Reality is relative, not absolute.

@Frank Apisa,

Because all belief in absolutes about which "you do not know the nature of" are logically equivalent. They are tantamount to free standing untouchable axioms. God is God = Reality is Reality =All Absolutes are Absolute, and anything thing else is guessing by definition !

2 Replies

Slightly off track, but it relates:
Claiming ignorance is admitting the necessity of truth. If there is no truth there is nothing to be ignored either.
This is simple to grasp, but some people love to complicate it.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I do not have a "belief" in absolutes.

I know that REALITY has to be an absolute.

Even if it were a relative...that would make it an absolute.

2 Replies

@calvinseppler,

Yes
truth (small t) generally equates to contextual agreement. Truth (capital T) generally refers to an absolute (as in Jesus "I am the Truth). My claim on this thread is from the pragmaticists position that all we (non religionists) can talk about is small t.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Even if it were a relative...that would make it an absolute

No.
Either you are playing at infinite regresses. Turtles standing on turtles.
Or you are playing the religious card, God doesn't need to be created. He just IS.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I should perhaps have added that the (non-dualist) pragmaticist might also argue that "existence" is relative. In short any "it" is evoked by a human for contextual purposes. (Things require thingers)) So your thinging of "reality" involves your need to talk about the concept as an "objective state", whereas my thinging of "reality" is as a word which denotes "agreed states of affairs". My interpretation is pragmatic, whereas yours is transcendental (like religious views of existence).

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Even if it were a relative...that would make it an absolute

No.
Either you are playing at infinite regresses. Turtles standing on turtles.
Or you are playing the religious card, God doesn't need to be created. He just IS.

I am not playing with any gods.

I am saying that whatever the true nature of the REALITY of existence is...that is what it IS.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I should perhaps have added that the (non-dualist) pragmaticist might also argue that "existence" is relative. In short any "it" is evoked by a human for contextual purposes. (Things require thingers)) So your thinging of "reality" involves your need to talk about the concept as an "objective state", whereas my thinging of "reality" is as a word which denotes "agreed states of affairs". My interpretation is pragmatic, whereas yours is transcendental (like religious views of existence).

It matters not one whit to me what the non-dualist pragmaticist argue.

Whatever the truth of the matter is...that is what it IS.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yes we know about what that "I" has been saying. Your problem is that most of us see that "I" as an aspiring Jesus figure (Frank the Sage) playing the role of uttering a cryptic one-liner equivalent to "I am the Truth".

1 Reply

@fresco,

My bet is that is all bull turds on your part, Fresco.

But...I guess you thought it was clever...so you said it.

Great.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Two interesting perspectives Fresco, here:

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Furthermore as you suggested we can ad a bit of Penrose own weirdness into the subject so you can't say I am not presenting all possible opposition into my own preferable point of view which is rather far more similar to deep learning perspective. So with this last informal video, 2-1 to your own view of things Fresco but nonetheless the debate is way far from being solved as you seam to suggest... quite on the contrary it seems that deep learning might cast a new light upon the whole problem without needing to resort to magic elfs and goblins in the machine...in any case Penrose is worth listening so here it goes:

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Because all belief in absolutes about which "you do not know the nature of" are logically equivalent. They are tantamount to free standing untouchable axioms. God is God = Reality is Reality =All Absolutes are Absolute, and anything thing else is guessing by definition !

All very well and dandy, all very true Fresco, but equally you always seem to forget to mention that without a bedrock absolute relativism leaves you without nothing to point to or speak about...You see Sir the long term problem I have with your set of mind not just your ideas is that you are a partial biased theoretician on the problem of consciousness...you often jump ahead central questions that are fairly ineligible posed to you and keep talking in circles...on the other hand JL for instance although close to your own view seems to have a genuine personal interest in getting the puzzle solved.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Thanks for the interesting clips. Tied up time wise at moment but wil get round to them.

As regards the "bedrock point" I think philosophical discourse is in exactly the same position as scientific investigation in terms of being paradigm/context sensitive. It just so happens that modern philosophy, in the main, has turned to "language" as the paradigm of choice rather than epistemological or ontological analysis. Taken to extremes, this can result in "top-down" one-liners such Heidegger's "language speaks the man", or to "bottom-up" behavioral views such as Maturana's "language is a behavior which co-ordinates behavior".

Now I am quite happy to go along with this emphasis on language since it reflects both my research experience and my overview of "reality" as a social construction. I commune with Rorty's view that a "reality/non-reality" debate in science is futile, and the pragmatists view following Nietzsche that
we never get beyond (paradigmatic) interpretations. My personal view is that attempts at ToE's are doomed, but they may result in interesting paradigm shifts in the wake of their endeavor.

1 Reply

@fresco,

There is absolutely no way REALITY can be relative or subjective rather than objective.

It cannot be.

If REALITY were subjective...that would mean the objective REALITY is that the REALITY is subjective. It would be a contradiction in terms.

You are playing with yourself on this...and I suspect it is more likely that you do not understand the material you use to back it up. You certainly could not have "discovered" this...and I doubt the authorities on whom you rely are this mistaken.

But you will insist, because there is no way your ego will allow you to question your religious dedication to it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Amen ! (....and women of course !)

1 Reply

@fresco,

I'm sure you are a heart-breaker...with all that sweet talk you do.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

fresco wrote:

Because all belief in absolutes about which "you do not know the nature of" are logically equivalent. They are tantamount to free standing untouchable axioms. God is God = Reality is Reality =All Absolutes are Absolute, and anything thing else is guessing by definition !

All very well and dandy, all very true Fresco, but equally you always seem to forget to mention that without a bedrock absolute relativism leaves you without nothing to point to or speak about...You see Sir the long term problem I have with your set of mind not just your ideas is that you are a partial biased theoretician on the problem of consciousness...you often jump ahead central questions that are fairly intelligibly posed to you and keep talking in circles...on the other hand JL for instance although close to your own view seems to have a genuine personal interest in getting the puzzle solved.

Just a minor remark in regards to my previous post as the damned spelling corrector tricked me on my early morning reply before coffee as if language barrier wasn't enough to make a mess out of what I am trying to convey... in any case in green it should read intelligibly and not ineligible. Thanks in advance for your understanding. I will try to keep these at a minimum.

On a second note I think you will enjoy the videos they are well worth take a look.

0 Replies

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Quote:
Play all you want, Fresco...call in all the authorities you can.

But the bottom line is...WHATEVER ACTUALLY IS...IS!

Are you implying that Fresco is saying that what actually is isn't... what ever that is?

Forgive me, I'm just in a silly mood this morning

I commented on this quickly earlier...but I thought I might take another stab a commenting on it.

Apparently, Fresco IS DISAGREEING with my comment: Whatever actually IS...IS.

If whatever actually IS...IS...then REALITY is an absolute...it is an objective REALITY.

He is saying it is relative...

...and the only way it can be relative, is if it is not absolute.

I suggest, as respectfully as possible of course, that definitionally REALITY must be objective. There is no way it can be other.

I might point out this is another problem we have with language being used to comprehend and describe the REALITY.

0 Replies

The best possible most extreme example on just how much this is true could even be addressed at illusions themselves...after all isn't it an illusion a real illusion if it indeed is an illusion ? Illusions in order to be illusions have to be factual...that is to say that X is X not Y. Whatever frame of reference you point to in the first place you just established an absolute. A phenomena whichever phenomena it is, is per se an absolute. The order of phenomena in a chain of cause is irrelevant on this regard as ontology is concerned. All experience is true as experience. What is relative, dependent is the order or context on which X given phenomena occurs regularly.

As means of example and more recently with the proliferation of online games I find it quite entertaining when I hear people make the distinction between their virtual life from their "real" life...it just shows how little control people have over concepts.

2 Replies

Reality is relative, not absolute.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know