| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A Simple Question? |
| Posted by: | John Schertzer |
| Date/Time: | 03/10/2003 16:10:20 |
|
Ryan, I agree with your point. You have an amazing way with people. "Give a man a mask and he'll tell the truth." --Oscar Wilde In this case I would follow Witt(gentstein)'s dictum that the definition of a term is determined by its usage. In the case of "truth," a good generalization might be to say it has to do with the object (predicate) of a belief, either a cause-effect or equivalence. "Truth" also has etymological associations with "faith" and "fidelity." In NLP, if one can replicate the results of an expert, one is said to have a credible model. You could also say that model has a "fidelity" or "truth" relationship to the original. I don't know if the issue is whether we or not we use the term "truth" but how we choose to use it, and I propose that in using the term we associate it with congruence to map and not territory, so that a truth would be an agreement with oneself, and not the actual world, as in when I am "telling the truth," or saying what I know or believe to be true, as opposed to "lying," which is also a useful position to take, especially when challenging one's own map. best, JS |