Jack!JackDaydream wrote: ↑July 7th, 2022, 1:08 pmIt does seem that it is seeing from different angles and making links. The particular issue, which you introduced me to about 6 months ago was that of Kant's understanding of the way Schopenhauer translates Kant's idea of 'the thing in itself' down to the human will as an aspect of this. This seems important because it makes consciousness imminent as opposed to transcendent. This is compatible with the idea of emergent consciousness. However, it does still leave the question of order in the universe. Maths looks at this, and the laws of physics raise questions about the manifestation of order amidst chaos as a background, like the Gnostic demuirge.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 5:56 pmJack!JackDaydream wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 4:13 pmHello, the division between inner and outer, mind and matter, as well as subjective and objective do all hinge on how the nature of what is real in emphasis. I do see the splitting of these qualities as problematic, especially when taken to the extremes of such position. However, even when I try to go beyond such dualistic thinking it still seems debatable to what extent they can be blended entirely without going towards one of the aspects of duality.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 11:47 am
Jack!
RE: So, what is the most 'real' reality?
If we ask to what extend we find ourselves in a mind-dependent reality, which is in itself logically necessary (that it requires a consciousness) to even apperceive reality, then we must recognize the primacy of the mind itself. Accordingly, that would lead us to some form of philosophical Subjectivity. And to some extent, the concept of Subjective Idealism would correspond. In short, Subjective truth's that result from that sense of self-awareness, is "most real" to most people.
In that context, your question of what is real or imaginary, would be answered Subjectively by saying both. In other words, no distinction can be made. This is not to deny an external objective existence or reality, it's just to invoke primacy of the subject over the object. And those truth's are real to us and no one else (sort of).
As you say it requires 'to perceive a reality'. This seems to go back to the question as to whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it? This throws the issue of the nature of perception as being connected to the mind, and possibly subjective idealism. Part of the problem is that it is not possible to get out of the mind and perceive without a mind. To a large extent, the validation of reality beyond one's own mind is consensus shared perceptions. That is often how inner and outer are put together in thinking about the nature of reality, but it does often seem that many people seem to come down to the philosophy of realism, with the objects of the material world being primary, and I am not sure that this bias is not too strongly towards physicalism, especially in the understanding of consciousness. Nevertheless, I will admit that the idea of a disembodied mind does seem questionable.
Excellent point about 'if the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it' riddle/phenomenon. This corresponds to things like Kantian neumenon, objectivity, ideal forms, realism, among many abstract philosophical concepts that give us a sense of some things having an independent existence. And that is to emphasize that different language's are required to decode the informational database in order to even attempt understanding the Transcendence of the Subjectivity-Objectivity dichotomy (from our epistemology).
The simple example to the former is that a metaphysical language of mathematics is required to explain the physics of sound waves. The paradox of that particular understanding of sound without a human to hear it, results from something metaphysical (mathematics) describing something physical (sound waves). Our abstract understanding of gravity is yet another example... . And that's in spite of the problem with unchanging objective truth's associated with abstract reasoning (mathematics) that describ change (dualism in the universe). In any event, there is no consistent object-to-object, physical-to-physical, metaphysical-to-, metaphysical language to help reconcile parts if this 'reality' paradox.
All that is to say pure objective reasoning that science uses (mathematics), can also correspond to a platonic existence, independent of our reality. But there again another paradox rears its head, because if it takes a human to appercieve, cognize, or otherwise appreciate mathematics, how could it correspond to something outside of us, having an independent existence? Hence, Subjectivity is, 'more' real (using your phrase) to most all people. And that suggests consciousness itself, takes primacy. Henceforth, the idea of an ordered intelligence within, as well as outside, the universe.
I think, among others, Kant and Schopenhauer understood that dynamic in their metaphysical philosophy... . Einstein's block universe contemplates an independent objective view of space-time. Is that real or an illusion, I wonder?
As humans we can only see from the human perspective, and the many disciplines all contribute. But, it does seem like there is some inherent organisation principle and even the notion of the survival of the fittest suggests order within evolution and, perhaps, consciousness itself is one of the underlying purposes within evolution. This may be compatible with the cosmological anthropic principle, in conjunction with Schopenhauer's understanding of Will. Somehow, this could bring the ideas of Western and Eastern metaphysics together, and with reference to the findings of sciences, especially the ideas of quantum physics. In this way, even though there are many angles and ways of seeing 'reality' it may be possible to build bridges between the various viewpoints.
Yes. Understood. Eastern Metaphysics tries to embrace more of a Monist view of existence v. a Pluralist or Dualist view. And in turn, that's part of what your OP is about, I think. As in, which means and method is the best approach for understanding either type of truth, or a truth about certain aspects of reality...or how do we reconcile a dualist phenomena nonetheless(?).
Since we can never know all the inner workings or shall I say 'design', of things-in-themselves, the true nature of reality does remain as somewhat of a phenomenon. Accordingly, and to your broader scope of Eastern thought, (not to mention the western concepts associated with The Unity of Opposites), that approach to Being is one possibility that can conceivably start here:
In its most basic form, phenomenology attempts to create conditions for the objective study of topics usually regarded as subjective: consciousness and the content of conscious experiences such as judgements, perceptions, and emotions. Although phenomenology seeks to be scientific, it does not attempt to study consciousness from the perspective of clinical psychology or neurology. Instead, it seeks through systematic reflection to determine the essential properties and structures of experience.[3]
There are several assumptions behind phenomenology that help explain its foundations:
Phenomenologists reject the concept of objective research. They prefer grouping assumptions through a process called phenomenological epoché.
They believe that analyzing daily human behavior can provide one with a greater understanding of nature.
They assert that persons should be explored. This is because persons can be understood through the unique ways they reflect the society they live in.
Phenomenologists prefer to gather "capta", or conscious experience, rather than traditional data.
They consider phenomenology to be oriented toward discovery, and therefore they research using methods that are far less restrictive than in other sciences.[4]
Jack, even though the phenomenological approach focuses in on the individual's subjective-ness, it does rely on empirical data to arrive at certain conclusions regarding that which is 'most' real (almost like cognitive science/psychology). But there again, I believe we would want to try for a synthesis of opposites, in order to help explain what is real, hence (U/O):
Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force.
For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.
The principles of the metaphysical philosophy gave rise to the belief that, when cognition lapsed into contradictions, it was a mere accidental aberration, due to some subjective mistake in argument and inference. According to Kant, however, thought has a natural tendency to issue in contradictions or antinomies, whenever it seeks to apprehend the infinite. We have in the latter part of the above paragraph referred to the philosophical importance of the antinomies of reason, and shown how the recognition of their existence helped largely to get rid of the rigid dogmatism of the metaphysic of understanding, and to direct attention to the Dialectical movement of thought.
But here too Kant, as we must add, never got beyond the negative result that the thing-in-itself is unknowable, and never penetrated to the discovery of what the antinomies really and positively mean. That true and positive meaning of the antinomies is this: that every actual thing involves a coexistence of opposed elements. Consequently to know, or, in other words, to comprehend an object is equivalent to being conscious of it as a concrete unity of opposed determinations.
There are many many manifestations towards the tendency to dichotomize things whether its everyday discourse in arguing for either/or, or the epistemic need to have the opposite to understand the antecedent. I think the most real way of intellectualizing reality or otherwise just plain thinking would be to at least incorporate that thought process into one's philosophical approach. If nothing else, be aware of its dynamic.