virus: Consistent

Reed Konsler (
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:48:16 -0400 (EDT)

David McFadzean:

>Let's see if I can distill the essence of this thread so far. The point
>is question seems to be this:
>1. Objective reality is consistent.
>One camp thinks that it is very important to hold this statement as true,
>while the other camp is saying that assuming it is true might make one
>blind to certain parts of reality where it isn't true.
>Before proceeding, is that an accurate characterization? If so, would it be
>worthwhile defining all terms in (1) in detail?

I'd, for one, like to avoid the term "objective". In Lit Crit, a book is said
to be the construct of an "implied author". The reason for this theoretical
entity is that no reader can know the mind of an author. For instance,
Hemingway is the author of _The Sun Also Rises_ which uses bullfighting
as a central psycho-sexual symbol. Hemingway himself was an outspoken
opponent of bullfighting and also the author of _Death in the Afternoon_
a non-fiction work decrying the cruelty of the practice.

How does one resolve the inconsistency? Simple. Pretend you don't know
that Hemingway wrote _The Sun Also Rises_. Instead, from the book
alone, construct an idea about what you think the author is like. This
hypothetical "Hemingway" is the Implied Author of the book _The Sun
Also Rises_.

Perception is so much easier, in a sense, than a book becuase it is impossible
for anyone to "peer behind the curtian" and meet the Wizard of perception
in the same way that it might have been possible to meet Hemingway. With
perception all we have is "the text".

Since we have so much difficulty with the philosophical "PROOF" of any
sort of reality but it is apparent to all of us (Objectivists and Buddhists
alike) that it APPEARS that something exists like a reality I offer the
following compromise:

1. Implied Reality is consistent

This ought to satisfy rigorous scientists/objectivist/rationalist types because
it reminds us that our understanding of reality is rightly understood as based
in our own observations.

It also ought to satisfy transcendent thinkers of many flavors becuase it
emphasises that Reality is not a solid thing which exists independent of us
a priori...but a construction which each of us makes.

In addition, I think "Implied" makes obvious the sort of hand-waving that
rationalists use to get their arguments off the ground:

"Well," [knocks on tabletop], "it certianly seems real, doesn't it?"


Is Implied Reality consistent?

Certianly not between different people. Implied Reality is subjective and
different people have different and incommesurate Implied Realities.

Cerianly not over time. Implied Reality is dynamic. At different times
in a single persons life that person will see different Implied Realities.

Ok, let's look at the simplest case: A single person at an instant in time.

Is Implied Reality consistent for an individual during an instant of time?



Reed Konsler