Jason Joel Thompson wrote,
> ...One everything? You can't apply useful modifiers to a
> such a concept.
Nevertheless, a modified reality is not thereby a pluralized reality.
Definitions are, of necessity, almost always tautologies. It's the nature of
language.
> Instead I believe that many intelligent people use the term 'reality' to
> refer to something distinct-- a true state of being that is seperate from
> our perception of it. This is a concept that I refer to as "worshipping
> reality" and I think it contains many of the same belief elements as
> organized religions. It is a belief in something of which we do not have
> direct experience.
If it's real, it is by definition part of reality.
Obviously you can invent as many imaginary "realities" as you like.
But if you have multiple realities, the question remains: By what term or word
will you refer to the sum of all realities? And is not the sum of all of them a
single set?
> I'm just running out the door, so I can't really address this right now, but
> I'm certain you'll agree there is value in making the distinction between
> reality and our perception of it.
No problem with that -- it doesn't contradict that fact of one reality.
--J. R.
"Something beckons within the reach of each of us
to save heroic genius. Find it, and do it.
For as goes heroic genius, so goes humankind."
--Alligator Grundy, _Analects of Atman_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:50 MDT