Re: virus:Other Reality

Bill Godby (
Tue, 07 May 1996 23:31:17 -0400

Reed Konsler wrote:
> David said:
> *****
> We can infer the existence of an objective reality from out [of?] subjective
> reality, but we can have no direct knowledge of objective reality.
> *****
> And John A. Responded:
> *****
> It is exactly this objective reality that I called "absolute" reality. I
> think that we are not seeing as much of the absolute reality as we think
> that we are.Not that it is that big of a deal but if you check you'll find that
the part from here on down is from my post not John's. Just wanted to
make that clear.
I'm very suprised that there seems to be an acceptance of an
> objective or absolute reality being discussed. Recognizing that all information
> that is taken in by human beings is subjective, since it is indeed
> "filtered" through our senses, how can we even speak of something
> absolute? How is this "absolute" reality determined? Absolute means
> unchanging. Isn't a central premise of memetics that things are
> continually changing are reforming according to circumstance?
> *****The following is accurate and followed the above comments.

> And then Bill Said (May7,1:56pm)
> *****
> However, we are able to to speak of such things as beauty and absolute reality
> as if they were objectively definable, this is what is misleading in
> language. You could not of beautiful if everyone had a different
> definition since no one would understand what you meant, but this is
> not to say that the meanings don't change. I refer to Wittengenstein on
> this. It is clear that abstract concepts such such as beauty, truth,
> justice, and reality, are defined socially. This is necessary for any
> discussion of them. They are continually redefined through time, that is
> the nature of language, and thus knowledge and reality.
> *****
> I wholeheartedly add my support to the skepticsim raised towards this thing we
> are describing as "Absolute Reality". I identify such things with "Absolute
> Truth" and "God" as terms that are hopelessly vague and therefore not
> incredibly useful in this context.
> I agree with David that we infer the existence of something becuase we percieve
> (or observe) it. I don't understand why we continue to have these
> disagreements really, becuase that is my point. If you are going to define
> anything that definition must be based in observation. Otherwise how can you
> distinguish it from fantasy?The problem is that there is no observation, unless you mean actual
usage of the terms in a social context as observation. The real point I
was trying to get across is the social construction of meaning. Terms
such as beauty, justice, reality, evil, etc. have no basis in
observation nor are they fantasy since the play a fundamental role in
our behavior and cognitive maps.
Bill Godby