# An Epistemological Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epistemological-question/266708 "2004-09-29T19:31:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epistemological-question/266708/21 "2004-09-30T11:02:50Z")
Yes, but the subjective frame requires a perceiver and a perceived, or at least two things = multiplicity, which you had seemed to deny. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epistemological-question/266708/22 "2004-09-30T11:10:30Z")
Okay, but I didn’t think that that was the sort of multiplicity the OP had in mind. I thought he meant a multiplicity of perceptions for one thing, as in two people looking at a Picasso and one rejoicing while the other vomits. If he’s talking about a perceiver and a perceived, than we’re all the way back in Plato’s cave — not really a very interesting discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epistemological-question/266708/23 "2004-09-30T11:17:20Z")
Truth before Interest! ---
**Author:** ![Zurvan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b2d939/32.png) [@Zurvan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zurvan)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epistemological-question/266708/24 "2004-09-30T12:55:19Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > All is pattern. There is unity only in the very bottom of the pattern well, the One of Plotinus or the Brahman of Hindu thought. If you meditate, you can catch a glimpse of it. > > An idea does not imply its opposite. Does a strawberry imply an anti-strawberry? I used to think that pattern was perhaps the ultimate principle. However, after reading a couple of books on Quantum Mechanics, the whole quantum foam concept changed my mind. I think that the reality we percieve (the Being in my list) is composed from the interplay of _pattern_ and _chaos_. As for an ultimate metaphysical principle, I am more inclined to agree with Alfred N. Whitehead and give that spot to _process_. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epistemological-question/266708/25 "2004-09-30T13:11:08Z")
> [@Zurvan](#): > > I used to think that pattern was perhaps the ultimate principle. However, after reading a couple of books on Quantum Mechanics, the whole quantum foam concept changed my mind. I think that the reality we percieve (the Being in my list) is composed from the interplay of _pattern_ and _chaos_. As for an ultimate metaphysical principle, I am more inclined to agree with Alfred N. Whitehead and give that spot to _process_. Could be that if I read what you read I’d agree. By “pattern” I mean, at rock bottom, immutable principles–things that could not be otherwise, such as the value of pi (in a circle in a 2d plane, people!). Even chaotic systems will be founded on coherent patterns at some level (I do not necessarily mean material). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-epistemological-question/266708.md?page=1)