Is Reality a Social Construction ?

@Frank Apisa,

Sure let’s have a bit of fun, I’ll leave it to your to start a new thread please and I’ll follow suit with something to the effect of the following:

If you believe that the chances for/against god are indeed equal, then you would then be obligated to believe that the form(s) said god(s) would take (if it/they existed) would also have equal possibilities.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Ok Fresco, you'll have to bear with me.
I hope you'll understand this is on the 'cusp' of my thinking... i'm trying to push through it.

Higher consciousness you would define as our conception of things through language/ symbols/ signifying systems?
Which seek 'rightness' as in seek 'objects/truths/fundamentals?'

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

I have the greatest respect for mr fresco but asking silly questions like this diminishes it somewhat. Reality is unaffected whether it is a social construct or not. Everyone knows its a myth.

Belated happy new year all.

1 Reply

One great thing that has issued from our (Frank's, Fresco's, JL's, and others') on-going "debates" is the realization that our respective "orientations" have withstood intelligent attack for many years. I DO agree with Frank's general attitude of scepticism. It's his use of "guessing" that I object to, and for a very particular reason. As I understand the term, "guess," it refers to making a CHOICE between alternatives, i.e., atheism vs theism. To me (and I hope this does not return Frank and me to our old topic of debate) agnosticism, in Frank's sense of the term, is too narrow: it refers to making a choice between only two possibilities, 50% chance of theism and 50% chance of atheism. The first makes no sense to me and THAT is why I am an atheist. There is no equal chance of either being the case. Enough of that.
Generally, I like the "enlightenment" of Pentacle Queen's attitude.

2 Replies

@Steve 41oo,

Steve I haven't seen you for ages. Happy new year!

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Chumly,

Good luck with that thread.

Speaking as a non-dualist atheist I can say that "God" exists 1oo% !

The relationship (co-existence) of the concept "that speaker" to the "concept God" is a set of features which includes {minus expected physicality, minus utility, plus indifference.....}

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JL, I like that you like it, but perhaps you could help me understand it further?
I agree that just because our world seems to have people who are atheists and people who are theists doesn't mean the split should be 50/50, as 'heads or tails' might be.
It appears to me that frank sees the two choices as very 'objectified.' As in the way one might be walking down a tunnel, and it spits into two, atheism on the left and god on the right.
What JL seems to always be addressing, is the 'back' of the tunnel, behind our heads. And to me, this seems to be where an 'answer' would lie, if there was one, but the moment we conceive of it in terms of 'answer' it disappears and is replaced by another concrete tunnel representing another choice equal to the first two.

I evidently need to consider this more. Maybe the difference is that the two original choices represent choices in our 'higher consciousness' whereas the back one represents the 'enlightened' choice.
If that is the case, then we can never solidify our ideas of this.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

Steve I haven't seen you for ages. Happy new year!

and many happy new ages to you pentacle Q !

I'm still here, a bit older, non the wiser and considerably poorer but...alive...unless its a social construct.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

Higher consciousness you would define as our conception of things through language/ symbols/ signifying systems?
Which seek 'rightness' as in seek 'objects/truths/fundamentals?'

IMO
Higher consciousness is a position which sees the "ordinary self's thoughts" as being conditioned and shaped by language. "Ordinary consciousness" is not generally aware of this.

"Rightness" implies "objective truth". Higher consciousness sees that this is a myth like the gold at the end of the rainbow. But that very perception gives transcendental coherence/satisfaction.

1 Reply

@Steve 41oo,

Ah ****, credit crunch eh?
Well, maybe we can find solace in the fact that it may well be a social construct.

0 Replies

Since my agnosticism is being mentioned here, best I at least set my agnosticism out for the folks who have not been around for 15 years.

With regard to my agnosticism on the question of whether or not a GOD or gods exist…or that no gods exist:

I do not know if there is a GOD…or if there are gods…and I do not know if no gods exist. I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction. By saying that I am unable to make a meaningful guess in either direction on the issue, I am saying that I cannot make a “belief” in either direction.

I have never said it is a 50/50 proposition…and quite honestly I cannot assign any probability to either side of the issue…because none of the evidence I see clearly points in either direction.

My argument that the evidence is ambiguous is bolstered by the fact that atheists and theists both use the same evidence to argue that it (the evidence) point in the direction of (for atheists) there are no gods…and (for theists) there is a GOD"diametrically opposed conclusions.

Anyone who would like to discuss that, we can discuss it right here. It is not off topic. The agnostic concept certainly plays a part in the question at hand.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yes, well I am on-par with that.
I understand that completely.

But in perceiving like this could we not be accused of simply 'packaging' the knowledge differently.

The only conclusion I can make from it is that it's paradoxes all the way down.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,

I think you will find that IS off topic if you acknowledge my terms of reference on page 1, first post of this thread.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

A solution to the problem of infinite regresses of "knowledge" ( or turtles) is partially suggested by a "systems approach" to cognition suggested by Capra (following Maturana).
You need to take on board the idea that "life" and "cognition" are the same thing
and that life manifests itself in hierarchies from "cells" through "organisms" to "societies" and beyond (who knows where)! Insights about the mechanisms of lower levels can be gained by reference to higher levels, such insights being "knowledge". (e.g. the mobility of blood cells with respect to bodily needs). Remebering then the equivalence of "cognition" with "life processes" we have a formal rationale for "levels of consciousness" via the mathematics of nested systems.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Sounds to me, Fresco, that anything that challenges the guesses you have made about the Reality of Existence...will be deemed in some way, to be off topic.

If you develop the guts to discuss what I raised...do so. If you don't...no problem.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, by 50-50 I was not referring to some statistical position you have taken explicitly. But in saying that as far as you are concerned it is JUST AS LIKELY (or unlikely) that there is or is not a God (or gods) IMPLIES a 50-50 framework. My experience leads me to the conclusion that claims regarding the existence gods makes no sense, except, perhaps, in a purely mythological context. You seem to be saying that perhaps there COULD be a God, but that you have no unambiguous evidence for the claim. Are you implying that except for the lack of evidence the claim MAKES SENSE to you?

Oh the deja vu.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

One great thing that has issued from our (Frank's, Fresco's, JL's, and others') on-going "debates" is the realization that our respective "orientations" have withstood intelligent attack for many years. I DO agree with Frank's general attitude of scepticism. It's his use of "guessing" that I object to, and for a very particular reason. As I understand the term, "guess," it refers to making a CHOICE between alternatives, i.e., atheism vs theism. To me (and I hope this does not return Frank and me to our old topic of debate) agnosticism, in Frank's sense of the term, is too narrow: it refers to making a choice between only two possibilities, 50% chance of theism and 50% chance of atheism. The first makes no sense to me and THAT is why I am an atheist. There is no equal chance of either being the case. Enough of that.
Generally, I like the "enlightenment" of Pentacle Queen's attitude.

Since you appear to "know" that the chances cannot be 50/50 in the question of the theism/atheism continuum...perhaps you can tell us what the correct "chances" are.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank wrote:

Quote:

Since you appear to "know" that the chances cannot be 50/50 in the question of the theism/atheism continuum...perhaps you can tell us what the correct "chances" are.

That's also a subjective guess, and can range anywhere between zero and 100%.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, ci...I understand that.

JL has indicated knowledge that the percentage cannot be 50/50. In order to do that, JL pretty much has to know what the percentage is. I'm just interested in what it is...and why, whatever it is, it cannot be 50/50.

(As I mentioned, I am not saying it is 50/50. I have no idea at all of what the percentage would be. I do not know how anybody could come up with a percentage...or how anybody could come up with a percentage that cannot be.

Perhaps JL can tell us.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

By that token then you would have to assert that there is an infinitely likely chance my dog is in fact an all powerful god, given you now claim possibility for any and all options without regard to likelihood.

In fact by your most recent claim, you would have to assert that there is an an infinitely likely chance of any an all possibilities.

1 Reply

Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know