On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
Both RussS and GlennR responded to my question about the
disparagement of "real" mainly by talking about phenomenology,
ontology, and epistemology. I wasn't asking about any of those. I
was asking whether you really don't believe there is such a thing as
reality -- whether or not we can preceive it, conceptualize it, or
know about it. I can't even imagine what it would mean to answer a
question like "Is there reality?" in the negative.
I think I notice a subtle but key shift in how you've put this
question. The real issue is as Russell put's it -- "can one fathom
what real could possibly mean"? I can't see how.
It's easy to confuse "imagine" with "conceptualize". More subtly, our
conceptualizations always inform and constrain our imagination. And
imagination is by definition a projection. So if we want to understand
how there could both be a reality, not be a reality, etc.. we can only
experience it and there isn't a particular formula for that.
On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:01 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
I don't substitute anything for "real". I am a soft agnostic.
Reality
may be knowable; but I don't know it.
This may be obvious, but I would take a harder line. I think it is
possible to demonstrate the reality is not knowable in the sense that
I think we mean.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
