I moved it back to the front page because Madfool wrote a good detailed reply, just about the time I moved it to the lounge. I think that his discussion is worthy of the main stage. It can always be moved back to the lounge again...

Do you see the problem? — TheMadFool

I see it but it doesn't exist! For the vast majority of time since the big bang, including the history of the earth, no-one has been here to perceive anything. We can nonetheless know that 'stuff' existed, and does exist independently of our perceptions. The fact that no-one saw it does not unmake it; the subjective observer is only brought into existence by dint of things that went unobserved for the vast majority of time.

We can nonetheless know that 'stuff' existed — counterpunch

Not by the definition that X is real IFF X exists when no one perceives it. You do realize that anything one perceives is rendered useless as evidence as per that definition, right? The CMBR (evidence for the Big Bang) would only exist when someone tunes in faer detector, fossils (evidence for evolution) would cease to exist the moment no one's looking, and so on.

I have been thinking that it is the core question which goes beyond the dichotomies of metaphysics vs empiricism — Jack Cummins

How can it go beyond that dichotomy, when the proposition that asks about it obtains its meaning from them? Given that understanding itself is metaphysical, and reality itself is empirical, it follows that bypassing either results in reality that is not understood, or, that which is understood is not reality. In effect, nullifying the core question.

On the other hand, if there is understanding of reality, in whichever form that obtains, then the response to the core question must contain both the elements of the dichotomy, thus the question, effectively, hasn’t transcended either of them.

Just sayin’......

What I was trying to say was that I believe that there have been some metaphysical accounts which suggest hidden realities, including those of Kant, Plato, Swedenborg and Rudolf Steiner. Those can seem at odds with an emphasis on the observations of empirical reality.

However, I wonder about some kind of possible synthesis. Intuition may be one aspect, but this would require some backing up with evidence to support the intuitions. This is not easy but I was wondering if with the way the new physics suggested less solidity, it is possible to see beyond certain rigidities, with even the possibility that matter is not as absolute, and of more an energetic structure. Of course, there are clear physical laws and it would be startling if they began to change. It would be a bit of a shock if the moon split apart, although I once dreamed that happened. We expect gravity to be permanent on the earth and would get a shock if rather than the seasons altering with climate change, the diurnal pattern of night and day changed. So, we expect a certain amount of regularity, and this is a whole picture of grand design, but even so, it is possible that certain aspects of reality central to empiricism and metaphysics may not be immutable.

I have looked at what you have written and I do agree with the gist of it, and what Philip K Dick says. I think that there has to be certain basic structures which don't change independently of our perceptions. But, I suppose where it does get complicated is, as it emerged in the thread I had on thoughts, is where qualia come in. At that point, there are aspects of objective reality which appear to be more subjective, and, thereby, more related to perceptual experience.

However "subjective", traffic lights, rapturous encores, art galleries, fashion magazines, cookbooks & funny memes nonetheless show that 'qualia' also consist in objective (i.e. subject/pov/discourse-invariant ... or public (Witty)) properties. 'Experiences' are just perceptions reflexively processed through the filters of subjective (i.e. cognitively biased, narratively unreliable) memories – akin to Dennett's 'heterophenomenology', etc.

To answer properly, or more precisely / less abstractly, consider this homely metaphor:

The encompassing horizon is the real, the ground encompassed by the horizon is reality, and every path along the ground is (an) existence; thus, to exist "past" "present" & "future" correlates to ... the path taken ... walking the path ... & approaching-but-never-reaching-the horizon ..., respectively

Such is, in accord with the OP, (my) current "understanding" (shallow though it (necessarily?) may be).

— Thus Spoke 180 Proof

One term ... ‘Phenomenology’. That’s the best and most succinct thing I can offer at the moment.

If you know this in it’s original philosophical form that is enough to get the gist across. It is more of a question than any pretence to ‘answer’ anything.

Be all that as it may, it remains that it is humans doing the work, therefore it is impossible to get beyond the metaphysical/empirical dichotomy with respect to the core question, which is my sole raison d’etre in attendance.

How can it go beyond that dichotomy, when the proposition that asks about it obtains its meaning from them? Given that understanding itself is metaphysical, and reality itself is empirical, it follows that bypassing either results in reality that is not understood, or, that which is understood is not reality. In effect, nullifying the core question. — Mww

Corollary: and being an admixture, what is understood is already not reality, and thus not itself understood, and that which is reality is always already not reality and thus not understood.

Hello speculative reason, within which is both reality and understanding, understood as that which is both understood and real.

Yours when ready, Gridley.

Neither gods nor commodores shall cause me to fire on such abundant perspicuity.

qualia — Jack Cummins

First off, the definition of real that I posited in my first post is a cul de sac, a blind alley, a dead end ( :grin: ). It leads to nowhere and yet it feels so right, it captures the essence of the real as that which lies outside of our minds and as those things the mind becomes aware of. This is a tragedy which words can't describe for it implies we can never know the real.

What's our next move?

We simply stick to a part of the definition I offered, summed up in the quote,

Esse est percipi (To be is to be perceived — George Berkelr

As you might've already inferred, even when the condition was that to exist, ergo to be real, no one should perceive that which is claimed to exist, someone had to do the perceiving. Why not make perception then an/the essential feature of existence/real?


Truth be told, perception is the "gold standard" for reality/existence. For example, physicalism is all about perception through the senses or their extensions.

Now consider physicalism against the belief that all perception could be an illusion à la Descartes's deus deceptor.

As you might have already figured out, we seem to be hopping around from one idea to another - first, perception ain't it (the definition of real I gave) , second perception is it (physicalism), third perception isn't really it (Descartes). :chin: Perhaps it's just me. :sad:

I think that both of us, and probably a few other people are hopping around the issues of physicalism and perception in many of the threads which we are writing in. My own belief is that it is because these are the big issues within philosophy. Perhaps they are really the acute red zones of philosophy, just as much as nihilism, because it is possible to go round and round in circles thinking about them.

Yes, I agree that the question of reality may be more of a central question which all may ask at certain time, and not one which has a clear answer. I have been thinking for some time that phenomenology is possibly the area of philosophy which I should be moving towards in my reading.

I would not, in any way, be trying to suggest that it is ineffable — Jack Cummins

. You're now starting ... to be ... utterly confused ... That's perfectly good ...

. You're skeptical ... That's perfect ...

. Unless one is skeptical ... reality cannot blossom to him ...

. On one hand ... you do say ... that reality cannot be described ... cannot be put on mere words ... at least ... easily ... that ... words are Dead ... and reality ... is Alive ...

. But can you Know reality ... in a hard way ... ? Can you demystify anything ... in a hard way ... ? Or can you ... rather ... do it ... in a lovingly way ... ?

. Just ... lovingly and peacefully ... with a quiet and serene mind ... reality can blossom to you ...

. On the other hand ... you do say ... that reality is not the ineffable ...

. But ... So ... What is reality ... then ... ? If not the ineffable ... and if ... cannot be put on mere words ... or at least ... easily ... so ... What is it ... ?

. I think one ... do not need to be a genius ... to understand that ... understanding ... as such ... is not born out of ... being hard ... towards that which is ...

. So ... one ... need to be simple ... just with simplicity of being ... complexity ... immediately ... turns to simplicity ...

. Anything that cannot be put on words ... is the ... ineffable ...

. Innefable ... means ... that which is beyond any rationalization ...

. And ... yes ... Reality ... Life ... is beyond any rationalization ... because ... it's a paradox ...

. If you try to put reality on words ... you'll get mad ... because ... that's impossible ...

. Heraclitus ... once said: "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

. For example, you cannot explain that sentence by any so-called reasoning ... by any logical thought ... by any philosophy ... because ... it's completely illogical ... out of mind's comprehension ... Why is it so? ... because it's existential ...

. If you go to the river Ganges ... one day ... and the next day ... you step there again ... How and Why the river would be different ... ? Isn't it the same river ... the river Ganges ... ?

. Surely ... you can explain it by words ... but when Truth is put on mere words ... turns ... immediately ... to a Lie ... Why ?

. Because ... your mind (your past projections and your prejudices ... )... is between ... that which is ... and you ...

Thanks for your contribution. I agree that 'Reality ...Life...is beyond any rationalization ...because...it's a paradox.'

Carlo Rovelli — Wayfarer

Nagarjuna (aka 'The Second Buddha) Ideas Confirmed by Quantum Theory Relationalism:

In his new book, 'Helgoland…', about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only 'properties' in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by 'emptiness'.

Everything is 'quantum entangled' with everything, the 'things' more properly described as interactions and events.

Further, there are no fundamental substances, absolutes, no outside of Everything or bird's-eye view, no eternal basis, no 'God', etc. that is, there is no foundation of any kind to what goes on. 'Impermanance' goes all the way through…

This realization of 'Impermanence', 'No Absolutes' and 'Emptiness' is 'Nirvana'.

The quest is ended.

This realization of 'Impermanence', 'No Absolutes' and 'Emptiness' is 'Nirvana'. — PoeticUniverse

Except for the unfortunate fact that Rovelli still maintains physicalism.

There’s actually nothing special about me as an observer. The quantum system has properties only with respect to some system interacting with it. I happen to be a human being who takes notes of what I see. But it doesn’t matter that I have a subjective experience. I’m just a physical system like anything else. — Carlo Rovelli

I say this is wrong. Physical things don't observe, make judgements, or take notes. That is done by a mind.

Except for the unfortunate fact that Rovelli still maintains physicalism. — Wayfarer

His apparent 'physical' is woven from images in mirrors reflected by mirrors, is how I take his thinking, with no underlying material substance. We can still investigate phenomena.

I am not sure that it is really possible to go beyond the empirical and metaphysical division, but have wondered about it. Really, I am not sure if one would be able to do so without becoming omniscient...

I am not sure that it is really possible to go beyond the empirical and metaphysical division, but have wondered about it. Really, I am not sure if one would be able to do so without becoming omniscient... — Jack Cummins

Exactly. People may not always realize it but that's why they talk about "ultimate reality". In the final analysis, true reality is something that is lived, something that we are in the deepest sense of the word, not something that we talk about. And yet, we talk about it because that's what humans do ....

Is "the empirical and metaphysical division" empirical or metaphysical?

I think that philosophers have to remember that reality is lived rather than just about reading and writing. I also have to remember it myself because at times those activities can be so absorbing that they become life. However, I do feel that many others go to the opposite extreme. I have a couple of friends who are interested in philosophy but I think a lot of people see it as a bit offbeat when it comes into conversation, rather like the way people see those who are into science fiction.

While there is a division between the empirical and the metaphysical it is a bit of a knot because one has to think in some kind of metaphysical concepts about the metaphysical. Also, ideas about the metaphysical are often based on empirical observations.

Sooooo ... by "division" you mean more or less 'distinct but not completely separate'? Or complementary like 'inner-outer' and 'wave-particle'? And likening it to a "knot" corresponds analoguously to the twist of a Möbius loop?

NB: This is quite different from how I use metaphysics with respect to the empirical / physical.

I think that philosophers have to remember that reality is lived rather than just about reading and writing. I also have to remember it myself because at times those activities can be so absorbing that they become life. However, I do feel that many others go to the opposite extreme. I have a couple of friends who are interested in philosophy but I think a lot of people see it as a bit offbeat when it comes into conversation, rather like the way people see those who are into science fiction. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Most students I know are into "criminal psychology" or "media studies" and the like. Even those studying philosophy aren't quite sure why they're studying it or what they intend to do with it when they've finished the course. A few of them have degrees but to no apparent practical use or advantage.

Unfortunately, philosophy has become a purely intellectual pursuit, I suppose to some extent as a pastime in the current climate.

I think I was fortunate to first learn about philosophy from people who saw it as a spiritual endeavor with the intellectual aspect of it as nothing more than a supporting framework. I tend to believe that this has put me on the right track and has saved me a lot of time that might have otherwise been wasted.

I think that philosophers have to remember that reality is lived rather than just about reading and writing — Jack Cummins

I will never tire of pointing to Pierre Hadot in respect of this. (oh no! Yet another book!)

Pierre Hadot, classical philosopher and historian of philosophy, is best known for his conception of ancient philosophy as a bios or way of life (manière de vivre)....According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing. To cultivate philosophical discourse or writing without connection to such a transformed ethical comportment was, for the ancients, to be as a rhetorician or a sophist, not a philosopher. However, according to Hadot, with the advent of the Christian era and the eventual outlawing, in 529 C.E., of the ancient philosophical schools, philosophy conceived of as a bios largely disappeared from the West. Its spiritual practices were integrated into, and adapted by, forms of Christian monasticism. The philosophers’ dialectical techniques and metaphysical views were integrated into, and subordinated, first to revealed theology and then, later, to the modern natural sciences.

...

For Hadot, famously, the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things. Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion than typically done. Hadot’s use of the adjective “spiritual” (or sometimes “existential”) indeed aims to capture how these practices, like devotional practices in the religious traditions, are aimed at generating and reactivating a constant way of living and perceiving in prokopta, despite the distractions, temptations, and difficulties of life. For this reason, they call upon far more than “reason alone.” They also utilize rhetoric and imagination in order “to formulate the rule of life to ourselves in the most striking and concrete way” and aim to actively re-habituate bodily passions, impulses, and desires (as for instance, in Cynic or Stoic practices, abstinence is used to accustom followers to bear cold, heat, hunger, and other privations) (PWL 85). — Pierre Hadot, IEP

Bolds added. That point is often an obstacle.

He is speaking of the path towards illumination, an idea which has generally completely fallen out of Western discourse (although obviously still a major part of Eastern discourse.)

This is laid out in his books, mainly Philosophy as a Way of Life.

//ps//The universe exists for you, if only you give up wanting things from it. //

Humans wonder naturally, nature of the intellectual beast. It is nevertheless a fine line between wonderment and confusion.

@Jack Cummins Event though it isn’t regarded as ‘Phenomenology’ I have been finding great value in reading Hegel’s ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’.

I think that your understanding of reality is your reality. Interaction with the universe is not optional. So people exist in the state of understanding reality, which is primarily performative. If that understanding reaches a certain level of sophistication, then it can rise from being performative to being symbolic. And if the symbolization is accurate, than it can be codified and transmitted. Subject to the condition that such understanding ratifies ultimately at the performative level. I doubt the value of any pure abstraction.