Brees, your top-down, philosophical approach was different, interesting, and appealing. <below> Let me attempt to explain myself to you based on my earlier post, my philosophical basis, and the implications where you have misjudged me.
I have 3 philosophical axioms:
1) Our consciousness can not know anything outside itself. When we feel our hand, we are only knowing our understanding of our hand.
2) The existence of universes beyond our consciousness, exist only from our faith in their existence. We see the sky because we have faith the sky is there to see.
3) Faith posits an undefined, intrinsic, sympathetic correlation between "out there" and "me, in here". You speak of a rock, and I know what a rock is--not because I have ever experienced a material rock, and not because I have ever experienced you, but because some hard-wired, sympathetic connection exists that I do experience. This is a broader correlation than senses, or understanding, for it also includes knowing beauty, love, pain, Math, existence, all of it.
So, "Truth is, who but I would know what I find to be true?" is axiomatic to me for everyone.
The constant tests of credibility come from this sympathetic connection, from within us, not from a storehouse of former tests. This way, the immediate credibility is tested, and the storehouse is tested, and response can be implemented. NOT to take anyone, including one's self, at their word invalidates the only test we have. It is a lack of faith in the working of our correlation ability. An obvious example of this lack of faith is what I call the character argument. "Lie once , become a liar. Liars are all they are. Nothing from a liar is true." What an abrogation of judgement of the facts before one!
The <society I'm encouraging> is to wean dependence on authority in agencies that is fundamentally unable to be fully dependable. Notice, this is not "destroy" 3rd party, external authority, just keep in mind that it can not do for us what only we can do for us. Only we have the internal mechanism to know 'love' or 'damage' in all its guises--nothing human-made has that. Yes, I believe it is reality that <we have no agency able to maintain a standard of truth that is without good or bad consequence.> Such an agency is based on convenience and efficiency--not always bad things--not living truth. How society deals with the good or bad, not the usual, consequences of our dependence is a constant issue.
<As such, we have no ability to thrive with any assumption of mutual benefit.> My belief is that this "mutual benefit" from agencies extends only to those who bring no bad consequence. Those with exceptions to the 'storehouse of truth in the agency' are excluded under your ultimate society. If an agency mechanism is made for exceptions, then the agency, and we, are less dependent on old stores. But there will be exceptions to these mechanisms, too. Where, How do we stop making allowances? And, when we finally do draw the line, have we excluded the fatal exception that will prove our downfall?
All of these 'exceptions of exclusion' are appeals to what is already contained within <official standards>. Each of us makes what standards are official, and they tend to remain constant because they come from our human sympathetic mechanism. They are exceptions to the old storehouse, which, as non-living, has no sympathetic correlation mechanism. No agency can be current, accurate, and complete. The pertinent questions to judge whether an agency can deal with an exception are: Are they seeking inclusion in the official standards because they agree with the official standards? Is there a mechanism in the agency techniques that would allow inclusion? If no or no, humans will need deal with it based NOT on the agency guidelines: Should the standards be widened? What changes to mechanisms need be implemented for the future?
You're underlying issue is with Clinton. I see him appealing to our existing official standard of not being punished by the court without judgement. The standard mechanism of appeal, also needed an appeal. I suspect that an appeal, through the normal mechanism, would cause the same damage, possibly through the court, or possibly through a 3rd party, based on the court's actions, essentially an agent of the court. That his appeal took the appearance of uncooperation with the court is not the same as being uncooperative. Two official standards of fairness, but on the appeal, Agency rules were untrained to make the distinction between a 'lie' and an 'appeal'.
< I must select my words carefully and have the same expectation of those I rely on.> Which word didn't you understand ;>
==========
<<<
<<Truth is, who but I would know what I find to be true?>>
Precisely, you and you alone have privy to that information. We live in a society that constantly tests the credibility of what we say, we know to be true vs what is found in the course of events to be supportable as a basis of truth. Some people lie occassionally, some lie often, some are good at it, some are not, some rarely or never lie.
Some people take a stance that their word should represent the truth as they have found it. The integrity of their word is bound to be tested over time as witnessed by their peer human beings, the spoken word from their mouth then carries an expectation of verifiability. In many cases it goes unquestioned.
It is a fact that you alone know where in you find the truth. It is also a fact, given your stance on the subject, that no sensible person should ever take you at your word. In the society you are encouraging, we have no agency able to maintain a standard of truth that is without good or bad consequence. As such, we have no ability to thrive with any assumption of mutual benefit. With out this premise of mutual benefit underlying our social structure, society fails.
I'd prefer to encourage a society of mutual trust among the members of communities and have official standards that are honored throughout the society. In order to do so, I must select my words carefully and have the same expectation of those I rely on.
>>> |
