[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
truth is a sweaty toothed madman blanket cold feet
Hi.
Foucault presentation is done. Does anyone know what that means?
Foucault makes everyone's head hurt. He questions the nature of
knowledge. And truth. So . . . stop readin' if you don't wanna play.
>>Amy Smiles sez: that's fair--but is it ok to assume that there's only
one truth?
>>Chris replies: I don't think you can assume there's only *one* truth.
Truth. Huh. If you walk around a lot of what we call truth and goose
it, you'll find that it was, in fact, societally constructed. One
century's demoniac is another century's madman. One century's
impossibility is another century's commonplace. Buy me a ticket to an
aeroplane. Ain't got time to take a fast plane. Hold that thought.
>>Kelvin: There is indeed truth, and truth is objective, constant, and
>>universal.
Well. Tough one. First I gotta hold out for a flexibility in the term
"truth." There is societal truth, like, "That man is mad" versus "That
man is demon-possessed" or "The world is flat" versus "The world is
round." These are totally relative. Totally. If we push this hard
enough, we'll find that much of what we are is a product of the kinds of
discourses we engage in. The things we're allowed to say, the things we
allow others to say, the things we can imagine, the things we cannot
imagine, the authorities we allow to exist, the authorities we oppose.
But is that it for truth? Spectral formations in the discourse?
At this point, I employ one of my two irreducible sayings: "something
is."
Somewhere there is a truth to what I am. That truth exists on a level
other than the level of societal discourse formations. I'm not talking
about how to classify a madman here, but about the fact that I exist.
(Y'know, when I typed "I exist," this monster thunderbolt illumined
Muncie. Can you say, "weird"?) I am something, somewhere, under some
condition. If I knew what something, what somewhere, and what condition,
I would have a handle on Truth, big T.
I don't have that kind of handle. As a human being, I cannot have that
kind of handle. Brain's too small, yo. Tweaked and wimpy.
Which brings us back around to Chris's notion that everybody gets to go
find their own truths.
Well.
Hmm.
I won't tax y'all by working out my whole moral philosophy here. Lemme
hit a point I've been thinking about, though.
If solid Truth is out the window, then that's it for good and evil, too.
Because if there is no ground to stand on, as far as truth, and I
recognize that, then there is no point in my declaring one thing
positive, or another negative. It's all just existence, multiplying
itself hysterically into infinity.
And so I commit my soul to the abyss. Goodnight.
Or.
I encounter soul repulsion. When I take my relative truth to the
physical world and have to decide how to treat people and how to identify
atrocities, I have a problem. My soul is repulsed by rape and genocide.
Among other things. And random meaness. Unnecessary cruelty makes me
burn. Anger burn. It's a moral sense, I think. I think it's there. I
can't mathematically prove it in two paragraphs yet, though. (I know I
have Hume and CS Lewis on my side though; and Professor Herr Spiegel.) I
don't think you can make this go away by calling it societal conditioning
or herd instinct. I have a sense of justice, meaning the classical
justice that seeks a balance to bring nature back to a right balance.
It's the same sense that allows me to experience beauty.
You may argue for different ideals of beauty and justice in other
cultures. Given. And I will add that all ideals are short of Truth, big
T. It's the facts of humanity that we are always short of Truth. But
you cannot argue for a society that has no ideal of truth or beauty. You
cannot argue for a society that does not pursue truth and beauty. You
would be hard pressed to say that this pursuit is not cued up by the same
human impulse and reducible to the same moral sense. Everywhere,
regardless of societal discourses.
You may go the evolutionary impulse route. We pursue what is best for
the herd. But no we don't. Left to our own devices, we pursue what is
best for ourselves. And when we do it, we make endless excuses about how
it was right to do that, to pursue what we wanted, because we know we
were wrong to pursue our own ends. No other animal makes excuses. And
then there's that moment where you defy the self-preservation instinct.
You go out on the ice to save your drowning friend, risking your own
death. What is that? When their nests are threatened by an attacker,
mole rats send one guy out to fight, then wall him in with the attacker.
They leave him to die. One for the many. It's logical (see Flash Gordon
on this point). But in human terms, it's repulsive. It's logical, but I
will not send my brother out to die; I will not see that is right; I
cannot. I am illogical. Logic is ammoral. Perhaps I am getting closer
to what I want to say: that I am moral and that pure logic is not my only
way of knowing.
If there is a such thing as morality, the floodgates are opened.
God rushes in. Here's your syllogism, mathematicians:
Major premise: All effects must have a sufficent cause.
Minor premise: Human beings have a moral sense--of good and evil.
Therefore: Human beings must have been caused by an agent with moral
sense.
If God exists, He will either communicate with his creation or not. I
think he did, but that's another world of argument.
But consider this: truth, little t, is realtive because so much of our
human way of knowing is based on the discourses of our society. If there
were a God, this would not leave him powerless. He could speak into the
discourse, as well as, and in fact most definitely better than, any human
being. In the beginning *God spoke*. John identifies Jesus as *the
Word**. Truth comes from discourse; discourse begins with God. If we
are limited by our society (our paradigm, our episteme, our discursive
formation, whatever), then we are in the limits that God set for us
(assuming you're with me on the God thing), since God starts discourse
and discourse defines society. Presumably God can also alter the
discourse whenever he wants to. He can add to it or take away from it by
manipulating the speaking elements. Why not? This means that culture is
one of the ways that God forms us. Our consciousness, our spirituality.
Faith is neither logic nor emotion. Faith bridges the gap between the
limits of human knowledge and the fact of Truth. Faith is neither blind
nor seeing. It is sight through a dark glass, if that. But it is rooted
in a moral sense. A sense of beauty. A sense of justice. Beauty's
where you find it. (Yes, "Vogue," I know.) Beauty is not everywhere.
Where am I?
Thanks for reading.
It's late, y'all.
Are you at work, Chris Emery?
Are you well, Christine Noelle?
Are you joyful, Amy Smiles?
Are you back, Edward Jay?
Binkley?
Yes, Opus.
I think it's time to sleep.
Fred
________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail you don't need Web access to use --
Or get full, reliable Internet access from Juno Web!
Download your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagh.