[MD] Realism and anti-realism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Mark "118" <ununoctiums at g.mail.com> wrote:

[Quoting Ham]:
>> Thanks for that explanation, Steve. With the exception of your first
>> paragraph, it's a clear presentation of an "anti-realist" position. I do
>> have some trouble making sense of the double-negative
>> "anti-anti-realism" to which you subscribe, however. For me it seems
>> to be a way of avoiding the metaphysical issue of whether objective
>> reality exists or not. But that's because I define "objective reality" as
>> existence.
>
> Hmmm the use of a double negative sounds familiar from somewhere...

You're alluding, of course, to my 'negated nothingness' theory of Difference 
creation.  But that's a cosmology, not a doubly-negated attitude or 
persuasion.  If one is opposed to opposition, does that make him an 
"anti-anti oppositionist"?  If a politican is an anti-anti-conservative, 
does that mean he is a "moderate"?  You see the problem, Mark?

> This dictum of "objective reality as existence" is precisely what we
> are questioning in order to formulate a more revealing picture.  More
> below.
>
>> A couple of comments on the remaining paragraphs:
>>
>> First, aren't you slighting objective reality by crediting only its
>> scientific benefits? Scientific pragmatism is not a true philosophy, but
>> we DO take objective reality as a basis for our systems of thoughts
>> and actions. Certainly we do things on purpose; in that sense we are
>> all pragmatists. If we couldn't exercise some measure of control
>> in our world, it would be impossible to plan or predict the actions
>> required in any endeavor. That would make knowledge
>> (the "axioms we adhere to") useless for human progress.

> In terms of your definition, scientific pragmatism would not be a true
> philosophy, but is it not?  If part of metaphysics is exploring the
> "true" nature of things, then isn't scientific pragmatism such an
> endeavor?  It may not be appropriate to simply accept the vision
> created by science as being something that is separate from
> philosophy.  Granted, this "objective" reality is something readily
> accepted by the non-philosopher, but perhaps this is more a function
> of education than an inherent (or intuitive) understanding.
>
> A philosophical endeavor is to question this "control in our world".
> I would submit that we "deal" with this world, but are far from
> controlling it, and it is this sense of control which has led to our
> current predicament (if such a thing exists).  When we sail and use
> the wind to propel us along, we are far from controlling the wind.
> We are simply dealing with the wind as it presents itself, in the same
> way that a river deals with the landscape it is flowing through.  The
> river cannot be said to "control" the terrain it is flowing through;
> it cannot control those illusive forces which guide it from higher to
> lower.
>
> We adhere to the axioms which denote knowledge for convenience
> sake.  Human progress is a measure of adaptation, not control.
> If we begin to run out of fossil fuel, we adapt.  To continue on with
> the concept of "control" is to seek refuge in the ego (to use a Freudian
> word, but who's concept has been known for thousands of years,
> and done battle with), which means to separate ourselves from that
> outside.  While this is a precept of Essentialism, I believe it bears
> some questioning.

Mark, I have said before that man's freedom is limited to the physical 
parameters of existence.  By investigating and defining these parameters, 
however, we can predict tsunamis and hurricanes, identify dangerous or 
injurious environments, and thereby avoid situations that might otherwise 
harm us.  Is this not a measure of control?

>> Secondly, when you say we "can't make any sense of the notion of
>> descriptions of reality that are objective in the sense of being true
>> without regard to human practice," aren't you comfirming the fact that
>> existence is relative? And if human understanding is based on our
>> experience of existence, the truths we derive from this experience must
>> be relative as well.  (One of them is that we live in a relational world,
>> which neither proves nor disproves an ultimate, non-relational Reality.)
>
> As I have questioned Marsha, I will ask you: Relative to what?  What
> is existence related to?  What tool of comparison do we use to
> juxtapose existence?
>
> A relational world is opposed to a relative world (how's that for a 
> dictum?).

I don't see why you and Marsha have so much trouble with the relativity 
concept.  The fact that experience is proprietary to each self means that 
knowledge is relative to the knower. Thus, if I am unable to swim, I have a 
different conception of the ocean than the swimmer does.  Again, if you are 
allergic to peanuts, you will experience peanut brittle in a different way 
than I do.  All events and objects are differentiated by the way we 
experience them, and that experience is relative and unique for each 
individual.  So our knowledge of what is "good" or "bad", desirable or 
repulsive, is really subjective in essence.  In other words, because Value 
is relative to the sensibility of the observer, very litle of what we know 
can be considered "universal truth".

> A proof is a structure which gives an axiom substance.  However
> such a proof is based on assumptions.  The assumptions cannot be
> proven although often the derived proof is then reversed to prove the
> assumptions.  We see accepted proofs fall apart with non-Euclidean
> geometry, for example, simply because such "non" geometry does not
> accept the Euclidean assumptions.  When we do not accept that
> objective reality is the ground from which to work from, your original
> statement concerning such reality also falls apart.

We get our "assumptions" from living experience.  Even the laws of math and 
logic are derived experientially.  The only "proof" we can ascertain is from 
those axioms that work.  It's the scientific approach to knowledge that we 
call objective pragmatism.  I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove 
here, but existentiality does provide a reliable and consistent "ground to 
work from", despite the relational differences in human perception.

>> I submit that, whether you are an anti-realist or not, "mathematical
>> objects" are no more than "physical objects" expressed in a
>> mathematical context.  It's unclear why the author characterized
>> platonists as "realists", inasmuch as Plato is regarded as the father
>> of Idealism.  In any case, what appears at first reading to be a
>> paradoxical statement is simply common sense. Mathematics was
>> developed to quantify objective reality. So the "truth" of a numerical
>> quantity is its correspondence to physical objects, just as the "truth"
>> of a mathematical equation relates to the objective units that the
>> equation represents.  In other words, we learn  pragmatically, and
>> Truth is what can be proven objectively. So what was the author's point?
>
> "Truth is what can be proven objectively", huh?  This again sounds
> rather dogmatic.  I would question your use of "proven"; we have a
> snake eating its own tail here, or somebody like Munchhausen pulling
> himself up by his own bootstraps.  For how do we prove the proof?
>
> If I flip a coin and it comes up heads, does that prove that both
> sides are heads?  If I continuously flip a coin does that prove that
> only heads and tails exists?  There is always the possibility that a
> third face will appear.  No, we intuit such two faced appearance from
> a place which is not objective.  Yet we interpret the coin as if it is
> real, accepting such a thing from a place outside of logic.  Do you
> think that there is a computer program that "knows" what a coin is?
> No, it will keep flipping the coin forever to prove it has two faces.

You claim to be a scientist; yet a scientist would never form a conclusion 
from a flip of a coin or mere intuition.  Instead he would examine the 
object, determine its composition and physical properties, and categorize it 
in relation to other objects of its type.  The truth he arrives at is 
objective, and it's enough to satisfy our need for relational (i.e., 
empirical) knowledge.  Metaphysical Truth is a different matter altogether, 
as it can only be "intuited", never experienced.  Which is why I maintain 
that the simplest way to understand Reality is to acknowledge its two forms 
or modes: Essence and Existence.

>> Thanks to you both for helping me understand the meaning of 
>> "anti-realism".
>> I hope it won't offend you to hear my opinion, that it is ingenuous to be
>> "anti-" anything unless you know what its reality is.  And judging by the
>> posts on this topic, there is no more agreement on what Reality is today
>> than when I signed up for the MD nine years ago.
>
> Yes, "Knowing what its reality is".  You have hit the nail on the head
> there.  Nothing objective about that statement.
>
> Ham, you seem to think your feet are firmly planted on the ground, but
> isn't one of the endeavors of philosophy to question what supports
> that ground?  The eyes may deceive, but the nose knows.
>
> We are constructing Reality as we go along.  It IS what we form, we
> ARE Reality.  It is active participation in the endless dance, not
> some dictum that we must reside within.  It is Quality in action.  It
> stems more from the heart than from the brain.  It is recreated at
> every moment.  It is the head of a comet propelling into the unknown.
> The point is to get away from this dogmatic structure of the 21st
> century, to one where we participate more freely and not hold Reality
> at arms length as some kind of object.  Stay in tune.
>
"The asphalt of the road is much wider and safer than it occurred in
memory.  On a cycle you have all sorts of extra room.  John and Silvia
take the hairpin turns up ahead and then come back above us, facing
us, and have smiles.  Soon we take the turn and see their backs again.
 Then another turn for them and we meet them again, laughing.  It's so
hard when contemplated in advance, and so easy when you do it."
-- ZAMM, pg 152.
>
In tune (with something),

Do you really believe I'm caught up in the "dogmatic structure of the 21st 
century", Mark?
Perhaps it's because, unlike some cultists, I refuse to pretend that 
objective existence is an illusion, a myth or "pattern" of no significance. 
This is the reality you and I participate in, and the fact that it is 
impermanent sheds 'intuitive light' on the probability that there is a 
permanent reality underlying all existence.

Peace, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours,
Ham