Context

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by coachn, Jul 24, 2017.

  1. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    LOL! Or both! :D
    Rhetorical?
    Take a word like "dog". What does it mean out of context?

    1) An animal (canine)
    2) A pet (canine familiar)
    3) A companion pet (canine friend)
    4) A frankfurter (food)
    5) A ugly person (undesirable to view)
    6) An uncooperative machine (undesirable to use)
    7) A condition (dog tired; dogging it; dog days)

    Context is critical in understanding what a word means. This includes truth.

    Example "prefect". Out of context, you have to guess and that opens the door to all sorts of assumptions.
     
    Bloke likes this.
  2. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,410
    3,100
    133
    Hi Coach

    Thank you for following through on this content from the closed thread.

    I think you've helped me in the above post so I also thank you for that.

    Do you think a phrase like "absolute truth" is also subjective and contextual? Perhaps a myth ? Or something else ?
     
    coachn likes this.
  3. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    You're most welcome. I felt it could be carried to another thread and followed through on it. Glad to know there is an interest.
    What do I think? When I hear phrases like "absolute truth" and "supreme being", the first questions that come to my mind are "how are you defining this?", "what do you mean by that?", "what exactly are you trying to convey?" and "what is your intention behind its use?".

    In other words, I look for context so that I don't assume I think I know what the phrases mean and what they are trying to convey, etc.

    It's only after I get contextual information that I can ascertain the mythology behind the phrases and their uses.

    Yeah, go ahead... ask me about mythology :cool:
     
    Warrior1256 and Bloke like this.
  4. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,410
    3,100
    133
    I'm not really sure what I think... except I am not sure, but would like to be more sure, or certainly less unsure !

    Can I suggest we put aside "supreme being" because it's (perhaps) more subjective and rather focus on this very interesting and (for me) challenging philosophical idea of "absolute truth" ?

    For some, "truth" will be a binary description. Either, true or not true. As in the other thread, we can also lead ourselves down the subjective Platonic view of truth, but again, I think I would like to acknowledge that for a moment, but again, put it aside.

    Let's assume "truth" is an absolute in itself, in a binary construct of being true and not true. (not sure we can even do that, but let's assume we can to explore). People then add "absolute" before truth, and hence "absolute truth". In the binary definition, does the absolute become a superlative ? Why do people talk about "absolute truth" rather than just "truth", do they mean truth which cannot be questioned or is an axiom? (an axiom actually not making the thing it describes as true, simply an axiom)

    In Freemasonry, we're told our great principals are "brotherly love, relief and truth" and I think the first two are easy and truth by far is the hardest of the three. So the conversation is obviously directly related to Freemasonry (okay, Masonry to keep you happy... correct ? Or not correct ? :) )

    Does "absolute truth" rely on faith ? Can you think it out ? Is it a construct ? Or, is there really something out there which is "absolute truth" and if so, does it lead us back to this Supreme Being which you mention and which my thoughts immediately turn to ? I guess not, they might not have any relationship...

    And I am not talking in the context of any sort of crisis of faith, but in the context of philosophy and thought... I guess it is just one of the great questions... but Freemasonry actually presents it to us because of the "grand principles" of brotherly love, relief and truth....

    Does any of that make sense or am I just rambling ?

    And I must apologize , but I'm about to turn in and tomorrow will be a 16 hour day, so it will be a while before I expect I am able to return to this thread... my absence is from necessity not a lack of keenness to read responses..
     
    coachn likes this.
  5. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    My study of the Trivium, and, more specifically, Logic, tells me that truth relies upon sound Premises and Arguments surrounding that Premise that arrive at a supportable conclusion.

    I differentiate "truth" from "Truth" in that truth is an arrived at conclusion supported by those surrounding arguments and founded upon sound premises. The arrived at conclusion may or may not be true, or may or may not be false. This is the nature of all logical constructions. There are four possible conclusions:

    1) true
    2) not true
    3) false
    4) not false

    where, "true and not false" and "not true and false" are not synonymous in their paring. And, by my study, it is clear that I can arrive at a truth that may be in reality 1) not true, 2) false, or 3) not false, but not really true.

    Where as Truth has no Premises or Arguments. It simply exists outside of these. It is transcendent to them.

    Sleep well my Brother.
     
    Bloke likes this.
  6. Ripcord22A

    Ripcord22A Site Benefactor

    3,324
    2,027
    183
    My dang brain is spinning......

    Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app
     
    Warrior1256 and coachn like this.
  7. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,375
    3,343
    183
    When I hear these phrases the first thought that occurs to me is "Someone is about to give me their OPINION."
    Lol! Mine too.
     
    coachn likes this.
  8. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    Lol! That too!
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  9. JJones

    JJones Moderator Staff Member

    1,146
    622
    113
    @coachn

    I'm curious what books/resources you delved into when you studied the Trivium? I delved into some Plato but I don't think I was ready for it at the point.
     
    coachn likes this.
  10. Faizol

    Faizol Registered User

    1
    0
    1
     
  11. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    If you have not studied the Trivium, Plato's Works would be over your head. Plato's works are categorically "Philosophy". If you were following the classic scholastic education, you would not be permitted to touch his works until you finished your Quadrivium studies.

    Scholastic training was created to properly prepare for serious study of philosophical and theological texts. It began with making sure the future student was of the right character morally and socially (acceptable). Once it was clear that the foundation was pure, disciplines were to be instilled (Apprentice Work). After this, Trivium and Quadrivium studies would commence (FC Work). Only after all this would a student be provided the philosophical and theological works.

    I followed the typical college preparation and engineering curriculum during my first 22 years. I was required to study and become proficient in Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric and familiar with Humanities/Sociology/Psychology while also studying and becoming proficient in Mathematics, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, Statistics, Programming, Laplace & S Transforms, Physics (statics and dynamics), Chemistry, Metallurgy, Economics and assorted management & financial topics.

    If I were to start from scratch...

    1) I would obtain Grammar books from the late 1800s to early 1900s that explore sentence diagramming and components. Grammar is not about speaking and writing English. It's about understanding how language is structured and used to convey meaning.
    2) I would obtain books on Logic and Debate. It is about learning how premises are surrounded by arguments to lead to conclusions AND how conclusions can still be wrong even though premises and arguments are not flawed.
    3) I would get books that classify all the types of Tropes and Schemes (figures of speech) and explore how Rhetoric is used in communications where meta-meaning is conveyed/masked/concealed. There are hundreds.

    I would get them all for free from Google books. There are many good books available. It is an excellent resource.
     
    JJones likes this.
  12. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,375
    3,343
    183
    Wow!!! Like Rip said....."My dang brain is spinning."
     
  13. LK600

    LK600 Premium Member

    654
    715
    113
    JJones likes this.
  14. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,410
    3,100
    133
    "truth" from "Truth" I understand, but if not using a capital T, dues it sit under #4 above ?

    1) true
    2) not true
    3) false
    4) not false

    I think this is a good construct. Does "absolute truth" sit at #1 or as your post, "transcendent to them. " ?
     
    coachn likes this.
  15. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,749
    546
    113
    When I read "truth" I always think: true to what. Until I have a reference I cannot know what is true.

    For example does 1+1 =2 or does 1+1 =10?

    It depends on the reference. 1+1=10 in binary while 1+1=2 in any numbering system above binary.
     
  16. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    Great Question!

    The problem with coming to understanding of this is that by associating T with logical outcomes of t premise-argument coupling you indirectly say T is not transcendent of the P-A coupling.

    That being said, we can create a calculus comparison of sorts to approach understanding and therefor closer comprehension of T.

    We take the premise-argument coupling and approach T by taking t construction as it approaches limits.

    Let's define them:
    1. Argued truth = t
    2. Absolute Truth = T
    3. Premise = P
    4. Argument = A
    5. Conclusion = C
    where:
    1. t is dependent upon premise and argument.
    2. T is transcendent and therefor independent of premise and argument.

    Even though T is transcendent and independent of premise and argument, in our limited space-time understanding, the best we as humans can hope for is approaching an understanding and comprehension of "T". It might look like this:
    1. T = |t| + not false
    where
    1. t = C1 / [All possible P1-A1 couplings supporting C1 approaching zero]
    2. not false = C2 / [All possible P2-A2 couplings supporting C2 approaching zero]

    Unfortunately, this means by default that the most profound Ts are by their vary nature brought to our awareness by wholly unsupported conclusions. :confused:

    Conversely, should we take another approach and present it this way:
    1. t = C1 * [All possible P1-A1 couplings supporting C1 approaching infinity]
    2. not false = C2 * [All possible P2-A2 couplings supporting C2 approaching infinity]
    We get T by taking all premises and arguments to infinity and approaching a T that is not transcendent of P-A couplings but is utterly supported by them.

    Thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017
  17. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,410
    3,100
    133
    In reliance of your whole post, particularly "T = |t| + not false", I agree.

    So we're at Faith ?

    ~~~

    "not false = C2 / [All P2-A2 couplings supporting C2 approaching zero"

    Zero, as in zero error ?

    Let's assume the "Supreme Being" as the GAOTU is the only entity which has an understanding of T. Our hope of doing the same is a bit like a dog (in several senses of the word you used earlier :) ) but mainly in the sense of the canine species. Like a dog, using their advanced but limited perception and interlect , they can obtain a sense of human emotions and language, but the comprehension as a dog of those two things is limited by being only a dog. Such is it with humans' understanding of T in relation to both the GAOTU and T itself. We can get a sense if T, but never understand it.... and realizing that lack of insight and limitation is a revelation in itself. "Approaching zero" might be the best we can hope for logically. A bit of transcendent T is good but that then becomes a subjective experience which can see us far from approaching a number even close to zero.

    A conundrum!
     
    coachn likes this.
  18. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    I have to agree with your agreement.
    Kind of ironic, no?
    No. As in, no C based upon P-A coupling can be offered to support T if T is "truly" transcendent of P-A coupling.
    Yep.

    Did you notice the non-zero argument?[/QUOTE]
     
  19. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,410
    3,100
    133
    Yep. And I'm completely at peace with it.

    Also, do the two quotes below slightly contradict each other ? (But we're back using the trivium ) Or does the inclusion of "infinity" in second quote make them mean the same ?

    If the first is True, does this make the Liberal Arts redundant in the discussion, or a stepping stone as it often described ?

    Back tomorrow, night Coach !
     
    coachn likes this.
  20. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    2,120
    2,103
    133
    Amazingly, so am I :D
    They do when the "if" in the first statement is true/True. When T is not transcendent or, in our humanness, is thought about non-transcendently, the second statement would hold.
    See previous response. They show two entirely different radical calculus style approaches where P-A couplings are all but dismissed OR are all inclusive.
    I opt for stepping stone(s) where the serious study of these stepping stones prepares the mind to better grapple with and ultimately grasp transcendent concepts, ideals and ideas.
    Sleep well Bro.!
     

Share My Freemasonry