Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

A temporal theory of truth values, and practical ordinate system

What if we assumed that truth can only be judged according to time spans?

For example, a particular man may gather less truth than a civilization. A civilization has less truth potential than a species. So on until we run out of categories, or reach tautology/vagueness.

This would explain the awe of one in the forest, the wisdom of the elders, why this site keeps returning to race > society.

Perhaps we could tongue-in-cheek create a truth ordinal system denoting in what frames of reference particular truths hold sway. This way we can acknowlege the perspective of others, but disagree not on facts, but in application. For example, we may argue that genetic selection of all breeding human pairs is ideal for humanity. We can agree or disagree if we designate our ordinal positions, whether in the individual/family/civilization/special/universal sphere.

Assign a truth value of True, False or Neutral. This can be assumed to be Desireable, Undesirable or Neutral for you Buddhist German Idealists out there.

For example:

Human genetic pairing should be done regard only to scientific principles, as currently best understood.

F-N-N-T-N


I love putting glass in my poo spigot.

T-F-N-N-N


We should treat people as individuals in this modern 2010+ era, ignoring genetic tendencies. Everybody should be equal in some way.

T?-T?-T-F-N


Regarding the above:

T-T-N?-?-N

Pretty cool/efficient idea. The ternary code might be a problem.

Seems like there could be some interesting trend analyses with this system. Like: in what cases can one make a T/F statement regarding the universal? In what cases is something T for civilization, but not for family or individual? (and so on)

I would be interested in your reasoning behind using these 5 frames in particular. I agree that they are the appropriate ones for the vast majority of topics, just curious why you use these and not others. Myself I would say it is because I believe this is how human society is on a granular level, individual, family, society/civilization, everything else (universe) and exceptions (special).

Ratatosk, read The Theory of Celestial Influence by Rodney Collin. I gave up continuing reading it because it went out of my scope. But only what the guy says in the beginning was very revealing, you'll benefit from it.

Aninihilation: I was considering today what sort of statements could flip the values of the last value. This would be an interesting discussion.

For example, are mathematics valid on the Universal scale? Its easy to make an argument both ways.

Trystero: I pulled the 5 categories out of my head. Please feel free to adjust the number up or down. Ideally one would not have to use any particular system, but use this concept loosely to designate their frames of reference.

Spoogemiester G: Will do, thanks for the pointer.

Phoenix

I believe an individual can be and often is wiser than a society or civilization. I mean this in the sense that the civilization is basically wrong where the individual is basically right. If you want to paint the picture that a civilization is actually right, is actually wise, and can be more-so than any individual, then I don't understand--either the lessons of that civilization are progressively lost (forcibly), or they are retained and individuals living in the end of the civilization's age retain the full breadth of that civilization's wisdom.

Also, I believe there is a limit to truth, or at least there are limits insofar as the human condition can realistically appreciate. Therefore I find it most plausible that numerous people while incarnated in human coils possess equally optimal levels of wisdom... but this day is not yet here, heh..

I was considering today what sort of statements could flip the values of the last value. This would be an interesting discussion.

For example, are mathematics valid on the Universal scale? Its easy to make an argument both ways.

If I get you: in this case, the "universal" would probably require continued metaphysical divisions / designations, i.e. complexity of number and concept reflecting a distance in principle from the "One" / the essential oneness of all things.

It would seem that T/F statements regarding the universal must be self-referential, and maybe blatantly obvious/contradictory. For instance: (T) the universe encompasses all of known and unknown existence. (F) the universe is spatially lesser than the Pacific Ocean.

An interesting game nonetheless. Maybe a fun game to try to match an instance to a code:

N-F-T-T-N

???

I believe an individual can be and often is wiser than a society or civilization. I mean this in the sense that the civilization is basically wrong where the individual is basically right.

^ Since this seems to be your essential point: What is "basically" right/wrong? The designations set forth specify varieties of contexts in which a statement can be true or beneficial. The system would fully be able to accept, in notation, the validity of an individual's pursuits or values over that of a civilization:

T-N/F-F-N-T

I believe an individual can be and often is wiser than a society or civilization. I mean this in the sense that the civilization is basically wrong where the individual is basically right. If you want to paint the picture that a civilization is actually right, is actually wise, and can be more-so than any individual, then I don't understand--either the lessons of that civilization are progressively lost (forcibly), or they are retained and individuals living in the end of the civilization's age retain the full breadth of that civilization's wisdom.

Also, I believe there is a limit to truth, or at least there are limits insofar as the human condition can realistically appreciate. Therefore I find it most plausible that numerous people while incarnated in human coils possess equally optimal levels of wisdom... but this day is not yet here, heh..

Ok, I see where you are going with this, and we will have to define a bit.

Is is more proper to say that truth is "top down" or "bottom up", with the Universal [we Anii] or Individual [liberalism], or is it more proper to say truth is context specific?

So if I were to rewrite my OP, perhaps define time as a defining characteristic of the capacity for truth, but not exclusively so. Each container having it's own "shape" of truth.

I was considering today what sort of statements could flip the values of the last value. This would be an interesting discussion.

For example, are mathematics valid on the Universal scale? Its easy to make an argument both ways.

If I get you: in this case, the "universal" would probably require continued metaphysical divisions / designations, i.e. complexity of number and concept reflecting a distance in principle from the "One" / the essential oneness of all things.

It would seem that T/F statements regarding the universal must be self-referential, and maybe blatantly obvious/contradictory. For instance: (T) the universe encompasses all of known and unknown existence. (F) the universe is spatially lesser than the Pacific Ocean.

An interesting game nonetheless. Maybe a fun game to try to match an instance to a code:

N-F-T-T-N

???

Yes, I think that is the problem of most metaphysics is that tautologies reign. I believe the point is to experience the tautologies, where the logical analysis would simple brush over as not interesting. This gives rise to all sort of situations, from the bliss-ninnies to the koan.

You have my thinking now about this ordinate system. I almost want to arrange a truth table, and consider circumstances to fit... It will be a personal book of changes for the uber-nerd.

You have my thinking now about this ordinate system. I almost want to arrange a truth table, and consider circumstances to fit... It will be a personal book of changes for the uber-nerd.

N-N-T?-T-N

243 iterations of 3 variables and 5 positions. Perhaps it could be more speedily reverse-engineered from inferred patterns (above bit regarding all instances in which "universal" is not N).