I'm entering the fray late. After reading through the post I have more questions. I admit from the onset that I am the least qualified to comment on this matter. I also assume there is a correlation between this thread and the Reality is relative, not absolute thread?
I do have some understanding, a minimal one at best, of Phenomenology? At least from an existential point of view...that is my reference. That one cannot know an object, an external object, in and of itself...is that somewhat the gist?
Second, today because of the neurosciences we may have a better understanding how the brain works and a better understanding of consciousness as oppose to what Heidegger and other existential philosophers had to work with.
So where do I start?
Tautologies. I begin here because tautologies tell me absolute nothing about anything. It is what it is, Bob being Bob etc, says nothing about what Bob is?
How can any one make an assertion when there's is nothing known about what one is asserting... to the degree as to question if that something referred to even exist?
To postulate the existence of something there must be a reason for it? Or are we making random assertions for the sake of making them? Should they at least fall in the realm of minimum to high probability for their possibility?
And if there is no way of ascertaining any knowledge of this something asserted is that equivalent to zero equally nothing for all concerns?
E.G. if there were three bottles on a table and in one bottle contain all the knowledge that we had and was represented by jelly beans and a second bottle contain the equivalent of nothing represent all the things we did not know and the third bottle would contain ah...what would it contain to represent the asserted unknown which would look like what...nothing?
So if one removed both the jar full of knowledge unknown and the bottle of the asserted unknown and put them behind your back and then bringing them forward and ask some one to pick out the bottle with knowledge unknown from the asserted something unknown, to distinguish between the two, how can you tell the difference? For all intent and purpose they would be equivalent equaling zero.
Again I am talking the probability of something possibly existing.
So a tautological explanation for me is no explanation at all.
If we use language to describe things, to form and help shape our understanding and view of the world, and if we can't to some degree, even to a minimal degree, then it is as good as saying that you can not assert something or anything that you know nothing about. You are making assertions from ignorance.
I could be wrong but to assert something is a positive statement and should require some rational reason for it. Otherwise would you be willing to give equal credit to all assertions no matter how fanatical the may sound?
If I am correct I guess we are using the r = the reality that we know
as oppose to R= the external and all inclusive reality that we can't or don't know? Am I correct in assuming this?
So here is where my confusion begins. Until otherwise proven I have a difficult time differentiating the R from the r. If the r is all I know and the R can not be known then the r for me is all that there is, It is the r that is all inclusive and has the greater possibility and the greater probability to be true.
Though are senses are limited and flawed what little we have managed to garner is still more then any evidence gather to speculate about the R.
And what we have learn and haven't learn about our world doesn't mean the picture of the external world that we do possess is incorrect or unknowable. Or that is no more than a proxy for the real unknown R.
Debatable? Of course.
And it sure doesn't mean that the external world is subjective.
Otherwise I would find it hard that we are able to have some technology.
I am probably in the minority, I maybe the only one who views it this way. I maybe wrong, but for the time being I find the idea of a R reality superfluous.
Until someone can show me what this t is is I can't entertain the idea of a R reality save the one that I see, hear, taste and live in.
If it exist, to state that it exist, I think that would mean and entail that in some way, shape or fashion, that it can be experienced in the natural world of our existence?
Just trying to think things out here.