Explore

Topics

Relationship with Truth

Truth

Living by Truth

⁠

https://www.freelists.org/post/math4wisdom/Investigating-What-are-the-root-causes-of-poverty⁠

⁠

I want to emphasize the significance, for our culture, that we think about and formulate our deepest values in life, which include all of our other values, and also our relationships with truth. On Tuesday, I met with Daniel and Andrew. Andrew's deepest value is "Care" and that seemed straightforward for him to say. My internet connection was very poor. But it became clear to me, nevertheless, that it was very challenging for Andrew to explain his personal relationship with truth, what it means practically, in his life. I think it is for most people a very hard question and requires me or some other skilled interviewer to help get to the bottom of it. I want us to become very good at finding the answer within us and helping others find it as well.

A key point is that all of us seem to have the same understanding of truth as an accordance between the answering mind (the content, the facts) and the questioning mind (the form, the statements) but personally unique understanding of where the investigatory mind sees that correspondence take place - in the world, in the mind, in language, in metaphor, behind the mind, and so on. If we appreciate this, then we can think in terms of a Landscape of Truth, where we can take up the vantage points of various people and experience life as they do. We can also think of their deepest values, how the Spirit of Love experiences their vantage point.

⁠

Daniel's deepest value is interaction, and yesterday he said he perceives truth as actual reality.

To expand slightly from the discussion/notes in

Inquiry⁠

, and building from our

conversation in 2024⁠

— I will distinguish two senses of Truth here, the first more actual, and the second more perspectival.

[1] I believe there is a primary actual reality (which is what exists). The complement to [1] is not “false”, rather it is the un-/non-existent. This truth-[1] is the base, general, all-inclusive sense of true (what actually is, and must be for things to be as they are).

[2] Within the actuality of [1], there are pockets of evaluative judgement (perspectives, qualia, thoughts, expressions) made by some agents. Here, the complement to truth-[2] is validly called “false” for a given context/referent/semantics (for example, if the milk is not actually “certified organic” AND the label says it is, the label says something false).

[1] could only be said to be known via (direct or indirect) interaction. Hypothetical (transiently counterfactually entertained) or incorrect assertions about [1]’s are safely considered as actual [2]’s about unobservables).

[2] can (does) only arise within some kinds of [1] — whether this substrate is partially or fully knowable by any given agent in a certain moment and way, that is a question for

Inquiry⁠

. Whatever [1] is, part of it does give rise/scaffold to some [2]’s. And whatever [2] is partitioned off of from (by itself, or another agent’s [2], or “actually” if such could/does exist), that would be the (perceived) niche with respect to that agent. As

R. Buckminster Fuller⁠

said: “Universe to each must be All that is, including me. Environment in turn must be All that is, excepting me.”

To me: It is true-[2] that what really is true-[1], I would interact with via actuality-[1]. For someone else-[2] they might honestly come to disagree with this syllogism and this dissent alone would not perturb my steadfastness (rather I would see those multiple apparent [2]’s as exoteric manifestations of [1]’s inherent and unitary coherence).

Daniel, then it becomes interesting, what do you mean by reality?

By “Reality” as a symbol/word pointing to semiotic referent, I mean it essentially the same as truth-[1] — The set/scope/type of efficacious actual interactivities; the differences making an enacted difference (not just the ones that could [be evaluated] to do as such).

Conversationally, people talk about “Person’s X’s Reality”, as in their lived/felt experience, qualia, cognitive model, umwelt. I would hesitate to use such a phrase as “one’s own reality”, favoring more descriptive terms (previous sentence) which highlight that multiple [2]’s (e.g. the experience of each nestmate within the

Ants⁠

colony) do and must co-exist within the same [1].

To the last piece — certainly if interaction REALLY happens (enacted) or really could (non-zero possibility/plausibility of efficacious interactivity) — those [2]’s are in the same [1]. If we hypothesize that somehow the [2]’s are in separate (non-interacting) [1]’s, this a non-starter since all actualities are part of the only total actuality (we can put a footnote here for topics like Time and Multiverse, which I think nuance though don’t dismantle this claim).

This coexistence of multiple [2]’s within the same [1] is referred to by

R. Buckminster Fuller⁠

as “

Your Private Sky⁠

” (in this atmospheric setting there is one “a sky” which all exchange gases with, however each nestmate makes their own [2] which can be called [a perspective upon their] “private sky”).

This co-enactive relationship between WHAT ACTUALLY IS [1] and WHAT SEEMS TO BE TO EACH [2], I have explored in relation between

R. Buckminster Fuller⁠

and

William Blake⁠

— for example in the two slides covered between

48:53 and 1:02:54 in Synergetics Livestream #017.2⁠

. Appropriately perhaps, the following slide is FAITH — a topic for another day.

This could have many answers. One idea is that reality is the shared boundary between different entities and their perspectives.

I believe this is accurate.

There might be an un-experienced reality (e.g. if someone thinks that Atoms have no qualia → interactions among atoms are real though unexperienced, or if someone does believe Atoms have some type of qualia → all interactions are also experienced in some way).

Regardless, we are talking about interactions among/within materiality (in terms of

Three Minds⁠

, possibly this is the interface of 0th and 1st Mind?), and “between different entities and their perspectives” (possibly the

Structured Active Inference⁠

interface between 1st and 2nd mind?). Going one step more speculatively, the 3rd mind’s causal efficacy is on the interface between 1st and 2nd mind (it is an interaction between cognitive interactions [themselves interactions of a more elemental kind]) — possibly where, how, and why

Category Theory⁠

helps us account for

Cognitive Frameworks⁠

(having hypothesized that “Whether it is to be”, as preliminary stage of

Inquiry⁠

, is!).

There could be a setting where a consensus of agents all really [1] have a deluded or incorrect view [2] account/evaluation of a shared situation — for example the situation where 10 humans honestly experience their belief that a room has no gamma radiation, or that the milk mentioned above really is certified organic. In this case, the agents could social validate each other infinite, however would fall short of the classic philosophical standard of

Justified True Belief⁠

(JTB).

That would explain why interaction is your deepest value, if it is the Spirit of Love crossing such boundaries in either direction.

This is certainly something to explore!

It reminds me of “Information flow in context-dependent hierarchical Bayesian inference” by

Fields & Glazebrook 2020⁠

. This work characterizes SEMANTIC information flow on Bayesian graphs (discussed in ActInf Livestream #

017.0⁠

, #

017.1⁠

, and #

017.2⁠

), as contrasting with SYNTACTIC information flow (of the Shannon type), or material flow (which for now, let’s just footnote as containing mass-like structured syntax, with or without any specific resulting semantic efficacy).

Some relevant wisdom verses to this extent might be:

Bible: Genesis 1, John 1, Colossians 1:17 — “And he is before all things, and by him all things are sustained” (NIV) or “and He is before all, and all things have consisted in Him” (Literal Standard Version).

Veda: “The Golden Embryo existed prior to all. It was the source of everything that was born. It was the sole Lord of Existence. It maintains or upholds every thing that exists between earth and heaven. Only to that Lord, and to none else, shall we offer our affection and homage” (Rig. 10.121.1; Atharva. 4.2.7)

Quran 11:6 “There is no animal on the earth, but that its sustenance lies with Allah, and He knows its] enduring [abode and its temporary place of lodging. Everything is in a manifest Book. 8”

Unsourced Buddhist quote: “When there is this, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When there is not this, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases”

Unsourced Daoist quote: “Ten thousand beings carry yin and embrace yang; By blending their energies they achieve harmony. Therefore existence and nonexistence produce each other”.

Excerpts from ”The Battle Hymn of the Republic”

USA OS⁠

— “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord... His truth is marching on.... His truth is marching on.... His day is marching on.... Since God is marching on.... Our God is marching on.... While God is marching on.... Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!”.

It could also be thought of as a Markov boundary or Markov blanket in Active Inference. But you may have something else in mind. So I look forward to growing clarity.

Clarity, you say? Regarding the role of the Markov Boundary in

Active Inference⁠

Here I turn to

William Blake⁠

: “The great and golden rule of art, as well as of life, is this: That the more distinct, sharp, and wirey the bounding line, the more perfect the work of art; and the less keen and sharp, the greater is the evidence of weak imitation, plagiarism, and bungling…. What is it that builds a house and plants a garden, but the definite and determinate? What is it that distinguishes honesty from knavery, but the hard and wirey line of rectitude and certainty in the actions and intentions. Leave out this line and you leave out life itself; all is chaos again. . .”.

If what really is true-[1] of every (each) Thing is that it maintains a non-equilibrium steady state as long is it exists (persists), and that commensurate with niche complexity (Law of Requisite Diversity, Good Regulator, Cybernetics) actionable ([2]-on-[1]) perspectives-[2] really do

increase fitness⁠

([1]-on-[2]).... Then _________ (then what?).

⁠

Notes on
`Truth`⁠
and
`Relationship with Truth`⁠

Level playing field.

Where/how

Justified true belief.

Convergence(s) of inquiry.

Firmness and Factuality beneath. And above.

Possible focal point? Loose tangled constellation? Single north star?

Truth as correspondence.

Which minds, experiences, would (know that they) know?

Matching in a cosmic domain, ground-universe of knowledge, and a sky outside?

Knowledge and factuality... and wisdom?

People disagree

Truth as basis / context / frame, by which agreement/disagreement could even happen.

Steam release valve e.g. “it is just power/games”, (de)moralization of the intellectual quest of (inner/relational) semantics

How to investigate

Relationship with Truth⁠

Anything that could be done, would be simply factual (as inner/outer event).

Raise

Questions⁠

. Lists of cool questions. Make up new question.

Asking about truth, may not be real (objectively). The subjective

Relationship with Truth⁠

is really subjective.

It is operational, how are you dealing in the world with these questions.

⁠

AK: For example, for Kirby, truth is a defensive strategy, to protect himself from attacks in the world.

KU: Not just from attacks, but from accidents and bumps in the road. The truth about my tires in early 2024 was they were worn out and ready for replacement. I was in denial, pretending a cursory overview by some mechanic, months previously, meant a clean bill of health forever. Someone with a different perspective persuaded me of the truth of the matter and helped me address the situation. Now I'm safer on the road, with new brakes and new tires. Truths (especially absolute ones) are meant to be addressed and dealt with more than stood for and/or championed (our assistance is not needed). I think we get hung up on "telling the truth" based on admonitions from childhood and/or from wanting to be good doobies. I'm not saying it's wrong to wish for that form of integrity, but integrity comes in many forms, including road worthiness. I'd suggest 99% of what we encounter that's true is not something that requires our help or even agreement in becoming manifest.

⁠

https://www.freelists.org/post/math4wisdom/How-can-we-evoke-deep-independent-conscious-deliberate-thinking,1⁠

⁠

Load content from www.math4wisdom.com?

Loading external content may reveal information to 3rd parties. Learn more

Allow

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.

Relationship with Truth

Notes on Truth⁠ and Relationship with Truth⁠

Notes on
`Truth`⁠
and
`Relationship with Truth`⁠