Conceptual Reality

maj 9, 2013 § 1 kommentar

I begin my blog with a sculpture I believe is called ”We” by Jaume Plensa, photographed in Prague, I believe, by flickr user Arenamontanuas. It illustrates so well the concept of Conceptual Reality that I hypothesize upon and will be trying to describe in this following blog.

”Jaume Plensa Transparency” by Arenamontanus @flickr (cc by)

Let me introduce what I call ”the Conceptual Reality”, an ontological object I figured out a few months ago while trying not to contradict myself when saying that ”language cannot describe reality” in a Facebook discussion. I don’t know if I am the first to have come up with this concept and hypothesis of a ”Conceptual Reality”: There must be some philosopher out there that has come up with a concept similar to mine. But maybe not, who knows? Ontologically, it is the reality mathematics would be a natural part of, and mathematics is something philosophers have a hard time of figuring out.

OK, here is my introduction to what I call ”Conceptual Reality”:

”The Conceptual Reality” is created or generated where the objective reality and the subjective reality meet. There, in ”the Conceptual Reality”, concepts are generated for the sake of orientation in the ”potential force field” between the subject and the object. ”The Conceptual Reality” is not equivalent with either the objective reality or the subjective reality, though all of these are ”real” in their sense of real. The concepts generated in ”the Conceptual Reality” carry meaning both in the objective and subjective realities, for the direct reason that these concepts couple the objective and subjective realities by ramifying into the objective and subjective areas. This is exactly the reason why we sometimes have a hard time distinguishing Conceptual Reality from objective reality, or distinguishing Conceptual Reality from subjective reality. Therein lies the strength of Conceptual Reality, but also the reason why Conceptual Reality is so hard to figure out: that it is an emergent reality totally in its own right.

One main component in the conceptual reality is language..

Here is the logical problem that led me to outline the Conceptual Reality: The logical formula ”Language cannot describe reality” (which causes a contradiction in the traditional way of speaking) can be changed to the formula: ”The conceptual phrase [(the conceptual) language cannot describe (the objective) reality] is claimed to be true in the conceptual sphere/reality;” and thus does not create a contradiction. The contradiction is avoided by letting the formula and phrase belong to another reality (i.e. the conceptual reality) other than the (objective) reality the formula is speaking about. (I’m not a good enough logician to see if there is any problem here, who knows?)

After the conceiving of ”the Conceptual Reality”, for the sake of argument, I actually found that this discovery of an overbearing ”Conceptual Reality” had real explanatory power. Its reality is real for its own sake, and has a whole life of its own, without need for justification from somewhere else. The conceptual reality is the real reality of humans, the reality of life. We have a hard time knowing the truth of either subjective or objective reality; but the conceptual truths are more real for us than either the subjective or objective truths can ever be, because they have more meaning for us, because we orientate ourselves through the medium of conceptual realty. The truths of conceptual reality are really real to us because only they have real meaning for us. Everything from the other realities, from men or from God, must be disclosed to us through conceptual reality and conceptual truth. That’s why conceptual reality is the only reality that could ever matter to us at the end of the day. What I’m trying to say is that, even if conceptual reality is dependent on other realities, its reality is truly emergent and is real enough to be taken seriously and cannot be broken down into more rudimentary elements unless they are  themselves elements of the conceptual universe.

Conceptual Reality also answers some hard questions. For instance, since language is an integral part of the conceptual reality, contradictions may flourish and even have meaningful usage in the conceptual reality, since contradictions can be readily accomplished in human language. Objective and subjective reality doesn’t really have anything to say about this. Conceptual reality also explains the nature of mathematics, since mathematics and logic can be seen as a sort of formalized languages.

I hope this will open up new insights, and I will be referring to the blog in later blogs.

Annonser

Bold confession coming closer to the truth than many a dogma!

januari 10, 2013 § Lämna en kommentar

Quote:


” I am with the people who detect God’s hand, perhaps without even realizing it, where the smug banner-holder sees only sin: in jungle music, dirty jokes, seduction, and swearing. I am with the preacher who puts out a gospel album, then goes to prison on fraud and drug charges for a while, then puts out a hip-grinding soul album, and then another gospel album. I am with the animals, who can’t even read, but can still talk to the saints of divine things. I am sooner an atheist, if what we understand by Christianity is a sort of supernatural monarchism; if we understand by it that God is love, though, then, I say, I am a Christian. ”

This quote concludes the interesting honest-to-God confession My faith: A confession by Justin Erik Halldór Smith . Actually it tangents my confession, though I’m probably more ”Christian” than he’s ”atheist”.

the mirror

oktober 19, 2012 § Lämna en kommentar

(it came to me this morning,
inspired by the words of the Messiah on the greatest commandments
and in the home of Martha and Mary in Bethania.)

The Human Condition mirrors exhaustively our condition with G-d.

Thus the Truth adheres to you closer than the God Particle will ever do.

”Can language describe reality” revisited … and a bit repentive[1]

januari 27, 2012 § Lämna en kommentar

After sample listening to the modern prophet Leonard Cohen’s new album ”Old Ideas” at The Guardian’s Cohen interview page (by invitation from Leonard Cohen’s home page) I stopped eating my breakfast when I heard his second song ”Amen”, in which he sang ”amen” first sort of ironically, but slowly turned dead serious. Don’t know if you get the association with the recent discussion between me and Emanuel-Hai about language and truth, but hearing the modern prophet Leonard say ”amen”[2] made me stop munching on my peanut-butter spread crisp bread (uh-oh, revealed my lazy breakfast habit :-S).

Why? Well, I did touch briefly on the fact (in the aforementioned discussion) that, if my hypothesis was true that one cannot be sure that language is capable of describing the ultimate (ontological) truth, then holding to the tenants of faith is really actually a leap in faith. Well, after hearing my idol Leonard sing ”amen”, first ironically (which catched my attention) and then seriously (which stopped my munching), made me seriously consider the possibility of the ultimate truth being something other than the ”ontological” truth, which until now I have naturally taken as the ultimate truth. What if the ultimate truth is a sphere naturally described by language?

So I figured: What is language really good at? Answer: story-telling. Also lyrics, like I’m listening to now, or can read in Nobel Prize winner Tomas Tranströmer’s collection of poems. From my courses in anthropology, I recall how history (the grand story), in tribes, is told and retold, by mouth, from generation to generation. So language is perfect in telling about our course in life (stories) and place in life (lyrics and poems). On the other hand, language is probably not very good in logics or physics.

So what if the ultimate reality is (or includes at least) our course through history, and our experience of our existence in this world. Of course, that’s pretty anthropocentric; but what if that was the ultimate reality? That would mean that language would and could naturally express truths that also would be of utmost important to us.

This would, of course, imply that the physical world would exist for realizing this history and existence of ours. That sounds baffling. But it does rhyme with the sort of experience I have at times when I’m wrapped up in ecstasy over anything astonishing beautiful (a film, or a woman, whatever): I get the feeling that the whole cosmos has been and is configured for the reason of leading me (us?) to this very moment and this particular revelation! Have you ever experienced that? What if that is really the case?

[1] ”repentive”: huh, doesn’t seem to be in the ”dictionary”; but that doesn’t bother language, I guess …
[2] ”amen” אמן is related to ”emet” אצת truth

So which conspiracy do you believe in?

juni 15, 2009 § Lämna en kommentar

I found the following at http://iran.twazzup.com/

cafechi
it seems gov. tries to hack the reformist websites to insert fake statement. Mousavi’s website is the only remained connection #iranelection

It’s impossible to decide the truth value of this statement.

It’s like saying: there’s a conspiracy. But you don’t know about it because of the conspiracy. So because you don’t know about the conspiracy, there is a conspiracy.

There are two things to consider here:
A conspiracy that influences our sphere of knowledge cannot be proven.
… But neither can it be rejected as illogical.

This last point is usually not taken into consideration. Probably because the burden of proof is laid upon the person who suspects a conspiracy. … which rationally is unfair, but, to be honest, is the only practical way to handle this world (… which of course the conspirators take advantage of). But actually, this default way of handling conspiracies is dishonest, because the person presuming there is no conspiracy usually does not take into consideration that his/her judgement might be contaminated by the conspiracy itself. In other words, how does the one who takes the ”objective” view of things really know that his or her view is actually ”objective” and not actually biased?

So the person believing in a conspiracy could point out to the person who, without further discussion, disbelieves the conspiracy to be a bit dishonest. But the unbeliever’s behaviour wouldn’t be unfair though, because it would be too time consuming for any human being to consider every conspiracy theory out there, wouldn’t it?

When it comes to this type of information-distorting conspiracies, it all comes down to belief, really, since neither party can either prove itself or disprove the other. The tragic part is when one or both parties aren’t satisfied with belief, but begin organizing to the point that they begin to infringe on the rights of others. (This has been typical of certain ideologies or religions which find fuel in suspicion of conspiracy).

But there is another way of seeing the whole situation: Since it all boils down to belief anyway, people across boundaries can seize the opportunity of taking on a new ”conspiracy belief” together: the sacred belief that we are siblings, that despite everything happening around us, we are brothers and sisters, that we are of a common ancestry, and there are bounds between us that cannot be broken!

This does challenge the objective world view though, since what this says actually is that we can make up our own minds on what will be true for us or not. But I also see this as a genuine ”act of faith”: ”… if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.” (NASB Matthew 18:19).

Pontius Pilate on the steps of the Sydney Opera House

Pontius Pilate on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. By Christopher Chan @ flickr. cc-by-nc-nd-license.

So we can revisit the question why Jesus didn’t answer Pilate’s question: What is truth?
Could it be because a verbal answer wasn’t the optimal way af revealing to Pilate the conspiracy of love going on there at that moment? The best way of making Pilate think was not answering the question at all, but instead to demonstrate it, demonstrate the Truth. (… his question was hypothetical, for he would had brushed off any verbal answer, because he was probably of the philosophical view that no man could know the Truth …)

Jesus’ silence was like saying: ”Oh yeah, Pilate, your are cooool! I mean, who gets the chance of asking the Messiah the grandeur question of What is Truth? … and not even getting an answer back! Ha! I mean, man! That is coooool! … I’m not gonna take that away from you Pilate! But do you know what is cooler than coool? It’s having the real choice of being friend with whomever you like without really having any substantial reason for it. … And so that’s what I’m doing for you right now King Pilate. You might not see it today, but you’ll see it tomorrow: You’ll be given the opportunity of becoming cool just like Me: Cooler than coool! That’s the brutal Truth (… and we’re talking _brutal_ here!…), the brutal Truth that will be given as a true Gift to every human living on this earth. But it’s hard to explain the Truth of that conspiracy, because Truth is an Action, it’s Me. But one thing is not too hard to do (… the hard thing is believing that it’s really cool!…): It’s believing in the Truth of this conspiracy, in the conspiracy of Friendship and Siblinghood, and then you, Pilate, will experience Real Coooolness! Like Morpheus said: ”… sooner or later you’re going to realize … that there’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.” Walk the path, Pilate, don’t necessarily understand it; just follow Me, and you’ll get the hang of it!”

So which conspiracy are you going to believe in?

Var befinner jag mig?

Du bläddrar för närvarande bland inlägg taggade truthPataphysics of Simulacra.