Hey! We're agreeing. That's dangerous.
In view of Douglas statements in the start of his Dunedin speech, new to me and
most welcome, I certainly think it is time people stopped waffling on at great
length trying to reinvent A+B deductively.
Regards. John R.
>From: Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
>Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
>To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Truth, induction vs deduction
>Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:52:36
-0600
>
>Hi John:
>
>"Thanks Jim for a couple of neat diversions."
>
>Your
welcome. I just think the board needed to move from discussion after discussion
of A+B. Not only do I think that A+B is part of Social Credit, but I was getting
a little bored. But that reminds me that I never answered Bill in regards to a
question he posed to me about A+B, and I will respond to that shortly.
>
>"Moral
issues come alongside, should dominate, all aspects of human organisation. Atomic
energy, for example, is not evil in itself; the use made of it may be
disastrously so. I believe one most important function of Social Credit, because
of its underlying philosophy, is to bring greater morality into the economic
scene. If you believe the importance of individual human beings is a moral
issue."
>
>(reply) Absolutely!! Knowledge (whether inductive or deductive) cannot
bring about morality. I love the example you use - nuclear power. Nuclear power
was discovered by the use of inductive and deductive logic, but its application
is a moral issue rooted in action. If individuals are given the greatest amount
of freedom, then I believe the use of nuclear energy will be given the greatest
moral application. To me, that is the essence of Social Credit philosophy, and
what I believe to be what Douglas coined "practical Christianity".
>
>Take
care,
>
>Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John G
Rawson
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:52 PM
>
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Truth, induction vs deduction
>
>
> Thanks Jim for a
couple of neat diversions. Moral issues come alongside, should dominate, all
aspects of human organisation. Atomic energy, for example, is not evil in itself;
the use made of it may be disastrously so. I believe one most important function
of Social Credit, because of its underlying philosophy, is to bring greater
morality into the economic scene. If you believe the importance of individual
human beings is a moral issue.
>
> I know it is hard for many to realise that we
must always have open minds, even on things that seem to have been worked out and
set in stone for ever. But the universe and its components are so vast that this
has been forced onto scientists. We can only gain by
realising our own non-infallibility in other fields.
> John R.
>
>
>
>
> >From:
Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
> >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> >To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Truth, induction vs
deduction
> >Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:47:36 -0600
> >
> >Hi John:
> >
>
>"Interesting, but not quite, I suggest, how man got into space? Why not use
methodology that has provided the productive side of civilisation to improve the
distributive side?"
> >
> >(reply) But what does "how man got into space" tell us
about morality, and how we should treat each other? Engineers can get us into
space, but they can't tell us why we should go there.
> >
> >"That is, find as
many facts etc. as possible and arrange them in a
way they can be better understood; guess at or invent or dream up (literally)
something to explain them; test it against reality and ditch it ruthlessly if it
doesn't measure up; continue until you get the best one that does; use that until
someone improves on it itn some way, as will cetainly happen with further
knowledge."
> >(reply) Then the Truth becomes an approximation, because you are
forever waiting for the last day for the "truth to be revealed". The truth in
this process is a limit that can never be obtained in time.
> >
> >Take care
John,
> >
> >Jim
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John G Rawson
> > To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:33 PM
> > Subject:
RE: [socialcredit] Truth, induction vs deduction
> >
> >
> >
Interesting, but not quite, I suggest, how man got into space? Why not use
methodology that has provided the productive side of civilisation to improve the
distributive side?
> >
> > That is, find as many facts etc. as possible and
arrange them in a way they can be better understood; guess at or invent or dream
up (literally) something to explain them; test it against reality and ditch it
ruthlessly if it doesn't measure up; continue until you get the best one that
does; use that until someone improves on it itn some way, as will cetainly happen
with further knowledge.
> >
> > Simple, living, adaptable and, well, look around
you at aircraft, computers, etc. Douglas the engineer becomes Douglas the
economist.
> >
> > John R.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Jim
<jschroeder@shaw.ca>
> > >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > >To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> > >Subject: [socialcredit] Truth, induction vs
deduction
> > >Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:13:21 -0600
> > >
> > >I wanted to
comment on the discussion about which methodology is better at arriving at the
Truth.
> > >
> > >Induction vs. Deduction
> > >
> > >"The old question with which
people sought to push logicians into a corner, so that they must either have
recourse to pitiful sophisms or confess their ignorance, and consequently the
vanity of their whole are, is this - 'What is the Truth?' The definition of the
word truth, to wit, ' the accordance of concept with its object', is presupposed
in the question; but one desires to be told, in the answer to it, what is the
universal and secure criterion of the truth of all knowledge.
> > >
> > >To
know, what question we may reasonably propose, is in itself a strong evidence of
sagacity and intelligence. For if a question be in itself absurd and
unsusceptible of a rational answer, it is attended with the danger - not to
mention the shame that falls upon the person who proposes it - of seducing the
unguarded listener not making absurd answers, and we are presented with the
ridiculous spectacle of one (as the ancients said) milking the he-goat, and the
other hold the sieve.
> > >
> > >If truth consists in the accordance of knowledge
with its object, this object must be, ipso facto, distinguished from all others;
for knowledge is false if it does not accord with the object to which it relates,
although it contains something which may be true of other objects. Now
a general criterion of truth would be that which is valid for any pieces of
knowledge, without distinction of their objects. But it is evident that since, in
the case of such a criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of knowledge
(that is, of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to this
content, it must be utterly absurd to ask for a mark of truth of this content of
knowledge; and that, accordingly, a sufficient, and at the same time general,
criterion of truth cannot possibly be found. As we have already termed the
content of knowledge its matter, we shall say: 'Of truth of our knowledge in
respect to its matter, no general criterion can be demanded, because such a
criterion is self-contradictory." (Immanuel Kant "Critique of Pure Reason)
> >
>
> > >"Whether truth is defined more empirically, as the conformity of thought
and being,
or more idealistically, as the conformity of being with thought, it is, in
either case, important carefully to note what is meant by being. And in
formulating the answer to this question it is likewise important to take heed
lest the knowing spirit be tricked into losing itself in the indeterminate, so
that it fantastically becomes a something that no existing human being ever was
or can be, a sort of phantom with which the individual occupies himself upon
occasion, but without making it clear to himself in terms of dialectical
intermediaries how he happens to get into this fantastic realm, what significance
being there has for him, and whether the entire activity that goes on out there
does not resolve itself into a tautology within a recklessly fantastic venture of
thought.
> > >
> > >If being, in the two indicated definitions, is understood as
empirical being,
truth is at once transformed into a desideratum, and everything must be
understood in terms of becoming; for the empirical object is unfinished and the
existing cognitive spirit is itself in process of becoming. Thus the truth
becomes an approximation whose beginning cannot be posited absolutely, precisely
because the conclusion is lacking, the effect of which is retroactive. Whenever a
beginning is made, on the other hand, unless through being unaware of this the
procedure stamps itself as arbitrary, such a beginning is not the consequence of
an immanent movement of thought, but is effected through a resolution of the
will, essentially in the strength of faith. That the knowing spirit is an
existing individual spirit, and that every human being is such an entity existing
for himself, is a truth I cannot too often repeat; for the fantastic neglect of
this is responsible for much
confusion. Let no one misunderstand me. I happen to be a poor existing spirit
like all other men; but if becoming something extraordinary, like the pure I-am-I
for example, I always stand ready gratefully to accept the gift and the
benefaction." (Soren Kierkegaard: Concluding Unscientific Postscript)
> > >
> >
>Debates over which mode of logic, inductive, or deductive, arrive at the
truth (conformity of thought with being) is, as Kant concluded, self
contradictory. The truth cannot be arrived at via this process. That is why
Kierkegaard emphasized that the Truth is not known, but is lived.
> > >
> >
>Regards,
> > >
> > >Jim
> > >
> > >
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>You're subscribed to this list with the email
johngrawson@hotmail.com
> > >To unsubscribe, send a message to
> >
>socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> > >For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Become a fitness fanatic with XtraMSN Health & Fitness!
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
> >To
unsubscribe, send a message to
> >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> >For
more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
> >To unsubscribe, send a message to
> >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Discover fun and games at XtraMSN Kids!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
>To unsubscribe, send a message to
>socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>You're subscribed to this list with the email
johngrawson@hotmail.com
>To unsubscribe, send a message
to
>socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
