virus: Re: Consistent

D.H.Rosdeitcher (
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:43:46 -0400

Reed wrote:

>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
>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
>it reminds us that our understanding of reality is rightly understood as
>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
>a priori...but a construction which each of us makes.

I prefer the term, "view of reality" or "view of a situation" since it
sounds like a more digestible meme than "implied reality". This situation
has a definite nature, but our views of it might be different, to various
degrees. Viewing a situation is like looking at a mountain--we can see it
from various angles, and we can use different glasses to give us different

>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

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

Look at how Tad and I had a similar view of our situation a few months ago,
and now we have completely different views. But during any instant, reality
could still have a definite nature--A is A at time t.
--David R.