Actuality Potentiality Reality

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Actuality Potentiality Reality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 08:46 pm
Ok so I am really confused with what these terms are. Actuality, potentiality, and reality. Regardless of dictionaries and wiki knowledge I can't wipe my own views away, because they are kinda contradictory.:confused:

Definition of Actuality: According to Aristotle, actuality is the fulfillment of a potentiality from your reality. According to a pathetic dictionary, actuality is defined as reality. Laughing ; or an "actual condition".
So I could define actuality as waves.

My original idea of actuality: I never assumed actuality was any 'fulfillment' as Aristotle intended it. To me that is very presumptuous in that it gives the air of reality enclosing actuality; I figure it makes more sense for actuality to determine the reality like DNA determines our phenotype. I figure that if actuality exists it has not potential on our being, it is monistic.

Definition of Potentiality: Inherent capacity to have potential, existence.

My views on this one are the same.

Definition of Reality: The definitions tend to assume reality as being truth in general, what is apparently real.:nonooo:

:a-thought:My view is that reality is as truthful as sensation can convey and perception can take in. Reality is a context of actuality given potential, because the mind is required for the relation, dualism that reality evokes. There are infinite potentials that can be conveyed from actuality because actuality is linear, absolute, and therefore random. A potential is kinda fundamental (or rather, nonexistent) until there is a measured distinction from actuality, bringing about a single reality conveyed through a mind, that has to have consciousness however minimal. Once the infinite spectrum of potentials (potentiality) are minimized to a single potential conveyed under a single reality then actuality no longer has an effect. It is inherent but not continually, so actuality can never change. Nor would it be able to if it had potential because it is monistic.

That is my light-year-out-of-the-box-crazy idea of these terms.

Has somebody already come up with something long these lines?
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 01:25 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;23601 wrote:
Ok so I am really confused with what these terms are. Actuality, potentiality, and reality.

They are all the same/equivalent.
All 'potentiality' is 'actuality' is 'reality', for/as one Perspective or another.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 06:34 am
@nameless,
Holiday, I will try to say this as short and sweet as possible by use of your own words.

Actuality are waves.
Potentiality is the possibility of being a source for waves.
Reality is that which exists: waves and their sources.

Hope this helps.
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 06:58 am
@Arjen,
Here's an interesting discussion by Kierkegaard on Aristotle's theory of potentiality and actuality

Philosophical Fragments

Here's some points from SK:
* There's a difference between a coming into existence change and a mere alteration of something already in existence
* Actuality is not necessity

* Necessity cannot come into existence, cannot move from potentiality to actuality, it already is
* Possibility and actuality do not differ in essence but in being (think Kant's 100 rixdaler)
* There is a difference between the immutability of the past and the immutability of the necessary.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:19 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
They are all the same/equivalent.
All 'potentiality' is 'actuality' is 'reality', for/as one Perspective or another.


This is what I don't get. Sure reality is based on actuality, but it isn't all of it, even though actuality is monistic.

But what is the force putting monistic to dualistic. Potentiality right? ~ which resides in the consciousness?

As much as I'd like to believe that (idealism is better!!!), if actuality was this monistic force it does not imply it can't be broken down. It leaves the possibility for actuality to be broken down into subsections that imply actuality as a whole(not that actuality is literally like this), but still not exactly the whole of actuality.

When a piece of actuality is related to, it is no longer the whole of actuality, even though it implies what it is exactly, but not absolutely. :cool:

So the piece now has the potential and is a flavor for reality, being an individual's consciousness.

Necessity is not just implied through reality and not actuality. Thats absurd! It is of actuality too. Potentiality is like the energy and necessity is like the work. When potentiality is not there, actuality is balanced, and no necessity required. Without potentiality there is no ability to have a necesity nor is there one required.

Reality has potentiality and is therefore a necessity to come back to actuality as a whole, being that it is just a piece.

The necessity is there in that actuality is absolute to itself, but if related to as a piece of it, there can be no absoluteness, only intrinsic implications.

Also, I do not believe waves are actuality absolutely, therefore probably not the actuality you guys are talking about.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 10:36 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;23848 wrote:
This is what I don't get. Sure reality is based on actuality, but it isn't all of it, even though actuality is monistic.

All i can offer in this response is 'this' Perspective. The world that I see, that i perceive. A Perspective that is as unique as the world manifested to/as this Perspective. I am not 'selling' it. It is sufficient in it's existence. As is youPerspective. I think that if I can offer some definitions, as I see them, you might better understand what I offer.
First, I'd have to take exception with your assertion that 'actuality' is 'monistic'. Whatever is perceived, is actual reality to the Perceiver, the 'Perspective', 'you/me/him/it..'. Now! Every moment. For us each and all, our actual reality is our entire universe, each moment. Our universes, not the universes. We are one and the same with the universes as perceived by us. We arise, in/as the moment, along with/as the momentarily perceived universe, the universe of Now!
Existence is dualistic. Contextual. Everything exists. If, by 'actual' you mean the individually uniquely perceived universes of the Now! Then actuality is, must be 'contextual'.
Interesting note; if there is any ___ that is 'monistic', One, 'perfectly symmetrical', then there, by definition, cannot be anything else! Ever! 'Anywhere'!
"Reality must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of universal permanence." -Vedas
That defines 'perfect symmetry', which can have no qualities or features of any sort (acontextual, non-dual).
That also, oddly enough, defines 'Consciousness/Mind'. Without the 'limiting factor' of Perspective, 'Consciousness' cannot be 'Conscious' of Mind. (No features.) We are the Perspectives of One Consciousness, each unique, upon One Mind (perfect symmetry. unfifferentiated potential).

Quote:
But what is the force putting monistic to dualistic.

Limited Perspectives, us. Our glance limits the 'completeness' of an undetectable perfectly symmetrical Mind into bite sized (now contextual, duality) chunks (our universes at every moment of perception).
Synchronously!
See, nothing really changes, it's just a matter of Perspective...

Quote:
Potentiality right? ~ which resides in the consciousness?

Mind = quantum probability wave field = undifferentiated potential... That is 'potential', Mind. But that 'potential' cannot be actualized, perceived, but by each and every possible Perspective. We just think in terms of 'potential' due to 'our' limited Perspectives. We do not 'see' the correlation of all Perspectives, as we are 'limitations'. All is in Consciousness, though. Consciousness observes us as POVs of Mind. Nothing... ever... changes, nor can change as "Reality" is 'monistic', and there can be nothing happening (features, qualities...)

Quote:
It leaves the possibility for actuality to be broken down into subsections that imply actuality as a whole(not that actuality is literally like this), but still not exactly the whole of actuality.

We might be seen as subsectional actualities, but additionally, all of the 'subsets' annihilate immediately upon arising because 'Reality' cannot be dualistically 'actual'; '1' + '1' + '1' + '1'.... = 0

Quote:
When a piece of actuality is related to, it is no longer the whole of actuality,

It is the 'whole' of your actual reality. I have shown, basically, why thetre can be no 'the' actual reality, but there can be 'our' actual realities. All different universes...

's it for now..
Peace
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 11:04 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:

We might be seen as subsectional actualities, but additionally, all of the 'subsets' annihilate immediately upon arising because 'Reality' cannot be dualistically 'actual'; '1' + '1' + '1' + '1'.... = 0


How is this analogy relevant? Actuality has no values.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 01:44 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;23943 wrote:
How is this analogy relevant? Actuality has no values.

Metaphor... it doesn't matter, let it go..
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 12:09 am
@nameless,
Well, in the words of a wise, young fellow from New Jersey, "...words have no meaning..." However, here is how I would define these three and how I have used and intend to use them.

Reality: everything, existance, the world, life, etc. syn. w/ actuality
Potentiality: an idea, a function of memory, which exists in reality as that idea only
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » Actuality Potentiality Reality
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/28/2020 at 05:29:07