GENIUS FORUMS

...and reality.

If there really is such a thing -- I'm not convinced. Is there really any compelling or crucial difference between fiction and the "real"?

Wild Fox Zen wrote:...and reality.

If there really is such a thing -- I'm not convinced. Is there really any compelling or crucial difference between fiction and the "real"?

Do you consider this a "genius" calibre question?

I do, because it's very fundamental, and the implications are dangerous to habitual thought patterns.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:I do, because it's very fundamental, and the implications are dangerous to habitual thought patterns.

Can you make the case that fiction and reality are the same? I woud probably find that interesting.

millipodium wrote:Can you make the case that fiction and reality are the same? I woud probably find that interesting.

Well, I think it's revealing that we respond to fiction in essentially the same way that we respond to things given to our immediate senses -- and often moreso when it comes to history books and news stories, in which the distinction becomes even less tenable.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

millipodium wrote:Can you make the case that fiction and reality are the same? I woud probably find that interesting.

Well, I think it's revealing that we respond to fiction in essentially the same way that we respond to things given to our immediate senses -- and often moreso when it comes to history books and news stories, in which the distinction becomes even less tenable.

I think you're just confused about the difference between real and realistic.

real: what is

realistic: what probably is

a meaning that has probability attached to it is the work of the intellect. a meaning that has certainty attached to it is instinctive, but of course that doesn't mean it's real -- God is dead, after-all.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:real: what is

realistic: what probably is

a meaning that has probability attached to it is the work of the intellect. a meaning that has certainty attached to it is instinctive, but of course that doesn't mean it's real -- God is dead, after-all.

No. Your definitions are wrong.

realistic is what seems like it COULD be actual in one way or another, given your current understandig of laws of physics or tendencies of human nature. Something can be realistic, yet totally false. There is no confusion whatsoever in my mind.

yeah, but the "real" remains a chimera. Like you said: you can calculate probabilities to the best of your ability and still be totally wrong once a new layer of experience or thinking emerges.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:yeah, but the "real" remains a chimera. Like you said: you can calculate probabilities to the best of your ability and still be totally wrong once a new layer of experience or thinking emerges.

Oh I thought you meant the normal meaning of real. Like whether or not anne frank is a true story, or whether the lord of the rings is a true story. I don't know you meant the crazy, psychotic version of unverifiable reality that predominates in this part of the neighborhood.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

...and reality.

If there really is such a thing -- I'm not convinced. Is there really any compelling or crucial difference between fiction and the "real"?

You're already creating a distinction between fiction and reality with this particular line of thought. You're essentially trying to say that those who believe there is a distinction between reality and fiction are believing in a fiction, and those who don't are seeing reality for what it is.

So you see, your line of questioning here is aleady self-defeating from the outset.

If the mind is capable of delusion (and it is), then the distinction between reality and fiction is real. Enlightenment involves mastering this distinction.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Wild Fox Zen wrote:

...and reality.

If there really is such a thing -- I'm not convinced. Is there really any compelling or crucial difference between fiction and the "real"?

You're already creating a distinction between fiction and reality with this particular line of thought. You're essentially trying to say that those who believe there is a distinction between reality and fiction are believing in a fiction, and those who don't are seeing reality for what it is.

So you see, your line of questioning here is aleady self-defeating from the outset.

If the mind is capable of delusion (and it is), then the distinction between reality and fiction is real. Enlightenment involves mastering this distinction.

-

Man. It's like shooting fish in a bucket, isn't it?

millipodium wrote:Oh I thought you meant the normal meaning of real. Like whether or not anne frank is a true story, or whether the lord of the rings is a true story.

Well, that's as good an example as any. As my experience of Middle Earth is roughly the same as my experience of WW2 era Amsterdam. I know David Quinn wrote something about abolishing the notion of inherent existence, I'd say that's relavent too.

I don't know you meant the crazy, psychotic version of unverifiable reality that predominates in this part of the neighborhood.

Well, what version of the truth are you trying to defend?

DavidQuinn000 wrote:You're already creating a distinction between fiction and reality with this particular line of thought. You're essentially trying to say that those who believe there is a distinction between reality and fiction are believing in a fiction, and those who don't are seeing reality for what it is.

I'm not saying that. I'm more interested in an expansion and revision of terms, so we have a more sophisticated way of viewing the world. I can't say anyone is "wrong", but I can say that I think their beliefs might be limiting.

What I'm suggesting is a reevaluation of our linguistic and operational view of the world, which takes for granted that a particular thing is real, and a particular thing is unreal, even though the standards are not absolute at all, but completely arbitrary from the perspective of one's own senses.

If the mind is capable of delusion (and it is), then the distinction between reality and fiction is real. Enlightenment involves mastering this distinction.

To master something means to subjugate it, and thus bend it to your will or even destroy it -- whatever you master is subject to your whims. If you're a master, you can draw that distinction any where you want.

edit: fixed the tags

Wild Fox Zen wrote:
To master something means to subjugate it, and thus bend it to your will or even destroy it -- whatever you master is subject to your whims. If you're a master, you can draw that distinction any where you want.

edit: fixed the tags

You're blending two definitions of "master" to reinforce your nihilist anti-rational view.

This is not intelligent; it's stupid.

millipodium wrote:You're blending two definitions of "master" to reinforce your nihilist anti-rational view.

This is not intelligent; it's stupid.

'Master' implies control, look it up.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

millipodium wrote:You're blending two definitions of "master" to reinforce your nihilist anti-rational view.

This is not intelligent; it's stupid.

'Master' implies control, look it up.

That's one definition.

It also means "to become proficient with" which does not imply subjugation and destruction. You're blending two definitions, like I said. Why are you attempting to villainize competence? Because you're so incompetent?

millipodium wrote:That's one definition.

It also means "to become proficient with" which does not imply subjugation and destruction. You're blending two definitions, like I said.

In Webster's that's the *13th* definition, and it's only one of two that doesn't specify control (the other being "master" as in "master copy", which does imply primacy.) But what kind of master doesn't control what he's proficient in? A master has maximum freedom to create or destroy as he will, through the medium of his tools. When you know something inside-out, like a weapon or an instrument, you make it hollow, and fill it with your own will, and that *will* is conveyed cleanly through it.

To become a master of one's own mind, is truly a profound ambition.

Why are you attempting to villainize competence? Because you're so incompetent?

I'm not trying to villainize anything, I genuinely believe that concepts and ideas should be rendered subject to the will of the individual. That's what I call competence -- the competence of controlling one's own mind.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

DQ: You're already creating a distinction between fiction and reality with this particular line of thought. You're essentially trying to say that those who believe there is a distinction between reality and fiction are believing in a fiction, and those who don't are seeing reality for what it is.

WFZ: I'm not saying that. I'm more interested in an expansion and revision of terms, so we have a more sophisticated way of viewing the world. I can't say anyone is "wrong", but I can say that I think their beliefs might be limiting.

What I'm suggesting is a reevaluation of our linguistic and operational view of the world, which takes for granted that a particular thing is real, and a particular thing is unreal, even though the standards are not absolute at all, but completely arbitrary from the perspective of one's own senses.

This has to happen in any case for anyone who wishes to become wise. Each thinking individual has to create his own definition of reality and revise his "linguistic and operational view of the world" in accordance with this. It is part and parcel of the philosophical process of becoming more conscious.

It's very much an individual thing, however. There is no point in trying to do this revision in a group-setting, as nearly all of the human race is incredibly irrational and bogged down in numerous superficial attachments. We'd only end up with what we are seeing now in academic circles - namely, a plethora of mangled and convoluted definitions which try to tip-toe around these attachments.

As mentioned elsewhere, I have personally determined reality to be that which is "everywhere and everywhen, constant, permanent, unchanging, absolute in nature, beyond life and death, present in all perceptual worlds, and responsible for the existence of all things". In my view, it is impossible to give this definition any more tweaking. It is the ultimate definition of reality.

But if you can think of a better one, please feel free to share it.

DQ: If the mind is capable of delusion (and it is), then the distinction between reality and fiction is real. Enlightenment involves mastering this distinction.

WFZ: To master something means to subjugate it, and thus bend it to your will or even destroy it -- whatever you master is subject to your whims. If you're a master, you can draw that distinction any where you want.

I meant mastering, as in "becoming an expert in it". The enlightened person becomes a master in the field of wisdom, in the same way that, say, Mozart became a master in the art of making music.

-

Wild Fox Zen wrote: I genuinely believe that concepts and ideas should be rendered subject to the will of the individual. That's what I call competence -- the competence of controlling one's own mind.

So. If you say 2+2=5 it just may be? Convincing oneself that what one WANTS to believe is the truth, IS the truth, is called a psychotic state, a perpetual hallucination, willful ignorance. It's the very antithesis of intelligence.

Wild Fox Zen,

There is a critical difference between the message a person is trying to send and the message a person receives.

The sender has an idea which he interprets into words. The receiver then interprets those words into another idea. It is fair to say the idea has undergone two translations in its transmission from one mind to another. Therefore it's not fair for you to insists that your deffinition of 'master' is the one Millipodium intended.

The same words can mean different things to different people. This fact is a major player in most interpersonal misunderstandings. It doesn't matter how uncommon a deffinition Millipodium used, or in what order it appears in the dictionary.

David,

I have personally determined reality to be that which is "everywhere and everywhen, constant, permanent, unchanging, absolute in nature, beyond life and death, present in all perceptual worlds, and responsible for the existence of all things". In my view, it is impossible to give this definition any more tweaking. It is the ultimate definition of reality.

The only things of which I'm aware that fit that definition (as excellent a definition as I've ever heard) are energy and the laws of physics that govern it. The question then would be, what gives rise to the laws of physics, and that is an area of science I understand very poorly.

I think it was Einstien (?) who said that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change states. Because energy and matter are interchangable (E=mc²) I believe matter itself is concidered a state of energy, and therefore, by your definition, must be real.

The truest understanding of the difference between fiction and reality would then require an understanding of the difference between the physical world and our perception of it.

SasQuatch9585 wrote:I think it was Einstien (?) who said that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change states. Because energy and matter are interchangable (E=mc²) I believe matter itself is concidered a state of energy, and therefore, by your definition, must be real.

I would have said Newton rather than Einstein, but wikipedia suggests a much more complex story to the development of the idea of Conservation of Energy.

The truest understanding of the difference between fiction and reality would then require an understanding of the difference between the physical world and our perception of it.

You seem to be advocating a Correspondence theory of truth, which I think has some problems. Most generally, it has the assumption that there is an objective reality "out there", even though you can never sense it in any way - the part you sense and think about being part of your mental model, not the "out there" physical objective reality.

If that 'objective' reality can not be sensed in any way, what does it mean for it to be real? And how can that ghostly realm that can not be sensed in any way be more real than what is actually experienced?

This may be another direction from which the Buddhist concept of emptiness can be approached.

DHodges wrote:

SasQuatch9585 wrote:I think it was Einstien (?) who said that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change states. Because energy and matter are interchangable (E=mc²) I believe matter itself is concidered a state of energy, and therefore, by your definition, must be real.

I would have said Newton rather than Einstein, but wikipedia suggests a much more complex story to the development of the idea of Conservation of Energy.

The truest understanding of the difference between fiction and reality would then require an understanding of the difference between the physical world and our perception of it.

You seem to be advocating a Correspondence theory of truth, which I think has some problems. Most generally, it has the assumption that there is an objective reality "out there", even though you can never sense it in any way - the part you sense and think about being part of your mental model, not the "out there" physical objective reality.

If that 'objective' reality can not be sensed in any way, what does it mean for it to be real? And how can that ghostly realm that can not be sensed in any way be more real than what is actually experienced?

This may be another direction from which the Buddhist concept of emptiness can be approached.

I swear to god, this kind of thinking seems like a form of mild to severe retardation.

SasQuatch9585 wrote:

DQ: I have personally determined reality to be that which is "everywhere and everywhen, constant, permanent, unchanging, absolute in nature, beyond life and death, present in all perceptual worlds, and responsible for the existence of all things". In my view, it is impossible to give this definition any more tweaking. It is the ultimate definition of reality.

SQ: The only things of which I'm aware that fit that definition (as excellent a definition as I've ever heard) are energy and the laws of physics that govern it. The question then would be, what gives rise to the laws of physics, and that is an area of science I understand very poorly.

The very fact that you are asking where the laws of physics come from, and thus implying that you believe they are temporary entities (and I agree they are), immediately disqualifies them from the definition of Reality.

As for "energy", that is one of those nebulous umbrella terms which don't really refer to anything in particular. We never experience pure energy in itself, for example. We only ever experience its various so-called manifestations - kinetic, electrical, nuclear, gravitational, potential, etc.

In my view, a far better term is "cause and effect". It cuts far more deeply than "energy" does. The process of cause and effect underlies everything that happens and thus is the one thing which is consistent with the definition of Reality. The very fabric of Reality is composed of cause and effect.

As for what caused the laws of physics to come into being, that is a matter for physicists to nut out, if they ever can. But one thing we can know for sure is that they were caused to come into being, that they are part of the overall causal flow of Nature.

-

There is a critical difference between the message a person is trying to send and the message a person receives.

The sender has an idea which he interprets into words. The receiver then interprets those words into another idea. It is fair to say the idea has undergone two translations in its transmission from one mind to another. Therefore it's not fair for you to insists that your deffinition of 'master' is the one Millipodium intended.

He and Quinn act like there's such a thing as proficiency where will and control don't play a factor... besides simply being *good* at making distinctions is hardly what I'd call enlightenment, or mastery, for that matter.

The same words can mean different things to different people. This fact is a major player in most interpersonal misunderstandings. It doesn't matter how uncommon a deffinition Millipodium used, or in what order it appears in the dictionary.

You can try and get by on technicalities, but the *connotation* of the word implies 'control' or something like it -- that's the symbolic and emotional charge it carries.

So. If you say 2+2=5 it just may be? Convincing oneself that what one WANTS to believe is the truth, IS the truth, is called a psychotic state, a perpetual hallucination, willful ignorance. It's the very antithesis of intelligence.

the mind of an enlightened man is not thrown into disarray by paradoxes, but can rest comfortably with them.