»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Is reality real?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Is reality real? |
|
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
I know it sounds absurd, but is the reality we experience the same for everyone else. Psychologically speaking it isn't, but what about philosophically? "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Donovan - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I just watched a documentary on the events of 9/11. There was one pervading experience of fear, dismay, and pain, in spite of everyone's subjectivity. The same is often true of joy, and other emotions. To me, that's pretty good evidence that our perspectives are simply commentaries on one objective "text", that we all share. Despite all of the philosophical speculation to the contrary, I still think the sanest and safest conclusion is that our senses are fairly reliable reporters of "true events". That of course doesn't mean that we can't get it wrong. But the very fact that we say "wrong" indicates that we recognize there is an "original", which all our copies are subject to. So even psychologically, I think the answer "no" is too hasty, hence the common experience of the Twin Towers. But philosophically, I think we should say that there is a reality which is real, making subjectivity even possible. Stephen. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Reality is real, but whatever you think it is, it isn't that. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Is that what you think?  I tend to think there's a great deal of accuracy of perception, its just that we don't always act accordingly. Sometimes we choose illusions, knowing they are just that. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes, in a universal respect. We experience different manners of the same universal reality. But we don't necessarily experience the same or exact same reality (in the sense of "part" of that universal reality) that some one else does. In other words, we are all experiencing the same overall "Tree", but not all the exact same branches within that "Tree". |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
So, you say that although reality is subjective, it is still real to everyone at the same time. Okay, then to use your example of the twin towers, the people experiencing it might have thought it real, but I know that when we got the news broadcasts we thought it was just a sick joke, thus making it different for us. I wholehartedly agree with Stephanos, and his tree theory, however does everyone share the saem type of tree? And does the type of tree you belong to (just to continue a metaphor  ) actually influence your reality.And Stephanos, psychologically speaking, it is impossible to share the exact same reality with the next person, as your perceptions of it are most different. Thus inclining you to a different reality... "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
moondogz Member
since 2007-05-01
Posts 397Great White North |
There is no reality, only perception. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Yes Moon, but does that not thus influence your reality? Notice I said your reality, because I personally don't think that Reality as a whole exists in a single time or space. "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
quote: There is a set reality that cannot be altered. Then there is our perception, which is either in tune with reality or separate from reality. But yes, there is a reality. I can see a windmill as an ogre (that's my perception of reality). The reality (that cannot be altered) is that it is, in fact, just a windmill. "Well I wish that you would cheat with someone, 'cause you're like diggin' holes in water and we know that can't be done." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Reality is for people who can't face fantasy. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Reality is for amatuers. Magic is for pro's. Yikes, I might be starting to think like John! Jim |
||
|
moondogz Member
since 2007-05-01
Posts 397Great White North |
and Ascending is for Masters. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
There are two questions being asked here: 1. Is reality real? Presumably you mean do our descriptions of the world accurately descripe that world. Yes for the most part. 2. Is the experience that I have of the world the same as the experience that you have? Again, for the most part, yes. And the kicker is this one: quote: This is the reason we know that there is a real world and that are descriptions of it are, again for the most part, accurate. The fact that we are wrong sometimes necessarily leads to that conclusion. Does anything follow from that? No, not really. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
There are two questions being asked here: 1. Is reality real? Presumably you mean do our descriptions of the world accurately descripe that world. Yes for the most part. 1.a Nope, for the most part. This assertion brings to mind the oxymoron "common sense." When we look at a brick wall, we describe it as solid, while in a closer version of reality, what we are looking at is a whole lot of empty space surrounded by bits of "brick-stuff." When we talk about "descriptions" of the world, we are dealing with the enormous limits of our ability to see what we are seeing. Many corals, viewed under ultraviolet light, glow in vivid flourescent colors. What is more real, the the bland colors we can see, or the colors that are there in a spectrum we do not have unaided access to? The whole of the discourse around the Veil of Perception (entirely different from the Sufi Veil of Illusion) argues aginst an ability to perceive reality, let alone a common reality. When we look at a red rose, we don't "see" a red rose. What we see is a reflection of light filtered through an optic system that responds in a specific way to a specific bit of the color spectrum. A rose is red only because we say so. It has nothing to do with the color of the rose. A cat's observation that a rose is olive green might be equally valid, but then, cat's don't talk much. Rather stupidly, most people insist that the world is round, when it is an oblate spheroid. Commonly, folks describe the universe as being three dimensional. Some grudgingly throw in "time" and perceive it as being four dimensional. Physicists are suggesting that the universe contains at least 14 dimensions. Beats the hell out of me, and it doesn't turn up in the average Joe's description of reality. When we "taste" an apple, we're not tasting an apple at all. We're only tasting that part of apple-ness of which we are capable of tasting. 2. Is the experience that I have of the world the same as the experience that you have? Again, for the most part, yes. 2a. Nope. For the most part, we don't even experience our experiences, let alone experience them with commonality. But that's another ball of wax. There is a tremendous cultural bias at work here. The first part is the assumption that that human experience of the world is more valid that say, a rat's. The second part is the assumption that the average Western Joe sets the standards for experience. Does, for example, a blowgun hunter after monkeys in Borneo experience the world in the same way as a factory worker in Cleveland? I think not. Does a poet like Thomas Merton who took a vow of silence and lived a hermit's life present a commonality of experience "we" all share? Nah. "And the kicker is this one:" Kicker a: I think we Westerners can accept that everything is made up of atoms in motion, and that there is space between those atoms. Now, its just possible that the spaces between the atoms in our old brick wall might line up with the spaces in you, and you could walk right through it. I just wouldn't bet the farm on it. If all this sounds a little odd, the best I can say is that you think I'm like you, but I'm not. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, I used to think like that. The one/two punch was a Rorty/Davidson combination. Did you miss this part: quote: Everything you talk about presupposes something to talk about. That is the commonality. If people truly experienced the world differently, not just on the margins or in their philosophies or in their thinking, then their would be nothing that could be talked about talk about. ;lk just as we lodclk consiipoin;aadit 2345 asidtwadlkge0w3pqwgon ;oashvgona;lskdhgpor3ihg048y5y420it vn jptpawtu42tu42-t9q3g9j- v9q3]g- So howled out for the world to give him a name. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Brad -- The kicker: Yes! Exactly! That's why I say I wouldn't bet the farm on our ability to walk through walls. As it happens, I still do think like this, and, while I may be in the minority, I'm not pretentious enough to think that I am unique or alone. I'm not suggesting that this viewpoint is particularly useful, but I do have problems with the Western cultural-bias thing and the general lack, in "common sense" to admit that not everything is common or sensible. There is something innately silly about all philosophical suppostions. As long as they don't involve killing other people, and me in particular, we can all live with disagreement and a chilled bottle of Pouilly Fume' Best, Jim [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (09-20-2007 12:01 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I can live with your attack on Western bias. I just have a problem when that attack supports and propels another form of bias to a superior position. Don't get me started on this one. On the other hand, I just don't think that has much to do with philosophical Idealism v. Realism. We live in the real world, we are in touch with world, and we perceive it, for the most part, correctly. When you look at a rose and you see red. There is nothing false or untrue about that. You are really seeing a red rose. Yeah, but is that rose really red? How in the world can you talk about color if you are not also talking about the act of seeing? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Brad! "I can live with your attack on Western bias." I'm not attacking Western bias, I'm just saying that "Western-ness" seems to be an unacknowledged "given," like other cultural "given's" in many of these discussions. Hey -- I'M Western biased. Can't help it, but I can recognize it. "I just have a problem when that attack supports and propels another form of bias to a superior position." Well, given that I suggest there is no "attack," only a suggestion for recognition, I'm curious as to what other form of "bias" you think I'm promoting as superior. It's not like I'm supporting some kind of different cultural mysticism. If anything, I might be an old school nihilist, except I'm not. "Don't get me started on this one." I understand this completely as a sentiment. I've walked away from a lot of discussions that I felt it might take aeons to get into! Ya choose your areanas and take a shot. Or not. "On the other hand, I just don't think that has much to do with philosophical Idealism v. Realism." OK. "We live in the real world, we are in touch with world, and we perceive it, for the most part, correctly." I'd rephrase it slightly: "We live in a fantasy world, in total disconnect, and we can barely percieve it at all." For the most part, we make stuff up and presume it is "so." "When you look at a rose and you see red. There is nothing false or untrue about that. You are really seeing a red rose." Sure, but what has that got to do with the reality of the rose? "Yeah, but is that rose really red?" Damned if I know. It might not even be a rose, except that we (and Gertrude Stein) say so. "How in the world can you talk about color if you are not also talking about the act of seeing?" I AM talking about the act of seeing. I'm saying that what we "see" is most likely not what we are looking at. I'll go further: What we see is invariably not what we are looking at. It CAN'T be! Don't let me get started on this one. Or let me just suggest that what we "see" is an upside-down image of everything, that our brains conveniently turn right side up to help us avoid vertigo.What part of commonality of experience do we share when we hand a Sudanese nomad an iPhone? Well, there's always the commonality of "sharing," maybe. Best, Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You've left open a space that can be filled by something else. As far as I can tell, it usually is. There are worse things out there than Western-ness -- at the very least we do have a sense of conflictedness (?) that you actually point to. quote: But you don't live like that. If you did, you wouldn't live very long. quote: Things in themselves? This is actually very hard to understand -- albeit probably just to me. But I read it as containing the idea that the rose must be something independent of its surroundings, a thing in itself. I see no reason why that thought is particularly productive. You've already pointed out the multiple ways such a thing can be described. Why privilege one or the other unless you have a particular reason to do so? That is, why the physicist's description over the gardener's or the lover's? Why privilege the idea that no description is better than the others? If you want to say that there are other descriptions of a rose out there, one's we haven't thought about or written down yet, I agree. But what I don't get is how that leads to the idea that those unwritten description are somehow better than the ones we have now? quote: But why? If, again, multiple descriptions (or to use Rorty's word, vocabularies) are both useful and non-contradictory, then why privilege yet one more description only because it has yet to be written? quote: I would argue that vertigo is precisely a very good thing to avoid. quote: If the Sudanese nomad didn't know what an iPhone is (I'm not completely sure what an iphone is, I'm not completely sure he wouldn't), then by far the majority of that situation would still be described in both languages accurately and understandably for both parties. You just have to learn each other's language. Sorry for being so repetitive. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Brad: Quick response: Try Wallace Steven's The Man with the Blue Guitar. Then hit me with a bigger stick, roshi! Best, Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I think that's the first time I've ever been compared to a guru. At any rate, there are still many parts of the poem that I don't have a handle on, but let me throw out some initial thoughts: quote: I think the man is perfectly correct to argue that "things as they are/Are changed upon the blue guitar" but, if I'm reading you right and Stephens right, the question of whether one can describe things as they are is made impossible by the act of playing itself. The question of 'as they are' is left unquestioned. My point is that 'playing' can offer a good description or a bad description but a description of 'things exactly as they are' is impossible because there ain't nothing to describe -- in the sense of a final description, the one that gets it right. What I mean is not that you or I don't exist, but that we don't have a fundamentally privileged description that can contain us, hold us, unfold the light to us in a way that everything else being talked is somehow lessened. Next: xxii quote: I actually agree with this. The difference is not that a poem doesn't add to the 'universal intercourse' but that the absence, the difference between the poem and things as they are, implies that some form of representationalism (scientific, artistic, rhythmic) is privileged above other aesthetic forms. I see no reason why that should be so. This is no way meant to demean scientific or linquistic philosophy. It is meant, simply put, that there is a time and place for all these things. I had one more thing I wanted to bring up but I'm out of time, I'll try again later. We have a lot to talk about with this poem. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, I've changed my mind a bit. I wanted to talk about the last two lines: quote: and I wanted to complain about the conflation of the real world with imagination. I don't think Stephens does that here. I think he really is talking about the pictures we have in our head, not the animal or tree outside your window. At the same time, it bothers me that, whenever we talk the divide, the imagined jay and the imagined pine are so easily conflated with the perceived 'outside' jay and the 'outside' pine. Yet, I hope it goes without saying, the two are distinct. At the same time, it has always seemed odd that the 'outside' jay and the 'outside' pine are now consigned to a realm that can't be talked about at all -- noumena. Let's see if I can make my thoughts a little clearer: three realms: imagination -- perception(phenomena) -- noumena imagination = describable perception = describable noumena = indescribable Idealism: (Imagination/Perception) Noemena The problem as I see it as that when you conflate these two you lose a perfectly good if imperfect distinction. Imperfect in that there is some overlap. Realism: Imagination + (Perception/noumena) I wanted to put a line through noumena (what is that called again, under erasure, or something like that?) because while it's still necessary in terms of the explanation. The very idea that something is not describable falls away. But not exactly. It falls away not because we can't describe it but because it wasn't there to begin with. But that still isn't it either, jays and pines are still there but to understand a thing as it is necessarily entails an understanding of the whole: The universe through time. So, what we are left with are partial descriptions and the thing in itself disappears under the heading of everything. I hope that wasn't too confusing. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
When a mirror reflects, the reflection isn't less real just because it isn't the object itself. And if the mirror is a fullwarped mirror, and represents the object in a very warped way, then the reflection still, is not less real just because it doesn't reflect the object unwarpedly. The reflection is being itself, a reality, and acting in conjunction with realities around it. What more may anything do? It is all real. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If everything is real, then nothing is. The word loses all meaning. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The distinction of a rock and imagined rock is not reality against unreality, but difference of one part of the same reality in contrast with another part, variations of the same Universe. The one variation is the solid, physical rock. The other is a representation of the rock in one way or another. The representation of the rock is just as much a thing as the rock itself. The distinction is that it is much different than the rock though because it is a representation referring to the rock, instead of the rock itself. The representation is just as much a presence of reality as the rock is a presence of reality, and they are distinguished from each other because they are different, not because either of them is "unreal". |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
That just means you're changing the definition of real. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No. I am simply implying that everything is equally an existant thing, whether it is more physical or more imaginative, and therefore it is equally real. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, you are: quote: What I don't get is why you're not comfortable with 'everything' or 'universe' -- don't those words pretty much cover what you're trying to get at? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
My point is an imaginary thing is real in conjunction with being imaginary. It is not in some void detached from reality, but is equally a part of reality as any other thing. And that is my basis for calling it real. Since when am I not comfortable with "everything" and "universe". It seems I use these words almost every time I post in philosophy. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
And that may be the problem Ess... Every discussion can't become about the most commonly shared trait of "everything", ie naked existence. The words reality and real in this thread are being spoken of in a particular way of usage. There are plenty of people who have feigned "love" for others, and their partners, alas, had to discover just how real their devotion was. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The difference between the question of feigning love and the word real though is that the former is about "true" and "false", but the word real also includes the meaning "existant" (even though the meaning "true" is confused into the same word) so it also treats something it is in contrast with as if it is "nonexistant", and that I think makes a problem in many manners, for a false thing is just as much existant as a true thing, but it becomes treated as "nonexistant" because people use the meaning "true" in the same word where they also use the meaning "existant". |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
There is a computer in front of me. That is real. Sharon Agathon, a cylon married to a human from BSG, is standing next to me. That is imaginary. All I see is an attempt to muddy the waters if we try to change this simple, yet important, distinction. True/False distinctions. Well, we have to have a solid definition of what we mean by true. a computer is not true. 'That there is a computer' or 'that I see a computer' is. "Sharon Agathon is played by Grace Park" is true. "Sharon Agathon" by itself is not. "Sharon Agathon is played by Essorant" is not. True or truth defines the relationship between a description and the world itself. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The reflection in a mirror is not obliged to be the object itself in front of the mirror in order to be real and actual. Nor is an imagined thing obliged to be the object or what it is an imagined thing about in order to be real and actual. The imagined thing is real as an imagined thing, just as much as Brad is real as Brad, as a rock is real as a rock, as a cloud is real as a cloud. When a man mistakes Brad as an imagined thing, a rock as a cloud, a cloud as a rock, it is an unfortunate mix up, but everything still remains real |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But how does that clear up the distinction between the unreal and the real, unimaginary and the imaginary? You seem to invest a kind power in the real (as if calling something 'real' somehow makes it more significant than it is), this may or may not be something to consider later, but I still don't see the point of changing the definition of the word (see above). Clear up the distinction first. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
None of it is unreal. That is the distinction. It is just different. It is like fire, water, earth, and air. None of the elements is "unreal", but they have very distinct differences. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But that's not answering the question. What do you want to call this specific difference? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think much of the difference is of physical/spiritual. People are so biased for carnal knowledge they often think only the more physical and solid things "count", so they end up only or mostly treating those things as "real", and then make out things that are not so physical and solid but more spiritual, as some sort of a negation or lack of reality. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
physical/spiritual? So imagining Sharon Agathon next to me is a spiritual moment? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
There is a spiritual representation in one way or another, such as a memory or an imagination, but certainly it is in conjunction with physical aspects as well, for example, mistaking someone else, or getting so drunk that your senses treat a representation of something as the thing it is representing itself (one reality or part of reality for another). [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-24-2007 12:51 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Fantasizing about killing someone is also "non-physical", and yet patently unspiritual according to one definition of spiritual. Brad, excuse me for muddying the water even more. But, for the purposes of this discussion, Brad is right. None of this has anything to do with the question "Is reality real"? Because this question recognizes a distinction that Essorant isn't willing to make philosophically (though I'm quite sure he really does, from day to day). Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I already showed to you that I am not disputing the true/false distinction, in respect to loyalty or correctness. But whether something is true or false doesn't make it less an existant or actual thing. A lie is just as existant and actual as a truth. An imagination is just as existant and actual as the ground under your feet. The distinction is the great difference between such things, such as the difference of physical/nonphysical. But unfortunately even some of the sharpest differences don't prevent people from mistaking one thing for another. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Ess, if everything is real, then what is nothing? By defining everything, then you void the meaning of nothing, and thus allow it to become real - eqiation of nothing thus does not exist, thereby not allowing it to have a definition - it's a vicious cycle really .Ocean, I agree with you wholeheartedly, the perception of reality we experience is only because of the way the our brain recieves and processes information, thus allowing for our perception and reality, to be intrinsically different to others. For example, if you take someone with a visual aphraxia, the rose the Ocean desribed would be different, as their ventral pathway would not be functioning corectly, thus changing the definition of what a "rose" is. yes, the reality to us would not have changed, but that person's perception will have changed, thus changing his reality and making our reality un-real to him. Phew, that was compicated "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
I think I may have gotten that wrong.... maybe it was the dorsal pathway.... curses..... "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: But that's it, our brains may be wired differently but we all see, for the most part, the same reality. quote: But it wouldn't, that someone would know that what he saw wasn't in fact reality. How does he or she know? Because they would talk to others about it. Uh, did you mean apraxia? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
And though Brad wouldn't call it particularly useful ... the reason they could talk about it, is because of the underlying (or independent) reality of the rose. It's a useful idea in an age when such questions as this thread are seriously asked, and people are tending to believe more and more in the prominence of personal subjective reality as opposed to public objective reality. Stephen |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Same thing different spelling Brad "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Kitherion Anything you refer to as "nothing" is still something. Try it for yourself. When you say "nothing" is there nothing there? I don't think so. What you refer to is something that is there instead of something else. If there is no drink in your glass you may say "nothing is in your glass", but everything is still real. Drinks are still real, the air in your glass is still real, the glass is still real, your expectation of a drink is real, etc. It is all real. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It depends on which reality you’re talking about, there’s actually at least three and the answer differs for each (which is why you’re getting different answers). There’s individual reality, which is the perception of what is real as experienced by each individual which may or may not be the same. Then there’s the collective or group reality, which is a sort of democratic agreement among individuals regarding what is real and is shared by the majority. Finally there’s actual reality, which can’t be known by anyone for sure other than through the filter of individual perception. Which reality are you talking about? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
