The Half-life of Facts.

@Fil Albuquerque,

The Spanish "hay" from "haber" Portuguese "ter" English "to possess", or "to have". "Haber", to have, is out of the self...while "Ser" Being is an inherent property on the self but not specific to subjects, rather that which is.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The Spanish "hay" from "haber" Portuguese "ter" English "to possess", or "to have". "Haber", to have, is out of the self...while "Ser" Being is an inherent property on the self but not specific to subjects, rather that which is.

The problem of Industrial 1 world nations is precisely to confuse "to have" with "to be"...and thus the success of consumerism which to my view is just a sophisticated variation of cannibalism. Yeah...Barbary and barbarians the Romans would argue...

0 Replies

This one comes from another thread but can just as well fit here:

Quote:

If the statement "reality is an illusion" is true, then illusions are true.
If the term "reality" refers to anything which is true, and if illusions are true, then illusions are real. Which again, as in the absolute form rebounds to the conclusion that reality cannot be an illusion, as (a true) illusion assigned to reality itself, would be the denial of reality, which is paradoxical as any true illusion must by definition pertain to the realm of the real.

What can be said that is not paradoxical is that reality can contain true illusions, but never that reality itself is an illusion, as such statement lacks internal consistency.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Perhaps we could say that my earlier attempt to clarify and further specify the word "reality" was an attempt at a neologism? Such as it is defined in the sources given in this thread, it functions on an everyday basis, but the definition doesn't hold up to philosophical scrutiny.

Quote:

One thing seems obvious however and that is the problematic status of the English verb "to be".

You mentioned this earlier, with a reference to E-prime. I found that very interesting, and made a few attempts at writing in E-prime. Simple things such as describing an apple, but I made some very interesting observations along the way. When you can't say "it is" in any form, it alters your very thinking while trying to form a coherent text.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The established, dominant philosophical paradigm of the time is anti-realism. We are the resistance.

You mean the antediluvian opposition to change and progress? Damn right you are.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Neologisms tend to be new words or redefinition of old words. Perhaps you can remind me of your definition of reality.

One of my own is the verb "to thing" meaning the constructive act of humans focusing on an aspect of the world (physical, or social) and naming it.

It is worth looking at Heidegger's neologism Dasein meaning the the state of being peculiar to humans which he separated from the general term "existence" which was commonly applied to "beings" . Thus Dasein captured the sense of subject and world coherently co-constructing each other. On reflection, it could be that my "thinging" might be considered a uni-directional aspect of dasein.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Olivier lost it when I said he had **** for brains. Maybe I hit a sore spot. Either way, that was unfortunate, and I have apologized. It did not seem to lessen his anger though.
And I wasn't so much referring to America as the sentiment communicated by that expression. One thing is to find no interest in topics such as the one of this thread.
To still enter and tell everyone they are wrong is rather silly, especially when the only thing that is succesfully demonstrated by such participants is that they haven't grasped the actual topic, and are instead arguing against an absurdity of their own defining.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The absolute that I have been talking about all along is...that whatever IS....IS.

Do you not see that this is void of content? It doesn't in any way demonstrate that anything anyone has said about reality is false.
It also does not reflect the common definition of "absolute reality".
You say that whatever is, regardless of WHAT it is... is what absolutely is. But that does not mean that "absolute reality", such as it is defined, is a fact.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Well, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of 'reality'.

Quote:

: the true situation that exists : the real situation

: something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc.

I pointed to the consideration that 'reality' is the immediate experience we have of 'world' and the act of perceiving it. We have no factual basis to conclude that 'world' and 'the act of perceiving it' are different things. They might be one and the same. Or we might ask what precisely the term refers to. Is it perception input, or perception output?

One comparison I like to use is that of quantum superposition versus eigenstate. In this comparison, 'human-reality' is an eigenstate. 'Non-perceived reality' would be the superposition. A state to which 'reality' only has a tenuous connection.

I've become aware of your verb 'to thing', and the 'thinger' over the years. To me they are meaningful, but it seems to me they are so only because of the current "lay of the land". Were it commonly accepted among us, to the degree that it was intuitive understanding, that perception is an active process in which we construct our reality, it seems to me that 'to thing' would have more or less the same meaning as 'to perceive'.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Your eigenstate/superposition analogy is interesting and I need to give it more thought

Quote:

Is it perception input, or perception output?

Maturana has a concept of "life" which is partially defined as a system which deals with perturbations to its structure. According to Maturana, perception amounts to an unspecified perturbation of an internal state. "Observation" is a verbal report associated with that perturbation which helps humans deal with the perturbation. We might say "reality" is a domain of linguistic/observational agreement about successful dealings with perturbations. Insofar as we have a concept of species specific realities, we are anthropomorphically giving animals "the power of reporting" by imagining ourselves with their physiology. But according to this, the word "reality" is only applicable to human dealings with "the world" since only we tend to negotiate dealing options via language.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, here's the Merriam-Webster definition of 'reality'.

Quote:
: the true situation that exists : the real situation

: something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc.

I pointed to the consideration that 'reality' is the immediate experience we have of 'world' and the act of perceiving it. We have no factual basis to conclude that 'world' and 'the act of perceiving it' are different things. They might be one and the same. Or we might ask what precisely the term refers to. Is it perception input, or perception output?

One comparison I like to use is that of quantum superposition versus eigenstate. In this comparison, 'human-reality' is an eigenstate. 'Non-perceived reality' would be the superposition. A state to which 'reality' only has a tenuous connection.

I've become aware of your verb 'to thing', and the 'thinger' over the years. To me they are meaningful, but it seems to me they are so only because of the current "lay of the land". Were it commonly accepted among us, to the degree that it was intuitive understanding, that perception is an active process in which we construct our reality, it seems to me that 'to thing' would have more or less the same meaning as 'to perceive'.

Cyracuz...LOOK AT THE DEFINITION.

It comports with my position and is essentially antithetical to yours.

What are you doing?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
The absolute that I have been talking about all along is...that whatever IS....IS.

Do you not see that this is void of content? It doesn't in any way demonstrate that anything anyone has said about reality is false.
It also does not reflect the common definition of "absolute reality".
You say that whatever is, regardless of WHAT it is... is what absolutely is. But that does not mean that "absolute reality", such as it is defined, is a fact.

Yes...it does actually...because it cannot be a not-fact. If it were a not-fact...that would be "the fact."

The problem with belief systems and religions such as you are practicing here is that they seldom leave room for any real thinking.

But have fun with whatever it is you are actually doing.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I have apologized. It did not seem to lessen his anger though.

That's because I was angry with myself... Sorry for the bad vibes. As a matter of principle, I try to not waste time discussing with idiots because neither they nor I can learn anything from the exchange. I get angry when I mistake an idiot for a worthwhile poster. That's what happened in your case.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You seem unaware that "absolute reality", such as it is commonly defined, is recognized to be an assumption.

Here is the problem:
"Absolute reality" is defined as follows:

Quote:

: ultimate reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being

This is not consistent with how you use the term.
You use it to mean that whatever is, regardless of what it is, is absolute. I do not argue with that line of thinking, but if you recall, I got some **** earlier for "defining words to fit my agenda". You should have a read at those comments, because now they apply to you too.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Never mind, Frank. This is clearly beyond your comprehension.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You seem unaware that "absolute reality", such as it is commonly defined, is recognized to be an assumption.

Here is the problem:
"Absolute reality" is defined as follows:

Quote:
: ultimate reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being

This is not consistent with how you use the term.
You use it to mean that whatever is, regardless of what it is, is absolute. I do not argue with that line of thinking, but if you recall, I got some **** earlier for "defining words to fit my agenda". You should have a read at those comments, because now they apply to you too.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I strongly suspect you do not either.

But I have the dignity to acknowledge that I do not know...while you are trying to fake things out.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Never mind, Frank. This is clearly beyond your comprehension.

My comprehension skills are just fine, Cyracuz. You are trying to sell snake oil...and I am not buying.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

And yet you claim to know that it is "unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being".

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank said

Quote:

The problem with belief systems and religions such as you are practicing here is that they seldom leave room for any real thinking.

http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/577/1bk2.jpg

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

And yet you claim to know that it is "unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being".

Please cite where I said that so I can look at it in context. (Hint about that: I never said it!)

2 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know