[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Distinction between `practical certitude'and `certainty' was: RE: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk]Not In Our Name


Good Morning, Peter.  Could you expand on that a bit?    (01)

Peter Jones wrote:
>>Yes.  Notice that when we talk about facts we tend to forget that our words
>>are yet another set of facts having a structure of meaning that is close
>>enough to parallel for others to read/hear and derive similar meaning in
>>spite of their internal interpretations.  It's a wonder that language
>>and thinking work at all?
> 
> 
> Cool. My interpretation of matters so far is that with the exception of Eric S.
> everyone's gone way off beam on the facts versus beliefs about facts
> distinction. Just my interpretation though, and language is as fuzzy as one
> cares to make it.
> 
> --
> Peter
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerald Pierce" <g_pierce@pacbell.net>
> To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 4:08 PM
> Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Distinction between `practical certitude' and
> `certainty' was: RE: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk]
> Not In Our Name
> 
> 
> 
>>Eric, hello.  I have chopped up and chewed on your response below.  It
>>looks to me like you have put some "time in grade" in these matters.
>>
>>Gerald Pierce, Q. E. D. Services.
>>
>>ADM Staff wrote:
>>
>>>Hi there,
>>>
>>>I like what Gary says below, and think the discussion about the status
>>>of `facts' can be further clarified by introduction of the distinction
>>>between `practical certitude' and `certainty'.
>>
>>Yes.  Notice that when we talk about facts we tend to forget that our words
>>are yet another set of facts having a structure of meaning that is close
>>enough to parallel for others to read/hear and derive similar meaning in
>>spite of their internal interpretations.  It's a wonder that language
>>and thinking work at all?
>>
>>
>>>When I leave the house
>>>in the morning to have breakfast at my favorite restaurant, I do not
>>>ordinarily launch an inquiry as to whether it's still there; I have
>>>`practical certitude' that it is.  However, if I discover upon arrival
>>>that there is a gaping hole where the restaurant was previously located
>>>(maybe building demolition), or some smoking ruins (maybe overnight
>>>fire), I do then launch inquiry into what's going on.
>>
>>This is an easy one to solve.  It gets very much harder when the facts as
>>recalled are in dispute with the interpretation of the facts.  Often there
>>is a confusion of these two levels of abstraction resulting in suffering.
>>Someone with this kind of malfunction could "miss breakfast" for years in
>>the above scene. Ah, the injustice of it all!
>>
>>
>>>In sum, human beings typically operate - and necessarily so given
>>>limited cognitive and physical capabilities -- with a set of settled
>>>habits and settled beliefs.  However, sanity lies in ability to reopen
>>>*any* habit or belief, to `unsettle' them, for further inquiry and
>>>reconfiguration when circumstances, or desire for creative advance or
>>>invention, so require.
>>
>>Sounds very much like Count Alfred Korzybski's operative defination of
>>sanity.  ("Science and Sanity" 1933)
>>
>>>More on these matters can be gleaned from my book:  "The Mind of the
>>>Steward: Inquiry-based Philosophy for the 21st. century.'  at:
>>>
>>>http://worldstewards.com/id62.htm
>>
>>HEY! Lose the extra Chapter 26!
>>
>>>My personal definition of `knowledge' is that it is `a disposition to
>>>belive that if I interact with a particular part of the world in a
>>>particular way, I will elicit a particular kind of experience'.  This
>>>makes knowledge inherently non-absolute and open to inquiry.
>>>
>>>Hope the above is somewhat clear and helpful.
>>>
>>>Cordially, Eric Sommer
>>
>>
>>
> 
>     (02)