Definition of Reality

@housby,

All of the examples you have given are of material particulars, or animals, or a class of person.

But what about the Gross National Product of Ecuador? That only exists by virtue of its being measured. it is real - you can look it up in an almanac. But the way in which it is real is different to the way in which Quito is real. It is an example of something which is real, but has no existence.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;123467 wrote:

But that is not true. For instance, lots of people, including me (and, I hope, you) know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And lots of people know, including me , (and you) that water is H20, and that Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun. So how can it be true that the only truth we can ever really know is that known to us alone? (Of course, you placed the word truth between quotes, and since I don't know why you did that, for all I know, you mean by the word truth something it doesn't mean in English. But when I say that you and I and many people know that it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I believe I am using the term true in the way it is commonly used in English.

Yes, we agree that the capital of Equador is Quito (or the capital of any country you care to name) is correct, if you agree that there is such a place as Equador (or any other country you care to name). H2O is only water if you believe it to be so and Mars (if it has existence) is the fourth planet from the sun. I'm sorry kenneth, but you are still missing the point entirely. I am not disagreeing with your point of view, it is valid and quite probably right. My point is simply that of proof. We are the victims of our own minds and the only truth we can ever know is that which we perceive. We cannot, under any way that I know, understand other people's points of view because we do not live in their minds.

2 Replies

@housby,

housby;123600 wrote:

My point is simply that of proof. We are the victims of our own minds and the only truth we can ever know is that which we perceive. We cannot, under any way that I know, understand other people's points of view because we do not live in their minds.

I don't know if I see the point of this argument though. I can understand another's point of view, even if I don't agree with it. Also empathy gives us the ability to see through the eyes of another; perhaps metaphorically speaking but with a great deal of realism, in my view. I have always found solipsism most unsatisfactory.

But I do want to acknowledge that through this discussion, and perhaps through the many others I have had here on the Forum, I am finally beginning to see why many great philosophers of East and West say that mind is the basic reality.

It is because matter is essentially devoid of consciousness and therefore has no capacity to give rise to anything. Unless it is organised there can be only chaos. The idea must come before the thing. In this sense, I think Paley's basic argument still correct. Yes, everything evolves in incremental steps, but evolution and everything else is directed towards general broad outcomes, as the ancients felt it is. The reason that moderns can't acknowledge this is because science only deals with efficient causes.

So the modern world has the whole understanding of life precisely ****-about and upside down. This idea that matter forms itself into life and mind purely through the evolutionary process is completely laughable. There is no explanation in science as to why the evolutionary process should gradually over billions of years attain ever greater degrees of self-awareness instead of staying at the level of dumb matter or blue-green algae. To say that this is driven solely by adaptive necessity does not address the fundamental question of why anything bothers to survive in the first place. There must be some universal 'will to live' otherwise why would any creature bother?

Quote:

We do not "come into" into this world; we come out of it, as leaves from a tree. As the ocean "waves," the universe "peoples." Every individual is an expression of the whole realm of nature, a unique action of the total universe. This fact is rarely, if ever, experienced by most individuals. Even those who know it to be true in theory do not sense or feel it, but continue to be aware of themselves as isolated "egos" inside bags of skin.

Alan Watts, The Book: On the Taboo against Knowing Who you Are.

Anyway I digress. But I think I am in more general agreement with Charles Sanders Pierce, whom according to the article I quoted yesterday is in the 'grand tradition of metaphysics', than is the contributor who introduced him to the thread. In fact I think the few people who are actually ready to explore and consider metaphysics are the only 'philosophers' in the historical and traditional sense of the word. The modern outlook cannot endorse the project of traditional philosophy at all, but must always advocate one or another anti-philosophy, that of Neitszche or the existentialists or the materialists or some other device which allows them to return to the dogmatic slumber of secular normality.

But I do thank everyone on this thread for the most stimulating and absorbing discussion.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

So much to talk about, but let me start with this:

jeeprs;123611 wrote:

But I do want to acknowledge that through this discussion, and perhaps through the many others I have had here on the Forum, I am finally beginning to see why many great philosophers of East and West say that mind is the basic reality.

As I've said many times, quoting Ortega, "My Life is the Radical Reality." Ortega sometimes uses alternative adjectives like "basic," "primordial," etc. These are all synonymous with what Ortega means by "radical."

Now Ortega came to this view through the phenomenological method of Husserl. Husserl attempted to develop a metaphysics based on an analysis of phenomena. When he examined perceptual phenomena he found that in this instance a person experiences the visual sensation and then makes a mental thought of the experience of the visual sensation. Husserl called the first experience of sensing, "primary experience," and the mental thought, "pure experience." So far so good. However, Husserl then favored so-called "pure experience" over "primary experience" as the "basic" reality. This is the famous "phenomenological reduction" and, according to Ortega, by doing so, Husserl is falling back into Idealism. In the first so-called "primary" experience, the object is the sensory phenomenon. In the second "pure" experience, sometimes called by Husserl "reflection," the object is the "primary experience" itself, the previous experience of seeing. According to Ortega, neither one is more "real" than the other.

To use an example, I had the experience of a visual phenomenon of what looked like a cat curled up sleeping. I then have a mental experience of the thought "I see a cat." Then I decided to go over and pet it, which is a tactile experience. When I did, I had the mental experience, or thought, "It feels to me like a cat." In both instances I have a so-called "primary" experience of a sensation, followed by a so-called "pure" experience of a thought about the so-called "primary experience."

Suddenly, I hear a sound. I then have the mental experience, or thought, "That doesn't really sound like a cat's purring. It's too mechanical." I'm startled to discover that this is an artificial "cat" that looks and feels so "realistic" that the pure experiences or thoughts that "I am seeing and feeling a cat" were incorrect thoughts about the "primary" experiences or sensations that I had; that is the primary experiences "led" me to the thoughts that what I was seeing and touching was a cat. Now both the sensory experiences and the mental experiences were "real" experiences for me; that is, they were part of the basic or "radical" reality that is "my life." [This "really" happened to me while visiting a friend's house, to the amusement of his whole family.]

But, to respond to another posting on this thread, the concept of "truth" only applies to the mental experiences, or thoughts. My first two thoughts that I was looking at or touching something that was a cat were not true, but the perceptual experiences that preceded the thoughts were neither true nor false. They just were.

By the way, so called "facts," are thoughts that we "make" based on the sensations that we have. [The word "fact" comes from the Latin fact-um, "thing done," from the verb facere, "to do."] As a professor pointed out to me long ago, when a person looks at a thermometer and says "It's 72 degrees in here," she's just stating an opinion. The thermometer could be defective, or she could have misread it. For a scientist to make such a statement, she would have to determine if the thermometer was accurate and maybe even repeat the observation several times, or ask another person to "verify" her observation. In this way, she can "make" it a "fact." [Again, by the way, the word "verify" comes from the Medieval Latin verificare, from the Latin roots, verus, "true" and facio, "to do or make."]

So, in my opinion, and that of Ortega, both the phenomena that are experienced and the person that is having them are "real." Some of the phenomena are so-called physical sensations and others are mental "sensations" or thoughts. Both of them are "realities" that "occur"" to "me," that is to "my I," within the basic or radical reality that is "my life."

The same analysis could be performed about the phenomena of bodily sensations, memories, and dreams. A pain, or a memory, or a dream could "occur" to us followed by the "occurrence" a thought about them. Both the pains or memories or dreams, and the thoughts I have about them are real, in the sense that they "occur" within the reality that is my life.

In this way, Ortega overcomes the limitations of Husserl's phenomenology by eliminating Husserl's idealistic "reduction" of reality to only thoughts or "pure" experiences. [See Jose Ortega y Gasset's Metaphysical Innovation: A Critique and Overcoming of Idealism, by Antonio Rodriguez Huescar, translated by Jorge Garcia Gomez. (State University of New York Press, 1995), especially Part I.]

I remain, me. :flowers:

PS: Do we "make" thoughts or do they just "occur" to us?

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 06:38 AM ----------

jeeprs;123583 wrote:

All of the examples you have given are of material particulars, or animals, or a class of person.

But what about the Gross National Product of Ecuador? That only exists by virtue of its being measured. it is real - you can look it up in an almanac. But the way in which it is real is different to the way in which Quito is real. It is an example of something which is real, but has no existence.

The "Gross National Product of Ecuador" is the name of a measure, however imperfect, of certain type of activities occuring in a country named "Ecuador." "Quito" is the name of a place that has been called a "city" located in region that has been named a "country" that has been specifically named "Ecuador," and for which the "city" named "Quito" has been named as the "capital." The measure and the names, as well as the activities, the city and the country, are all real. Only my name has been changed to protect the innocent, my family.

I really have to call it quit(o)s now! :flowers:

1 Reply

@housby,

housby;123600 wrote:

Yes, we agree that the capital of Equador is Quito (or the capital of any country you care to name) is correct, if you agree that there is such a place as Equador (or any other country you care to name). H2O is only water if you believe it to be so and Mars (if it has existence) is the fourth planet from the sun. I'm sorry kenneth, but you are still missing the point entirely. I am not disagreeing with your point of view, it is valid and quite probably right. My point is simply that of proof. We are the victims of our own minds and the only truth we can ever know is that which we perceive. We cannot, under any way that I know, understand other people's points of view because we do not live in their minds.

What has points of view to do with truth (unless, of course, a particular point of view is true)? And then, what is it you mean by understanding other points of view? What would it be like to do that? If you tell me that I cannot do something, then you ought to be able to say what it would be like for me to do it. What, exactly, is it that I cannot do? What you are talking about has been called, "the egocentric predicament". But what I am saying is that it isn't at all clear that there really is such a thing.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egocentric predicament, a term coined by Ralph Barton Perry in an article (Journal of Philosophy 1910), is the problem of not being able to view reality outside of our own perceptions. All worldly knowledge takes the form of mental representations that our mind examines in different ways. Direct contact with reality cannot be made outside of our own minds; therefore, we cannot be sure reality even exists. This means that we are each limited to our own perceptual world.

0 Replies

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;123624 wrote:

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 06:38 AM ----------
The "Gross National Product of Ecuador" is the name of a measure, however imperfect, of certain type of activities occuring in a country named "Ecuador." "Quito" is the name of a place that has been called a "city" located in region that has been named a "country" that has been specifically named "Ecuador," and for which the "city" named "Quito" has been named as the "capital." The measure and the names, as well as the activities, the city and the country, are all real. Only my name has been changed to protect the innocent, my family.

I really have to call it quit(o)s now! :flowers:

ha ha ........ Thats QUIT(o)E an eye opener. All are concepts. 'Real' - as conceptual things or ideas. The more we give names or create things more concepts get formed. Boundaries, demarcations, definitions, parts, names etc are helpful to discern but the flip side is that it also divides. Anthropic perspectives and perceptions gives rise to such divisions. Ownership, property, assets, products or production, such economic considerations and terms have nothing to do with Reality.

For greater clarity and my own safety - before a ton of questions are put on me, let me say, that when i say it has nothing to do with Reality, it only means it has nothing to do with 'The Greater Reality'.

It is necessary to differentiate the Greater and the Lesser. The lesser Reality deals with all those economic and political terms which longK refers as real, including the name of the capital or the country.

The Greater Reality, if realised, shall throw light on the fact, that no terrestrial demarcation or the economic activities by man has any consequences to the majority of living beings over that region of terrestrial land. The Lesser Reality is of minor significance. The Greater Reality breaks all those barriers and indicators. The discussion on concepts and terms within the Lesser Reality is of trivial nature. It just scratches the crust of the Greater Reality.

Ask a bird, a butterfly, an earthworm or all the insects where 'Ecuador' is. The fact is or let me say the truth is that without these animals (of 'secondary' repute), no worthwhile economic activity will take place as is being claimed by Man. It does not matter what or how a thing is named.

As Shakespeare said 'whats in a name?'. Lets go real Real.

2 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;123695 wrote:

For greater clarity and my own safety - before a ton of questions are put on me, let me say, that when i say it has nothing to do with Reality, it only means it has nothing to do with 'The Greater Reality'.

If no one cares whether or not I own the computer, how would that mean that I do not really own my computer. Most people don't care whether or not you are alive. Does that mean that you are not really alive? What has whether people care whether something is true to do with whether it is true?

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;123695 wrote:

The Greater Reality, if realised, shall throw light on the fact, that no terrestrial demarcation or the economic activities by man has any consequences to the majority of living beings over that region of terrestrial land. The Lesser Reality is of minor significance. The Greater Reality breaks all those barriers and indicators. The discussion on concepts and terms within the Lesser Reality is of trivial nature. It just scratches the crust of the Greater Reality.

Really? Well then, I guess they have nothing to worry about. All the wars that are being fought in the name of a country or of an ideology or a religion, and all the exploitation of natural resources that's occurring, and all the pollution caused by the manufacture of products and their use and consumption, have no impact on The Greater Reality, but are just scratches on its crust. All we need is a little Liquid Gold and the scratches will be gone. Ask a bird, a butterfly, an earthworm or all the insects where Houston is, if you can find any.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;123611 wrote:

I don't know if I see the point of this argument though. I can understand another's point of view, even if I don't agree with it.

I'm sorry, Jeeprs, stupid terminology on my part. I didn't mean literally "point of view". I meant understanding or perception. Point of view is easily understood even if not agreed with. Perception in this case I mean as our intake of data etc. Sorry!!

---------- Post added 01-31-2010 at 02:47 AM ----------

kennethamy;123632 wrote:

What has points of view to do with truth (unless, of course, a particular point of view is true)? And then, what is it you mean by understanding other points of view?

As I said in my post to Jeeprs, sorry about the clumsy terminology. Of course I didn't mean literally point of view. I was talking about perception and the taking in of data. I must have been tired when I posted. Forgive my stupid mistake.

0 Replies

@housby,

hey no problems. Nothing to worry about in the great scheme of things. I see what you mean now.

---------- Post added 01-31-2010 at 04:52 PM ----------

there is another approach to this 'egocentric' question though, regardless. If you don't identify with your perceptions as 'me or mine' then there is no reason to think that they are, in fact, you or yours. In which case the phenomenon of consciousness is ubiquitous. There is no 'your consciousness' or 'my consciousness'. (It sounds very simple when stated baldly like that, but really it is hard to see things this way. Not that it is complex or intellectual - it is more to do with intuition.)

Does that work for you? Can you see how this can resolve the issue?

1 Reply

@housby,

That (1) the way we know about reality is through our own perceptions is one thing. But that (2) what we know about reality, is a very different thing. And, the second does not follow from the first. So first, we ought to distinguish (1) from (2) and then, second, we have to see that (2) does not follow from (1). It is only because we fail to do that, that we think we are in the "egocentric predicament". In other words, the idea of the "egocentric predicament" is the result of confusion. There is no such predicament.

0 Replies

@housby,

But on the other hand the whole predicament of egotism is to be continually bamboozled by something which doesn't really exist. And you may deny that this is a predicament but there are billions of people afflicted by it.

"My life has been a whole series of crises, most of which have never occurred".

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;123810 wrote:

But on the other hand the whole predicament of egotism is to be continually bamboozled by something which doesn't really exist. And you may deny that this is a predicament but there are billions of people afflicted by it.

"My life has been a whole series of crises, most of which have never occurred".

I don't understand what you mean. I am talking about an epistemological theory. Not about psychological egotism. There is nothing "egotistic" about the "egocentric predicament". Even the terms are spelled differently. I think you are confusing two very different things.

0 Replies

@housby,

Not really. As I said previously

jeeprs;122968 wrote:

reality is lived experience: something more than just a collection of phenomena, laws and principles.

and my feeling is that the question is being raised in exactly this context. Besides psychological egotism, to some degree, is the normal condition of mankind and deeply conditions our view of reality, or our 'epistemological outlook' if you want to put it like that.

0 Replies

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;123780 wrote:

Really? Well then, I guess they have nothing to worry about. All the wars that are being fought in the name of a country or of an ideology or a religion, and all the exploitation of natural resources that's occurring, and all the pollution caused by the manufacture of products and their use and consumption, have no impact on The Greater Reality, but are just scratches on its crust. All we need is a little Liquid Gold and the scratches will be gone. Ask a bird, a butterfly, an earthworm or all the insects where Houston is, if you can find any.

If creatures as small as termites are found on the exterior wall of our house or mites are found on our hair or skin, we take precautionary measures, isn't it?...... Trivial though they may be, we do know enough of their harmful effects irrespective of the goodful? effects they may have in nature. Similarly the Lesser Reality does affect the Greater Reality, in one sense or the other. Remember the quantum world space and matter.

However, the notions that mans economic activity will not affect the wellbeing of humans is not correct. If that was the impression carried, than i am sorry for not making it clear.

It should be considered that the Earth is not bothered with man's claim over it. Man is insignificant for the biodiversity, and the Reality that exists outside the mind of the humans. In comparison, insects and microorganisms play a more vital role. When we hear the slogan, 'Save the Earth', it does not mean, neither can it be implied that the Earth needs saving. As if man can save the Earth. This is a fiction. The appropriate wordings are when we see the slogan 'Save Our Earth'. this could only mean that Our World, Human World, World of those 10-20 % (?) or 30%? of terrestrial surface where human beings habituate.

Pollution is a matter of concern first to the humans (the 6 billions) and for the humankinds own survival. The zillions of other species will survive even after a nuclear war, but hard to say that optimistically for the humans. Hence it has to be taken seriously by human society and individuals. When we have put fire to our house by accident or fate, by volition or ignorance, it is our primary responsibilty and the onus of action lies on us to douze the fire.

It is true that when our house is in fire, it seems to us that the whole world is in fire. Perceptive Reality (the basic mind Reality of Jeeprs) versus Actual Reality. When the house catches fire, humans may die or be rendered homeless or maimed, but Nature, although burnt a bit, will restore itself in its own determined (of conviction) cautious manner - the winds will level man's artifacts, insects will come back, grasses wil grow, followed by the birds and butterflies, but man inspite of his capabilities will take a long time to bounce back, and that is if at all he survives. Season's doe snot depend on Man. The Greater Reality will always survive, for it is the manifestation of the acts of forces, it was always there, and will always be there, whether 'Houston' remains a name or not.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;123798 wrote:

there is another approach to this 'egocentric' question though, regardless. If you don't identify with your perceptions as 'me or mine' then there is no reason to think that they are, in fact, you or yours. In which case the phenomenon of consciousness is ubiquitous. There is no 'your consciousness' or 'my consciousness'. (It sounds very simple when stated baldly like that, but really it is hard to see things this way. Not that it is complex or intellectual - it is more to do with intuition.)

Does that work for you? Can you see how this can resolve the issue?

... but what would an ego-less perception be of ... it couldn't be a perception of an object, because the perception of an object logically presupposes the existence of a subject (an ego), doesn't it? ...

1 Reply

@housby,

well I don't want to tell you the punchline before you see the show, if you know what I mean. If you reduce it to a verbal formula, you will miss the point. And really it is quite a momentous insight when it arises spontaneously and genuinely.

This is the teaching of the meditation schools - to transcend that fundamental distinction between subject and object, self and other: in a word, to overcome duality. Hence the term for non-dualism, Advaita, in the Hindu schools, and Advaya in the Buddhist (though that version of the word is not used much currently.)

The difficulty is that on the intellectual level, this sounds really untenable, strange, not even thinkable - because it is the mission of thought to make distinctions, to tell things apart, to divide and then understand.

But this insight operates on a different level, that of unity and wholeness (hence the idea of 'yoga', union.) It can only be really approached through meditation, as taught by Buddhist and Advaita teachers. It is a different level of awareness. I am only a student of this, by no means a master of it, but I have had enough experience with it to know that then it arises, it is the mother of all 'Aha' moments. It is a beautiful thing. But it needs to be seen each for him or herself.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

... I can imagine it would be a beautiful thing to transcend the subject and object and become the unity and wholeness of things - but can this ever be anything more than an intellectual and/or empathetic achievement? ... that is, when one attains this insight, is it that "the one" gains immediate access to all perception? ... or can "the one" only empathize with all perception within an intellectual expansion of the self/body image to become all that is? ... does the transcendence of the subject and object also necessarily transcend human perception? (and if so, can it have anything to say about human perception?) ...

1 Reply

@housby,

well many things come to mind - there is a vast literature on this topic already. Suffice to say there is such a state as the unconditioned awareness, colloquially referrred to as Big Mind, among other things.

But first and foremost the point I want to make is that this understanding may go towards mending these dreadful divisions that have developed between science and religion, because this understanding belongs to neither of them. It is not religious in the Western sense of the word, but neither is it scientific, because it addresses the inner human. This is because it comes out of something that is actually outside the whole western mindset - it comes out of dharma. And dharma is not religion. People mistakenly assume that they are the same thing, but they are completey different. There is no word in English which corresponds with dharma. Religion is dogmatic, conclusive and exclusive. Dharma is experiential and inclusive. It has a completely different attitude.

Say the word 'religion' on this forum and everyone jumps. The western mind has so many skeletons in the closet and they all rattle whenever the word is spoken. Anyway I have said enough for now.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;123974 wrote:

... I can imagine it would be a beautiful thing to transcend the subject and object and become the unity and wholeness of things - but can this ever be anything more than an intellectual and/or empathetic achievement? ... .

Indeed! But Scarlet Johansen has already done that.

0 Replies

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know