Is there an Ultimate Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

V A

Note "is" is not a predicate, "is" is merely a copula that joined the 'subject' to the 'predicate'.

For example when we say,

This thing is a dog,
the "is" is not significant to reality
but 'what is a dog' is.

'What is a dog' then must be verified and justified with a specific FSK, in this case the most reliable is the scientific FSK.

When you state 'NOW IS' that is meaningless and unrealistic without a realistic predicate.
The "is" is merely a copula and in the above is not connecting to anything realistic.

What is realistic should be
Now is the time after the past and before the future time.
This can be empirically measured.

But when you state 'NOW IS"
if it is to be realistic then it has to be "Now is that"
the question is "what is that?"

But you are unable to verify and justify 'that' within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK].

What you are doing is merely throwing words and statements at me which is going no where.


I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
i.e. a soul or "NOW IS"?
Answers??

Why you think there is a soul is using "the idea of a soul" as a consonance to deal with an existential dissonance.

You are missing the forest for the trees. You are thinking of the verb is as part of a process that connects subject and predicate. IS doesn't refer to a process.

Linguistically "is" is a verb but not in the philosophical sense which need finer reflection and analysis.
Philosophically, it is correct "is" is just a connector, a copula that connect the subject and the predicate.
You did not explain why this is wrong.

As I had explained above, if you state X is Y, then you need to verify and justify that empirically and philosophically that "X is Y" is real.

Heraclitus said:

The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change. Nothing endures but change.

Yet I believe that that source for our existence is the eternal unchanging. Is this a contradiction that cannot be reconciled? How can constant change exist in the eternal unchanging? Yet this is step one in understanding the purpose of our universe.

I wrote of the seed of the soul rather than the soul. The seed of the soul is like an acorn and the soul is like an oak. We don't know what the soul of Man is anymore than an acorn can know of what an oak tree is. It is a different quality of being. The difference is that the change of an acorn into an oak is a mechanical process while the seed of the soul becoming a soul is a conscious process taking place within NOW

Note Protagoras,
"Man is the measure of all things'
as such 'what is constant' [a thing] is also a measure of man.
Heraclitus would definitely agree with that.

Point is whatever you claimed is real, it must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

An oak tree is possible to be real because it must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, i.e. biology and science.
This is so easy, i.e. look for a tree that is possibly an oak tree and biologists can proceed to verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically to confirm the sighted tree is a real oak tree.

A soul [that survive physical death] is impossible to be real because it be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system- FSK.

Give me an idea how would you verify and justify empirically and philosophically the existence of the soul as real within which FSK?

You avoid my question many times, I'll ask again, the response is critical;

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
i.e. a soul or "NOW IS"?
Answers??

[Nick_A]

VA

Point is whatever you claimed is real, it must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.

Why do you deny the intellectual realm described in Plato’s divided line and restrict yourself to the visible realm or what the senses can measure in pursuit of truth. Consider how John Uebersax describes the divided line into four segments

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm#intro

Then bisect each of these sections (hash marks B and D). This produces four line segments, corresponding to four cognitive states and/or modes of thinking. From highest to lowest, these are:
• noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
• dianoia (discursive thought)
• pistis (belief or confidence)
• eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

Your reason ends at dianoia but denies noesis or immediate intuition.

• In any case, it is evident that these four states correspond to the stages of prisoners' ascent in the Cave Allegory (Rep. 7.514a–7.521d).
• The line image lets Plato point out instructive ratios concerning truth quality amongst the states. Specifically:
1. As Being is to becoming, so Knowledge is to Opinion.
2. As Knowledge is to Opinion, so noesis is to pistis,
3. And dianoia is to eikasia,
4. And (though Plato does not say this explicitly, but rather lets us see it ourselves) noesis is to dianoia.

Who is closer to the experience of truth: the man restricting himself to logic below the divided line or the one who is open to noesis or the intuition of what exists above the limits of the senses?

Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
i.e. a soul or "NOW IS"?

Some have the need to become inwardly normal. They know we live in an Absurd world having forgotten Man’s connection to universal purpose so they seek to remember it through opening to the higher reason of noesis. Of course the more normal they become the more abnormal they will appear to the absurd world we live in so seek others with the need to become normal in relation to human meaning and purpose.

Discussing Plato’s divided line and the four modes of human reason is beneficial IMO but if you deny noesis demanding sensory proof rather than direct contemplative experience then it is useless.

[bahman]

Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

Whatever phenomena that is not known yet [if claimed to be possibly real] must at least be empirically and philosophically possible to be verified and justified within a FSK.
E.g. a square-circle is not empirically and philosophically possible.
A thing-in-itself is not empirically and philosophically to be real within reality - all-there-is.
Human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away is an empirical and philosophically possibility.

Thus what is real within reality cannot be independent of a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR/FSK].

However there are many [philosophical realists] who claimed there is "something prior" i.e. real objective reality for reality - all-there-is and all phenomena that is beyond what are perceived or appeared.

• What is that "something prior?"
  
  Let say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.
  
  But you think this is based on perception [2] of "something prior" i.e. the replication of actual water.
  
  On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.
  
  On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.
  
  On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.
  
  On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.
  
  On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms
  
  On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
  
  On more closer perception[9], there are various types quarks
  
  On more closer perception[10], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived. So, what is seemingly ultimate is not something objectively real but rather subjectively [observer's based] real.
  
  Thereafter, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2] earlier.

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something is.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

So there is no other credible way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior that is independent of human-based framework and system of reality..

Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

How could you experience it if does not exist.

[Eodnhoj7]

I do NOT recall any, at this very moment. Can you?

If yes, then will you provide them?

A horse may be called a:

Mammal
Mustang
Organism

A horse may also be called a:

Tom
Fred
Mr ed, or even a:

John doe.

But is there an actual point for pointing this out?

What I was saying and pointing out is; What Truly matters is what the 'label' refers to EXACTLY, and how the 'label' is being defined.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN IS what I was saying and pointing out does NOT have much at all REALLY to do with what you are saying and pointing out here.

For example, what do the words/label 'ultimate reality' refer to, EXACTLY, and how are those words/label being defined here, EXACTLY, in this thread?

Yet multiple labels may be applied to the same thing. One phenomenon may have multiple correct labels.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

.....

ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

How could you experience it if does not exist.

Not sure of your point?

1. Whatever exists and is experienced can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], example the scientific FSK.

2. In your case i.e. you claimed there is a 'soul' [soul-E] in all humans that survived physical death.

3. But that soul-E had never been justified via 1 above.

4. It is true, all normal humans has a personal mental self which dissolve when the physical self is damage to support it or the physical self is dead.

5. Whatever exists and is experienced as a 'self' [individual ego] is the empirical mental self, not a soul that can survives physical death.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

.....

ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

How could you experience it if does not exist.

Not sure of your point?

1. Whatever exists and is experienced can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], example the scientific FSK.

2. In your case i.e. you claimed there is a 'soul' [soul-E] in all humans that survived physical death.

3. But that soul-E had never been justified via 1 above.

4. It is true, all normal humans has a personal mental self which dissolve when the physical self is damage to support it or the physical self is dead.

5. Whatever exists and is experienced as a 'self' [individual ego] is the empirical mental self, not a soul that can survives physical death.

How can the experience of the number 1 be justified through an FSK?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How could you experience it if does not exist.

Not sure of your point?

1. Whatever exists and is experienced can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], example the scientific FSK.

2. In your case i.e. you claimed there is a 'soul' [soul-E] in all humans that survived physical death.

3. But that soul-E had never been justified via 1 above.

4. It is true, all normal humans has a personal mental self which dissolve when the physical self is damage to support it or the physical self is dead.

5. Whatever exists and is experienced as a 'self' [individual ego] is the empirical mental self, not a soul that can survives physical death.

How can the experience of the number 1 be justified through an FSK?

You can rely on your own common sense, the arithmetic, the counting FSK by your fingers.

Surely you can feel and experience the difference when you use one finger and two or more fingers?
There is also the difference to pointing with one finger and many fingers.
The existence of one finger can be corresponded with other singular unit of things and similarly multiple fingers with multiple things.

[Age]

A horse may be called a:

Mammal
Mustang
Organism

A horse may also be called a:

Tom
Fred
Mr ed, or even a:

John doe.

But is there an actual point for pointing this out?

What I was saying and pointing out is; What Truly matters is what the 'label' refers to EXACTLY, and how the 'label' is being defined.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN IS what I was saying and pointing out does NOT have much at all REALLY to do with what you are saying and pointing out here.

For example, what do the words/label 'ultimate reality' refer to, EXACTLY, and how are those words/label being defined here, EXACTLY, in this thread?

Yet multiple labels may be applied to the same thing.

So what?

One phenomenon may have multiple correct labels.

Do you have an example or examples?

If yes, then will you provide it/them?

Also noted is that I asked you two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you either MISSED or just COMPLETELY FAILED to answer.

[bahman]

Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

.....

ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

How could you experience it if does not exist.

Not sure of your point?

1. Whatever exists and is experienced can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], example the scientific FSK.

2. In your case i.e. you claimed there is a 'soul' [soul-E] in all humans that survived physical death.

3. But that soul-E had never been justified via 1 above.

4. It is true, all normal humans has a personal mental self which dissolve when the physical self is damage to support it or the physical self is dead.

5. Whatever exists and is experienced as a 'self' [individual ego] is the empirical mental self, not a soul that can survives physical death.

I once experienced my mind too.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not sure of your point?

1. Whatever exists and is experienced can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], example the scientific FSK.

2. In your case i.e. you claimed there is a 'soul' [soul-E] in all humans that survived physical death.

3. But that soul-E had never been justified via 1 above.

4. It is true, all normal humans has a personal mental self which dissolve when the physical self is damage to support it or the physical self is dead.

5. Whatever exists and is experienced as a 'self' [individual ego] is the empirical mental self, not a soul that can survives physical death.

How can the experience of the number 1 be justified through an FSK?

You can rely on your own common sense, the arithmetic, the counting FSK by your fingers.

Surely you can feel and experience the difference when you use one finger and two or more fingers?
There is also the difference to pointing with one finger and many fingers.
The existence of one finger can be corresponded with other singular unit of things and similarly multiple fingers with multiple things.

I said the experience of number 1, not one finger.

How are numbers purely experienced?

But what fsk justifies the counting fsk?

[Eodnhoj7]

A horse may also be called a:

Tom
Fred
Mr ed, or even a:

John doe.

But is there an actual point for pointing this out?

What I was saying and pointing out is; What Truly matters is what the 'label' refers to EXACTLY, and how the 'label' is being defined.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN IS what I was saying and pointing out does NOT have much at all REALLY to do with what you are saying and pointing out here.

For example, what do the words/label 'ultimate reality' refer to, EXACTLY, and how are those words/label being defined here, EXACTLY, in this thread?

Yet multiple labels may be applied to the same thing.

So what?

One phenomenon may have multiple correct labels.

Do you have an example or examples?

If yes, then will you provide it/them?

Also noted is that I asked you two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you either MISSED or just COMPLETELY FAILED to answer.

1. If one phenomenon can have multiple different labels then their is no one label for ultimate reality.

2. I already gave an example with the horse:


A horse may be called a:

Mammal
Mustang
Organism
Etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How could you experience it if does not exist.

Not sure of your point?

1. Whatever exists and is experienced can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], example the scientific FSK.

2. In your case i.e. you claimed there is a 'soul' [soul-E] in all humans that survived physical death.

3. But that soul-E had never been justified via 1 above.

4. It is true, all normal humans has a personal mental self which dissolve when the physical self is damage to support it or the physical self is dead.

5. Whatever exists and is experienced as a 'self' [individual ego] is the empirical mental self, not a soul that can survives physical death.

I once experienced my mind too.

You can in one way experience your empirical-mind-that-experiences, but that mind cannot be an independent mind in the sense of the independent soul that survives physical death.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How can the experience of the number 1 be justified through an FSK?

You can rely on your own common sense, the arithmetic, the counting FSK by your fingers.

Surely you can feel and experience the difference when you use one finger and two or more fingers?
There is also the difference to pointing with one finger and many fingers.
The existence of one finger can be corresponded with other singular unit of things and similarly multiple fingers with multiple things.

I said the experience of number 1, not one finger.

How are numbers purely experienced?

But what fsk justifies the counting fsk?

There is no such thing as an absolutely absolute number that is independent of the human mind. As such there is nothing of an absolute number to be experienced.

What the mind can experience is the concept of the number 1 in relation to things.
The grounding of this concept is based on the experience of the different fingers.

Point is counting of numbers is justified by the counting-FSK which is grounded on the experiences of the different fingers and using them to represent corresponding units of objects.

Our primitive ancestors from hundreds of thousands years ago would use one finger like the above image to represent the one sable-toothed-tiger he saw near to bushes to warn his tribe, or use two, three or more finger to correspond to the numbers of dangerous animals he saw.
This is the grounding of the counting FSK which obviously work and humans has adapted it in its evolution.

How come you are SO ignorant of the above and ask such basic questions??

[Age]

Yet multiple labels may be applied to the same thing.

So what?

One phenomenon may have multiple correct labels.

Do you have an example or examples?

If yes, then will you provide it/them?

Also noted is that I asked you two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you either MISSED or just COMPLETELY FAILED to answer.

1. If one phenomenon can have multiple different labels then their is no one label for ultimate reality.

NOT necessarily so AT ALL.

Also, what does the label 'ultimate reality' here, ACTUALLY refer to, to 'you'?

2. I already gave an example with the horse:


A horse may be called a:

Mammal
Mustang
Organism
Etc.

SO, do 'you' call a 'horse', "a phenomenon"?

If yes, then there is ANOTHER label, for 'you'.

By the way, I have NEVER heard ANY one call a 'horse', "a mammal", "a mustang", NOR "an organism". But the subtlety of this you may NEVER see and thus would completely MISS.

I have heard some human beings say, "a horse is a mammal", "that type of horse is a mustang", and "a horse is an organism". But I have NEVER heard ANY say, "a mammal" NOR "an organism" when referring to 'a horse', itself. And, when I have heard it said, "a mustang", then that was in reference to a type of 'horse'.

You may NOT be able to CLEARLY SEE what I am SAYING and POINTING OUT here, but what can be CLEARLY SEEN, from your words, is that you will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support the BELIEFS that you currently hold to be absolutely true.

[Eodnhoj7]

So what?



Do you have an example or examples?

If yes, then will you provide it/them?

Also noted is that I asked you two CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which you either MISSED or just COMPLETELY FAILED to answer.

1. If one phenomenon can have multiple different labels then their is no one label for ultimate reality.

NOT necessarily so AT ALL.

Also, what does the label 'ultimate reality' here, ACTUALLY refer to, to 'you'?

2. I already gave an example with the horse:


A horse may be called a:

Mammal
Mustang
Organism
Etc.

SO, do 'you' call a 'horse', "a phenomenon"?

If yes, then there is ANOTHER label, for 'you'.

By the way, I have NEVER heard ANY one call a 'horse', "a mammal", "a mustang", NOR "an organism". But the subtlety of this you may NEVER see and thus would completely MISS.

I have heard some human beings say, "a horse is a mammal", "that type of horse is a mustang", and "a horse is an organism". But I have NEVER heard ANY say, "a mammal" NOR "an organism" when referring to 'a horse', itself. And, when I have heard it said, "a mustang", then that was in reference to a type of 'horse'.

You may NOT be able to CLEARLY SEE what I am SAYING and POINTING OUT here, but what can be CLEARLY SEEN, from your words, is that you will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support the BELIEFS that you currently hold to be absolutely true.

1. The label ultimate reality refers to the totality of a group of things, there are multiple totalities of a group of things thus multiple ultimate realities. For example the ultimate reality of video games may be summates under x video game. The same applies for movies or jobs as well. This can be stated under "x is the ultimate" with x being a reality.

2. False a horse may be labeled a multitude of things. One can point to the horse and say mustang, mammal or organism without referring to it directly as a horse.

3. You may NOT be able to CLEARLY SEE what I am SAYING and POINTING OUT here, but what can be CLEARLY SEEN, from your words, is that you will say and 'try' just about ANY thing to 'try to' back up and support the BELIEFS that you currently hold to be absolutely true.