Reality is relative, not absolute.

Looks like my amazement is destined to continue.

Looks like our amusement is also!

[img]Is there a functional benefit to this viewpoint/knowledge?[/img]

No.

And if you did, you'd be wrong.

BEST ANSWER!!!!!!!

It amazes me how a pompous ass such as yourself aspires to be mediocre. And you've accomplished extreme mediocrity, too.

Unfortunately, so will your banality.

Your long term internal conversation provides useful evidence for the "committee nature of self, which is an important aspect of the relativity view of reality.

Thank you !

Still waiting for you to provide a scenario in which REALITY is relative, Fresco...rather than absolute.

That was what you set out to do.

So far you haven't...instead you have continued to indulge in your usual explosion of words that try to hide the fact that you are unable to accomplish what you set as a goal.

I'll continue to wait...and enjoy the fact that so many others understand the silly game you are playing.

"so many others"

Frank, Bobsal and Nark .....what a team !

Still waiting for you to provide a scenario in which REALITY is relative, Fresco...rather than absolute.

You cannot do it...and you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you can't.

Speaking of reality, I've watched The Matrix plenty of times but still haven't a clue what it's about.
Same with the puzzling final scene of 2001 Space Odyssey, why the heck is the astronaut in that room watching a guy eating his dinner?

If reality is relative rather than absolute, it is because it is unitary. Our thoughts about reality are necessarily about the relationships between its many facets. But immediate experiences of reality are of its absolute manifestations. As I see it experience/phenomena are absolute; thought is relative.

I acknowledge your admission that "you are not the sharpest pencil in the box" and that being stuck in your box you fail to see that I established the thesis in the first post.
You are consequentially still wittering like the apocryphal "Sam's wife" who kept asking "but who will pay the wages" in response to Sam's proposal to set up in business on his own. I raised that with you a ling time ago, and you won't progress from there if you don't do any reading. But as they say..."where ignorance is bliss.....!"

I would say that communicative use of the term "reality" is relative to its dynamic context, in accordance withWittgenstein's meaning is use. Absolutist views of "reality" are essentially equivalent to a God's eye view since they purport to transcend the flux of dichotomy of observer observed. But even that non-communicative usage could be deemed to be predicated on a solipsistic meditational context (of nirvana which ultimately gives way to samsara. ?)

There is absolutely no way you have shown a scenario in which REALITY is not absolute...and by now you know it, Fresco.

But you are going to continue to bluster...and to post passages that are merely strings of words saying damn near nothing...and to assert that the gibberish is actually a scenario bearing you out .

And of course, you are going to suggest that I am stupid...as opposed to what I have been saying: There are many extremely intelligent people in this forum...and I am not among the "extremely intelligent."

That does NOT mean that I am ignorant or stupid...which I am not.

You cannot produce a scenario in which REALITY is not absolute...because if you did...that would be the ABSOLUTE REALITY.

Get off it.

The "REALITY is relative" is simply one tenet in this religion you have created for yourself.

Poor old Sam !

1 - Events, common experiences, even subjective ones, either do happen or they don't. There is no way around that. The sum of the set of all those experiences, including the personnal ones, is Reality !

2 - The very use of the expression "relative reality" is internally contradictory. A forced conjuction of words which is ultimately self defeating.
With its use if someone just intends to mean that there is no reality, then the very assertion of the fact, which reports from nothing, is also self contradictory and ultimately meaningless giberish ! What could one possibly mean with a statement which intends to be true about there being no true states of anything ?
The amount of confusion some people live in boggles the mind...
There is not much to comment or say beyond this except for the entertainement part...make no mistake, giving any thought to the idea is proof of stupidity of a very special kind, n that much is unfortunately also real !

Well done. You've made it a gang of four !

Oh yes ...?
Listen to the climax of Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez. Julian Bream's version differs from that of John Williams by the emotional impact of a slight variation of the length of silence before the final chord.

Now what do you think "the event" is ? .....the silence?...the length of silence?...the juxtaposition of the lengths of silence...the emotional impact of the silence....or... THE SELECTIVE ACT OF A HUMAN OBSERVER IN DEFINING WHAT CONSTITUTES "AN EVENT" ?

First, the use of "selective" right there would provide an entire evening of debate as to "select" implies an act of deliberate conscious choice, a debatable hot topic per se.
Second, while perceptions report real subjective experiences that others might not be aware off, lack of knowledge of what you or anyone else experiences doesn't make it any less real that a factual experience did happen to someone at some point. Awareness, knowledge, or lack of it, on what happens to others is not a criteria to counter the scope of reality.
Real, refers to both what happens inside peoples minds own subjective experiencing and perception, as to what happens regarding others experiencing all the same. The fact that it happens to everyone no matter how different makes it ultimately objective.
That is to say, it is objectively true that subjective experiences exist. They are real. Now the catch is they do not need to encompass all that it is real so to define the scope of what reality is in reference to myself ! Disagreement about what is real is disagreement about factual different experiencing going on from subject to subject, not about lack of real, factual, actual, experiences...
It seams to be the case that there is some good degree of concordance in describing loosely the scope of experiencing socially speaking. But even if there wasn't, a lack of a rational conducting the succession of events from person to person wouldn't make reality as a whole, any less real !
In very simple terms, to say that reality is relative amounts to say that what happens to others is not real. Depending on the point of view I just happen to be one of the "others" to whom reality is not happening...silly !