Reality is relative, not absolute.

Well done Frank ! You have been paddling !
Now in order to rectify the problem you seem to have with your selective hearing your next step towards actual swimming should be to follow up Rorty's references to Nietzsche, Heidegger and Derrida who concur with Rorty's rejection of "things in themselves" which corresponds roughly with your concept of "reality" or "is-ness". But since we both know you are unlikely to do that, I suggest, as a secondary issue for you in particular, you might think about Rorty's ubiquitous use of the term "belief" as the key factor in all human activities.

Oh...so in order to be qualified to comment on your misunderstanding of the difference between "REALITY" and "human ability to understand it and communicate about it using human speech"...we have to work toward a graduate degree in philosophy???

C'mon. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

1. Which "self" is that Frank ?
2. You appear to take the statement "I have no beliefs" very seriously.
That is why I suggested the option of commenting on Rorty's usage of the term "belief". (Consider it a bit of essential putting practice prior to being able to handle the complete game).

The one that "is - is." What else? LOL

Denials of reality are also denials of perception interpretation knowledge or any criticism in any direction. There is no argue about that. Without "is-ness" there is no criticism to substantiate either.

The thing about theories that try to deny reality is that whatever they assert reinstates it. Any child can understand this, even a dumb one.

If anything Fresco's claim is no short of an ironic anecdotal comic twist.
Denying the is-ness of things, the substance of what they are can be applied to language and meaning themselves just like anything else. After all substance is identity.

So for instance the is-ness of "interpretation" as a concept is no longer what it means at odd or even days...we could go on with all the conceptual corner stones of Fresco's credo and disassemble them one by one because they have no substance.

PS - I suspect Fresco being more materialistic then the materialists he tries to deny is capable of thinking concepts are not a part of reality because they are abstract objects...Its all to funny.

I continue to be amazed at people talking about their ideas about different topics while denying reality. I'm not sure what kind of philosophy they studied, but it boggles my mind!

What they perceive 'is' their reality.

Without is-ness there is no "theirs" as "theirs" means nothing, equates to nothing. The same can be said about the idea of "phenomena" or "observer".
You are addressing me but you should be telling that to Fresco I would love to see his comment on what you just said.

If we were to abstract "Fresco Teleology" he basically is saying that X, has no Y, properties, because it has Zeta, anti properties...its really I mean REALLY REALLY amusing !

PS - The alternative would be to shut up but then there is plenty of is-ness in Fresco to be spew out ! I wouldn't mind if he was wrong but was consistent. Being wrong is no crime being deliberately inconsistent is.

What's all this about denying "reality" per se ? It is a denial about naive realism...a denial of the view that there are "things in themselves" which have alternate descriptions.
I repeat the well established neo-pragmatist point. "Reality" is a word which denotes dynamic agreement about "states of affairs" by humans engaged in a common activity. States of affairs include the delineation of what constitutes "a thing", and that is the point that the "common sense view" has most difficulty with.
All this forms the backcloth for Rorty's discussion of science and religion cited above. Once more, I will be pleased to discuss that reference or other relevant material. I will not discuss nonsensical objections about "appeals to authority" or straight assertions of lay assumptions.

Denying that there are things in themselves denies the identity the value the substance of any possible criticism about reality you try to make. In resume it states nothing ! In fact the all counter concept is nonsensical as things in themselves can be collections groups sets of things...even observer and observed together, as a phenomena, would amass to one thing in itself.

In the simplest of terms, we all know what a car, building, bike, culture, race, country, flag, mother, father, etc., etc., etc., are. Those are 'realities' that are common to all humans. We must drink water and eat to live. That's all part and parcel of our 'reality.'

No. You have obviously not read or listened to the material. Alternative statements about "what is the case" are evaluated in terms of their contextual functionality. The non-dualism of observer-observed is transcendent of "thing" or "phenomenon", status hence the claim for "ineffability" with respect to such states.

Then, why are you on a2k discussing 'anything?'

Irrelevant, they have no meaning, no weight, be it one person or thousand, consensus or lack of it means nothing, there is no group or individual, the very property of "change" is at question, there is nothing to be unstable or morphing, you have no ground for criticism nor to qualify anything either as wrong or right. Fresco don't fool yourself you cannot have it both ways. "Ineffable" is the same as admitting dropping the case which you cannot win.
In your Cosmogony, taking things to their last consequence there is nothing to be ineffable.

Right, C.I. but we would do well to keep in mind that all those "constructs" are not just common to ALL humans (in one cultural form or another) but they are common ONLY TO HUMANS. We all "drink water" etc. and share all our constructions in order to live (i.e., many of them have survival value). That is the reality of our reality--we need culture--but that does not, according to the game-rules of metaphysics, make them really real. Philosophers like Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Rorty (and I am tempted to include the Buddha) tell us not what is real; they liberate us from illusion by assisting us to know what is unreal. But they do not tell us that what is not real is necessarily unnecessary.

Give me a break ! be consistent. In your world there is nothing to be necessary nor unnecessary...just read yourself once !!!

Just take notice:

"Ineffable" would mean in the least, more then nothing, more then zero, that is, automatically a thing in itself !

Ineffable, if anything, describes the property of something that exists and cannot be described. Its property its precisely not being describable while existing. Either there is a target for ineffability or there isn't !

Of course there are common concepts of "persistent things" due to common perceptual apparatus, language and goals. But notice that we do not USE the word "reality" when engaged with such things unless there is significant disagreement about states of affairs.

E.g. Some say cycling is healthy, but the REALITY is, cyclists often have accidents.

What the layman does when asked (by a philosopher) to consider the term "reality" is to assume it refers to what he believes are non-controversial states of affairs despite the fact that he never normally uses the term "reality" in connection with them. The laymen usually does not understand the significance of philosophical issues like "meaning is use"(Wittgenstein) or anthropological issues like different words for "water" according to whether it is culturally taboo to drink it or not. Nor is the laymen likely to appreciate how words can shape thought (Sapir-Whorf) or how it can transmit aspects of social structure through gender norms in lexical selection. All this is implied in Rorty's citation of the term "social construction of reality".

LATER EDIT
Apologies to JLN for repeating some points due to delay in composition.

Words can shape what ? Words do not "is-ness" in your world...oh man you have to be quite frankly retarded !!!