Form: Quote Commentary

INSIGHT

by Brandon Hayes

—“Curt, I am in full agreement with your statement: (quote) “..there are no premises we can claim are true only meaningful, for the purpose of commercial, financial economic, legal, and military discourse.” Then on the basis of positivist epistemology, which you acknowledge has no access to ontological truth, you proceed to contradict yourself by making a whole set of ontological truth claims such as “the universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.” These are your subjective philosophical value judgements. They are not inescapable deductions implied in the premises of science. Thus your reply is a performative simply confirming and illustrating the validity of everything I wrote.”—Prem Prayojan

I appreciate your insights in these matters; however, I think you have taken Ps position and pushed it a step further than needed (than possible; than we do).

–“The universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.”–

Saying these things are true isn’t to posit them as ultimate truth claims [these are half truths] and all truth (half or not) must be coped with. [Curt correct me if I’m off base]

–CURTD–

You’re correct in principle, in that 1) Truth Proper (Ideal Truth), is unattainable for other than the reductio and therefore irrelevant. 2) that the best we can do is achieve truthfulness (testimonial truth), and that no matter where we are in a spectrum of achieving sufficient completeness that we might SATISFY the DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY (what we mean when we say something ‘is true’), we must cope with the supply of infallibility (truth) that we have before us.

Given

TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

INTUITION: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).