problem is, aside from Daniel DeHaan who wrote a paper on Avicenna’s methodology to truth (PDF I found online that is no longer available except by permission and download directly from author) I haven’t found anyone else who takes this approach to value.
I think what I am referring to as groundwork is as follows: providing more accessible language as a precursor to the more technical language used in your writing.

I am of course thinking of a broader readership but this need not be the case as what you have written has its own value.
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

User avatar
Anomaly654
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: midwest US

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by Anomaly654 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:40 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Thu Nov 22, 2018 2:25 pm
I am not wanting to delay my thoughts for much longer. After being stuck for words to write in response to things you have brought up I am left with the following . . .
Anomaly654 wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:54 am
This is a bit confusing. Why would it interest anyone what the author’s motive is behind a clearly analytic metaphysical hypothesis? Wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) the content either be interesting or uninteresting on just the basis of the ideas presented?
I see the same dilemma. I guess another way of putting what I was meaning is: what is the justification of the analysis? What is the reason for the analysis?

After spending some time thinking about this I come to the following conclusion: I guess there need not be a justification for such an analysis.
Anomaly654 wrote:
Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:54 am
I understand the bit about simple, clear language. Not very good at it as I suspect you’ve noticed. But what do you mean exactly by “groundwork”? Do you mean I should show more support for these ideas from past and contemporary thinkers on the subject? The problem is, aside from Daniel DeHaan who wrote a paper on Avicenna’s methodology to truth (PDF I found online that is no longer available except by permission and download directly from author) I haven’t found anyone else who takes this approach to value.
I think what I am referring to as groundwork is as follows: providing more accessible language as a precursor to the more technical language used in your writing.

I am of course thinking of a broader readership but this need not be the case as what you have written has its own value.
I think I offered the motivation for the value mechanism in the theistic necessitarian thread recently: the metaphysic posited above was developed in response to the theological problem how could God save all [in Christian salvation terms] in light of traditional 'eternal hell' or [less traditional] 'annihilationist' doctrines? This was puzzling because I was seeing an allegoric structure developing from the bible--discussion of which on various theology boards was either politely ignored by the more educated Christians I engaged with or ridiculed with significant enthusiasm by the more ordinary (and less inclined to reason) 'man in the pew'. Mounting frustration after several years of trying to defend the legitimacy of a metaphoric view of scripture drove me to start studying philosophy to see if I could find some connection, as mentioned in a post in this thread. Ran across the Avicenna sentence in the Summa, it clicked, and the mechanism for value began to unfold. So mostly the value mechanism is a secondary line of study for me, intended to flesh out the theological setting. Not sure if this is something I should include in introduction of the paper I hope to post soon. What are your thoughts on this?

To this same end the presentation of semiotics here a few months ago was very interesting to me. I hope to go back soon, read carefully through the posts and try to pick up on some of the conversations we left behind, if there's still any interest.

Btw, it occurs to me that using value mechanics to support the notion of "Suitably Oriented Agents" might seem like the prime motive for its existence. Not at all true. The state of a person more suitably competent to perceive and react to prescriptive norms than others--though a common idea in Christian theological circles--was just a late-developing unintended consequence, an unfolding of the value mechanism that surfaced less than a year ago but was brought into sharper focus in the posts above.

Serendipper
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 12:00 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by Serendipper » Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:29 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 3:57 pm
Absolute Truth

Absolute prescriptive truth, though considered by many to be in the realm of theology and faith, is here assumed to be a metaphysical standard. First, absolute factual truth (or as close to it as we’re capable of attaining, which seems to be pretty close) is mathematically attestable and this is one of many notable analogies in theology of moral-to-material parallels.[6] Second, similar operation—that mutable truths are supervised by immutable truth (i.e., as non-contact forces supervise matter)—is intuited as parallel function in the prescriptive realm, e.g. the range of goods and evils have reference to a moral stabilizing constant, as demonstrated in thought experiment in previous post. Finally, the self refuting nature of materialism, relativism and skepticism are all based on the logical necessity of absolute truth.
Hello Anomally. I'm happy to read that you're in good health.

I see what you mean about the necessity of absolute truth because there simply must be basis for everything else, but I'm wondering your thoughts on this:

Let's say the situation of "subject observes object" is denoted by S -> O

Now let S1 -> (S -> O) be a subject observing the situation of another subject observing an object whereby the situation has itself become a object of observation described by O2 = S ->O

Now with the above nomenclature established, let's consider this situation:

T -> (Sn -> (S2 -> (S1 -> (S -> O))) where T = absolute truth because it is the one thing that is not itself observed, but because it cannot be both observed and absolute at the same time, it therefore can never be an object of knowledge (or object of anything).

What are your thoughts on this?

Also, if it's true that absolute truth cannot be known, what would that fact suggest about the knower in relation to that unknowable absolute?
Serendipity - the occurrence of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way; life; learning.

User avatar
Anomaly654
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm
Location: midwest US

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth - Part 1

Post by Anomaly654 » Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:52 am

Hello Serendipper,
Let's say the situation of "subject observes object" is denoted by S -> O

Now let S1 -> (S -> O) be a subject observing the situation of another subject observing an object whereby the situation has itself become a object of observation described by O2 = S ->O
It’s unclear to me: Why does O2 represent S - > O? No problem with that per se, just wonder because I don’t see it used anywhere else.
Now with the above nomenclature established, let's consider this situation:

T -> (Sn -> (S2 -> (S1 -> (S -> O))) where T = absolute truth because it is the one thing that is not itself observed, but because it cannot be both observed and absolute at the same time, it therefore can never be an object of knowledge (or object of anything).

What are your thoughts on this?
Hmmm. Interesting proposal, S. First thought: the statement, “[absolute truth] cannot be both observed and absolute at the same time” I take to be true only from the perspective of the subjects (assuming human subjects), not—or not necessarily—from the standpoint of actuality. I see no reason why T could not actually fail to be observed yet be absolute at the same time outside of apprehension. In fact, that we’re able to sense the propriety or logic of an absolute suggests to me that this reality is available just on the basis of it being apprehended information. I hold that anything the mind is able to apprehend has reality of some sort. A unicorn is a construct taken from certain aspects of really existing things: horse and horn from the material, magical powers conveyed from and as a feature of the spiritual realm, where things like miracles would be spiritual realities that occasionally “pop through” into the material sphere or within grasp of sensory experience. Such experiences seem to matter-grounded human minds like magic, so it seems natural that we shape the nearly unseen spiritual into mysterious magical happenings in our spatiotemporal reality and apply them to our fictions.

But to the matter of why (assuming all S->O situations are cases of humans engaged in perception of some set of circumstances) we aren’t able to unite with T [except on a very distant or diminutive sense, this I think is adequately explained by the idea that human essence is fragmentally falsified. This state of falsification is exemplified in the Bible in Deut 5:23-26 and other places, where the fear of hearing God’s voice is a metaphor for the severe resistance between absolute Truth and falsity in human spirit. Falsification acts as a ‘darkening agent’ of the mind by way of the spirit [essence]. It creates ignorance of, dumbs us down, to prescriptive matters. Think of the old time newspaper print where shades of gray were created by admixtures of white and black dots. Imagine the human soul similarly salt-and-peppered with white (true) and black (false) informational elements. (Essence and universals aren’t easily found in time and space, [though easier if you accept tropes] but like matter, essence and attributes reveal themselves in the mind as information, and information carries meaning. If something has meaning, it has existence of some sort imo.)

If we use a ‘thing (A)-attribute (B)’ model of reality, truth is a “value condition” of existence as a fundamental feature of both A and B. B seems to play out in human perception naturally: ought, ought not, good, evil, etc. As creative beings, we assign our own truth to certain areas of life—laws, standards, rules, etc.—all of which are impermanent and mutable. Material truths have little power to affect intellect. Tell someone 6+6=8 and little if any offense occurs. Tell the same person she’s fat and ugly and observe a more robust set of reactions. Prescriptive truth is the powerful one.

Sorry, I digress. To my thinking, saying absolute truth is outside human perception and common existence is just acknowledgement that God mercifully places Himself [for the most part, not entirely] out of sight. Absolute truth is a roaring fire to the kindling of falsity, which is one of the most commonly taught metaphoric principles in the OT. This I think answers in some sense at least your last question:
Also, if it's true that absolute truth cannot be known, what would that fact suggest about the knower in relation to that unknowable absolute?

Post Reply