>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.
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
perceptions.
>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?
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.