PDA

View Full Version : What Is the Underlying Basis of Reality?



Ahnenerbe
Wednesday, August 10th, 2005, 08:07 PM
(Source: A conversation with Jack True)


Q: Why do you like that REALITY question so much?

A: Because it gets a person to view what reality is all about. It cuts through a lot of crap. I'm only interested in the patient's version of how reality is formed. I'm not trying to impose my own view.

Q: What kinds of answers do you get?

A: They evolve. They sometimes start with a religious format, and then that changes.

Q: Why does that change?

A: Because I allow the patient to keep searching. I don't cut him short. I let the sessions go on.

Q: Are you hoping to get a final answer from a patient?

A: Hell no. I know, from experience, that as the patient changes his answers, HE changes.

Q: Changes how?

A: He becomes more strong, more confident.

Q: And this is because?

A: He's getting through layers of weaker answers into layers of stronger answers, answers that mean more to him. He's on a voyage, and he becomes more confident in navigating by the seat of his pants.

Q: Why do those weaker answers exist at all?

A: They're compromises. The person has opted for more and more conventional answers. He became less confident in answering the question to his own satisfaction.

Q: How do systems play into this?

A: The more conventional answers are part of some system.

Q: So it would be like a painter who moves further and further into the orbit of copying some style, as opposed to painting what he wants to.

A: Sure. Yes. And the thing about a system is, you have to assert it with more force to give it credence TO YOURSELF. You have to keep pushing it. That looks like confidence, but it isn't. It's a substitute. And the person falling into the trap experiences this slippage, this gap between what he really would think and what he comes to accept as real.

Q: In your work with patients, do you care whether the person is telling you what he thinks the underlying basis of reality is or whether he is imagining it, is making it up?

A: No. I don't care at all. And I don't try to differentiate that. I just plow ahead. It all comes out in the wash. Because I'm working with a basic confusion in the patient. He's lost the thread. He isn't sure when he's accepting something or inferring something or making up something. That's a basic part of his problem. He doesn't sort that out. But he will, given time. He does. And it's a beautiful thing to see when it happens. It's like the person comes walking out of swamp with a big grin on his face.

Q: So you could say you're renewing the power of the person's imagination.

A: It's like washing the dirt from a lump of gold.

Q: Why does imagination get the short end of the stick so often?

A: Because we're operating inside a consensus. It's ever-present. Consensus is mostly a sign of fear. It's what you opt for when you think you've got noplace else to go. Let me put it this way. The best and the brightest kids supposedly go to the "really good" colleges. Well, visit one of those places on graduation day. Forget all the exuberance and the drunkenness. Just look at the faces and assess how many of those kids are all set to join in the consensus and how many are going to go somewhere else.

Q: Do you know of any college that has a serious place for IMAGINATION in its courses?

A: Do you?

Q: No.

A: Almost as bad, how many colleges offer a long course in which the students have to decide what the underlying basis of reality is? I mean each student, on his own. It's such an obvious question---the one about reality---but you see, these colleges don't want to get into that because it's too dangerous. It moves you out of the consensus right away.

Q: You're saying it doesn't matter whether a person recognizes what he actually thinks reality is all about, or whether he imagines what reality is all about?

A: The two are entwined. You can't get to ultimates of any kind if you leave imagination out of the equation. Here we are, talking. If our imaginations were turned off, we'd be having a much different conversation. We're creating this discussion. We're also getting to the truth. They work together, like brothers.

Q: Go a little further with that.

A: Imagination creates reality. That's the bottom line. Everything else is a stall. A postponement of the inevitable. Get it? What are we really doing as we sit here and talk? We're looking at one thing and one thing only: imagination. We're talking about imagination and its power. And we're using imagination to talk about imagination. Why are we doing that? Are we weird and different? No. It's what everybody does all the time. Whether they know it or not. Imagination is the cutting edge. The leading edge. Reality is what you get when you imagine. Reality is the evidence of the presence of imagination. This may sound confusing, but it isn't. It's very straightforward. Imagination is the great ocean. It may look like an ocean but it's imagination. We create, and we swim in what we create, but all in all, it's all imagination. Some parts of it look and feel more solid than others. But even if we're dedicated scientists who believe in nothing except what we can prove, we're always swimming in imagination. That's all we're swimming in. And imagination is a word we use to describe Basic Us. What we are, what we do, what we see. Imagination is everywhere. It's alive. It's the primary Water. The sooner we get used to it, the happier we are.

JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com

Gorm the Old
Friday, August 12th, 2005, 03:32 AM
What we call reality is a construct by our minds from very limited data. The human sensory organs are limited in their response, e.g. hearing to air vibrations ranging in frequency from 16 hz to ca. 20,000 hz. Nothing outside that range do we perceive as sound. Sight is limited to wavelengths ranging from about 390 to 780 nanometers, a mere 2:1 ratio. Any electromagnetic waves outside that range cannot be perceived directly by our senses. Our senses omit more data than they respond to. Further information is lost in data processing within the brain which operates at a finite speed. The thing which we perceive in this way is a model, a construct, based on very limited data inaccurately processed. It is not the "Thing in Itself" or, as Immanuel Kant called it in the mid-19th century, "das Ding an sich." In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant points out that das Ding an Sich is unknowable. So, what should we call reality, our internal mental model or the unknowable Ding an sich ? If the Ding an sich is intrinsically unknowable, there is no point in taking it for reality unless we are prepared to admit that we cannot know reality. If reality is unknowable, then we are, to mis-apply the title of one of Abraham Merritt's fantasy stories, "Dwellers in the Mirage." Yet, there IS something out there which is the basis of our conceptual model. I know that I am not the only reality (which would be solipsism) because, things happen to me which I did not will and would not have willed. Therefore, there is something other than me. What is behind all this appearence, I shall never know. Is it then the "real" reality , or the "reality of reality" ? If we choose this explanation, the "underlying basis of Reality" is an unknowable "je ne sais quoi." This is neither satisfying nor useful. All that we can do is to use our inadequate conceptual model of the world outside our skins as our practical pragmatic reality.

Wjatscheslaw
Tuesday, August 16th, 2005, 01:17 AM
Behind the reality there is nothing... And only what we can see is that Reality.

Siegfried
Tuesday, August 16th, 2005, 08:50 AM
Behind the reality there is nothing... And only what we can see is that Reality.

That's a rather limited view of the world, I'd say.

Jack
Tuesday, August 16th, 2005, 10:42 AM
What we call reality is a construct by our minds from very limited data. The human sensory organs are limited in their response, e.g. hearing to air vibrations ranging in frequency from 16 hz to ca. 20,000 hz. Nothing outside that range do we perceive as sound. Sight is limited to wavelengths ranging from about 390 to 780 nanometers, a mere 2:1 ratio. Any electromagnetic waves outside that range cannot be perceived directly by our senses. Our senses omit more data than they respond to. Further information is lost in data processing within the brain which operates at a finite speed. The thing which we perceive in this way is a model, a construct, based on very limited data inaccurately processed. It is not the "Thing in Itself" or, as Immanuel Kant called it in the mid-19th century, "das Ding an sich." In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant points out that das Ding an Sich is unknowable. So, what should we call reality, our internal mental model or the unknowable Ding an sich ? If the Ding an sich is intrinsically unknowable, there is no point in taking it for reality unless we are prepared to admit that we cannot know reality. If reality is unknowable, then we are, to mis-apply the title of one of Abraham Merritt's fantasy stories, "Dwellers in the Mirage." Yet, there IS something out there which is the basis of our conceptual model. I know that I am not the only reality (which would be solipsism) because, things happen to me which I did not will and would not have willed. Therefore, there is something other than me. What is behind all this appearence, I shall never know. Is it then the "real" reality , or the "reality of reality" ? If we choose this explanation, the "underlying basis of Reality" is an unknowable "je ne sais quoi." This is neither satisfying nor useful. All that we can do is to use our inadequate conceptual model of the world outside our skins as our practical pragmatic reality.

Combine this with Nietzschean/Deleuzian/Heraclitian metaphysics and we have my epistemology summed up rather nicely.

Wjatscheslaw
Thursday, August 18th, 2005, 01:23 AM
2 Siegfried


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra_
Behind the reality there is nothing... And only what we can see is that Reality.

That's a rather limited view of the world, I'd say.

It agree, that it more than the limited approach.. But this pragmatical attitude to a reality is enough. In fact it is not important what is a true, it is important WHAT the majority will accept for true...

Gorm the Old
Thursday, August 18th, 2005, 11:41 PM
Zarathustra, your metaphysics is not only naive, it is extremely dangerous. Appearence is NOT reality and behind the appearence of harmlessness may lurk deadly peril. A world view view based on the reality of only what we can see is too inadequate to ensure survival. Carbon monoxide is invisible, odorless, tasteless, and suffocating. It forms no part of primitive metaphysics, no part of the reality of primitive man. Many ancient people used charcoal braziers indoors for heat in cold weather. Sometimes, an entire family would be found dead in a closed room, bearing no signs of violence. Obviously, a demon had visited them in the night and strangled them all. In part , superstition arose from the recognition that there are unseen perils, that "There are more things in heaven and earth............than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The measures employed against these perils: incantations, amulets, magickal gestures, etc. were as inadequate as the ancients' knowledge of the nature of the dangers. To these unseen perils must now be added another which was of no significance until the 20th century, radiation. Neutrons and gamma rays are imperceptible....and lethal. An accidental encounter between Guarani indians in Brazil and an intensely radioactive isotope abandoned by the negligence of the Brazilian government a few years ago had horrible consequences. The hazard was not part of their "reality" . Actually, they could see the Cerenkov radiation from the stuff and should have been afraid of it because it was uncanny. Exposure to civilization had dulled their natural wariness. Concern with what lies behind apperence and is not incorporated into our conceptual model of reality is not merely academic. It can be a matter of life and death.

Wjatscheslaw
Friday, August 19th, 2005, 12:54 AM
2SnurriSturluson
I note, that the most barbarous (primitive-magic) sight at the world and will be the most viable, in difference from civilized.
The ideas stated by me are not metaphysics at all. ...I shall find pair Nietzsche's citations about true...
... I more than firmly stand at fundament of scientific picture of the world, BUT what business to the majority of people up to the given picture of the world, for them the fashion on trues is more important.

From 'The Will to Power'
539 (March-June 1888)
Parmenides said, "one cannot think of what is not",-we are at the other extreme, and say "what can be thought
of must certainly be a fiction.''
534 (1887-1888)
The criterion of truth resides in the enhancement of the feeling of power.


...pragmatical attitude to the Reality is enough - to operate in social fields.

...and what else i have wanted to add: when we open that appearance what we would see there? You think that it'll be certain core of a thing.., but i state that this would be simply one more apperance, behind which we find again more apperance (even if we would greatly want to call it "a core"...) and so on...
Our advance in searching the nature is limited only by our theories (Ptolemey vs Kopernik) and technological means.

Elenor
Wednesday, March 28th, 2007, 10:16 AM
can physics gives an answer whether reality is deterministic or not?

Moody
Wednesday, March 28th, 2007, 01:21 PM
can physics gives an answer whether reality is deterministic or not?

If it could work out the initial equation from which all existence sprang, then it would be able to account for all the ramifications of that equation which would include reality.

Wolf Wickham
Tuesday, March 20th, 2012, 07:24 AM
Change is the underlying basis of reality. Evolution...

All things are in various stages of completion.