Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Fresco

That wasn't with myself...but nice try at humor.

Even better try at evading the issue!

Fresco, that was extremely well put. Let's give Frank a pass on that point. He'll figure it out by himself eventually, and in the meantime we can benefit from other insights of his.

JLN ...toujours le gentilhomme !

the way I look at it a man has to believe in something. That something I will call absolute truth. It may not always remain the truth, as you probably know Zen teaches that the truth is real but that it is constantly changing. I believe in the absolute truth up till the point where it is not the truth anymore, till I either get better at perception or until reality changes, which might be the same thing btw.

at root this gets back to utility, one must do what works. we don't know what is for sure, we are always guessing, but we have a pretty good idea of what works and what does not.

I agree that "truth" is "what works", but the word "absolute" surely implies "set in stone". What is gained by using it ?

Reality is a cereal construction in that it happens only as fast as you can pour out the corn flakes.

Marcel Proust purposefully rejects the idea of objective reality in his large works (they are not really novels). Reality is the passing of time and the scenes and characters pass through time, changing in perspective by the minute. The reimagining in memory in Time Regained especially is more real than it's being was in reality. He acquainted himself with the highest of society which was a contrived reality like a painting in motion.

Society is incapable of creating a unified reality -- it will always be allusive and often I cannot help believing part of it is metaphysical.

Hawkeye wrote:

You lost me right there.

Nobody has to "believe" in anything.

Christians want to "believe" in gods and such...and they "believe" it.

Atheists want to "believe" there are no gods...and they "believe" it.

Non-dualists want to "believe" in non-dualism...and they "believe" it.

But when any of them are talking about what they "believe"...what they are actually doing is talking about what they "blindly guess"--but they like to dress their blind guesses up using the word "belief" so they don't have to deal with the implications of their blind guesses.

There are things I guess to be true...and I call them guesses, not beliefs. I don't try to kid myself...or the people to whom I am talking.

You ought to give that a shot, Hawkeye. Then you won't have to concern yourself with things changing...and no longer being the truth!

it is truth telling about how the illusion that is I is operating. When we get together and talk about our absolute truths we learn about how others operate. Absolute means that I am as sure as my error prone mind and heart can be that such and such is true, I am no longer in doubt, and I am firmly convinced that I will never change my mind/heart on this matter. Absolute truth does not speak about atoms outside of my bag of skin which are set in stone, it speaks of where the illusion that is hawkeye is set in stone. It is where the illusion of I is attached to a belief, and without such at binder to something the illusion would no longer work, I would become insane.

And there is no chance at all that "the illusion" that is you...is just you guessing?

Actually, it is even second hand guessing...because it seems to me that you are just guessing that whoever laid that particular belief system on you...was on to something.

Why do people who make blind guesses...feel such a need to defend their blind guesses as the truth.

We have theists insisting their blind guesses, which of course, they call beliefs...cannot be wrong. So there is a god.

We have atheists insisting their blind guesses, which of course, they call beliefs...cannot be wrong. So there are no gods.

We have non-dualists insisting that everything is an illusion and there is no duality in Reality and all is one...and that cannot be wrong.

Why is it you folks, who seem to be decent, intelligent people...cannot acknowledge that your suppositions about what the Reality is...is just that...SUPPOSITION.

You may be right. Atheists may be right. Theists may be right.

Why????

Thanks for that.

What you are calling "absolute", I would term "self-evident". It is an ineffable vantage point beyond "conceptual thinking".

As some have pointed out "thinking" occurs in "time" which even Einstein declared was an illusion together with common sense notions of "reality". What is clear (self -evident) from that position is that such "reality" is a utilitarian construct whose shifting contents are negotiated according to the commonality of our transient needs and purposes.

Frank,
The answer to your question (once more) is that the concepts you use like "belief", "guess" , "truth" and "right", presuppose a particular idea about reality called naive realism. Allow me to suggest to you that the intelligence you kindly ascribe to us might have taken us a stage further than your restrictive reference frame, in the the same way that you might understand Einstein taking a step beyond Newton's position.

Fresco wrote:




You certainly are free to "suggest" this rather self-serving possibility, Fresco. But allow me to suggest in return that this possibility might simply be an extension of the refusal you folks have to recognize that you are indulging in a belief system"and simply cannot acknowledge that fact.

I asked Al Einstein about your suggestion.



He listened carefully...and told me that he thinks you are just blowing smoke at me!

Yes, he said that about the QM guys who "moved on" from him, but was forced to concede when the non-locality data came up.

Every dog has his day !

Arf!

Truth is that society has created a reality that is just barely this side of anarchy and has often even crossed that line.

This looks an interesting link, though perhaps a bit too thesistic for me.
http://www.templeton.org/humble%5Fapproach%5Finitiative/nonlocality/

Fresco, that site reminds me of a story.


When I was very young…and a student in public schools…we were required by our parish to attend Sunday School…Catholic Catechism lessons.

One Sunday, Sister George was going on about how God was everywhere…in every nook and cranny. She was trying to instill fear in us…that her God, like Santa Claus, knew exactly who was naughty and who was nice.

But rather than get the lesson she was striving for"a brilliant flash of insight resulted in my brain.

My hand flew up and wagged in the certainty that I had uncovered something brilliant to share with Sister and the rest of the class.

She called on me.

“Well, Sister,” I said, solemn as a bishop, “if God is everywhere…in every nook and cranny…then God is everywhere in me…so really, I am God.”

I could raise my hand and waggle it all I wanted from that point on, but Sister George never called on me again.

The look she flashed at me that day still resonates with me.

As far as the "even Eisenstein" rationale (AKA the Argument By Authority logical fallacy) I suggest you consider his views on Quantum Theory as per:

“Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.”

None-the-less, the fact is the Uncertainty Principle still stands!

Chumly,

Einstein's personification of "God" as "the Old One" was tongue in cheek. He admits somewhere to having Spinoza's view of "God as the Whole of Nature" which is a pantheistic depersonalized concept transcendent of the ephemera of humanity, involving a "holistic consciousness", but one which operated with mathematical elegance. For this last reason he rejected the "uncertainties" of QM, as did David Bohm, one of his associates (and a follower of Krishnamurti). Bohm risked his reputation by continuing to search for structure or "implicate order" underlying the apparent uncertainties of QM.

Frank,

I am pleased that link gave you some interesting thoughts. Your "I am God" scenario, is a significant step in understanding the point that "believing selves" and "God" are mutually co-dependent and co-existent concepts (and concepts are all we've got !)