there is a fundamental reality

The transcendental view indeed appears to be riddled with paradox, but since it is also transcendent of traditional logic that "appearance" is to be expected perhaps.

As regards "agreement", I have cited some authors (Maturana for example) who deflate "consciousness" to an epiphenomenon of "languaing behaviour". In that sense "agreement" becomes "structural coupling betwee dynamic systems"......a form of "resonance" perhaps. For Maturana there is no such thing as "non-verbal observation" and hence what we perceive/observe as "reality" boils down to a variety of verbal behaviour or dialogue (either internal or external). Of course, from this viewpoint, any proposed distinction between "reality" and "descriptions of reality" becomes meaningless.

(I need to be off air for a few hours )

Which is why I leave the possiblity that I could be wrong. I only have this current mind to rely on which it's state could be conflicted or clouded. Until a difference occurs I can only see it in the way that I do.



I am not sure I fully agree with these definitions of consciousness or awareness. But once again I could be clouded or not have enough information again. At this same time I do see that with such a definition then everything does become meaningless and how can you even discuss anything if that is the case? It would be no different than calling yourself a fisher who has never even fished to be a true statment.

That's how absurd reality would be and the fact that we can actually have discussions proves to a point that reality is not that absurd. It would mean that truths are not truths at all. We would experience errors in experience even, which we don't. This would mean similar to the idea that yesterday what I considered to be red, today is now green and tomorrow could be yellow. I doubt anyone would really consider this actual reality. I sure as hell wouldn't.



How does one function off air?

Krumple, I've enjoyed your input here. Let me just suggest that while there is speaking and listening there are (ultimately) no speakers or listeners. Speaking can give rise to, or follow from, an ego identity in contact with other ego identities, but they can see them for what they are--simply sensations. Our love for literature rests on the experience of those ego-sensations in dynamic contact. That's the emotional basis for an adequate human life. Nonetheless, in our transcendental moments* we see the essential emptiness of its foundation. I think those are our ineffable moments of "enlightenment", not terribly exciting perhaps, but they are moments of freedom from all that cause of our (existential) suffering.
*when we transcend the linguistic (grammatical and semantic) character of consciousness.

I was thinking that discussion like this may sound silly to some, but in philosophy it "lays the groundwork" for further discussion.

Back on air (gasp !).

I think JLN is correct in identifying levels of discourse, one of which (the transcendental level) is "nothing to say".

From Maturna's point of view, what we are doing here equates to a form of "social dancing".

At a slightly less dismissive level, Wittgenstein might argue that what we are doing is "therapeutic". By investigating instances of usage of a word like "reality" or "existence", we are dissipating so-called "problems" about their meaning.

And from a scientific point of view, "reality" becomes synonymous with results of experiments based on theories which predict/retrodict public/agreed observations. Insofar as a particular theory is successful in its predictions may be thought to reflect an aspect of "reality". (I use theory in its loosest sense to include directed observation). But note that scientists are pretty cautious about their use of a word like "reality" (famous Einstein quote skipped). They generally use terms like "standard model", or more speculatively "theory of everything" if they are alluding to the disputed "fundamental level".

My general position in all this (having engaged in scientific research) is to place myself in the Wittgenstein camp, with a certain amount of straying towards Maturana and transcendentalism as admirable attempts to think "out of the box".

Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. "Mystical talk" can function as the "groundwork" for further discussion, but it is also, IMO, what we are ultimately working toward. It is in that sense the alpha and omega of some attempts at "transcendence." In different words, the mystical perspective is a good foundation for philosphical inquiry and the latter can lead seekers to mystical practice.

If reality is like a stream then I would only be a reflection upon it's surface for a time? I understand the concept of no-self or impermenance. How can something be considerd to have a property if that same something is in a constant state of change? It doesn't really effect the perhaps wrong notion of the concept of self. Since this may be a wrong view how is it that it also seems valid? That someone would come to the conclusion that it is unfavorable and thus could use fixing or a solution?



I think this is also a potentially dangerous avenue to venture down. If these other experiences are only mire sensations then what value could they really have? How would one determine or should you not even determine it?



I understand it, yet it has not impacted me in the way that I had expected so perhaps there must be more to it. Or maybe my preconcived notions of what to expect were the error, but if that is the case then I am still unimpressed.



I do see the use and it has helped to remove many unnecessary forms of potential strife. I will bet that there is a better solution not yet realized.



When you realize it is not so bad, why must we still transcend it? I mean sure existence is not always favorable, but if you can see these events that are not pleasing to be mire results of expected or desired outcomes then how harsh can existence actually be? I see this as a potential danger as well, making one less and less empathetic and also apathetic towards existence eventually.

IS quite interesting to take a look on the two parts composing the sentences :

There IS...no fundamental Reality !
Fundamental Reality IS...a matter of agreement between individuals !
(Without common ground how this agreement is even possible is not explained, but we already know how goes "their" argumentation style)

...obviously this amounts to wishful thinking literally taken to its maximum exponential...
Given such nonsensical statements are taken seriously I suppose this guys should believe that if a group of people agree there is Heaven and Hell then Heaven and Hell immediately exist, or equally that if entire humanity were to believe they were birds we all should just jump out of our windows and fly...

Now the question is why this group of Libertarians is always so concerned with freedom ? Why are they always so averse to any kind of dictate that ultimately refuse Reality itself ? What is precious in their personnel freedom ?
...I tell you what...the ability to do as they please at any given time...the ability to be incoherent as much as any position suits their immediate interest and needs...the ability to level everything down so that merit is destroyed and winners and loser's alike are seen as equal so that their aptitude for cheating is not criticised...that's why they defend imagination and impulse so much against any form of authority specially a natural one...what is most ironic is that they call it Humanism when in fact it is the fundamental reason destroying from within our Institutions...
...being hateful of command structures and envious in presence of truly competent people is their main trait of personality...their are those people that resent criticism and that always try to relativise the impact of their actions...we all have seen them and know them from our schools work places and neighbourhoods...little sad goblins !

Someone here would have loved Mussolini (sp?)

Someone here would have loved Mussolini (sp?)