Philosophical Subject of the Moment

[Edge]

True, if pro-life means anti-abortion. But I was trying to discourage the 'pro-life' term, if it is nothing but a euphemism for anti-abortion.

Yeah... much in the same way that pro-choice is a euphemism for pro-abortion.

[Zarathustra]

is the world really that objective? Or are you speaking literally?

Well, there are "parts" of it that are REAL, though independent of the mind thinking of them. For instance, mathematical objects (numbers, etc.). Just because I'm thinking of the number 2, doesn't mean that "twoness" goes away when I'm not thinking about it. This is something that doesn't rely upon truth of the senses, or anything else besides the universal nature of these kinds of objects of consciousness. They are unique among other objects of consciousness in that they are not dependent upon our thinking/experiencing them for their own reality.

I think the wave/particle thing is just our ignorance talking. If these really small objects always behave like particles under certain circumstances, and always behave like waves under certain different circumstances, then they're following specific laws of nature. The apparent paradox is caused by our imperfect attempt to define what we have learned from our limited perceptions.

Well, isn't that exactly what a paradox is? An example of where our conceptual maps of reality violate logical self-consistency? Where we must more closely examine both the world and our concepts to see what went wrong?

We HAVE been doing this with quantum mechanics. Einstein never did believe that it accurately described the world simply because it didn't make sense (as opposed to rejecting it on the basis of any disconfirming example). He couldn't accept the universe that quantum mechanics suggested.

However, after nearly a century, quantum mechanics just happens to be the most repeatedly and accurately confirmed theory in the history of science. It's getting harder and harder to think there is something wrong with our theory. Perhaps there are actually parts of the universe that defy orderly, internally-consistent models. Perhaps the world doesn't make sense, really--and not just our conceptions. After all, who ever said that reality had to be consistent? Isn't that just an assumption based on a respect for logic? Matters of fact and relations of ideas are two completely different "realms." The former are contingent, while the latter follow logical necessity. And if matters of fact don't line up with logic, then what compels us to to reject the world rather than logic? We are biased against reality in favor of comfortable truths. Thus we alienate ourselves from our being in the world.

[Avatar]

...Perhaps the world doesn't make sense, really--and not just our conceptions. After all, who ever said that reality had to be consistent? Isn't that just an assumption based on a respect for logic? Matters of fact and relations of ideas are two completely different "realms." The former are contingent, while the latter follow logical necessity. And if matters of fact don't line up with logic, then what compels us to to reject the world rather than logic? We are biased against reality in favor of comfortable truths.

Excellently put, and something I tend to agree with. Hence my suggestion that reality is not as objective (defined and inflexible) as we would like to believe.

Except, I think that "matters of fact" are simply another question of the relations of ideas.

--A

[Zarathustra]

reality is not as objective (defined and inflexible) as we would like to believe.

Except, I think that "matters of fact" are simply another question of the relations of ideas.

The dichotomy between "matters of fact" and "relations of ideas" is one that was pointed out by David Hume, and it is his terminology I was using. Sure, it may be up for debate what exactly is a fact (if you want to pretend to be a universal doubter like Descartes). However, in practice, facts are things we usually all agree on (water boils at 100 C at sea level, etc.). Even if the world is an inter-subjective holograph, this is still a fact that does not change. However, the distinction I was trying to make is that this fact--though constant--is still contingent. There is nothing necessary about water boiling at 100 C, nothing within the rules of logic by which you could deduce this fact (or any fact). This is distinct from the "relations of ideas," which is just another way to say "logic," because logical relations are necessary. They are not contingent upon a specific situation--being at sea level, for instance--or any other factors.

Objective does not necessarily mean "defined and inflexible." There are plenty of things in the "objective" world that are ambiguous and fluid. How about clouds? This alone doesn't mean they are subjective.

[Avatar]

Sorry, I forgot about this thread for some reason.

"Inter-subjective holograph" hey? I like that. Very R.A Wilson. I like it a lot.

I think that the term fact, as frequently used today at least, is very much up for interpretation. However, I'm not necessarily talking about the boiling point of water at sea level.

In fact, (there's that word again), I think we may need some replacement term for a measurable and invariable datum such as that. Either that, or stop misusing the word "fact," which I find even less likely to happen.

Fluid in terms of characteristics? Fluid in terms of description? Or in terms of definition? We're talking at cross-purposes, because we don't have a shared value for any given term.

What then, makes something subjective?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

We're talking at cross-purposes, because we don't have a shared value for any given term.

What then, makes something subjective?

--A

Perspective?




(how you think it is, as you currently are able, as opposed to how it really is, or you being fully capable of perceiving it as it is.)



"Reality" = "Universe" = "God" = "Awareness"




"Reality" as it is perceived, instead of as it may be "in itself."
Isaac Bonewits

Lets break this down, shall we?


"Reality" as it is perceived" .......(I'll start here)


"Reality" is an interpretation of a perception


In order to be perceived, Reality must first provide a perceiver.

In order to perceive, you must first have awareness.

Reality must first provide awareness.

Reality must then provide awareness with perception.

Perception is the act of awareness

Awareness IS, Perception DOES

In order to DO, you need WILL, or Intent

So Reality must now provide awareness with the will to perceive.

But awareness does not have the ability to interpret what it perceives,

Only the will to perceive.

Therefore "Reality" must provide awareness with the will to not only perceive,

But the will to interpret, or describe, what it was perceiving, to itself,

That it might name it "Reality", its description,

or interpretation, of all that it was capable of perceiving with its awareness.


Everything Reality needed to provide for it being perceived,

and described (named), by the perceiver, had to be provided by Reality itself

And Everything the Perceiver needed to describe Reality to himself,

Was provided by Reality itself, to describe itself.



(The Esmer has to lie down now....)



<<<<
EDIT: disregard, irrelevant) all in between EDIT.
Therefore, the supposition that Reality is subjective To individual interpretation
Is dependent upon all perceivers inability to
accurately or completely interpret all available
perceptions of Reality, and themselves.
EDIT disregard, irrelevant stop here.
<<<

[Avatar]

So you're suggesting that the amalgamation of all possible perspectives would lead to a perception of "reality"?

In other words, reality as an independent entity exists in and of itself?

In still other words, that reality has a seperate existence from the perception thereof?

That what is percieved is only a "portion" if you like, of reality, and that it exists as a whole which may eventually be understood?

If I've interpreted this correctly, (and I know, I've ignored some of the things you said in favour of this for now, but I think this initial understanding is more important at first), then I'm not sure that I agree.

It implies that reality exists independently of perception, whereas I'm more of the opinion that reality is perception.

That it is not a matter of incomplete views of an existing object, but rather that it is the views which are the object.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

First, and foremost, The Esmer/JD would like to humbly and gladly state that never before have I had the opportunity to try to clarify, and then verbalize, (using the "scientific method", as it were):
my own thoughts, much less the thoughts of others, that currently I furiously challenge myself with to determine the validity of:
My own existence, as well as the very existence of others, (to me and to them), and indeed, Everything! To all of you here, Malik23, Prebe, SgtNull, Cail, ur-bane, Fist and Faith, and finally The Syl , Thank You. "Worthy Opponents" indeed, with a helpful patience, if not just damn plain interesting or funny as hell to watch, without question. (I REALLY hope I'm not blasting you guys with verbal onslaughts of jibber jabber, but I can't contain myself it seems....)

But especially to Avatar, ( def: From the Sanskrit for "passing down" or "passing over," an avatar (sometimes avatara) describes the descent to earth of a deity, or of the Deity, in material, usually humanly, form. Thus, a Teacher so labeled is believed to be a direct and conscious incarnation of the Divine, born without any karmic baggage, come to earth for a specific purpose, such as to establish a new spiritual path or way.), (embodiment: a new personification of a familiar idea; "the embodiment of hope"; "the very avatar of cunning" ), whose "presence" was felt upon The Esmers arrival, and who indeed has become my Teacher, for who else would I stay up for til 7 am "doing my homework" but a teacher? The Esmer/JD cannot adequately express his humble gratitude to you with words, good sir. He can only express it.


now, back to my homework.....

My intention here was to form a hypothesis upon subjective,

by breaking it down by its current definition and redscribing it with a hypothetical description,

which supplied to us the "shared values of given terms", that we may lay down our "opinions", and "agree", for the sake of argument,

to the definitions, or "description" of the terms as they are supplied by the argument itself, as stated,

and verify or deny the conclusions made thereof, using the "defined terms" contained therein. . This requires in a way "suspension of disbelief".

The hypothesis, as stated, determines that "Reality is a description of an interpretation of the perception of awareness".

To accurately describe, or define, something, we must first break it down to its "irreducable residue", or the last remaining verifiable component of what is being defined.

Using the "values of terms", or "units of description", that were provided, we must then assume the "irreducable residue" of the "perceiver" is "awareness", and that Reality, to be perceived, must first provide a perceiver.

Now you must clarify, using the "values of terms" provided, as to why this statement is or is not true? Is this not the "definition" or "shared value" of "hypothetical", and hence, "debate"?





...and i hope everyone will ponder this as well, not "pickin on" Avatar here, guys, this is for you too!

[Avatar]

Thank you, although you give me too much credit, and scarcely help in managing my already near-rampant megalomania. Regardless, the encouragement of thought in others, and the garnering of understanding in myself, is all I ever hope to achieve. (And you can pick on me as much as you like.)

Forgive me if I miss something here, as usual, I'm a little rushed.

My intention here was to form a hypothesis upon subjective

...The hypothesis, as stated, determines that "Reality is a description of an interpretation of the perception of awareness".

All good so far. I can certainly accept that. At first, I had difficulty with the inclusion of the term "description" in there, but on reflection, it makes sense to me, in as far as the description is necessary for the sharing of that perception.

...Using the "values of terms"...that were provided, we must then assume the "irreducable residue" of the "perceiver" is "awareness"...

Although "awareness" may not be neccessary for perception, (lacking an agreed upon definition of awareness), I'll agree that it is required for interpreting and especially describing, the perception.

...and that Reality, to be perceived, must first provide a perceiver.

Falls down a bit here. "Reality" provides the perceiver? I don't necessarily agree in terms of the definition. The existence of the perceiver is certainly a prerequisite, but to suggest that reality provided the perceiver, (which in itself implies a "self-interest" don't you think?) is perhaps misleading to the question.

If reality is the description of an interpretation of an awareness, how does such a description provide anything? Isn't it rather that the awareness "provides" the reality? Or at least that the "reality" is not independent of the perceiver? No perceiver, no reality?

Hmmm.

Perhaps the hypothesis needs to be restated? Simply:

Subjectivity is a description of an awareness' interpretation of it's Reality. (?)

Seems we're not going to get anywhere before we first define reality.

--A

[bossk]

or anything, being a pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-euthenesia, anti-death penalty vegetarian.

but why are some many pro-abortion folks anti-death penalty? for the destruction of innocents but for the saving of murderers? that makes little sense.

For me it's a little more subtle than that. I just don't like the government telling me "you must have this child even if you can't/wont take care of it" and I don't like them having their finger on a killing switch any more than I like the murderer himself having such arbitrary power. I guess it all boils down to I don't trust politicians to handle any of this shit with any sort of even hand.

[bossk]

Seems we're not going to get anywhere before we first define reality.

--A

Holy shit- good luck. I'll check back with you-all in a couple of decades on that one.

[[Syl]]

My thoughts exactly.

[The Laughing Man]

decades later...... .....

...Regardless, the encouragement of thought in others, and the garnering of understanding in myself, is all I ever hope to achieve. (And you can pick on me as much as you like.)

My intention here was to form a hypothesis upon subjective

...The hypothesis, as stated, determines that "Reality is a description of an interpretation of the perception of awareness".

All good so far. I can certainly accept that. At first, I had difficulty with the inclusion of the term "description" in there, but on reflection, it makes sense to me, in as far as the description is necessary for the sharing of that perception.

Brilliant! My exact problem, and subsequent inclusion of "description" in solution. Bravo.

Although "awareness" may not be neccessary for perception, (lacking an agreed upon definition of awareness), I'll agree that it is required for interpreting and especially describing, the perception.

This where Avatar strays from the rules! awareness has been defined!

The act of perceiving defines awareness,

because perception is defined

as an "act of" "awareness", an IS, DOING.

Awareness IS, Perceive DOES.

It is an "implied" value, wherein the presence of the two

each demands the presence of the other.


What ARE you? I AM Aware. = awareness

What DO you DO? I perceive. = perception

WHAT DO you perceive?

(first interpret perception and describe to own awareness, then describe interpretation of perception to querying awareness)

= Reality

(description of interpretation of perception of awareness)


THE TEST

What ARE you? Reality; I perceive = invalid

What DO you DO? I AM Aware;Reality = invalid
WHAT DO you perceive? I perceive; I AM Aware = INVALID

(due to partial description of total perception.(nice try, A, you can't go there.)

...and that Reality, to be perceived, must first provide a perceiver.

Falls down a bit here. "Reality" provides the perceiver? I don't necessarily agree in terms of the definition. The existence of the perceiver is certainly a prerequisite, but to suggest that reality provided the perceiver, (which in itself implies a "self-interest" don't you think?) is perhaps misleading to the question. If reality is the description of an interpretation of an awareness, how does such a description provide anything? Isn't it rather that the awareness "provides" the reality? Or at least that the "reality" is not independent of the perceiver? No perceiver, no reality?

Hmmm.

Perhaps the hypothesis needs to be restated? Simply:

Subjectivity is a description of an awareness' interpretation of it's Reality. (?)

Seems we're not going to get anywhere before we first define reality.

--A

Well, I suppose since it my hypothesis, I must provide the value...and challenge you also to invalidate it using the rules, these rules, or your rules! We indeed do all agree that in our description of the totality of reality, it includes all things we perceive, including the things we all "agree" exist, but cannot perceive; the unknown, and unknowables, which are defined as the things we do not currently know, and the unknowables as the things we can never perceive, but do exist. I am not saying that we aren't being subjective when we say that, but if pressed, none of us could disagree that it is an accurate and shared description of reality.

Reality is defined as ALL that there is, everything that is being perceived. Done.

Since we perceive that it contains unknowns, which cannot be accurately measured, or described,

other than with a "non-description" itself, Reality can be reduced

to its last verifiable component, by regarding them as a whole idea, or "unit".

we then include the value of the unknowns and unknowables

with the value of "everything else", as ALL.

Reality therefore can be legitimately defined and validated

Reality = "ALL".


(what fails us is trying to explain it, when we can only describe it. Why, you ask? Because in order to explain it, we must first know its: ( )
( prize to Avatar if he "guesses" what he already "knows" )


Reality is a prerequisite to perception! perception exists within reality!

It is but one component of the totality of all that there is, or Reality, and was also "provided" by Reality, since it was there to perceive it.

I do agree that provided can be misleading, but since "Reality is perceived" is valid,

it assumes Reality was there first, and something that was a part of it, the perceiver, was DOING something TO IT, perceiving IT. , or being aware of it, perceiving being the "act" of "awareness".



Everything in Reality is made of itself, from itself, including you.



(The Esmer kicks off fom his own 20 yd line!)
(p.s., I "edited the original hypothesis to disregard the irrelevant, to be fair. Noted as such in post.)

[Avatar]

I think we should start from scratch maybe.

The act of perceiving defines awareness, because perception is defined as an "act of" "awareness", an IS, DOING.

Awareness IS, Perceive DOES.

It is an "implied" value, wherein the presence of the two, each demands the presence of the other.

So everything that can "percieve" is "aware"? Sure about that? What causes phototropism, if not the plants perception of the sun? Is the plant "aware"?

And is "awareness" enough to allow you to describe your interpretation?

Reality is defined as ALL that there is, everything that is being perceived. Done.

Do we perceive the unknown? Or the unknowable? If reality is a description of our perceptions, how do we perceive those things which we cannot describe? Or is it the other way around?

Anyway, to get back to what I said at the beginning, about starting from scratch, it's because I'm getting the feeling that we're talking at cross purposes.

(Scarcely surprising considering we didn't start the conversation off naturally, but picked each others thoughts up as they pleased us, and because of the fact that I did the same with Malik's comments originally.)

If we return to your original hypothesis, that "Reality" is nothing more than our description of our interpretations of what we percieve, it sounds a lot like you're agreeing with my basic standpoint, essentially, that Reality itself is subjective.

Our attempts at definition are getting us, (or me at least), turned around completely.

Reality is All, right? (Let's forget the descriptions, and the awareness for now.)

Reality is All. And All includes the way that everybody perceives it.

What I'm getting at here is that "Reality" varies according to that perception.

Is a perception of the stars as huge clouds of burning gas any more valid than a perception of those same stars as holes in a cloak that allows the sun to shine through?

An extreme example perhaps, but both are descriptions of a perception, right?

If Reality includes all perceptions, then both are "real" in a certain sense.

A tougher example is good and evil. If one man perceives "good" (part of reality, right?) as helping others for some reason, and another person perceives helping others as wrong, does reality have equal room for the conflicting views?

What about this: One perceives that body art is a defilement of your body. Another perceives it as an adornment of the same. Which is the "reality"?

Both are perceptions, (or descriptions of a perception) that is valid within each perceivers (awareness') sphere. Each are equally true, depending on whose point of view you accept.

Is any perception invalid, given that each awareness perceives it as true, making it therefore "true" for that given awareness and perception?

If no perception is invalid by virtue of its truth to any given awareness, then is it not equally true to say that "Reality" cannot be fixed and immutable, by virtue of having to contain every perception (truth)?

Which in turn suggests, to me at least, that "Reality" is what the perceiver perceives.

Clearer?

--Avatar

[ur-bane]

You know, I promised myself I would not read any further replies to this topic until I had responded. But I did not keep that promise, and now I am forced to say "I agree with Avatar."

I think that the original statement of the hypothesis is false, and therefore any conclusions drawn based on that statement are also false.

I'll expand on that when I get home from work (if anyone is interested, that is.)

[Avatar]

Certainly we're interested. We'd like more people to participate here.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

quick note: you guys aren't playing by the RULES! "shared values of terms", not "personal views", or "subjective definitions" that are not agreed upon, therefore not shared, AND, as well, not "provided", BUT EVERYTHING PROVIDED MUST BE AGREED UPON BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED!. (tip: we are defining "subjective", and henceforth, Reality) I KNOW its tough to follow, unless you follow the rules! I never said it was going to be easy, just fun!
This may require all of your effort and much of your time, and patience, as it has The Esmer, to play fair. THE ESMER IS TRYING AS HARD AS YOU ARE TO PROVE HIMSELF WRONG! (maybe he already has.... )

Common ground is neccessary to walk together. What is the use of fighting and arguing on our journey? Why not arrive at our destination in agreement, that we may all agree on what we describe our destination to be, to see the plain truth together as one, or ALL? danlo

I think we should start from scratch maybe.

by all means.....

...We're talking at cross-purposes, because we don't have a shared value for any given term.

What then, makes something subjective?

--A

The description of the interpretation of perception makes something "subjective". PERIOD.
(Interpretation of perception also qualifies, because interpretation is the perceptor describing its reality to itself: the perceiver: awareness: the "subject" (perceiver) being "subjective" (describing).

So everything that can "percieve" is "aware"? Sure about that? What causes phototropism, if not the plants perception of the sun? Is the plant "aware"?

Absotively! the definition of "percieve" is "to "be aware".

The presence of perception demands the presence of awareness.

What ARE you? I AM plant

What DO you DO? I percieve.

WHAT do you perceive? The sun.

I DO DESCRIBE

And is "awareness" enough to allow you to describe your interpretation?

IRREDUCIBLE RESIDUE

In order to be perceived, Reality must first provide a perceiver.

In order to perceive, you must first have awareness.

Reality must first provide awareness.

Reality must then provide awareness with perception.

Perception is the act of awareness

Awareness IS, Perception DOES

In order to DO, you need WILL, or Intent

So Reality must now provide awareness with the will to perceive.

But awareness did not have the ability to interpret what it perceived,

Only the will to perceive.

Therefore "Reality" must provide awareness with the will to not only perceive,

But the will to interpret, or describe, what it was perceiving, to itself,

That it might name it "Reality", its description,

or interpretation, of all that it was capable of perceiving with its awareness.

Everything Reality needed to provide for it being perceived,

and described (named), by the perceiver, had to be provided by Reality itself

And Everything the Perceiver needed to describe Reality to himself,

Was provided by Reality itself, to describe itself.

Furls Fire

IF IT IS NEEDED, IT MUST BE PROVIDED!


Can you deny that this is an accurate and valid description of each one of you, yourselves, right now? As far as the process, and required components, a "description", and not an explanation? YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN, ONLY DESCRIBE, FOR TO EXPLAIN (DEFINE) REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE (SHARED VALUE), OF INTENT


To define yourself, and therefore your description,
you must reduce yourself to your last verifiable component.
Since you cannot start at the top of yourself, because you perceive that you are unknown to yourself in your totality,
you must start at the bottom, or with the first verifiable component of your perceivable awareness.


danlo

Do we perceive the unknown? Or the unknowable? If reality is a description of our perceptions, how do we perceive those things which we cannot describe? Or is it the other way around? .

I'm so very sorry I have to do this to you in front of everyone, Avatar, but you leave me no choice. We already have a "shared value", or "definition", or "description" for the unknown, and unknowables.

unknown = valid

unknowable = valid
(gotcha! ) (did you notice that "unknown" was much more "definitive" than "unknowable"? )

If we return to your original hypothesis, that "Reality" is nothing more than our description of our interpretations of what we percieve, it sounds a lot like you're agreeing with my basic standpoint, essentially, that Reality itself is subjective.

We must agree upon the definition of Reality before we can agree it's true,

therefore we must first "describe" our "interpretation" of Reality with "shared values", or "definitions" in order to "agree".

And if we return to your original question, not standpoint:

...We're talking at cross-purposes, because we don't have a shared value for any given term.

What then, makes something subjective?

--A

we THEN must "agree" what "subjective" means, using "shared values",

by "defining" it, hence, the RULES, which are LOGIC, and MUST be VALIDATED.

If no perception is invalid by virtue of its truth to any given awareness, then is it not equally true to say that "Reality" cannot be fixed and immutable, by virtue of having to contain every perception (truth)?

Which in turn suggests, to me at least, that "Reality" is what the perceiver perceives.

you are indeed defining, or describing, "subjectivity", and that indeed,

Reality is what the perceiver perceives, but in order for everyone to "agree",

and therefore validate the statement (or description of interpretation) that "Reality is subjective",

we have be "non-subjective", or have "shared values", or "descriptions of interpretations".

And am I to assume that you agree with the hypothesis that Reality IS a "description of an interpretation of a perception of awareness", or what the "perceiver perceives"


What ARE you? I AM plant = perceiver

What DO you DO? I percieve. = "act of awareness"

WHAT DO you perceive? The sun. = Reality, based on the "shared value" of phototropism
(the totality of the plant remains unknown, but you share a "perspective" based on your agreement of a description of a component of the plants Reality, which you INTERPRETED using LOGIC with your PERCEPTION.)

"Reality" cannot be fixed and immutable, by virtue of having to contain every perception (truth)?"

"Reality" cannot be fixed and immutable, by virtue of having to contain ALL Things (perceptions)?"

The fixed and immutable fact of Reality is that nothing perceivable is fixed and immutable, but constantly changing thru time.


(Suspense!!!! We still have yet to get to my "INTENTION", to describe, or define, PARADOX!!! the topic of this thread? THIS is where we HAVE to start, and we HAVE to follow LOGIC to the END! if we are to agree what PARADOX means, THE question!Didn't think I was stealin it did ya? haha! Stay Tuned!)

We require comment/challenges to continue.......or else The Esmer will just play by himself, I guess......Am I playing too rough? Have I run off the tracks? Do we need to regroup, and gather where we are, and try to figure out where we want to go? (I knew this would happen..... )

[Avatar]

I just don't have the time right now to expend the effort required to do justice to that post.

Suffice it to say, that based on those last two "quotes," it looks like we agree in principle at the very least. As to the purpose of the discussion, I confess to being mystified. We agree (pretty much). Now what?



--A

[The Laughing Man]

(and if anybody's read Castaneda)

[Avatar]

So you don't know either? Don't feel bad.

(And it's been a very long time since I read Don Juan.)

--A