>This way we are left with: "Reality is consistent".
>
>(2) Reality. A primary concept and no definition necessary. As axioms do
>not need proof, primary concepts (I am not sure if this is a correct English
>term, but I am sure they have a name in math) are not definable. "Reality
>exists" can be an axiom derived from two primary concepts (I heard about
>this axiom somewhere :-)).
It doesn't seem to me that Reality ought to be the primary concept since it
is often an issue in these discussions. How about Perception as an axiom?
Perception implies two things.
1) Observer
2) Observed
The Observer is the Implied Self.
The Observed in the Implied Reality.
>(3) Is (this one may be the most difficult). How do we define "to be"? In
>fact Reality in order to be consistent (or not) has "to be" first. It looks
>like a good idea to split our statement and make "Reality is" the first
>statement. In fact "to be" is "to exist". So: "Reality exists". The
>shorter version may be also easier to agree upon. For those who want to
>assume the opposite is true -- no problem: if reality does not exist there
>is no point talking about it, period. Plato can still be put within
>"reality exists" axiom: we may only see shadows of reality, but nonetheless
>there is some reality behind the shadows (forms, memes or angels) which
>constitute the "real" reality, which we can still try to understand (so when
>Plato shows up, we still have something to talk about).
I think Implied Reality implied these important points. Wondering about
the existence of reality and it's actual "real" (or ideal) structure is simply
set aside as an inherent ambiguity of the definition. We are not in pursuit
of Truth but, instead, engaged in a game:
What do our perceptions imply?
1) Self
2) Reality
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------