I love the discussion about “metaphysics”. We have been told “we can know ultimate reality” usually defined by those in power. We have been told “we cannot know ultimate reality only our actions matter”, therefore avoiding any discussion about reality just ethics. (Maybe Kant??) We have been told “we determine what is ultimate reality” therefore creating a self authoritative reality with no connection with the “other”. So wonder we have lost any search for “ultimate reality” or metaphysics. We need to resolve ourselves from “ultimate reality without subjectivity” and “ultimate reality without objectivity” and find a “third way”. Maybe Marin Buber, Alfred Whitehead and quantum physics can point us to new metaphysics. I would suggest without a new metaphysics we will continue trying to fix our problems with the same metaphysics that got us into the problems and failing.
Yes, and sometimes the language we use exacerbates the confusion.
For example, I accept that my mind (or brain, if you prefer) constructs a model of reality — one shaped by evolutionary usefulness, not by direct access to the world “as it is.” I mentioned this in "Not Knowing (Part II)" when talking about the color white, which doesn’t exist in the external world, yet is entirely real to me.
Still, while objective reality might “look” and “feel” vastly different to a being capable of experiencing it in full (which would have to be a non-human), there’s some correspondence between that reality and my mental model — otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to pick up a cup and drink its contents. So, yes, my mind shapes my reality. But the phrase “the mind creates reality” is too ambiguous to be helpful. Is there only one reality? Whose mind? My mind creating your reality? All minds collaboratively creating one reality? The One Universal Mind? Is there no shared objective reality?
I find it better to say that your mind constructs your _model_ of reality, which corresponds to the objective reality none of us can directly access. When interacting with the external world, we are always really interacting with our model.
Thanks for the pointers to Buber and Whitehead--will have to read more!
…fascinating…i never really consider how important objects are to understanding time and reality…or at least not until i stub my toe…what is the theory of theory?…could look up but need the mystery to hold me as absent of it (or is it absent of me?)…does philosophy change based on the location of philosopher?…i would see the world differently in outer space…but would my inquiry hold similar or altered?…
You may be onto something with your question about the location of the philosopher. The concerns of that philosopher would be specific to their context, so *their* philosophy would revolve around different topics than someone else's.
Science says the “observer” is a part of the experiment so maybe the philosopher cannot “stand outside their context” but does that mean the philosopher doesn’t know “ultimate reality”. Could it be that a “singular of ultimate reality” “seen” from outside context can be replaced with a “ multiplicity of ultimate reality” “seen” inside context in relation with all of reality?
I love the discussion about “metaphysics”. We have been told “we can know ultimate reality” usually defined by those in power. We have been told “we cannot know ultimate reality only our actions matter”, therefore avoiding any discussion about reality just ethics. (Maybe Kant??) We have been told “we determine what is ultimate reality” therefore creating a self authoritative reality with no connection with the “other”. So wonder we have lost any search for “ultimate reality” or metaphysics. We need to resolve ourselves from “ultimate reality without subjectivity” and “ultimate reality without objectivity” and find a “third way”. Maybe Marin Buber, Alfred Whitehead and quantum physics can point us to new metaphysics. I would suggest without a new metaphysics we will continue trying to fix our problems with the same metaphysics that got us into the problems and failing.
Yes, and sometimes the language we use exacerbates the confusion.
For example, I accept that my mind (or brain, if you prefer) constructs a model of reality — one shaped by evolutionary usefulness, not by direct access to the world “as it is.” I mentioned this in "Not Knowing (Part II)" when talking about the color white, which doesn’t exist in the external world, yet is entirely real to me.
Still, while objective reality might “look” and “feel” vastly different to a being capable of experiencing it in full (which would have to be a non-human), there’s some correspondence between that reality and my mental model — otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to pick up a cup and drink its contents. So, yes, my mind shapes my reality. But the phrase “the mind creates reality” is too ambiguous to be helpful. Is there only one reality? Whose mind? My mind creating your reality? All minds collaboratively creating one reality? The One Universal Mind? Is there no shared objective reality?
I find it better to say that your mind constructs your _model_ of reality, which corresponds to the objective reality none of us can directly access. When interacting with the external world, we are always really interacting with our model.
Thanks for the pointers to Buber and Whitehead--will have to read more!
…fascinating…i never really consider how important objects are to understanding time and reality…or at least not until i stub my toe…what is the theory of theory?…could look up but need the mystery to hold me as absent of it (or is it absent of me?)…does philosophy change based on the location of philosopher?…i would see the world differently in outer space…but would my inquiry hold similar or altered?…
You may be onto something with your question about the location of the philosopher. The concerns of that philosopher would be specific to their context, so *their* philosophy would revolve around different topics than someone else's.
Science says the “observer” is a part of the experiment so maybe the philosopher cannot “stand outside their context” but does that mean the philosopher doesn’t know “ultimate reality”. Could it be that a “singular of ultimate reality” “seen” from outside context can be replaced with a “ multiplicity of ultimate reality” “seen” inside context in relation with all of reality?