However, I still feel unhappy with the idea that network theory is almost – but not quite – all-encompassing as a theory of information and knowledge. You say that “the notion of human rights and the worth of each individual human is not an emergent function of a network” without providing any other source.

Indeed your suggestion that, to “avoid the baggage of truth, we are perhaps further ahead to consider why it is that we seek truth” seems to me to be a way of arguing that there is no alternative source; that truth is simple a name for whatever “we align ourselves to once we encounter it by evidence, reason, and etc”. This, in my view, is a relativist position; one that is close to that of, for example, Richard Rorty, who argued that truth is not to be looked for in any correspondence to reality but in “the widest possible intersubjective agreement”.

My problem with your formulation, then, is that it seems to stop too soon. If you go all the way along the track to Richard Rorty’s station you can argue plausibly that truth is an emergent function of the network; that it is no more than a label to enable us to discuss “what we align ourselves to” as a result of the knowledge and understanding we have gained during our participation in the network traffic of those networks to which we belong.

How else can we explain the meme-like spread of hippie fatalism, born-again Christianity, fundamentalist Islam, and so on; all of which are experienced by their adherents as a Truth that they have achieved or been granted access to?

A quick point of clarification – I stated that certain notions of truth – as evidenced by the viewpoints commonly held by which we come to know – from God, our senses, our reseasoning, our own creation…are outside the sphere of network formation. Namely, the notion of human rights and the worth of each individual human is not an emergent function of a network. These types of principles – Truth – are there for us to explore and then to align ourselves to. I was trying to communicate that many things are relativist and a function of our perspectives, preferences, and tastes. But certain principles exists that we don’t construct or create, but rather discover. I certainly didn’t mean to convey in my presentation that “we shouldn’t talk about it”. We must debate, dialogue, and explore these concepts…and create the standards by which we will determine their validity, if we expect a remote chance of moving forward.

The question of “were does truth come from” is significant, and even problematic. In our explorations of “truth”, we have much baggage associated with the term – some approach it from a religious view…others from power…and still others from a sense of obligation that flows from our behalf once we have encountered truth. Basically, it’s difficult to talk about truth without raising the age-old battles and falling into a line of reason that is more centered on the word itself than on trying to address what truth itself is. To avoid the baggage of truth, we are perhaps further ahead to consider why it is that we seek truth. I would suggest, we seek truth in order to better understand our world and our role within it. If this is the case, then truth such as the worth of each individual, is one that we “align ourselves” to once we encounter it by evidence, reason, and etc. This does raise the question of who or what “put truth there” in the first place…but I think that follows the line of reasoning of “where does gravity (or other basic forces of the universe) come from”. All this to simply say – some types of truth stand outside the emergence that arises from the networks of understanding we form. This is obviously, and has always been, an area of much dispute, and I doubt will ever be fully settled.

Does this clarify the statements I made during the presentation?