Re: virus: Social Metaphysics

Brett Lane Robertson (
Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:34:59 -0500

What do our perceptions imply?

1) Self
2) Reality


These can be rewritten: 1.Being, 2. Existence. They imply a 3rd: 3.
Doing (potential Self, Self in process)...something like predictable, or
consistent; perhaps "continuence", as in "continuence of self"--perhaps at
the expense of a social self? I've seen this equatioion somewhere else before.


At 10:09 AM 9/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:37:43 -0700
>>From: Tadeusz Niwinski <>

>>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


Rabble Sonnet Retort
The past always looks better than it was. It's only pleasant
because it isn't here.

Finley Peter Dunne (Mr. Dooley)