Reality is an Emergence

[Veritas Aequitas]

You need to buy a more sophisticated higher perspective glasses to view reality from a more realistic perspective.

You might like this book. I love this book. It is about Deleuze. You said you like continental philosophy. And most important, I think he is still alive.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l115g1jqk5hlu ... u.pdf?dl=0

https://www.amazon.com/Isolated-Experie ... =8-1-fkmr0

Deleuxe died in 1995.

I was quite serious into Deleuxe at one time. I have read most of his books [not easy to read], but his ideas did not stick with me like Kant's view on me.
However in general, the continental philosophers are mostly philosophical anti-realists and Deleuze as I recalled was in that mold improvising from Kant, Nietszche, Bergson, and others,
he is anti-Hegel,
he improvised and turned Leibniz and Spinoza's ideas upside down to support his own.

If you think Deleuze is a pure realist, i.e. philosophical realist, show me how he was one.

Btw, instead of throwing books at me, it would be preferable if you could summarize their main thoughts and indicate your views of their philosophical views.

[tapaticmadness]

I have just given you the example of a drop of water where it is a totality of all the relevant number of H20 molecules entangling among itself and the human conditions enabling the emergence of what-is-water.

Are you saying when you look at a drop of water, you referring to it in terms of identifying each H20 molecule in terms of space and time.
Surely this is a ridiculous option.

It is the same with reality as all-there-is, i.e. all the particulars entangled as what we called reality as conditioned upon human conditions.
Note I am not claiming there is an ontological whole of reality as what the Philosophical Realists would claim.

Note Realists like Plato claimed [as mentioned in Grossmann's] there is an independent World out there comprising of the universe and properties. Grossmann claimed they are in a relationship, i.e. entangled.

A drop of water is just a drop of water. It has nothing to do with H2O molecules Just as this desk I am sitting at is not at all the same as wood molecules. There is a radical difference between an everyday object and scientific, theoretical things. Difference, difference, difference.

You have a weird sense of what is real and truth.

Note this thread I raised;

• What is Really Real?
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

What are your views on the above, if it is the same as your above, it will reflect your very weird thinking.

If a group of people came across an old chopped and flattened tree stump and write notes on paper using a pen, is that a desk or an old tree stump?
We can call that a desk.
Someone could have taken that old tree trunk and put it in his hall for writing, etc. which is a way is a desk.
The point here is what is desk is merely conceptualized in the human mind[s].

It is not false to label that thing as;

1. An old tree stump
2. A desk
3. A piece of wood
4. A pack of cellulose
5. A bundle of molecules of C, H and O.

What grounds do you have to insist the above are false?

Here's how I ontologically analyze a drop of water. It is a bare particular exemplifying the universal form of a water droplet. Of course there are other universals exemplified also, such as color and feel and taste and weight and all kind of relations between it and other things.

Here's how I analyze an H2O molecule - I look in a chemistry book and try to find out what the latest thinking is one the topic.

I see a drop of water directly, but I cannot directly see a molecule.

Both the water drop and the molecule are really real. Not only various particular drops and molecules, but also the abstract schemata of such things. I think abstractions are really real. Still, they are all different kinds of things. Not one has primary existence while the others have secondary existence. They all have full existence. But they are different things.

As for whether a tree stump is a desk or not, if you see it as one then it is. It could also be a chair. Or a TV stand. It's all those things and they are all different. It's also just a stump. My point is that none of those things are just in my mind. They are really real things in the world.

[tapaticmadness]

You need to buy a more sophisticated higher perspective glasses to view reality from a more realistic perspective.

You might like this book. I love this book. It is about Deleuze. You said you like continental philosophy. And most important, I think he is still alive.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l115g1jqk5hlu ... u.pdf?dl=0

https://www.amazon.com/Isolated-Experie ... =8-1-fkmr0

Deleuxe died in 1995.

I was quite serious into Deleuxe at one time. I have read most of his books [not easy to read], but his ideas did not stick with me like Kant's view on me.
However in general, the continental philosophers are mostly philosophical anti-realists and Deleuze as I recalled was in that mold improvising from Kant, Nietszche, Bergson, and others,
he is anti-Hegel,
he improvised and turned Leibniz and Spinoza's ideas upside down to support his own.

If you think Deleuze is a pure realist, i.e. philosophical realist, show me how he was one.

Btw, instead of throwing books at me, it would be preferable if you could summarize their main thoughts and indicate your views of their philosophical views.

I never said that Deleuze is a realist, though I do think one could interpret his ideas in a realist way. I think he is a good analyst. I understand his elements of analysis as real things external to the mind. BTW, there is no one true real understanding of any philosopher. There is no one real true understanding of any religion. I understand all of them as realism. What Deleuze or any of the others would think of that is of no concern to me. I was referring to James Brusseau as being still alive.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A drop of water is just a drop of water. It has nothing to do with H2O molecules Just as this desk I am sitting at is not at all the same as wood molecules. There is a radical difference between an everyday object and scientific, theoretical things. Difference, difference, difference.

You have a weird sense of what is real and truth.

Note this thread I raised;

• What is Really Real?
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

What are your views on the above, if it is the same as your above, it will reflect your very weird thinking.

If a group of people came across an old chopped and flattened tree stump and write notes on paper using a pen, is that a desk or an old tree stump?
We can call that a desk.
Someone could have taken that old tree trunk and put it in his hall for writing, etc. which is a way is a desk.
The point here is what is desk is merely conceptualized in the human mind[s].

It is not false to label that thing as;

1. An old tree stump
2. A desk
3. A piece of wood
4. A pack of cellulose
5. A bundle of molecules of C, H and O.

What grounds do you have to insist the above are false?

Here's how I ontologically analyze a drop of water. It is a bare particular exemplifying the universal form of a water droplet. Of course there are other universals exemplified also, such as color and feel and taste and weight and all kind of relations between it and other things.

Here's how I analyze an H2O molecule - I look in a chemistry book and try to find out what the latest thinking is one the topic.

I see a drop of water directly, but I cannot directly see a molecule.

Both the water drop and the molecule are really real. Not only various particular drops and molecules, but also the abstract schemata of such things. I think abstractions are really real. Still, they are all different kinds of things. Not one has primary existence while the others have secondary existence. They all have full existence. But they are different things.

As for whether a tree stump is a desk or not, if you see it as one then it is. It could also be a chair. Or a TV stand. It's all those things and they are all different. It's also just a stump. My point is that none of those things are just in my mind. They are really real things in the world.

I did not insist those things are just in your mind as with a 'container' metaphor.

Note in your above points, however you actualized then describes the thing, the I , you and humans collectively is intricately involved in that actualization.

The formula is this;

• Human + human conditions collectively + whatever of X = emergence and actualization of X

When you speak or images X within your consciousness, that is a subsequent process to the above.

My point is one cannot insist there are independent particulars or universals, they inevitably require the participation of human[s] individually and collectively.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You might like this book. I love this book. It is about Deleuze. You said you like continental philosophy. And most important, I think he is still alive.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l115g1jqk5hlu ... u.pdf?dl=0

https://www.amazon.com/Isolated-Experie ... =8-1-fkmr0

Deleuxe died in 1995.

I was quite serious into Deleuxe at one time. I have read most of his books [not easy to read], but his ideas did not stick with me like Kant's view on me.
However in general, the continental philosophers are mostly philosophical anti-realists and Deleuze as I recalled was in that mold improvising from Kant, Nietszche, Bergson, and others,
he is anti-Hegel,
he improvised and turned Leibniz and Spinoza's ideas upside down to support his own.

If you think Deleuze is a pure realist, i.e. philosophical realist, show me how he was one.

Btw, instead of throwing books at me, it would be preferable if you could summarize their main thoughts and indicate your views of their philosophical views.

I never said that Deleuze is a realist, though I do think one could interpret his ideas in a realist way. I think he is a good analyst. I understand his elements of analysis as real things external to the mind. BTW, there is no one true real understanding of any philosopher. There is no one real true understanding of any religion. I understand all of them as realism. What Deleuze or any of the others would think of that is of no concern to me. I was referring to James Brusseau as being still alive.

The term 'realist' has been hijacked by the philosophical realist to insist what they represent is real and realistic. However, critical philosophical thinking expose philosophical realism as not reaistic per se.

I don't recall Deleuze as going in the direction of things are ultimately external to the mind.

You cannot simply every of them as realism and unqualified with contexts.
Whatever that is labelled 'realism' one must track that to the philosopher's ultimate view, either it is philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism.

E.g. Kant is an empirical realist, but his ultimate view is philosophical-anti-realism.

[tapaticmadness]

My point is one cannot insist there are independent particulars or universals, they inevitably require the participation of human[s] individually and collectively.

You bring everything back to the concept of the Social. One belongs of a collective unity or one doesn't exist. I HATE that. I DO NOT find my mind, my being, in the group.

[tapaticmadness]

Deleuxe died in 1995.

I was quite serious into Deleuxe at one time. I have read most of his books [not easy to read], but his ideas did not stick with me like Kant's view on me.
However in general, the continental philosophers are mostly philosophical anti-realists and Deleuze as I recalled was in that mold improvising from Kant, Nietszche, Bergson, and others,
he is anti-Hegel,
he improvised and turned Leibniz and Spinoza's ideas upside down to support his own.

If you think Deleuze is a pure realist, i.e. philosophical realist, show me how he was one.

Btw, instead of throwing books at me, it would be preferable if you could summarize their main thoughts and indicate your views of their philosophical views.

I never said that Deleuze is a realist, though I do think one could interpret his ideas in a realist way. I think he is a good analyst. I understand his elements of analysis as real things external to the mind. BTW, there is no one true real understanding of any philosopher. There is no one real true understanding of any religion. I understand all of them as realism. What Deleuze or any of the others would think of that is of no concern to me. I was referring to James Brusseau as being still alive.

The term 'realist' has been hijacked by the philosophical realist to insist what they represent is real and realistic. However, critical philosophical thinking expose philosophical realism as not reaistic per se.

I don't recall Deleuze as going in the direction of things are ultimately external to the mind.

You cannot simply every of them as realism and unqualified with contexts.
Whatever that is labelled 'realism' one must track that to the philosopher's ultimate view, either it is philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism.

E.g. Kant is an empirical realist, but his ultimate view is philosophical-anti-realism.

I have no idea what you mean by the word "realistic". It sounds like you are bending your knee to public opinion and the everyday commonsense of the hoi poloi..

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is one cannot insist there are independent particulars or universals, they inevitably require the participation of human[s] individually and collectively.

You bring everything back to the concept of the Social. One belongs of a collective unity or one doesn't exist. I HATE that. I DO NOT find my mind, my being, is the group.

You are into solipsism?

You are insisting on the idea of "universals".
The "group" humans-collectively or humanity is also a universal but not independent of humans.

Note I argued with RC re 'no man is an island.'
Theoretically, individualism make no ultimate sense because the human-collective is necessary to ensure the individual[s] survive generations after generations.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The term 'realist' has been hijacked by the philosophical realist to insist what they represent is real and realistic.
However, critical philosophical thinking expose philosophical realism as not reaistic per se.

You cannot simply {claim} every of them as realism and unqualified with contexts.
Whatever that is labelled 'realism' one must track that to the philosopher's ultimate view, either it is philosophical realism or philosophical anti-realism.

E.g. Kant is an empirical realist, but his ultimate view is philosophical-anti-realism.

I have no idea what you mean by the word "realistic". It sounds like you are bending your knee to public opinion and the everyday commonsense of the hoi poloi..

Note the thread I raised - mentioned above;

• What is Really Real?
  viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28996

Thus in contrast to unrealistic Philosophical Realism, what is really real to the Philosophical anti-realist is the following;

• To the Philosophical anti-realist , what is really-real about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality intra-dependently of our conceptual scheme.
  In philosophical terms, these objects are NOT ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Of course what is really-real must be justifiable empirically and philosophically [critical thinking at its finest].

Within philosophical realism, the given object is independent of the human conditions and is only connected with the individual person via waves and sense-data.
There is no way the individual person experiences the given object directly but separated by a reality-GAP, i.e. the gap between the person and the really-real given object.

This posed a lot of problems.
As Russell raised the question, when perceived one think there is a table out there, but perhaps there is no really-real table at all.

If you go back to the OP above,
what you experienced of a real convex-3D-Mask of Einstein is not actually a real 3D-Mask but a hollow concave mask.
In this case we are very sure, there is no real convex-3D-Mask of Einstein at all!

If the Philosophical Realist is ignorant of the experiment, he will insist what he observed is a real convex-3D-Mask of Einstein out there like everything else observed from common sense of hoi poloi.

My point is;
As a philosophical realist you actualized everything out there empirically as really-real, period!! without realization you are actually being "duped" by an illusion from one perspective.

The mechanics of this illusion is the same as demonstrated in the Einstein Mask Illusion experiment.

You are unable to detect you are 'duped' by an illusion in regard to normal every day thing because you are bending your knee to public opinion and the everyday commonsense of the hoi poloi.

[tapaticmadness]

My point is;
As a philosophical realist you actualized everything out there empirically as really-real, period!! without realization you are actually being "duped" by an illusion from one perspective.

I think we are irreconcilably different. I cannot understand how someone could be an idealist and you cannot understand how someone could be a realist. That is the end of the story. I do not belong to your idealist community. I am separate. But I doubt you could ever accept that. It seems to go against the very idea of idealism.

In like manner, an atheist will NEVER understand a theist and vice versa. A gay person cannot really understand a straight person and vice versa. And, I suppose, a politically conservative person will never understand a liberal and vice versa. The world is full of irreconcilable opposites and we just have to learn to live with it.

That said, I will be glad to defend my realism against your non-realism as long as you want. I love to write and I eventually put some things I write on this forum into my “book” or blog.

[tapaticmadness]

You are into solipsism?

You are insisting on the idea of "universals".
The "group" humans-collectively or humanity is also a universal but not independent of humans.

Note I argued with RC re 'no man is an island.'
Theoretically, individualism make no ultimate sense because the human-collective is necessary to ensure the individual[s] survive generations after generations.
[/quote]

Here is Roberto Calasso -

In a century as wracked by upheavals as was the nineteenth, the event that in fact summed up all the
others was to pass unobserved: the pseudomorphism between religious and social. It all came together not
so much in Durkheim’s claim that “the religious is the social,” but in the fact that suddenly such a claim
sounded natural. And as the century grew old, it certainly wasn’t religion that was conquering new
territories, beyond liturgy and cult, as Victor Hugo and many who followed him imagined, but the social
that was gradually invading and annexing vast tracts of the religious, first by superimposing itself on it,
then by infiltrating it in an unhealthy amalgamation until finally it had incorporated the whole of the
religious in itself. What was left in the end was naked society, but invested now with all the powers
inherited, or rather burgled, from religion. The twentieth century would see its triumph. The theology of
society severed every tie, renounced all dependence, and flaunted its distinguishing feature: the
tautological, the self-advertising. The power and impact of totalitarian regimes cannot be explained
unless we accept that the very notion of society has appropriated an unprecedented power, one previously
the preserve of religion. The results were not long in coming: the liturgies in the stadiums, the positive
heroes, the fecund women, the massacres. Being antisocial would become the equivalent of sinning
against the Holy Ghost. Whether the pretexts spoke of race or class, the one sufficient reason for killing
your enemies was always the same: these people were harmful to society. Society becomes the subject
above all subjects, for whose sake everything is justified. At first with recourse to a grandiloquent
rhetoric brutally wrenched from religion (the sacrifice for the fatherland), but later in the name of the
mere functioning of society itself, which demands the removal of every obstacle.

[tapaticmadness]

You have a weird sense of what is real and truth.

I think by "realistic" you mean not weird. I think my philosophy is probably more weird that you presently know.

If one is going to be a philosophical realist, as I understand realism, then there are a few principles that must be in place.

1. The Principle of Presentation. What is present to your awareness exists and what exists can be present to your awareness.
2. One experiences the various things that exist directly and up close. One does not merely think about them indirectly and at a distance.
3. The differences between things are real.
4. Reality comes at me like a lover. Existence is sexual.


The reason I object to all anti-realism is that it is cool and distant and existence is not a lover. It is not sexual. It is socially proper. It finally has no sense of the Other. Of the Other coming at you and beguiling you. Anti-realism is the philosophy of control freaks with nothing to control.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is;
As a philosophical realist you actualized everything out there empirically as really-real, period!! without realization you are actually being "duped" by an illusion from one perspective.

I think we are irreconcilably different. I cannot understand how someone could be an idealist and you cannot understand how someone could be a realist. That is the end of the story. I do not belong to your idealist community. I am separate. But I doubt you could ever accept that. It seems to go against the very idea of idealism.

In like manner, an atheist will NEVER understand a theist and vice versa. A gay person cannot really understand a straight person and vice versa. And, I suppose, a politically conservative person will never understand a liberal and vice versa. The world is full of irreconcilable opposites and we just have to learn to live with it.

That said, I will be glad to defend my realism against your non-realism as long as you want. I love to write and I eventually put some things I write on this forum into my “book” or blog.

I have no problem understanding how someone would be a realist [philosophical].
By default I was born a realist, i.e. every human is born a realist [philosophical].
I was a philosophical realist and a theist for a long time.

However upon deeper philosophical reflection and the relevant mental practices, I managed to gather a deeper understanding of reality and of my own self, thus graduating to be a philosophical anti-realist and a non-theist till the present.
Btw, I have not abandoned the concept of the independent empirical external world but have overlapped it with an intra-dependent external_ness of the world.

Yes the world is full of irreconcilable opposites - that is the philosophy of antinomy and dualism.
But there is always unity within diversity as in the Yin-Yang model of complementarity.
What is critical for humans is to recognize this irreconcilable opposites and tread along the Middle-Way as promoted in Buddhism and other philosophy then avoiding the extremes.

You can defend your philosophical realism but where are your justified arguments to support your view?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is Roberto Calasso -

In a century as wracked by upheavals as was the nineteenth, the event that in fact summed up all the
others was to pass unobserved: the pseudomorphism between religious and social. It all came together not
so much in Durkheim’s claim that “the religious is the social,” but in the fact that suddenly such a claim
sounded natural. And as the century grew old, it certainly wasn’t religion that was conquering new
territories, beyond liturgy and cult, as Victor Hugo and many who followed him imagined, but the social
that was gradually invading and annexing vast tracts of the religious, first by superimposing itself on it,
then by infiltrating it in an unhealthy amalgamation until finally it had incorporated the whole of the
religious in itself. What was left in the end was naked society, but invested now with all the powers
inherited, or rather burgled, from religion. The twentieth century would see its triumph. The theology of
society severed every tie, renounced all dependence, and flaunted its distinguishing feature: the
tautological, the self-advertising. The power and impact of totalitarian regimes cannot be explained
unless we accept that the very notion of society has appropriated an unprecedented power, one previously
the preserve of religion. The results were not long in coming: the liturgies in the stadiums, the positive
heroes, the fecund women, the massacres. Being antisocial would become the equivalent of sinning
against the Holy Ghost. Whether the pretexts spoke of race or class, the one sufficient reason for killing
your enemies was always the same: these people were harmful to society. Society becomes the subject
above all subjects, for whose sake everything is justified. At first with recourse to a grandiloquent
rhetoric brutally wrenched from religion (the sacrifice for the fatherland), but later in the name of the
mere functioning of society itself, which demands the removal of every obstacle.

Not sure what is your point.
It is supposed to be anti-religion?

[tapaticmadness]

My point is;
As a philosophical realist you actualized everything out there empirically as really-real, period!! without realization you are actually being "duped" by an illusion from one perspective.

I think we are irreconcilably different. I cannot understand how someone could be an idealist and you cannot understand how someone could be a realist. That is the end of the story. I do not belong to your idealist community. I am separate. But I doubt you could ever accept that. It seems to go against the very idea of idealism.

In like manner, an atheist will NEVER understand a theist and vice versa. A gay person cannot really understand a straight person and vice versa. And, I suppose, a politically conservative person will never understand a liberal and vice versa. The world is full of irreconcilable opposites and we just have to learn to live with it.

That said, I will be glad to defend my realism against your non-realism as long as you want. I love to write and I eventually put some things I write on this forum into my “book” or blog.

I have no problem understanding how someone would be a realist [philosophical].
By default I was born a realist, i.e. every human is born a realist [philosophical].
I was a philosophical realist and a theist for a long time.

However upon deeper philosophical reflection and the relevant mental practices, I managed to gather a deeper understanding of reality and of my own self, thus graduating to be a philosophical anti-realist and a non-theist till the present.
Btw, I have not abandoned the concept of the independent empirical external world but have overlapped it with an intra-dependent external_ness of the world.

Yes the world is full of irreconcilable opposites - that is the philosophy of antinomy and dualism.
But there is always unity within diversity as in the Yin-Yang model of complementarity.
What is critical for humans is to recognize this irreconcilable opposites and tread along the Middle-Way as promoted in Buddhism and other philosophy then avoiding the extremes.

You can defend your philosophical realism but where are your justified arguments to support your view?

Where are you trying to go with your philosophy? Are you aiming to grasp "Truth", to help mankind, to have a clear, rational mind, to be a good citizen? For me, philosophy is pleasure only. i think about God and existence and the Platonic Forms and I am turned on. And in the process, I have no doubt failed to be a good citizen and take proper care of my property. I am obsessed with/possessed by God and philosophical thought. If you think I am decadent and immoral, that is nothing to me. I see you as a moral, normal, middle-class, ordinary, good person who is sincerely concerned with helping mankind and you have a philosophy proper to such a person.