Re: Thie^.n A'c va` ca'c Tam gia'c

[Hong Lam Vu <vuh000@goofy.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de>]

Hi ba'c NAiviet, TMTie^'n, et al,

Ca?m o+n ba'c Aiviet ba`y cho ca'ch a(n to^m chua. To^i ddang ddi ti`m
nguo+`i la`m to^m chua ma` chu=a tha^'y, buo^`n qua'. Ma^'y ho^m nay xem
dda' banh lu bu`, la.i duo+.c tham quan ca'c sinh hoa.t va(n ho'a nghe^.
thua^.t o+? be^n nha`, ne^n ho+i bo? be^ ma^'y vi. hie^`n trie^'t cu?a
chu'ng ta. Nay xin tro+? la.i dde^` ta`i muo^n thuo+? (thu+' ba, vi`
dde^` ta`i muo^n thuo+? thu+' nha^'t tui da`nh cho love ru`i) cu?a chu'ng
mi`nh.

Hi`nh nhu+ co`n que^n chu+a gia? nho+`i ma^'y ca'i msg cu?a ba'c Vie^.t
tua^`n truo+'c, tho^i co' le~ ta ba`n luo^n trong thread na`y ma^'y ho^m
to+'i va^.y.

> implication of a good thing can be false. First, Prof. Cao Xuan Huy 
> talked of abstarct categories that is universal over space-time, so 
> THie^.n A'c is not there. The same thing happens to Physics Math and my 
> C++ codes. But in any social activity, Thie^.n A'c is there, always.
> The activity to say that " There is no Thie^.n A'c" itself also defines a 
> Thie^..n A'c value depending in the case it was said.

In my understanding you have implied that saying "There is no Thie^.n A'c"
itself assumes a dualism that can be considered as a duality of Thie^.n
A'c again. This makes me remember the Epimenides paradox. Some weeks
ago someone on this forum raised the question: "Is the statement 'Mo.i
thu+' dde^`u la` tuo+ng ddo^'i' a paradox". He meant it as a joke only,
and so nobody of us responded this "joke". In fact it is not far from the
Epimenides paradox:
 A Cretan said: "All Cretans lie"

A Polish mathematician named Tarski had solved this kind of paradox by
creating a new term "meta language". When a certain Cretan said about all
Cretans inclusive himself he speaks in a _meta language_. So if someone
says "Mo.i thu+' dde^`u la` tuo+ng do^'i", s/he says it in a meta language
and there is no paradox more.

When I say "There is no Thie^.n A'c" I say it in a meta language, that is
I stand on a meta level to view things existing on all other levels. I'm
now an "outsider" and any "entanglement" with "normal" levels will only
make paradoxa. Well, the statement "There is no Thie^.n A'c" works only on
the most abstract level whereas in the world of social phenomena there are
too much Thie^.n A'c, that is there exist always more than only one value
system that defines what is Thie^.n as well as what is A'c. What Thie^.n
is in the one value system can be A'c in the other one, and vice versa. So
any Thie^.n A'c is relative not only to time and space but also category.

> ..
> 
>    OK, let us look at Tua^n Tu+? "Ba?n A'c and Kho^?ng Tu+? "ba?n thie^.n".
> Bible, Marx also believe in "Ba?n thie^.n". However, I think this is also 
> the case of triangle dilemma ( I mentioned it in Entropy talk) that lead 
> to most of debates. The set of triangle is superset of the set of rectangular
> triangles but the set of rectangular triangles properties is super set of 
> the triangle properties. In almost all comparisions there is always some 
> tade-off, and people can take two different measurs to say quite 
> contradictive things. 
> 
>   Concerning A'c Thie^.n, I was in panic when read in Willy Drand series 
> that the ancient times people wre so cruel and agressive. The 
> civilization of Assyry, Egypt, China, Roma were base on the cruelty. 
> There is no sign of better men in those ancient time. But at the same 
> time the social structures were simpler and so there wre more Thie^.n.
> So I believe that Tua^n Tu+? was talking of A'c of individuals and 
> Kho^?ng tu+? was talking about Thie^.n of social structure or value.
> 

I think that the metapher of "ca'c tam gia'c" is not quite lucky because
it implies that the set of A'c is a superset of Thie^.n, what is absurd.
However I find your idea of Tua^n tu+? talking of A'c as individual
motivations and Kho^?ng tu+? talking of Thie^.n as a general tendency very
interesting. I ask myself whether there is again Mr Adam Smith' "invisible
hand". If so then Thie^.n A'c is certainly there. Yet in this case Thie^.n
A'c may be free of contradiction only if there is an evolutive development
(i.e. somewhat like a one-way street) and no cycles or zig-zag-style
"development". 

>   I don't know how to compare an annibalist in the ancient time with 
> an intelligent who had designed a killing machine.
> 
Human beings need value systems to judge and to orient themselves between
Heaven and Earth. Human beings are teleologic animals. There is no Thie^.n
A'c without the presence of homo sapiens. Here I must doubt myself again.
What's about Live (on Earth)? Is there also Thie^.n A'c in the history
of live before the appearence of homo sapiens?  Whether there is a
universal Thie^.n A'c for all human beings of all time? I incline to
believe it but rather doubt it. It means I don't know.

Cheers,
VHLam.