[ExI] What can be said to be "wrong", and what is "Truth"

[Mike Dougherty]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Jef Allbright <jef at jefallbright.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The context in which I wrote the original was that (I felt) Jef
>> repeatedly pigeonholed me as a "believer" in absolute anything.
>
> You sound a bit angry.  I am sorry for my impatience.  I never
> intended anything like what you apparently perceived.

Sorry, no intention to sound angry.  I used language less cautiously
in response to Lee.

> determine the "true" pointing vector.  If you're in a tree and all you
> can ever see is fractally converging branches, is there *any*
> practical value to knowledge of the "ultimate point of convergence"?
> Can you even form a coherent function model of such a referent?

No inherent value.  Practical value?  Coherent function model of such?
 Only if we both can agree what practical value the idea-token means.

>> subjectivity"  - I think the thread trailed away once it became clear
>> there was no way to "win."
>
> I've never hoped to win, but I often feel an unreasonable desire to be
> heard and understood.

admittedly infused with sarcasm - game theory kind of win (whether
zero or non-zero sum is indeterminate)

> assumption of absolute knowledge eventually impedes the process (from
> any -- necessarily subjective -- point of view.)  This understanding
> is critical to shifting the focus from expected *outcomes increasingly
> unspecifiable*, to increasingly effective *methods in principle* for
> achieving increasingly desireable outcomes.  The race continues to
> evolve, while our faithful old race car becomes obsolete.

I still agree with this.