Tue 11 Oct, 2011 06:15 am
My question is: How does reality border with the interchangeable ambiguousness of concepts, meanings, senses etc..?
Only in your head. Reality is indifferent to you.
You make it seem my head is indifferent of reality but I think my thinking is part of reality, even if you can't see the movement of energy in synapses and so forth. I think reality is more like the understanding of the phenomena of sensing ones own touch and anything apart from the body would be a different phenomena of sense. What do you think?
I think the distinction is meaningless. You're not talking about the boundaries of reality, you're talking about the boundaries of your ability to perceive (correctly or incorrectly) reality, and to describe it.
How does reality impinge? Wouldn't our very experience of it be the first port of call? Please inform me on where you think the boundaries are..
I'm not obliged to clear up what you call the ambiguities of what is essentially your perception of reality--correct or incorrect. Even the use of impinge indicates that you somehow think reality is something into which we dive like a pool of water. There are no such boundaries, we live in reality, whether or not we can correcctly perceive it, and we are a part of reality. The only boundaries here are inside your head.
You obviously think there's a correct or incorrect way of percieving. I think perception doesn't rely on whether it is correct on incorrect, that's just my opinion. I think we're agreeing on the fact that we are part of reality but my question implies how reality is 'reflected' in the field of ambiguous meaning. The modalities of which I'm interested in are not just 'inside my head'; our very embodied beings 'percieve' in subtle ways, unconscious or conscious to the fact. Yet because of the nature of this ambiguity there comes the risk of talking about the same thing, just in different words. I agree there are no boundries, yet words are reifying, a process that is part of reality because peoples brains are part of this very nature. But what is mystifying is the process because it would be different for every individual.
Straw man . . . absolutely nothing in what i wrote suggests that there is a correct or an incorrect way of perceiving reality, from an ontological point of view. The point about whether or not you have correctly perceived reality is simply that one may be mistaken, which is significant because reality often makes one pay for such misperceptions.
It's good to see that you have recognized that the ambiguity does not reside in reality, but in your perception of it.
Maybe i can clear this up. If you were walking along a wide, slow stream, and it was lined with aquatic weeds by either bank, and slimy green growths which you didn't like the look of, you probably wouldn't go in. But if you then came to a section with clear water and a sandy bottom, you might think it looked pleasant. Taking off your shoes and socks, and rolling up your pants legs, you might wade into the water--only to find that you were standing, or rather sinking, in quicksand.
Another example would be the humble tomato. It was derived from an ancestor plant which still exists in Mexico. There, it was developed into the plant we know, and was widely used in cooking. It was transplanted to south Asia, to India, where it also became a part of the cuisine. But in Europe and North America, people took one look at it and thought "poison." It is in the same botanical family as the deadly nightshade, but the fruit is not poison, it is harmless. If you made a big salad of the leaves and ate it, you might get very sick, even if you didn't actually kill yourself. But the fruit is not only harmless, it's pleasant and nutritious to eat.
In both cases, you would have been mistaken about reality. Not incorrect in any ontological or philosophical way, just mistaken.
No doubt that reality can seem 'illusory', but so what? It's the experience then formulation of knowledge we gain from these things that inform us of the 'mistaken reality', yet the ambiguity of processes
in which reality can become mistaken, realised, ignored etc.. is the basis of my search. When I use the word reality, it can be used in all it's senses when understanding its connection to us; it can merely be how things appear, how things change relevance, how we come to symbolise things, how things can be understood in a deep and meaningful way, how things can be overlooked without any awareness of things, how we physically sense things, how we intuit things, etc... Although you do bring up some good points about how perceptions can be mistaken into thinking one thing rather than another. Thank you Setanta.
Well, when you use a locution such as our connection to reality, it seems to me that you are attempting to divorce yourself from something of which you are a part, and which you cannot escape--reality.
I'm not obliged to clear up what you call the ambiguities of what is essentially your perception of reality--correct or incorrect
The assumption you make is that my ambiguous perception of reality was either correct or incorrect. You gave no other options...
Yes, certainly. Either you have correctly perceived reality, or you are mistaken. It's not rocket science, you know. I suspect you're indulging the habit of the amateur philosopher of making everything far more complicated than it needs to be.
i am completely ambiguous abut both Absolut and Limbo
but i must admit, trying to Limbo after consuming a great quantity of Absolut can be fun
Obviously you misinterpret my meaning. A computer is connected to the internet but I don't mean to say the computer is in a seperate reality. Language is where most of this ambiguity gets torn apart. Focus on the how's.
If you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME...
How do you know your hands are real? You might put in in front of your eyes and say 'There, I've proved it." But this is precisely my point with reality. Words are meaningless cos it just is. Focus on the how's.
That "assume" bullshit is what passes for cleverness among hillbillies. Do you stop on a green light because you cannot absolutely assume that cross traffic will stop? Talking about making an ass of yourself . . .
I'm assuming nothing. I'm simply pointing out that your idea here concens not reality, but your perception and description of it. I have no need to nor interest in proving that my hands exist. However, that i am able to type this response, which you may then read, is sufficient evidence for me without making an ass of myself.
You forgot that little word "way." This is not a matter of method, but of evidence. If you walk into quicksand, you have "incorrectly" perceived reality, you were mistaken. The "way" you perceived it is not relevant.