Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Acuality and Reality. help.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Acuality and Reality. help.

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

[CENTER]Actuality and Reality[/CENTER]

Hello everyone, I am just defining some terms I am using to outline a perceptual empiricism that Arjen's blog entry prompted. Bellow is how I have described the two degrees of existence I am considering, does this seem coherent and sensible? And what do you think?

Dan.

Reality is the state of all things as they exist in relation to human perspective, e.g. in reality that leaf is green and a cat goes meow. Actuality is a state of "ultimate reality" that exists "in the absence of a subject/consciousness/awareness" (Boagie), in actuality the subject-object relationship is reduced to object-object and we must begin to analyze things as they truly exist outside of human perception. E.g. the leaf has no color; radiation reflects off the 'surface' of a value-host (object) and enters the nervous system through the optical senses where the frequency of said radiation is converted into color and brightness. And let's not forget the cat who like all life in actuality exists in fluid? no different from water or any other fluid. The cat's vocal tract houses vocal chords and other equipment which via a complex analogue displaces the fluid around the mouth into a rarefaction which in turn displaces the fluid around it with a condensation which in turn displaces the fluid around it with a rarefaction? etc. This is what we refer to as a 'sound wave', and it carries only a few forms of reality-information (e.g. wave length, frequency and amplitude) which are interpretations/conversions of actuality into reality.

@de budding,

So reality is actuality put into terms of human experience (ie, 'the leaf is green' as opposed to 'light waves reflect off the leaf...')?

I see no real difference. We might say the leaf is green, or we could go into more detail about the physical process of why leaves appear green. Either way, we rely on our human perspective to make the description. In the 'leaf is green case' we are describing reality in easy to understand terms which work well on our macro level, in the 'leaf appears green because of lightwaves, ect' case we are describing reality in more precise terms, reflecting a modern scientific understanding.

You say in actuality that subject-object is reduced to object-object, but are there really independent objects in 'actuality' or is the notion of object the result of our human perspective, which actuality is supposed to lack?

@Didymos Thomas,

To me there is a different distinction. I think this is going to be hard on you de budding. I say that because of your outlook on the world around you. Most people with your view on things have a hard time with this.

Actuality is that which exists in a "physical" manner. Not to say that "vacu?m" does not exist or something, it is part of actuality. Actuality would be like taking a snapshot (3d-physical) of everything. The motionless "everything" would be actuality.

Potentiality is that which facilitates actuality. Kant's categoria are a product of this; time and space would more to the truth of it, but it carries more in itself. It is this which facilitates creation. I do not think words can explain ths because words are predications and therefore no longer potentiality. Predications belong to the realm of actuality.

The relation between potentiality and actuality is that actuality is quantified out of potentiality.

Reality is potentiality and all actualities.

Hope that helps.

Smile

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So reality is actuality put into terms of human experience (ie, 'the leaf is green' as opposed to 'light waves reflect off the leaf...')?

correct.

Quote:

I see no real difference...

Because it completely relative, and why relativity is important.

Quote:

we are describing reality in more precise terms, reflecting a modern scientific understanding.

Not quite, scientific understanding is on the way but the angle or perspective needs shifting slightly. By looking at our responses to the world as analogues we explore actuality with our mind (and express it in words and text) and start by identifying the raw data formats which we convert and interpret- it starts with the actuaity and ends as we convert and interpet actuality... it stops before 'we' come into it.

Quote:

You say in actuality that subject-object is reduced to object-object, but are there really independent objects in 'actuality' or is the notion of object the result of our human perspective, which actuality is supposed to lack?

I thought the same things, so I started calling 'objects' value-hosts.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

To me there is a different distinction. I think this is going to be hard on you de budding. I say that because of your outlook on the world around you. Most people with your view on things have a hard time with this.

Actuality is that which exists in a "physical" manner. Not to say that "vacu?m" does not exist or something, it is part of actuality. Actuality would be like taking a snapshot (3d-physical) of everything. The motionless "everything" would be actuality.

Potentiality is that which facilitates actuality. Kant's categoria are a product of this; time and space would more to the truth of it, but it carries more in itself. It is this which facilitates creation. I do not think words can explain ths because words are predications and therefore no longer potentiality. Predications belong to the realm of actuality.

The relation between potentiality and actuality is that actuality is quantified out of potentiality.

Reality is potentiality and all actualities.

Hope that helps.

I'm confused, I better go read about potentiality... again.

Dan. Smile

EDIT: 'Actuality is to potentiality, Aristotle tells us, as "someone waking is to someone sleeping, as someone seeing is to a sighted person with his eyes closed, as that which has been shaped out of some matter is to the matter from which it has been shaped" (1048b1-3).'
I see no contradiction, other than that I wasn't reffering to Aristotle's actuality in the first post. Also actuality as the raw and true fromat of reality still has room for potentiality, actuality is as subject to change as reality is, they are both completely relative to each other.

@de budding,

So in your scheme de budding, reality is actuality perceived by man.

If I understand you correctly, there isn't anything we can say about actuality other than actuality is, and when perceived by man is called reality.

Quote:

I thought the same things, so I started calling 'objects' value-hosts.

Ah, but do values exist in actuality or are values men's perceptions and therefore aspects of reality and not actuality?

Also, what would host the value in actuality? Are we applying values to somethings in actuality or in reality?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

do values exist in actuality or are values men's perceptions and therefore aspects of reality and not actuality?

Quote:

Also, what would host the value in actuality? Are we applying values to somethings in actuality or in reality?

Cracking questions Very Happy

A: hmmm still can't answer this one... I'm thinking that value-hosts can be defined in actuality because the all share catagories... mass, dimensions and positioning or something to that effect... all reality-values are derived/converted/interpreted by the interaction of forces and radiation- maybe as well as other things I haven't thought of yet as well(this is where analogues come in aswell), on these categories. ...maybe raw-values which still need defining exist in actuality and reality-values are the derivations from the raw-values, and there is more than one way to convert or interpret the raw-values... e.g. positioning of territory is derived from smell in cats, but texture in human- fences, walls etc.

B: In actuality the the raw-values are the hosts and the reality-values are the objects in reality... make sense?

Dan.

@de budding,

it seems there is nothing we can rationalise actually. the very actuality we try to consider again is after all a part of our reality. to perceive things as such we may have to be rebirth as a cow, or aliens , or some matter.
honestly i might wanna reconsider the reincarnation of tibetan buddhism.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Acuality and Reality. help.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Acuality and Reality. help.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know