From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 18:53:11 MDT
Jason Joel Thompson wrote,
> Then you are creating a set which only has value if there is such a thing as
> "not"real. But by your own definition, no such things exist (i.e.: Reality
> = All things)
Yes, reality = all real things (and all real non-things).
Note that reality does not equal all unreal things.
Unreality = all unreal things (and all unreal non-things).
The definition remains valid and accurate.
> I'm suggesting a different way of looking at things entirely. I accept the
> concept of reality as a working model, but I do not have absolute belief in
> an external reality. Not yet anyway. We do not currently have the ability
> to perceive reality directly.
What do you mean "we"?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
> Actually, it does. If we draw the distinction you agree to above, the only
> 'fact' we have is in our perception of reality. Your belief in the
> existence of one reality is an article of faith, not fact. Under current
> operating conditions we are slaves to a sensory mode of existence.
I don't "believe" in one reality. I accept it as a fact of existence.
> Belief in reality makes perfect sense-- it fulfills our need for causal
> relationships. This is a very human way of looking at the world. We posit
> that in the action of throwing a ball, a real object has moved from point A
> to point B. We may or may not be correct. It may later be revealed, for
> instance, to have been a VR simulation (and you, the unwitting subject.)
The fact that a person can be fooled into thinking that an illusion is real does
*not* mean that a separate reality exists. It simply means that people can be
fooled.
> Again, belief in reality is obviously a good working model. It is a
> convention of your mind that facilitates your existence. I prefer however
> to leave that sliver of skeptism in my mind-- I trust my senses, but if the
> nature of things is shown to be fundamentally different, then I am prepared
> to be flexible. Further, I am prepared to believe in no "nature of things"
> at all-- that we live in the emergent vapor of an existence that is
> illusory, for instance.
Nevertheless, the illusory existence comes from the ground of being, a single
reality with a kaleidoscopic array of illusory aspects.
> Heady stuff and apparently of very little practical use other than mental
> excercise.
Well, like the man said, "use it or lose it."
> I do hold however, that there are very practical ways in which we can
> leverage the plasticity of our perception of reality into control over that
> reality. If I could sit you down in a room and have a conversation with you
> about it, I would, because a written explanation would be tiresome-- I'd
> have to spend too much time convincing you I was talking about something
> rational. Indeed, extremely rational.
Ah, but how do you know it's *really* rational, rather than merely a reasonable
illusion?
--J. R.
"Something beckons within the reach of each of us
to save heroic genius. Find it, and do it.
For as goes heroic genius, so goes humankind."
--Alligator Grundy, _Analects of Atman_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:42 MST