J. R.
I am disappointed in your last post. Not only is a patronizing in the
extreme, but displays a level of rigid thinking that is practically
anti-intellectual. You're chastising me for questioning?
I've been remarkably patient with you throughout this conversation because I
realize that we are approaching the problem from vastly different
perspectives. My patience is at an end. I admit to being extraordinarily
tempted to flame my way through your monotonous canticle, but despite
evidence to the contrary, I have little love for such confrontation. I am
certain this little post will already throw all too much gas on that fire.
You seem to be purposefully blind to my arguments (you've repeatedly snipped
all the core elements,) and you continue to make tautological arguments from
authority. You persist in interpreting my arguments in the context
of -your- definitions, apparently not recognizing that I am talking about
something else entirely. The level at which you continue to come at this
problem is obviously hard-wired.
... and I have little doubt that you are prepared to make an identical claim
regarding my behaviour.
You appear to have taken on the role of the wise, illuminated authority
figure here, and that is clear indication that rational conversation is
OVER. As fun as it would be to dissect your grumpy post at length, there
would be little intellectual merit in it.
(Resist Jason, resist!)
I would like to apologize to list members for all the noise generated above.
You might note that I have successfully slipped a few passing jabs into this
post-- please believe that I am showing maximum restraint possible. My mind
is boggled. (It really was a very small little mind to begin with.)
Thank you for the duel sir, it showed great merit, but ended messily.
--::jason.joel.thompson:: ::founder::
www.wildghost.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com> To: <extropians@extropy.org> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 2:25 PM Subject: Re: One Reality
> Jason Joel Thompson indefatigably rejoined: > > This is the false dichotomy I referred to earlier. > > Why do you call this equation a dichotomy? > Dichotomy means dividing in two parts. > The definition of reality as "all that exists" creates no dichotomy that I can > detect. > Rather, it proclaims the unitary nature of reality. > If you imagine a dichotomy in this, then it is definitely a false dichotomy, and > it is one that you have invented, not me. > > > For instance, it's easy for me to say 'true' because the statement holds no > > meaning. You're just switching titles-- instead of 'reality' you want to > > call it 'all that exists.' Fine. > > No, I'm not switching titles, I'm offering the most concise definition of > reality that I can produce. If you think this amounts to switching titles (or > more accurately, switching terms), then the dictionary is just a list of > switched terms. > > > Do I believe that there is only "one" 'all that exists?' > > > > To me the statement is meaningless. How can you apply 'oneness' to such a > > concept? > > In (very basic) mathematics it's known as defining a set. The set of all that > exists is what is meant by the term reality. Since there is only one such set in > existence, it becomes unavoidable to apply "oneness" to this concept. > > > The reason I challenged Elierzer's original statement was not that I was > > saying, "No, no, silly, there's actually SEVEN realities..." but rather > > that I was questioning the concept of an absolute reality at all. > > OIC, so then it isn't that you disagree with the statement "There is only one > reality" because you think there are multiple realities. You believe that there > is no reality at all. But, you see, if there is no absolute reality, then there > is no fact, state, or quality of being real or genuine, which is what absolute > reality means. In that case, *you* are not real or genuine, and neither am I. > So, in that case, you are not absolutely real and you do not absolutely exist. > (This is elementary Cartesian logic.) I don't think your argument would stand in > a court of law (or a court of common sense and reason, for that matter). > > > I don't see reality as a big, ubiquitous, tangible, static, all-encompassing > > absolute, but rather as a relative, interpretive, intangible, dynamic > > interaction. > > I notice that you use the singular indefinite article ("a" instead of "some") to > refer to your "relative, interpretive, intangible, dynamic interaction." That > tends to indicate that you see it as ONE relative, interpretive, intangible, > dynamic interaction. Which in turn reinforces the statement that there is only > one reality. > > > It finds soldity as a mental contruct in the world of the > > mind, but we cannot directly attribute greater 'existence' to it, as yet, > > Again you use the singular "it" as if it is some absolute substance that finds > solidity in the mind. Whatever "it" may be, it appears that you do, indeed, > believe it absolutely deserves the attention you give to it. > > > J.R., I recognize where you're trying to go with this, and I understand why > > you accuse me of obstinancy. You want reality to be the sum of all sets-- I > > get the feeling that you just want to shake me and say "Yes, but 'reality' > > includes that too!" What you have to understand is that I am approaching > > the problem from an entirely different direction. > > I wonder if you have any inkling of how sophomoric your position appears to more > mature minds on this list who have already been where you're coming from, and > who have done all of these exercises which seem so new and different to you. > It's not simply a matter of accusing you of obstinacy. All you need to do is > pick up a dictionary of the English language to ascertain that what people mean > by the term reality is straightforward and plain, and everyone knows what the > word means. I understand very well the direction from which you approach this > subject. It is not a problem at all. What you need to understand is that the > more you try to wiggle out of admitting that there is only one reality, the > farther you run from the topic at hand. > > > To me, belief in an external reality is the very human act of saying: > > "there -is- something out there real making all of this stuff happen. We > > can't directly see it yet, but we know it's there." The belief system has > > passing similarities to a religion. And, of course, the adherents say that > > they -can- see reality directly. > > Oh, puhleeeze! To refer to science and reason as a "belief system" indicates a > level of hubris unbecoming of anyone who claims to have a hold on sanity. Your > position reminds me of the Pope who refused to look through a telescope to view > the moons of Jupiter on the grounds that whatever he might see there was surely > the work of the devil. > > > And, truth be told, I'm not even saying that those people are wrong. > > Oh, gee! Thank you *very* much! You're too generous. > > > There > > may very well be an external reality. It certainly seems like there is. I > > agree that we should act like there is. So, unlike religious belief, belief > > in reality has real, tangible, demonstrable benefits that accrue to all > > believers. > > Wrong. Acceptance of reality (not "belief in reality"), is where you need to > start if you are ever to attain a balanced and integrated perspective. With > experience, I suspect you will someday learn to recognize and acknowledge that > the people who have sent rockets to the Moon, and split the atom, and discovered > DNA, and accurately measured the age of dinosaur fossils, are people who accept > the existence of one ("external") reality. > > > Essentially I have complete functional acceptance of the construct of > > reality, but maintain mental skeptism. Currently this has no impact on my > > life other than to make for interesting discussion. Despite what you were > > hinting at earlier, this doesn't result in me swerving out in traffic. > > Glad to hear that. Of course, to have a "construct of reality" you have to have > something to construct it with. That's what we call absolute reality. It's real. > Get used to it. > > > Can we agree to disagree now? > > No way! You must repeat after me: > "There is only one reality." > Write it one hundred times every night before you go to bed. > > --J. R. > > There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the > Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced > by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which > states that this has already happened. > -- Douglas Adams >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:06 MDT