Hi Chris,
yours is interesting prose although I definitely have to ask for some
clarification about the actual ideas.
Provided that your "truth" is validated by a sameness feeling elicited somehow
by some of the machinery of your brain, which seems to be hardly deniable, at
least if we focus on the physiological process "underlying" or "implementing"
(or choose any verb you like) human reasoning, is this perspective any useful to
say something about how does this reasoning - believing - attributing truth to
syntax - actually works? Perhaps that remark about PRECISION, if you can
elaborate about it? Anything to say to say to the serious people that seriously
think that there are absolute truths or at least absolute rules in the
assignment of truth to sentences?
And perhaps you may elaborate about the relationship between the "flocking"
concept and inter-cultural exchanges?
I am also in doubt whether you are expressing your ideas here, because you seem
to be using the same expressions that in a recent post you seemed to be
ascribing to the Nazis, Heidegger, and heavy-metal ontologies (another cute
expression).
Thanks,
Andrea
> All truth is local; local individual, local cultural, local universal. That
> is due to the SAMENESS emphasis required to validate a truth in that X
> 'feels' the same as all other 'truths'. SAMENESS is a LOCAL resident since
> truth requires PRECISION. There is a fundamental 'feeling' elicited by part
> of your brain that ties truth and syntax together where truth is related to
> OWNERSHIP, to TERRITORY and so the distinction of MINE (note the local,
> personal emphasis) and NOT MINE.
>
> 'Flocking' behaviour, where the individual only makes local distinctions and
> so interacts with immediate context that in turn interacts with 'its'
> immediate context and so on 'up' the ladder, is not inherent in the
> individual, only in the individual in a group. This is like the distinction
> of electrons and their 'lumpness' when in a relationship with an atom. On
> their own they can have any energy state but in a relationship with an atom
> that is state quantified.
>
> Thus the 'flow' of electrons can be interpreted as a 'flocking' behaviour; a
> result of RELATIONSHIPS and as such, from this can emerge 'truths' but only
> as long as the switch is on :-)
>
> Chris.
> ------------------
> Chris Lofting
> websites:
> http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
> List Owner: http://www.egroups.com/group/semiosis
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
--
Andrea Sosio
RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
Tel. (8)9006
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
