Definition of Reality

Are we talking about free will, or just freedom in general?

Do you see them as different concepts? And if so could you explain?
(Not trying to be smug, serious question)

I am saying that right and wrong doesn't exist as polar opposites. There are traces of each in both. What is right, is what leads to pure happiness, and not merely pleasure.

And it is a no-brainer. As it should be, any rational idea is very easy to understand.

I can't imagine an authentic unhappiness, as I see any unhappiness as being inauthentic. You don't find many unhappy Tibetan Monks, despite what circumstances they may be living in.

Angst arises from too many irrational choices. If the rational choice was available, then there would be no need for angst.

What if happiness is a means of control? It is no doubt good on a certain level to strive to be happy, but on a deeper level does the question of what drives us to be happy not arise? I think it possible to shape what makes one happy, and therefore not only is happiness a good pursuit, but also the pursuit of a certain road to happiness.

In other words, there needs to be something normative in all of this. Otherwise it is just aimless. Whether it is derived from Greek philosophy or some other source, there must be some way out of the maze. If 'reality' is just what everyone sees and knows, how is there any philosophy? Everyone is a philosopher and there is no difference between wisdom and folly.

... then I think you're using the wrong words to express what you mean ... if each of these presents a different face of a thing and at the same time each are the thing, then this thing is not a concept ... perhaps "concept" is the closest word to what you are trying to convey, but I think you're going to run into the same problem Schopenhauer ran into when he made the poor choice of "will" as a name ... but even with a better word choice, I think the fact that this thing you are speaking of appears to break all the rules of mereology (i.e., "being" is at once both the thing and a part of the thing, and the same for "perception", et al., while each remains different from the other) renders it pretty mystical - it sounds more like a Zen koan that is intended to make you think, than an actual claim about the nature of reality ...

... having had a bit of time to digest this, I think the key to understanding this thing (at least for me) is its origin ... and unless I'm mistaken, its origin is quantum mechanics (something else that sounds more like a Zen koan ) ... so if this thing is an inference from quantum mechanics, then perhaps the best name for it is "quantum being" ... and in that respect, whereas quantum mechanics is said through analogy with the classical to be wave-like and particle-like, perhaps a better way to state things is to say that quantum being is, through similar analogy, "classical-being-like" and "perception-like", etc.

But the question then is, is quantum being any more an indicator of what classical being is than quantum mechanics is an indicator of classical mechanics? ... that is, given that the classical behavior (e.g., determinism) that emerges from quantum (e.g., random) interactions ("more is different") is so different than that from which it emerges, is it logical to infer that classical being must be anything like quantum being? ... (I would hazard to guess not).

Where this could get really interesting, though, is when you combine quantum behavior with classical behavior ... presumably, there was a time (perhaps a fraction of a second after the big bang) when the only behavior that existed was quantum behavior - quantum behavior was (as far as behavior goes) monistic ... but as soon as these quanta started to interact with one another, out emerged classical behavior ... so now you have quantum-quantum (random) interactions going on as well as classical-classical (deterministic) interactions going on ... but what about the possibility of quantum-classical interactions? (that's what's cool about the creativity of the universe - as soon as it creates one new thing, it also creates the exponential possibility for the next new thing ) ... photosynthesis is the actuality of this quantum-classical possibility - photosynthesis fuses the quantum with the classical to produce behavior that is more efficient at capturing solar energy than a purely quantum or purely classical behavior alone ever could ... so does the actuality of quantum-classical behavior imply the possibility of quantum-classical being? ... and is this mode of being yet again something emergent? - something entirely different in nature than what it emerges from?

Under these monstrously speculative premises, an example of quantum being is electron being ... an example of classical being is rock being ... is life an example of quantum-classical being?

But isn't this why there needs to be some sense of the ultimate value? In the Buddhist view, the goal of the path is going beyond all suffering. It is a real goal with a real means. I think Christianity has lost sight of it to a great extent because there is no way of knowing whether the goal has been or is being achieved. You have to just believe. But the Buddhist attitude is that "The Dharma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence".

In other words, there needs to be something normative in all of this. Otherwise it is just aimless. Whether it is derived from Greek philosophy or some other source, there must be some way out of the maze. If 'reality' is just what everyone sees and knows, how is there any philosophy? Everyone is a philosopher and there is no difference between wisdom and folly.

Very true. There needs to be a universal.

The universal theme is a consistent one in religion, and has taken many incarnations, but I believe the basic essence has always been the same.

The Greeks recognized it as the Logos, early Christians saw it as JC, and later phenomenologists have identified it as simply authentic being. All three are pure essence, and are described as regulating forces in the world.

Just to clarify, when I say JC I don't mean the currently conceptualization of a human being, but the Word of God in which John the Baptist first described him as.

This universal theme is the guide out of the maze, if you will.

And what has this to do with the OP?

This universal theme is the guide out of the maze, if you will.

jeeprs brought up the need for an ultimate value, or some normative to bring philosophies together.

The problem of universals has constantly addressed this need in different ways throughout history.

My point is that there is an underlying theme connecting these different manifesting universals through the story.

So, it had nothing to do with the OP. I was only wondering whether it was worth paying attention to.

"What is reality" is one of those questions J.L. Austin called, "asking about nothing in particular". No wonder it is what the French call a "cri de coeur" (a cry from the heart).

There are certainly lots of different kinds of things in the world, and electrons are different from rocks, and living things are certainly very different from either of the other two. Is that what you are getting at?

I disagree. To me this attempted negation of grand questions is the rhetoric of cowardice. It's as shallow as Marx reducing religion to an opiate. It's rationalized prejudice. What a convenient dodge, too. "Let's pretend that all the tough questions are meaningless."

Very well, then. What is it to eat mashed potatoes? That is also one of those questions about nothing in particular. Can you answer it? Is it one of those "tough questions"?

I don't know, man. Feels like a weak response.

In a discussion that is over 50 pages long, the topic will stray a bit away from it's original intention. It is all necessarily connected, therefore there is meaning to be understood from every post. Whether or not you are intuitive enough to understand where each post fits into the greater intention of the forum is dependent upon the depth of your individual background knowledge concerning the information in the OP.

By labeling any post as "not worth paying attention to" you are severely restricting your own ability to understand any other point of view besides your own, in which case you might as well be writing to yourself in a Word doc.