On Oct 26, 3:14 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig: a redface reply!!!!
> I made it in reverse, when I wrote (and your answer was correct TO THAT):
> I DO *NOT* see, how to realize OBJECTIVE existence, because all we can
> perceive is
> our subjective absorption, even that adjusted for ourselves from the
> fragmental and poorly understood information we THINK we got and (in
> science) hold for accounting to everything.
> I agree with your formulation about subjectivity, a reason why I speak only
> about some "perceived reality" we may have. No claim about its connection to
> something that MAY BE a (real?) reality(?). If there is one.
> I apologize
Oh, no problem, haha.
I think that just as we cannot expect to be able to transcend our own
subjectivity, so too can we not discount the subjective significance
of objectivity. There is a degree of veridicality in our participation
within physical reality which is not matched merely by realistic
perception (as suggested by blindsight and synesthesia, our
sensemaking capacity extends beyond our presumed channels of sense).
The fact that there is a difference between dream and reality, fact
and fiction, suggests a natural connection to a distal reality, at
least in a loose overlapping sense, is not ruled out. If everything
were just solipsistic fantasy to one degree or another, why so much
elaborate pretense to the contrary?
Our connection to any real reality may be questionable, but the
feeling of authenticity is certainly potent enough that the
distinction between direct noumenal participation and indirect
phenomenal perception is really academic. Within our own perceptual
frame of reference, our reality is real enough.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at