Meditation-three : Truth and Self-Reflection

Meditations On the Nature Of Mind     

Meditation-three : Truth and Self-Reflection    

By E. Hoffmann

     In medition 2 we oberserved how imagination creates minds, and through minds the subjective and objective and objective points of view come to be. The imagination is able to achieve this because of its ability to create and project I's. This is called self-reflection by most people. In the individual mind it is the motives of the individual that are important. In the private mind, it is the motives of groups; groups that share the same motives. The private mind is the realm of both great and terrible actions. For when groups are involved enstead of individuals, motives pick up more content and less clarity. When groups act the actions have picked up added content because individual emotions have  become group emotions. The group emotion is stronger than any individual emotion ; the individual has a tendency to be swallowed by the group. When the private mind is open-ended it is usually not dangerous because there is no fixed outcome that the group expects. It is when a private is close ended that it becomes dangerous. In the twentith centuary, Marxist movements provide a good example of close ended private minds. Marxist movements are famous for individkilling everyone and anyone that stands in the way them achieving their utopia. This is also why, when Marxists  take charge of a goverment they shut down the free press. A close ended private mind has no need for new ideas; since the end is slready known.

    Now we must move to standard minds. Standard minds are the objective view. The objective view is created, when the imagination of an individual agent produces and projects a theorettical infinite number of I's and reflects upon what is the same for all of them; thus we come to the objective view, where all ratios are the same for everyone. In a latter meditation, we shall examine the tools we use to discover the objective view.

      A theory of mind that is worthwhile must address how truth and illusion come to be, and are distinguished. There are two main theories of truth in modern philosophy: the correspondence and the coherence theory of truth. We shall first take up the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth has a long history and seems to be in accord with common-sense. The correspondence theory holds that there is a one to one correspondence between mental and physical entities. An example would be when we compare a painting with the subject that was painted. This example of painting and subject painted already shows the problem with the correspondence theory of truth. How does the mind over-reach itself to act as a third term that judges between the physical and mental representations of the object? This is only the begining of the problems with the correspondence theory. Most proponets of the correspondence  hold that experience enters  the mental as atomic propositions or simple ideas. To give an example: to  build the compound idea or catagory of an apple. The apple is red, is one simple idea, the apple is spherical is another simple idea. that the apple is sweet is another simple idea, etc. Now, we have the problem of how these ideas come together to form the idea of an apple. If we are to accept J. Locke's "happy accident" , we have an occasionalist theory without the creator to put the simple ideas together. All correspondence theories are atomic, because they are based on a one to one correspondence. Of course, it must be asked how can a mental entity correspond to a physical entity, and what is the relation that brings the two into union, without having an affect on either one. To discuss external relations is beyond the scope of this medatation; it is enough to point out that there has mever been an adequete theory of external resations. The seeming simplicity of the correspondence theory is an illusion. One only has remember J. Locke who posited the mind as a blank tablet that experience writes upon. To explain this seeming simple proposition, Locke wrote a book that ran to around twelve hundred pages, and ended up posing more problems than it solved. The problem with the correspondence theory can be stated in one word: dualism. Untill mental entities and physical entities can be juxtaposed, the theory shall remeain inadequate. It would seem that correspondence is more a effect of truth than a cause.           We started the discussion on the correspondence theory with an example, so we shall start our discussion of the coherence theory of truth with an example. All of us at one time or another have held pencil or a straight stick half-way in and out of a body of water. The stick appears to be bent. To reassure ourselves that the stick is straight we ran our finger along the stick, and took the out of the water and plunged the stick in at different angles, to oberserve the illusion. What we were trying to do is confirm the stick is straight by checking different points of view, and seeking confirmation from a sense besides sight. Another example: a person walks into a dark room, and believes they see another person. The first persoon reaches out to touch the other person, and feels cold hard glass. We have mistaken our own reflection for another person. And again we try to gain a coherent perspective by using other senses to confirm or deny the orginal impression.The coherence theory of truth holds, as its name suggests, that we test each new proposition or observaation by how well it coheres with what else we know. In medition #2 we illustrated how the practice of law depends on a coherent paradigm. The thing about a paradim is that any observation or proposition can be doubtedl just not all at once. It is not that truth resides in any single observation or proposition, but belongs to the paradigm as a whole. And this is what gives doubt to many thinkers; the truth of the paradigm is never complete, but always a work in progress. It may take many individuals with their different emphasis many centuries of the paradigm. The best example is mathematics; just think how many individuals over the centuries it has taken to build the present paradigm of mathematics. What the paradigms are is stable activity or to use the terminology of idealism, the paradigm is the concrete-universal. Paradigms are stable activity,f the is learned and are particularized by individual agents. There can be little doubt that the coherence theory is truth is how humankind processes information; the correspondence theory is clearly untenable. Despite being the way information is processed, we know there is still error, and now we must examine the nature of error.

            We have hitherto touched upon the source of error in the two examples; the straight stick in water and the mirror in a dark room. Illusion we shall first deal with the illusion of leaving out inconvenient facts. the Historian, Robert  Temple calls consensus blindness. In the opening of meditation I of this essay we observed how consensus blindness had caused the fallacy of the proponents of strong A.I. This habit of leaving out facts or observationsis quite common. It seems intuitive for humans to want completeness and closure in their belifs; even if it means not seeing or ignoring what is before their eyes. One of the best examples of consensus blindness in the modern era is astrology. Astrology still holds to the Ptolemic planetary system. Astrology does not work when using the Copernican system. Astrology needs the epicycles of the Ptolemic system. There is no reason for astrologers to change their paradigm of planetary  motion. Astrology is not about discovering new informatiion, and does not care how complix the math is that supports the system. Astrology is a perfect example of a closed system; its adherents are happy to close their eyes to the facts of planetary motion. They have no incentive to change and a strong emotional attachmint to their beliefs. The weaknessof the coherence theory of truth: shutting our eyes to new observations and facts, and desiring a closed system is not only the weakness of the coherence theory of truth, but of humankind in general.

   Now that we have observed the strenghs and weaknesses of the correspondence and coherence theories of truth, there is still a lack of satisfaction. There is more to error and illusion than leaving out observations and facts. The coherence theory works well if we are observing standard minds or private minds on the objective side of the continum. Two examples taken from casual conversations should help illustrate the errors of subjective minds.We often hear people say "I did not know what I was doing, or I did not know I believed that." This should give the reader the pitch of this type of error. This type of error is opposed to the error of consensus blindness; in that insteas of leaving out something, it puts things in the agent does not seem to be aware of. To understand this type of error we must engage in a deeper observation of the nature of thinking.

   It is strange that in philosophie's enthuasim to reconcile dualisms,that no one outside of F. H. Bradley, has tried to reconcile the dualism of reason and emotion. In reading over many thinkers one would think thought is like a radio brosdcast; the words being reason, the  the volume being the emotions. This reading seems to miss the essential nature of both reason and emotion. If the above were true, emotional feeling should give greater clarity to thought; after all is it not eaiser to understand aloud broadcast than a faint one? It is easy to observe that there is no clear demarcation between reason and emotion in thought.

      Reason and emotion are the two poles of the continum of thought. We shall use the term "thought" as the human mode of consciousness. And consciousness as the feeling caused by the reconition of experience. The difference between reason and emotion is clarity and content. Reason sacrifices content for clarity. The best example is mathematics, where for razor sharp clarity, almost all content has been given up. Of course, the strengh of mathematics is due to its lack of content; that is why mathematics can be applied to almost everything. Emotion on the opposite pole is full of content, but has very little clarity. this is why when someone is overcome with emotion, the best way to calm the person down is to try give the emotion clarity and get rid of excess content. This is probablythe orgin of the phrase " to talk someone down."  The solution to the two examples we started this discussion with should be clear; how actions can have more content than the agent recognizes in abstract ideas. We still need a deeper discussion of the nature of judgement and self-reflection.        When the nature of judgement is understood, it shall become clear why thinking is always concerned with the future. Judgement can be divided into two aspects: prognosis and diagnosis. Prognosis is concerned with the success or failure os future actions. An example drawn from everyday life is when a person looks across the street to see if a store she wishes to go in is open before crossing the street. Diagnosis is concerned with protecting the agent from harm. An example is when one smells the milk before drinking. An agent is always trying to look into the future, and in humans that have imagination this is done through self-reflection.           Self -reflection is the peculiar power of the human imagination. To understand how self-reflection arose we need to recall what was hitherto said about instenct and intellect. Instinct is when an agent responds to an image-trigger with an activety, such as a tree dropping its liaves when the temapuature drops to a certin level; that being the feeling of cold triggers the tree to drop its leaves. When we get to agents that possess intellect as well as instinct, it has been noted that they can change both the triggers and the activety to satisfy the agent. It is only when we get to humankind that imagination arises; that is the activity associated with the image-trigger can be imagined instead of acted out. When an image-trigger has been sublated into an abstract idea, not only can the image-trigger stand for the activity, but it can also be communicated. What is happening is that a human can feel the activety without preforming the activity, and she can also communicate or tinker or refine the activity associated with the trigger. The best example is how atheletes train by doing the activity in slow motion untill they have achieved the form they desire. WE have all seen tennis players and baseball players practicing their swings in slow motion. It would seem humans are always trying to improve their response to triggers. This is what causes the brzz or chatter that is always going on in the heads of normal people. The imagination does not seem to shut off, bry is always trying out scenarios to improve the activites of the agent.   A note on literature and history. The imagination not only projects an I onto existing people and things, but also onto fictional characters and historical personages. This is why many novelists claim to write under the influence of inspiration. Once a coherent scenario has been set up and an I that has certin motives is put into the scenario, the story seems to flow for the novelist.      R.G. Collingwood said to write history, we have to recover or recreate the motives and feelings of the historical persons we wish to understand. Again once the historical scenario is understood well enough the imagination is able to project an I on to the historical person to understand the motives of people in times past. This is why history is more than a catalogue of dates,places, and events.                                                      End of meditation three