Morality: Truth Model Fundamentals

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Morality. To view the previous post in this discussion, click here.

---

The structure of the Truth Model is simple, yet its implications and lessons are exhaustively far-reaching. Just as a simple hand-held calculator possesses a bounded set of capabilities (addition, subtraction, etc.), but is nonetheless able to apply those capabilities to an infinite number and variety of problems, the Truth Model also has wide applicability. We clearly understand that the calculator's manufacturer did not explicitly build every possible solution into the device, but instead constructed it with mechanisms that implement established principles of mathematics in ways that can be applied to any applicable set of arguments. So, although the circuitry and physical aspects of the calculator itself can be described in finite terms, its potential applications are entirely unbounded.

The Truth Model establishes a fabric of knowledge that is similarly unbounded. But, just as the calculator guarantees correct answers to any specific mathematical problem, but nonetheless cannot guarantee that its user correctly applies those answers to any larger problem, the Truth Model can also give answers within a bounded scope that are ultimately incorrect within a larger one. Success in applying the model ultimately boils down to the observer's objectivism, agenda and breadth of knowledge.

The Truth Model approaches the perception of reality from three fundamental dispositions; factual, moral and spiritual. However, these should not be regarded as different subjects within the model, but instead, simply as perspectives from which it can be viewed. The model presents differing, but not conflicting solution sets to an observer based on the emphasis and contexts that the observer brings to bear upon it.

The categorizations of factual, moral and spiritual perceptions then, are not part of the Truth Model knowledge base itself, but constitute the rules by which knowledge is interpreted. But, even these categorizations are not precisely defined; they are only approaches that can be applied according to varying judgments by any given observer. In the end, the only validation that any observational disposition is correct is that its conclusions may differ, but not conflict with other conclusions.

This brings to light the paradox of validation. Conclusions can only be validated against other conclusions, but there can be no guarantee that the entire model has not drifted into incorrectness. Although this is a possibility, the conclusions drawn though the course and pull of different perspectives upon the model will naturally tend towards a center that could only be sabotaged through a concerted effort, or by reason of a pervasive bias among all observers.

In the end, the rules of interpretation then, are established by the observer, but the knowledge upon which his observations are based is shared by all. For example, a simple factual perspective of a given observer may be as follows:

Sample Philosophical Perspective

1. Reality becomes fact through observation (analog to logical state).
2. Fact becomes knowledge through understanding (declarative).
3. Knowledge becomes theory through experimentation (predictability).

Another Example

1. Reality becomes fact through observation (knowledge, analog state to logical state).
2. Fact becomes truth through assertion (understanding, logical state, declarative)
3. Truth becomes right and wrong through subjection.
4. Right and wrong become morality through wisdom (experience, subjection).
5. Morality becomes religion through tradition.
6. Religion becomes practice through interpretation.
7. Practice becomes faith through insight.

These suppositions need not be agreed upon by any two observers, since their validation is borne out in the conclusions they reach. So, the model becomes the basis upon which the concept of morality can be defined. It will either validate a philosophical perspective if its suppositions are fit, or invalidate it if its conclusions conflict with others to too large a degree.

The next step then, is to understand how decisions are reached - what are the rules that govern how rules are applied?

To view the next post in this series, click here.