Reality is relative, not absolute.

You are not "reporting" it, JL...you are asserting it.

Since I do not understand what you are actually asserting...I do not know if you are correct or not.

But if it deals with REALITY...and is more than

a) whatever IS...IS

b) an acknowledgement that you do not know what it IS...

...then probably it is more blather than fact.

So best you not even attempt to "report" it.

Love is an absolute axiom. It can be this morally because its love, it loves us. It can only do good things.

I personally liked his sentence...while Monism needs better explaining n more clarification Dualism is simply not logic at all.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to him, Fil

I don't even pretend that I understand what you guys are getting at with all this, but to assert anything about REALITY beyond "I do not know"...is probably over-reaching.

I am not at all convinced that humans...homo sapiens...have the ability to understand REALITY in any significant respect. We may be kidding ourselves big time to suppose that we are intelligent creatures capable of such abilities.

I also suggest REALITY may have aspects to it that none of us (meaning no human being) has ever gained an insight into.

REALITY may be as distant from us...as the notion of what we commonly refer to as the universe is to an ant.

None of this, of course, actually impacts on the discussion I was having with Fresco about whether or not REALITY is relative or absolute.

Fresco initiated this thread in response to a challenge of mine to create a scenario that has REALITY as a relative rather than as an absolute.

It simply cannot be done...because by doing it, one would be creating an absolute for it.

But Fresco cannot bring himself to acknowledge that...and instead wants to suggest that some of us cannot understand the subtleties and nuances of his arguments...because we are not intelligent enough.

What would be the point? This is religious dogma with you. I note the implicit sneer about what i am capable of understanding. One thing i am capable of understanding is that flannel-mouthed word merchants have to have come from somewhere.

I note the you have completely avoided the question of the provenance of those whose consensus and context you rant on about.

I agree, thought is relative, and is subjective to the individual.

I also find it fascinating how everyone can talk about the different aspects of reality while engaging in discussion about it. Am I missing something? LOL

How else can one talk about the different aspects of reality...(or possible aspects of REALITY)...without engaging in discussions about it????

Whatta ya do...use sign language?




I'll pass on that opening!

Hey, by the way, ci...did you ever find any of those instances where you acknowledged you were wrong...thanked the person calling it to your attention...and apologized.

I've found several others of mine.

It would be great to trade off on them. Wouldn't it?

You're missing the whole point! LOL

I doubt that, but I am delighted that you are getting so much delight from thinking so.

I hope you have noticed my position on this regard is more or less similar to yours. I was just pointing out a particular concerning JL input on that sentence that I find interesting enough to comment about, nothing more.

I absolutely did notice that, Fil.

I was using my reply to you to emphasize a point I have been making to Fresco.

I'm sure he will use a lot of big words that say almost nothing to respond. In fact, I am looking forward to it. Hope you are also.

The next video is about mind's nature and it is side tracking in relation to the OP but it relates in one way or another, so please be gentle on my derailing of the thread.

You're right.
The "point" is that I am merely fulfilling your need for an outlet for your verbal aggression. Whether you actually have the brains to understand the historical shifts in philosophical thought away from pseudo epistemological questions like "provenance" will remain a mystery.

Which is to say that you cannot plug that gap in your epistemological fantasy, so you will instead make vicious, insulting personal remarks. For there to be any kind of reality which is based on consensus and context, there has to be a source for the consensus and context, and therefore an origin for that source. This is a huge flaw in your religious doctrine and i suspect that you will just become more and more vicious as you are challenged and remain unable to answer the challenge.

No...which is to say that your challenge is vacuous with respect my version of neo-pragmatist view of the word "reality". If you can't see that, maybe you and Frank are both related to Sam's wife who challenged him as to "who would pay his wages" when he proposed going into business on his own. The irony is that both of you have the cheek to accuse me of being "religious" when you both are advocating absolutist concepts like "ultimate reality" or "fundamental stuff" to "account for" your naive realism. Modern philosophy has moved on from the the futility of seeking quasi-theistic "absolutes" or "prime causes" but it would take a bit of research on your part to appreciate that progression.

BTW With respect to the textbook Freudian projection of your aggression, as my "viciousness", why don't you give up your transparent game of trying to "up the ante". Your hostility is already enshrined in the various threads on your problem by others who have "got your number". It surely needs no further embellishment.

You can scatter all the snotty remarks around the landscape that you wish. It is not projection on my part to point out that you're doing that. As for what can be found in threads all over th is site, one can find you refusing to acknowledge a distinction between descriptions of reality and reality itself. You have still not addressed the problem which is basic to your thesis--the problem of accounting for the origin of the consensus and the context about which you prate. Your claims about philosophy having moved on are hilarious--it's just a cheap rhetorical trick on your part to avoid acknowledging the gaping hole in your thesis.

See if you can address this glaring lacuna without making personal remarks.

The neo-pragmatist point is precisely that the term "reality itself" is vacuous. There are only potentially competing descriptions of "states of affairs" which functionally serve consensual projects. Post Kantian developments indicate that such functional descriptions are all we can ever have.

I've done the reading.

You can go back to sleep.

I see . . . so you cannot address the question without personal insult.

The question is not what is functional, nor what we can allegedly have. The question is what is--and you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that even speaking in terms of consensus and context begs the question of from when those originate. It is a matter of indifference to me what word games have been popular in your academic profession for generations. That you are well read up in your scripture is also irrelevant. If you cannot account for this glaring lacuna, i can only assume that you cling to it with the desperate blind faith of the religious, because you aren't dealing in evidence.