Definition of Reality

Well at this stage I don't want to continue because I will be repeating myself. I understand both points of view, but I think they are coming from completely different perspectives.

In various philosophical traditions, but especially in Mahayana Buddhism, there is a distinction made between conventional and ultimate truth (or reality). I don't think this is the place to spell it out. I also don't think it will be recognized by anyone who doesn't believe that the Buddha was able to perceive an 'eternal truth'. In any case by way of a very summary statement there is quite a good account of the idea at Two truths doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I sympathise with what the original poster is saying, or trying to say, although I don't know if he is saying it particularly well, but that is understandable, because it is a difficult perspective to articulate - it is perhaps one of those topics about which Wittgenstein counseled us to remain silent. So I am kind of saying 'well I see what you mean' even though I also understand why a Kennethamy might object to it. (I suppose that is about as clear as mud but the best I can manage, at the moment.)

Anyway have a look at the Wikipedia article. I might do a new post on that in the Buddhism forum.

I can say I am distinguishing between conventional truth and ultimate truth. But, of course, whether there is such a distinction is not settled simply by making one. It is still an open question whether there is such a distinction.

And what would it take to establish the distinction? How would one go about demonstrating that there is (or is not) an ultimate truth? It would seem to me that if you were not inclined to considering that there might be such a thing, it would be a very difficult thing to argue for.

well I don't feel so inclined. It is something that must be sought out. I have no particular inclination to persuade anyone of such a truth, however am always happy to discuss it with like-minded individuals.

any genuine metaphysical inquiry. .

against my better instincts....

I say 'genuine metaphysical enquiry' because I believe that every response you give to any metaphysical proposition is negative. I don't think you have expressed the idea anywhere on the forum that their might be a reality beyond the 'mind-independent objective existence'. So you do address metaphysical topics, but always in the negative. You have said recently that a thing either exists or it doesn't and there are no degrees of reality. If you can find me anything you have ever written on the Forum which expresses a positive view of metaphysics, or entertains the idea of the possibility of non-physical realities, then I will stand corrected.

---------- Post added 02-06-2010 at 08:42 PM ----------

also, as far as 'like minded' goes, I don't mean yes-men or people with the same attitude as me. I seek out and engage with a variety of counter-factual viewpoints - this is one of my motivations.

What I mean is, that to engage in the search for higher truth one must be willing to believe that there is such a thing. I suppose this is Keirkegaard's leap of faith. But the comparison is a little misleading, because I practise dharma, as distinct from believe in religion, and these are very different. But nevertheless, there must be a faith in some sense that there is some great truth to be found beyond all worldly suffering. I do believe that, and have devoted a great deal of my life to understanding it. It is a hard thing to understand, and understanding it makes great demands. It is not a convenient truth. So I am interested in discussing it with people who have at least that kind of understanding. It doesn't mean that they see things the way I do. I am a pluralist.

You are supposing: That the only genuine kind of metaphysical inquiry would give a positive answer to the question "Is there mind-independent reality beyond objective existence". What if the answer happens to be negative. Would that be all right?

I said previously, 'no metaphysic' is a kind of metaphysic, and one which I think is not very satisfactory. It seems to me that it always ends up with some kind of materialist view, or a naive realism which just accepts the world at face value and sees nothing beyond it. I have never found that satisfying.

Of course metaphysic is a word with a lot of baggage. Perhaps I would rather speak in terms of 'higher truths' which also goes some way towards illustrating the idea of 'degrees of reality'. I think all of the spiritual philosophies declare that there are higher or more refined states of awareness that can be reached, via which perspectives on life can be revealed which are not at all apparent to the normal person. As I have said before, I have studied a lot of texts which declare that this is true and I think there is good reason to accept that it is.

I refer to a Biblical saying "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8)". Nowadays if you say that, most people react very critically "oh, you're religious, you believe propositions for which there is no evidence". Well I think this particular teaching is a wisdom-teaching. "Pure in heart" is something attainable. If you live a spiritual life, devote yourself to meditation, observe the precepts, and continually reflect on the 'Divine Presence', then you do come to an awareness of it in your life. Certain meanings begin to unfold. That type of philosophical Christianity is very close to my understanding, even though I practice from a Buddhist perspective. In Buddhist meditation, you are trained in 'mindfulness' - be aware of each moment of passing thought, how thoughts arise, stay awhile and pass away. Mindfulness also extends to awareness of bodily sensations and emotions as they arise. This is a purifying practice and one that is quite hard to maintain. There are many internal factors which resist this awareness. I know this from experience.

Having gotten to a certain station of awareness, one is able to re-interpret many of the metaphorical teachings about such matters which have appeared in many philosophical and spiritual traditions. This is when metaphysics begins to 'make sense' - when you start to understand what Jesus meant by 'living waters'.

You might ask why I have introduced religion to the conversation. It is because I really think that to understand a metaphysical perspective is to be religious, but in a certain way. There are many different ways of 'being religious' and many different religious attitudes, and certainly not all of them are healthy or wholesome; there are neurotic and ignorant forms of religious attitude, no doubt. We see many of them. But 'there would be no fool's gold, if there were not real gold'. Most modern people are simply anti-religious, they think all religion is obsolete, primitive or barbaric. This enables them very easily to resist its demands, but the price is they remain always in ego-consciousness.

As for 'degrees of reality' - this is a very big topic. One source for it is consideration of 'the great chain of being', or the Divine Hierarchy of Dionysius. There are also various Hindu and Buddhist schemas of the various levels of reality, from the physical through the organic, psychological, psychic, up to the Causal (or spiritual) realm. It deserves another post though.

But, kennethamy, when I take the time and trouble to patiently explain and share these ideas with you, which I think are signficant and worthy of consideration, you are inevitably condescending and small minded. You are what I regard as a philosopher of your comfort zone, the armchair from which you deliver your judgments on climate change, politics, religion and everything else you dissaprove of. (For the record, I am a democrat, a religious believer, a member of the Australian Greens, and I am completely tired of talking to you, so, for now, you are on my ignore list, and goodbye.)

You are supposing: That the only genuine kind of metaphysical inquiry would give a positive answer to the question "Is there mind-independent reality beyond objective existence". What if the answer happens to be negative. Would that be all right?

And, 2. I have often written that there very well may be non-physical reality. For example, I believe that numbers are non-physical realty. For example, the number three may very well exist, and if it does exist, it is non-physical.

What counter-factual view points do you engage with? And, why do you already suppose that they are counter-factual? Perhaps they are factual, and your viewpoint is counter-factual. Is that a possibility?

I have said that something either exists or it does not. If you equate existence with reality, then that is tantamount to saying that something is either real or not.

As a matter of fact, as I have also written, a toy truck is not a real truck, but it certainly does exist. So I do not equate existence with reality. And I don't think that a toy-truck, for instance, is either real or not. Since an object may be a real toy-truck, but not a real truck. Matters are less simple than you seem to think.

Don't you mean that to search for higher truth you must be willing to believe in the possibility of such a thing? Not that there is such a thing.

And, perhaps one time you will explain what makes one reality higher than another reality, and how to tell the difference between them.

What do you mean by "exist"? What do you mean by "objective existence"? What is the difference between "objective existence" and "reality"? These are metaphysical questions which you should be able to respond to.


What do you mean by "there"? Where is "there"? And do you believe that any other ideas besides numbers have non-physical reality? What about curves or squares? What about planes or cubes? What about inches and cubic feet? What about weight and temperature? What about gross domestic product and the Dow? (And, jeepers, what about the Dao?) What's your response?


What do you mean by "factual or counterfactual viewpoints"? How can viewpoints be factual or counter-factual, unless by "viewpoints" you mean "propositions"? What's your response?


Do numbers exist? Are they real? Is everything that exists real? Does everything that is real exist? What's your response?


No one to my knowledge, at least in this thread, has claimed that a toy truck is a real truck. But first you claim that "a toy truck is not a real truck." Nobody is disputing that. Next you say that you "don't think that a toy-truck is either real or not," but then you say that "an object may be a real toy-truck." So, which is it? Is a toy truck real or not? And, beyond that question, is a truck real? And what about the family? What's your response?




Here I would have to agree with you, buddy, and against jeepers, that it's a mistake to use the word "higher" when referring to truth or even reality. Truth doesn't admit of degrees.

And reality only admits aspects: sensations, feelings, thoughts, memories, dreams, etc. None are more real than the others. They only admit of categorization; e.g., sensations can be of touch, pressure, pain, sight, sounds, smells, tastes, etc.; feelings can be of joy, sadness, grief, contentment, etc.; and so on, but none of these in turn are more real than the others. The only broader category, according to Ortega, of which all these categories are aspects is "my life," your life, the life of each one of us. All other realities, including the "I" who experience them, are aspects of the "radical reality" that is "my life." And all of these aspects are only real to the extent that they are aspects of "my life."
　
So at last you've found a kindred spirit, at least on this issue. It's you and me, and Ortega, against the world! What's your response?

:flowers:

So many questions! If only there were world enough and time. And patience too.

Let me just address:

No one to my knowledge, at least in this thread, has claimed that a toy truck is a real truck. But first you claim that "a toy truck is not a real truck." Nobody is disputing that. Next you say that you "don't think that a toy-truck is either real or not," but then you say that "an object may be a real toy-truck." So, which is it? Is a toy truck real or not? And, beyond that question, is a truck real? And what about the family? What's your response?

I said that a toy truck is real. Only that it is not a real truck. But, of course, it is a real toy truck. It is not a fake toy truck, after all. Or even a paper mache' toy truck. A toy truck is, of course real. It is not an hallucination. Thank you for asking about my family. They are fine, and we'll soon be sitting down to dinner.

the words real and reality are not only ambiguous, but highly charged by the narratives in which they may be used.