>>Finally got the graphic up at http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/gridthre.gif
>>(which I also said in another thread, but in case you're interested and
>>missed it there). I hope David Mc looks at it and gives his opinion since
>>he's studied this idea.
>I checked it out, but I obviously lack the context to appreciate it.
>Why is the line of acceptance completely outside the truth boxes?
>David McFadzean david@lucifer.com
>Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/
>Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/
List,
I kind of attached the text to the graph without putting too much thought
into it...it will be changed to refelect David's critique as described below.
The graph shows in a dimensional form that the line of acceptance is EXACTLY
the sum of all possible correlations between aspects of "truth"; that is,
while truth is not discernable directly, the box which shows a
positive/positive relationship--where "acceptance" is--is an approximation
of these possibilities recast in the light of objectivity, and social
agreement: Or, all of the shaded area called "truth" on the graph are
represented by the single line "acceptance" in a round-about way; that is,
"acceptance" can also not describe "truth" but can describe it's objective
manifestation--it's translation from non-objective realities*.
This is why points of agreement are shown as *points* rather than
lines...like lines within a graph show relationships between points, so to
do points along a line show this same relationship adjusted for the
dimensional reduction from a 3 point (graphic) to a 2 point (linear)
perspective. The shaded areas called "truth" are reduced from a bi-planer
perspective to the one quadrant, are reduced within this quadrant onto a
line of best agreement, which is utilized as a line around which to plot
points of agreement which can never fall exactly upon the line, and then are
plotted upon this line as an idealized single point of agreement--that is is
plotted as 'The Truth', a single point of agreement between all possible
truths (the one point represents all shaded areas called "truth" on the graph).
*I'm thinking this also addresses your assessment that there is a form of
reality that is not objective but is not properly defined as subjective
either (from "Truth and Beauty")...here, it is described and labeled simply
"non-objective".
In fact, this idea is a part of some parabolic relationships that I have
plotted on the "cooperative t-grid" which I (coincidentally?) call "The
Beauty Curve" (though I renamed it the "Handsome Curve" in honor of a
handsome male friend...AND because "handsome" was gender biased in a way
that would speak to the historical tendency to equate typical beauty to the
feminine and these relationships were atypical correlations of
"beauty"--therefore "handsome"); but, it shows "truthful" or agreed upon
correlations and calls these correlations "handsome" rather than truthful.
BR
Returning,
rBERTS%n, USA
Rabble Sonnet Retort
This line from Shakespeare has delusions of grandeur.
Douglas R Hofstadter
