Reality is relative, not absolute.

@Setanta,

Nurse !.... He's out of bed again !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Nurse !.... He's out of bed again !

He is also totally correct...which I think is the reason you are reacting in this childish way, Fresco.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Come off it Frank. When you and Set get off your backsides and do a bit of the basic reading I will be quite happy to discuss the issues. The Kids here are the one's failing to do their homework.

0 Replies

As it is abundantly clear that your "basic reading" does not address the lacuna, it takes on the characteristic of religious scripture. If your hypothesis on reality were sound, it would account for the provenance of consensus and context. Your "bacic reading" must not address this lacuna, because you are the slave of appeals to authority, and you'd have cited them by now it they were available.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

it is abundantly clear that your "basic reading" does not address the lacuna

Oh yes ? And you know this without reading it ? Brilliant !

You are wrong, as you would find out for yourself. Don't expect me to reproduce dozens of pages of persuasive arguments in support of the nonrepresentalist view of language in order for it to suffer the potential fate of becoming a parody of "pearls before swine".

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
it is abundantly clear that your "basic reading" does not address the lacuna

Oh yes ? And you know this without reading it ? Brilliant !

You are wrong, as you would find out for yourself. Don't expect me to reproduce dozens of pages of persuasive arguments in support of the nonrepresentalist view of language in order for it to suffer the potential fate of becoming a parody of "pearls before swine".

Once again...you are mistaking views and descriptions of reality with REALITY.

Over the years no one has disputed that there are deficiencies of language that make the description...or even an approximation of a description...of reality almost impossible.

But whatever the REALITY IS...that is what it IS.

Whatever it IS, Fresco...that is what it IS.

You are on the wrong side of this issue...and you just cannot bear to acknowledge that mere peasants you consider to be here just for your amusement...can point out the defects of your thesis so easily.

There is a special amusement quality about watching someone so enamored of himself as you show yourself to be...acting the way you are right now.

I'd suggest you stop taking yourself so seriously...but why shut off the television when the show you are watching is enjoyable?

1 Reply

This discussion is destined to go 'round in circles because the participants don't share a common vocabulary. Frank is talking about the thing that is being described, while Fresco is talking about the description of the thing. The problem is that they both use the same word - "reality" - in reference to the thing that they're discussing, but it's not the same thing. Frank, at least, has been consistent in his usage. Fresco, in contrast, is being disingenuous in blurring the lines between the description and the thing being described. Ironically, it was Fresco who first brought up this distinction by pointing out that "a description has no claim to be considered as part of 'reality' in its own right." Yes, that's true, yet that truism seems to have been lost on the person who wrote it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Once again...you are mistaking views and descriptions of reality with REALITY

.
No, once again, why don't you find out what the term "nonrepresentationalist view of language" means before assuming it means what you think it means. It actually incorporates the antithesis of your naive realism.

TO ALL

Please note, this is the last response I am making to those who are unable or unwilling to have to read my references. I can't remember whether I have cited the Rorty lecture on this thread but it is certainly a good alternative form of introduction to the basic literature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

while Fresco is talking about the description of the thing

With respect Joe, I am not. Try listening to Rorty(from about 13 mins in to 17 mins)

2 Replies

@fresco,

This is your core problem. You don't distinguish between language and what language attempts to describe. That's the lacuna that you don't address. There is a reality from which language derives, but you seem to want to pretend that there is no distinction between the language and reality. Views of language, nonrepresentalist (you guys crack me up) or otherwise, do not address the provenance of those who use the language.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Your screed reminds me of religionists who insist that others must read scripture in order to "know god."

0 Replies

@fresco,

A classic Fresco appeal to authority while failing to answer the criticism.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
while Fresco is talking about the description of the thing

With respect Joe, I am not. Try listening to Rorty.

I don't have to listen to Rorty when I can read fresco. Clearly, you're using "reality" to refer to the description, not the thing being described.

1 Reply

Quote:

Setanta said: religionists who insist that others must read scripture in order to "know god."

Yeah there are religionists like that around, I bust their snooty asses all the time in discussion forums.. Smile

0 Replies

Please note, this is the last response I am making to those who are unable or unwilling to have to read my references. I can't remember whether I have cited the Rorty lecture on this thread but it is certainly a good alternative form of introduction to the basic literature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk
13 mins in to 17 mins

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I don't have to listen to Rorty when I can read fresco. Clearly, you're using "reality" to refer to the description, not the thing being described.

This bore repeating.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
Once again...you are mistaking views and descriptions of reality with REALITY
.
No, once again, why don't you find out what the term "nonrepresentationalist view of language" means before assuming it means what you think it means. It actually incorporates the antithesis of your naive realism.

I do not subscribe to naive realism, Fresco. I have told you that many times.

I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT THE REALITY IS...the naive realists MAY be right...as MAY BE the non-dualists.

But whatever it is...that is what it IS.

Why do you continue to go back to the charge about naive realism?

I again defy you to present a scenario that shows even a theoretical or hypothetical REALITY that is not absolute...but is relative. It cannot be done, because if ALL IS RELATIVE...then that is the absolute REALITY.

Quote:

TO ALL

Please note, this is the last response I am making to those who are unable or unwilling to have to read my references. I can't remember whether I have cited the Rorty lecture on this thread but it is certainly a good alternative form of introduction to the basic literature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

We'll see if this actually is the last response you are making to the people unwilling to indulge you in your constant appeals to authority.

0 Replies

"That bore repeating"
And for crossword lovers, that repeat is boring !

0 Replies

FRESCO...

...I so despaired of you not being willing to respond to me...that I took the time to listen to the Rorty tape.

It was a complete waste of 18 minutes of my life...

...except for the fact that the comments the man made is more in line with what I (and Joe and Setanta) have been saying...that YOU are talking about describing REALITY...rather than dealing with REALITY.

Rorty is an entertaining fellow...but he was talking about the difficulty of describing things...and about the fact that science and religion "describe" what they consider to be REALITY in different ways...and he gave his views on why he thinks the scientific views are more satisfying.

Why you consider that tape (which in written form could have used up only two minutes of my time) to reinforce anything you are arguing...is beyond me.

To Setanta and Joe...if you have the time...listen to the tape and you will see that Rorty is outright saying that he is talking about "descriptions of reality" rather than REALITY.

Fresco is completely off base on this...unless he was trying to see if he could get me to jump through a hoop for no decent reason.

I jumped!

My bad.

1 Reply

It is interesting that Fresco starts a thread which is basically attempting to pick a fight, and then when he gets his wish, he wants to take his marbles and go home.

0 Replies

Reality is relative, not absolute.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know