The View from 40,000 FT and the Tip of Ones Nose

[honorentheos]

I guess my question, then, for you, is at what point do you break from objective reality, factual reality, to subjective reality?

- Doc

Hi Doc,

Interesting thoughts which I appreciate. I guess regarding the above I break at the point of declaring something as objective reality. Instead I engage in probabilities as to how justified what I believe to be truth is in fact justified where some things appear to be nearly certainly justified views on very solid ground while others are closer to Robert Frost's road less taken...

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

[Chap]

You lend someone $100,000.

When the debt is due, you ask them for repayment, and they tell you that they don't believe they owe you any money at all. Do you triangulate their view with yours and try to avoid telling them to "stop playing games and get on the bus that is my way of perceiving the world"?

I take leave to doubt it, and to assert that it seems to me quite certain that there are important aspects of your life where you just act as if you were quite sure of what is the case and what is not.

[honorentheos]

You lend someone $100,000.

When the debt is due, you ask them for repayment, and they tell you that they don't believe they owe you any money at all. Do you triangulate their view with yours and try to avoid telling them to "stop playing games and get on the bus that is my way of perceiving the world"?

I take leave to doubt it, and to assert that it seems to me quite certain that there are important aspects of your life where you just act as if you were quite sure of what is the case and what is not.

Well, this is a funny example.given money is a human construct if there ever was one. The idea I lent them something we both agreed had value of a reasonably agreed on amount is very much in line with the idea reality is a product of shared her man experience. So supposng they then claim that I in fact never leant them this money, and I had a signed contract (which I would hope to have given the sum involved) I would rely on other human constructs of law and contracts to obtain what I freely acknowledge to be an abstraction of value back in return.

Thank you for the nice example. : )

[Res Ipsa]

And I am not playing the philosophy game here. I am talking about people being sincere with one another about how they make the decisions that define their life choices, which is a different matter.

I don't think it's a game nor do I think it's insincere to realize what we are describing as "reality" is an aggregate of various peoples experiences combined with predicability of outcomes.

I use this to bound certitude and maintain healthy recognition that reality isn't so cut and dry as to demand people stop playing games and get on the bus that is my way of perceiving the world. I'd argue doing so is a step away from, well, truth.

I think this illustrates very well the postmodern crisis we find ourselves in. It's a very short step from Honor's point to the alternate realities we find ourselves faced with. QAnon is an aggregate of various life experience combined with predictability of outcomes. That's not meant as a criticism of you, Honor. I think we're all struggling with the ramifications of post-modernism and looking for a principled way out. I'm paraphrasing, but remember the response to a claim that the Democrats were the "reality based community?" The response was, essentially, "You don't get it. We're making a new reality." It's pretty ironic that at the same time conservative thought leaders were demonizing post-modernism, they were weaponizing it. If reality is just shared stories, within a few physical constraints (like, rocks are really rocks), why isn't it just as valid to claim the election was stolen through fraud as to claim it was not. The shared experience of millions of Americans was that there was no way that Trump could lose unless the Democrats and the dishonest media cheated.

in my opinion, this is America's crisis (although its not limited to America). Vaccines are safe and effective and vaccines are mind control devices created by Bill Gates. Two separate realities. Two aggregates of shared experience. Living in two separate realities has created mass death and suffering in the U.S. If we can't find our way out of the morass of postmodernism, climate change will screw humanity over completely.

[honorentheos]

I don't think it's a game nor do I think it's insincere to realize what we are describing as "reality" is an aggregate of various peoples experiences combined with predicability of outcomes.

I use this to bound certitude and maintain healthy recognition that reality isn't so cut and dry as to demand people stop playing games and get on the bus that is my way of perceiving the world. I'd argue doing so is a step away from, well, truth.

I think this illustrates very well the postmodern crisis we find ourselves in. It's a very short step from Honor's point to the alternate realities we find ourselves faced with. QAnon is an aggregate of various life experience combined with predictability of outcomes. That's not meant as a criticism of you, Honor. I think we're all struggling with the ramifications of post-modernism and looking for a principled way out. I'm paraphrasing, but remember the response to a claim that the Democrats were the "reality based community?" The response was, essentially, "You don't get it. We're making a new reality." It's pretty ironic that at the same time conservative thought leaders were demonizing post-modernism, they were weaponizing it. If reality is just shared stories, within a few physical constraints (like, rocks are really rocks), why isn't it just as valid to claim the election was stolen through fraud as to claim it was not. The shared experience of millions of Americans was that there was no way that Trump could lose unless the Democrats and the dishonest media cheated.

in my opinion, this is America's crisis (although its not limited to America). Vaccines are safe and effective and vaccines are mind control devices created by Bill Gates. Two separate realities. Two aggregates of shared experience. Living in two separate realities has created mass death and suffering in the U.S. If we can't find our way out of the morass of postmodernism, climate change will screw humanity over completely.

I appreciate this, Res, because it's precisely why I posted. To get out of the challenge I argue we need to move forward into a post-post modernism where the created nature of reality is recognized rather than attempt to impose a classical but wrong argument that objective reality exists so we are obligated to get on that bus. If that were in fact true then sure, the need would be to get everyone on that bus and everyone fighting it is being obstinate. But it isn't true. People are living realities apart from one another they assume are based on objective facts. And that creates opposing forces pushing us further apart rather than allowing us to come together.

We grope and communicate our way to justiced shared belief in what is likely true. Or we don't and remain apart arguing over the parts of a metaphorical elephant.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

How did J&B know they were both talking about a stone?

- Doc

Honor,

I’d like you to address this question in context of your post-post-modernism.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

How did J&B know they were both talking about a stone?

- Doc

Honor,

I’d like you to address this question in context of your post-post-modernism.

- Doc

You and I both recognize that this "A" is a letter that represents certain sounds and behaves certain ways when used in the english language. To a german it signifies something slightly different but is also somewhat recognizable to we native English speakers. Recognizing this makes english speakers and german speakers more likely to avoid misunderstanding. The letter "A" doesn't exist in nature or outside of human existence yet is a powerful construct capable of affecting our lives in many, many ways. I've used a number of them to convey my inner thoughts in the limited area you just read above and now my thoughts are in your head, too. But those aren't exactly clones of my thoughts, either. They are one thing in my conception and another but very very similar in your interpretation and yet the thing between this two is...what exactly? A symbol, contrasting pixels on screens, bits of data,...and neither you nor I are stubbing our toes on anything here. We are just trying to understand one another.

Point being, the stone was agreed on from a shared cultural background to such a degree it wasn't questioned. But this was the result of some past human interactions that made that possible from which they were building and then had to revisit because information isn't static or objectively secure like that.

To use the quote I shared:

J. The qualities of the stone are ideas in my mind… mm… yes you could say that, I suppose, but the stone itself isn’t in my mind.

B. The stone itself you say. But what can that be. Take away all the qualities, like colour, weight, solidity, shape, texture, and what’s left. What can such a thing be that has no weight, solidity, hardness, shape or texture. How can it be a stone?

J. I see what you mean, George. A ‘bare particular’, as it were, devoid of any qualities whatsoever, would be a strange beast indeed. But hold on. can’t we then say that the stone is just the totality of its qualities, a ‘bundle of qualities’.

B. Yes, Sam, we can. That’s just what I do say. The stone is a bundle of qualities. Qualities are ideas. So, the stone is an idea composed of these simpler ideas. How else to explain what unites the qualities in the bundle if we have discounted a bare material thing that ‘bears’ the qualities or holds them together.

This isn't to argue away the existence of a material world. It is however intended to point out that the problem of assuming an objective accessible reality we can all eventually be forced to agree upon is an obstacle to finding agreement.

[Res Ipsa]

I appreciate this, Res, because it's precisely why I posted. To get out of the challenge I argue we need to move forward into a post-post modernism where the created nature of reality is recognized rather than attempt to impose a classical but wrong argument that objective reality exists so we are obligated to get on that bus. If that were in fact true then sure, the need would be to get everyone on that bus and everyone fighting it is being obstinate. But it isn't true. People are living realities apart from one another they assume are based on objective facts. And that creates opposing forces pushing us further apart rather than allowing us to come together.

We grope and communicate our way to justiced shared belief in what is likely true. Or we don't and remain apart arguing over the parts of a metaphorical elephant.

I've been chewing on this since the mid-80s, when I was introduced to the legal flavor of postmodernism. I'm convinced that part of the problem is how language shapes how we think. When we talk about "reality" the word covers, as Chap stated, a huge spectrum of concepts. They range from "There is a stone in the middle of the trail" to "liberal elites drink baby's blood" to "property is theft" to "God has a purpose for all of us." It's kind of staggering the work that we make one little word do.

[honorentheos]

When we talk about "reality" the word covers, as Chap stated, a huge spectrum of concepts. They range from "There is a stone in the middle of the trail" to "liberal elites drink baby's blood" to "property is theft" to "God has a purpose for all of us." It's kind of staggering the work that we make one little word do.

Yeah, I suppose it's what made postmodern philosophy so esoteric and unlike it's forbearers that were more practical and lived. Or something.

So what happens when instead of calling all categories of belief "reality" we refer to probabilities and evidences? When we see the stone in the trail as a very highly probable truth given experiences and observations as the baseline rather than its indisputable existence as objective "stone", recognize the nature of ownership is constructed first and then steered towards certain goals? If the proposal that, "liberal elites drink baby's blood" share the same obligation for justification as all other attempts justify something as truth?

[Chap]

You lend someone $100,000.

When the debt is due, you ask them for repayment, and they tell you that they don't believe they owe you any money at all. Do you triangulate their view with yours and try to avoid telling them to "stop playing games and get on the bus that is my way of perceiving the world"?

I take leave to doubt it, and to assert that it seems to me quite certain that there are important aspects of your life where you just act as if you were quite sure of what is the case and what is not.

Well, this is a funny example.given money is a human construct if there ever was one. The idea I lent them something we both agreed had value of a reasonably agreed on amount is very much in line with the idea reality is a product of shared her man experience. So supposng they then claim that I in fact never leant them this money, and I had a signed contract (which I would hope to have given the sum involved) I would rely on other human constructs of law and contracts to obtain what I freely acknowledge to be an abstraction of value back in return.

Thank you for the nice example. : )

But under the circumstances stated, there is no way you would accept that they don't really owe you the money (human construct or not), is there? I asked:

Do you triangulate their view with yours and try to avoid telling them to "stop playing games and get on the bus that is my way of perceiving the world"?

No you don't. And it's clear that when something matters to you, the truth is not a vague negotiable thing, but something you will insist upon until you get your own way.

When I want to know what your attitude to truth is, I'm not very interested in how you talk. I'm interested in how you act.