Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Frank,

Can't you see what is going on here ?? Follow through the posts.

1." Frank type1 "(the pugilist) gives fresco a piece of his mind

2.Pentacle Queen offers potentential support to fresco

3."Frank type2" moves to "educate PQ" about fresco.

4.Light Wizard offers further potential support to fresco's targetting of language

5."Frank type3" complains about fresco's obfuscation.
"Frank type 4" (friendly guy) modifies this complaint with..."but I like him"

What I am trying to make you see is that the move from the pugilist to the friendly guy shows a clear transition between "selves" or "different aspects of self", and that this transition is a function of particular sequence of communicative events (aka "social reality").

Lightwizard,

I apologize for not yet acknowledging the significance of Proust to this thesis.
I have not read Proust but I believe one of his influences was Tolstoy who was heavily into the social dynamics of reality.

Ahhh...so another one of your beliefs...is that a personality cannot be multi-faceted!

Jeez...your beliefs are very, very interesting.

What happened, Fresco...think better of the post you deleted???

I understand facets as "co-existing". I am not convinced that the friendly guy was present when the pugilist was operating. Are you ?
What I call "aspects" are "brought into existence" as and when required. They have no "independent reality".

Frank, I'm ahead of you here. I too can't quite keep up with Fresco. He's obviously speaking for our benefit, and I appreciate his efforts because of the few occasions when I do understand his contributions. I'm ahead of you only in the sense that I admit that I do not understand everything he says, and, I confess, I'm too lazy to read all the materials he recommends for me to understand him.
He burst out somewhat cruelly against you--surprising for him. But I can't say you didn't deserve it. He has been putting up with a lot of attacks from you, attacks in which you characterize him, unfairly and irrelevantly, as an intellectual elitist. He IS an elite, but that is not a failing; it's an achievement.
Now let's just relax and benefit from his participation. He wouldn't bother with you if he didn't think you (and I, I hope) were worthy of his attention.

JLN,

In the absence of a PM facility in which I would have given a fuller reply, let me just say that you correct in a "cruelty rating" for the "self integrity post", but that I can partially justify it from two angles. (1) the "new Frank" indicated he was more flexible than the "old Frank" and (2) shock tactics are sometimes advocated as a "teaching device". I realise as I speak that is consistent with the supercilious tone of an elitist, but I hope my recognition of that goes some way to shedding that mantle which you so kindly ascribe to me.

I am one person, Fresco.

Sometimes I am kind; sometimes not so kind; sometimes forgiving; sometimes not so forgiving.

I am a human being…and human beings often are multi-faceted.

In my particular case, the facets often co-exist. Not sure why you think the pugilist cannot exist at the same time as the “friendly guy”…but they do co-exist. And, respectfully as possible, simply because you want to define that as being impossible or improbable in order to further your personal non-duality agenda doesn’t change that one iota.



How can an intelligent individual like you possibly assert that as a fact…rather than as a guess or speculation or hypothesis or belief?

Why do you suppose you can post here in A2K and tell us…tell me…what is the truth on something like that? That you can tell us…tell me…what the Reality actually is on things like this?

Are we supposed to “believe” you? Are we supposed to become disciples?



JL…thanks for your remarks…and you are correct about my deserving the response I’m getting from Fresco. But this is like trying to nail Jello to a ceiling here.

The second the words “this is all a guess…or this is belief” are offered…all this goes away.

But for Fresco…or you…or anyone else to post commentary in a public forum like A2K…and to profer it as “what actually is”…ain’t gonna happen while I can argue it.

Frank, I am confident that both Fresco and I already believe that all of our truth propositions are meant to be taken provisionally; but they are more justified than mere "guesses." Although we are to some extent on your page insofar as we acknowledge that much, if not all, human thought is socially constructed, coming from our cultural conditioning and social influences.
I guess my problem has to do with your view of intellectual life as "mere" guesswork, a term that does little justice to human philosophical and scientific work.

JL…

…I have been in debate with atheists…and with theists…many of whom make the same argument you are making here.

They make a claim about the Reality of existence…which I suggest is a blind guess. And they object to my suggestion it is a blind guess.

But one group is insisting that there is a God…and the other group is insisting there are no gods…and both groups are insisting that the other group is totally wrong.

And I am being faulted for calling their silly, blind guesses…blind guesses.

Here, you and Fresco are making blind guesses about the nature of the Reality of existence. You both are asserting that the nature of Reality IS…non-duality.

I am suggesting that this is a blind guess about the true nature of the Reality of existence…and I honestly do not care how much “intellectual life” you see being brought to the issue…IT IS A BLIND GUESS.

Can you imagine bringing the standard you advocate, JL, to theism and Christianity? Just imagine how much “intellectual life” Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Origen, Anselm, Abelard, Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Ignatius…et al…brought to the question of “Is there a God?” Are you telling me I would be wrong to suggest that the assertion “There is a God” is nothing more than a blind guess?

Think of the incredible array of minds that have brought “intellectual life” to the atheistic side of the issue. Are you telling me I would be wrong to suggest that the assertion “There are no gods” is nothing more than a blind guess?

For Fresco to cavalierly dismiss questions that I raise as “having no meaning for enlightened people”…is nonsense. For me to dismiss all the tenets of this pseudo-religion as blind guesswork…IS NOT NONSENSE.

Or at least, respectfully as I can put it, that is my opinion.

As for whether or not you and Fresco see your "truth propositions" are to be taken provisionally...I'm honestly not so sure of that. I'm not so sure you guys feel that way.

Why not spell it out real carefully that you do...and we can leave this be.

I would contend that the only "guesses" we make are those we believe to have no objective evidence to prove otherwise, and limited only by our own knowledge about the subject in question.

Arguing about who is right or wrong about the existence of any god is a foolish one; nobody is able to show proof one way or the other. They are all "guesses."

The logic is either ad hoc or circular. You cant argue against it. supposing god does exist: we all communicate with him how exactly?
WOuld thing you can ask Christians: how do you know there is only one god? The evidence is only that it has been stated.

Stating something is not evidence.

c.i. wrote:


You do realize that is what I have been arguing all along, don't you, ci?

The point is .....DID THEY ? Think back to being in the actual situation.

BTW Where is that "Frank that resolved never to come back to A2K" ?

The only difference being I don't try to impose my guesses on others concerning the existence or non-existence of any god.

I stand by my belief that there are no gods. Others are welcome to believe any thing they wish concerning gods.

Frank: No problem, I will definitely stick around, I would be silly not to, I am enjoying this.
Why did one of the franks originally leave a2k?

Frank seems to be particularly multi-faceted. I consider this only to be a good thing. However, I think, that fresco and JL are being accused of being unobservant and narrow, when really it may be that they are deeply aware of their mutli-faceted nature, yet have managed to pull it together to make various statements... and i respect some are not willing to do that.


We assert that the world is none-dual, because although these premises of opposites work for most people, they are (to me) a more basic way of considering the world, and therefore, like the example Freco gave about einstien and newton, more of a condensed version of something that others can perceive to be more complex.

There is a God/there is no god, seems to me like systems of understanding, however, JL and Fresco's method seems to me like much more of an accurate map, a map of our understanding of 'reality,' rather than an attempt to define what reality is in itself.

I really can't say who is ahead of who.

Man has created the bible god as a loving one. Show us where in the bible this "evidence" of love. I'll show you twice as many violence perpetrated by god against man for every one you can show his "love."
No "real" god needs to sacrifice a "jesus" to forgive man's sins.

Did I say anything related to that statement?

Frank, you do realize, I hope, that I have been arguing all along (I think since Abuzz) that I am an "atheist" not because I believe in a No-God and worship Him. I am an atheist only in the sense that theism makes no sense to me. That's not a guess. It's a description of my state of mind regarding all Abrahamic religions.