Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[thrasymachus]

And just a note: intersubjectivity is question begging, no? What, after all, is the "subjectivity" in the term intersubjectivity'? If this has no meaning, then the term falls apart.

[B0R5]

First of all, thank you deeply for your thoughtful and substantive critique — this is precisely the kind of reflection that the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR) needs at this stage of its development. Each of the objections you raised points to important ontological, epistemological, and linguistic tensions that require not just answers, but deeper contemplation. I do not claim that the theory is complete — quite the contrary: voices like yours genuinely shape its future. Below, I respond to each point, not in the spirit of defensiveness, but of collaborative dialogue.

1. “What exactly is the ‘field of recognition’?”
Agreed — the term “field of recognition” needs clarification. It is not meant to denote a static space of perception, but rather a dynamic field of interaction among conscious beings, in which acknowledgment, meaning, and the persistence of things are negotiated. You’re absolutely right that recognition is a temporal event, already steeped in prior layers of meaning. TCR assumes this: it is not “pure” perception we’re speaking of, but an act that is already interpretive — linguistic, cultural, historical. In other words: when we say that something “appears as real,” we mean that it enters the structure of time, sense, and interaction — never “out of nowhere.” Thank you for highlighting this nuance — it will directly influence how the concept of the field is further developed.

2. “One dissent is enough to make something unreal? That seems arbitrary.”
This is a valuable objection. Agreed — a literal reading of “one dissent makes it unreal” would be oversimplified and arbitrary. In truth: it's not about a numerical vote, but about a threshold of coherence within a community of consciousness. That threshold is not mechanical — it can be flexible, depending on context, language, and intention. The binary image (“everyone agrees = reality”) was used as an idealized illustration, not a definitive mechanism. Your comment shows that I need to develop a more nuanced model of the consensus threshold — one that could include strength, duration, and the kind of acknowledgment involved. This objection opens an important door — thank you.

3. “Language doesn’t function like a tally of agreement; meaning always depends on context.”
Fully agreed — and I did not mean to suggest that existence depends directly on a simple verbal act. Rather: what stabilizes as real in shared space must pass through language — but language understood broadly: as the whole symbolic structure, not just utterances. Thinkers like Derrida and Wittgenstein are indeed allies here, though not necessarily direct sources. Your point emphasizes that TCR must treat the notion of “agreement” not as a binary point, but as a process. This will be taken into account.

4. “You use the term ‘reality’ vaguely: what about suffering, fire, pain?”
This is a foundational issue that must be incorporated into the further development of TCR. The idea of “stabilization as reality” is not meant to deny the intensity of experience, such as pain or fire. You’re absolutely right: pain doesn’t require verbal acknowledgment to be real to the one who suffers. But TCR does not say that something “doesn’t exist” without consensus — rather, that it doesn’t stabilize as part of the shared, durable human reality. In other words: pain is real, but only its integration into language, communication, care, and culture makes it real for us, as a community. This indicates that TCR needs a second level: between individual reality and shared reality. I am grateful to you for showing this tension.

5. “Consciousness is not localized — the brain is not a mirror of reality.”
Fully agreed. TCR is not naturalistic in a reductionist sense. Consciousness is primary to reality in TCR — it is consciousness that contains the world, not the other way around. Rorty, Quine, Putnam — they all touch here on the paradox of representation. TCR tries to avoid this not by rejecting reality, but by shifting it: from an “objective out there” to a “relational here” — that is, into the space of intersubjective exchange. And yes, I agree with Marion that this space will never be full, because transcendence — whether of God or Being — always exceeds it. But even if reality “in itself” remains a mystery, the reality “between us” is practically the only one in which we live and act. And that’s the space that TCR seeks to describe — not as an absolute, but as a practical structure.

6. “Intersubjectivity is a question, not an answer: what is ‘subjectivity’ anyway?”
Exactly. This question goes straight to the foundation. TCR assumes that subjectivity is not given, but co-created — precisely through relations with other conscious beings. “Intersubjectivity” is therefore not a settled premise, but an operational hypothesis: a way to think about how mutual recognition of things, meanings, and beings comes about. Your question forces a deepening of this aspect: what kind of “I” is the participant in the consensual field? Is it ontologically primary, or relationally constituted? These questions are not yet resolved within TCR — but they will be, thanks to reflections like yours.

In conclusion
Your critique is invaluable, because it not only highlights potential ambiguities — it drives the theory forward. Each point you raise touches on essential tensions: between the individual and the shared, pain and language, transcendence and communication. TCR does not claim to offer final definitions, but hopes to be a tool for thinking about a reality that — as you yourself put it — “is always already within us.” I am deeply thankful that your words help me better hear what I myself am trying to articulate.

With gratitude and openness to further dialogue,

[thrasymachus]

B0R5 wrote

First of all, thank you deeply for your thoughtful and substantive critique — this is precisely the kind of reflection that the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR) needs at this stage of its development. Each of the objections you raised points to important ontological, epistemological, and linguistic tensions that require not just answers, but deeper contemplation. I do not claim that the theory is complete — quite the contrary: voices like yours genuinely shape its future. Below, I respond to each point, not in the spirit of defensiveness, but of collaborative dialogue.

You're very welcome. Nice to see someone is thinking about things I consider important. But I am not clear as to your direction. Who do you read that is going to be the center of thought in your TCR? There are few (if any) who read phenomenology in this forum (or even know what the idea means). Most look to speculative science (and understand very little about basic questions). Anyway, you must have a body of derivative thought that makes for a foundation (for absolutely nothing is truly original. Even Kant had Hume, Locke, Aristotle, and so on).

At any rate, I hope you don't mind if I brain storm responses. I do drift here and there.

1. “What exactly is the ‘field of recognition’?”
Agreed — the term “field of recognition” needs clarification. It is not meant to denote a static space of perception, but rather a dynamic field of interaction among conscious beings, in which acknowledgment, meaning, and the persistence of things are negotiated. You’re absolutely right that recognition is a temporal event, already steeped in prior layers of meaning. TCR assumes this: it is not “pure” perception we’re speaking of, but an act that is already interpretive — linguistic, cultural, historical. In other words: when we say that something “appears as real,” we mean that it enters the structure of time, sense, and interaction — never “out of nowhere.” Thank you for highlighting this nuance — it will directly influence how the concept of the field is further developed.

And why not pure perception? Even if something is interpreted IN the act of perception itself, how does this preclude the "pure" givenness of a phenomenon? Sure, it seems right to say that a system of symbolic thought "in play" (thinking here of Derrida's Structure, Sign and Play") cannot produce any context-free truth, nor, thinking as a physicalist, can an idea possess any "pure" path to any object (how does the world "get into" my knowledge claims "about" it?), nor can a concept be anaytically reduced to a discovery of what is not language, and it certainly does seem right when Heidegger says the object and the language are "of a piece" thereby delimiting the understanding to what language (the house of being) says. ALL of this is just an apophatic nihilism, a critical process that is entirely set against metaphysical affirmation (metaphysical here referring to "that of which one cannot speak") throwing objections at the mere thought. YET: look at this matte as Michel Henry does: "reduce" that before you to its pure presence, and eventually, if you are so inclined, the phenomenality of the "thing itself" will appear with increasing manifestness. Henry holds that Husserl's "epoche" leads only to one place: a complete "bracketing" of states of affair, of familiarity, of all that belongs to that historical totality that one sees the world "through"--a total suspension of interpretative imposition! And the world and its objects (beings) are finally seen as if for the first time. Pure eidetic seeing. He writes:

The reduction is the setting free of the essence which cannot be reduced
and which subsists alone as a condition. The reduction therefore
introduces us into the sphere of the absolute. (Manifestation of Essence)

There is, prior to language's grasp that tells us things are what they are (beings), the singular and foundational primordiality of givenness itself, free of the interpretative tendency. I take this cup, grab it, stare at it, run fingers around its form and feel the presence: to say this is ALL run through with interpretation is right, because you ask me what it IS, and I will tell in the interpretative medium my language gives me. But essentially there, with great emphasis of the value dimension of it being there, the caring, interest, meaning, associated desires, and so on, there is a radical undeniability. Philosophers don't like to admit this because it is saying there really IS a metaphysical foundation of our being-in-the-world, and since this cannot be spoken directly, but only askew, obliquely, then its meaning is askew and oblique, and this is the opposite of being a "radical undeniable" foundation. The assumption is that if language cannot say it clearly, as positivists have it, then the truth of it cannot be significant! Some people cannot get beyond strict categorical thinking.

I think if one is going to draw up a thesis about reality and intersubjective consensus, one has to take on this appeal to pure phenomenality, after all, looking at it simply from a Cartesian pov: can it at all be doubted that in this encounter with my cat, nothing at all is "there"? Henry is all over this, and if he is right, this radicalizes philosophy, that is, to affirm an "absolute". Of course, that term 'absolute' belongs to language. One hs to move toward Heidegger's Greek notion of truth as alethea. This is not about truth tables in a boring class on inductive logic. Truth is in the disclosure, the "unhiddenness" of the world language brings to being. But then, what IS it that is "becoming" unhidden? Henry says the answer to this enigma lies in pure phenomenality.

Very few in the US read Henry. He is a tough read because he is embedded in continental philosophy. But he is right.

2. “One dissent is enough to make something unreal? That seems arbitrary.”
This is a valuable objection. Agreed — a literal reading of “one dissent makes it unreal” would be oversimplified and arbitrary. In truth: it's not about a numerical vote, but about a threshold of coherence within a community of consciousness. That threshold is not mechanical — it can be flexible, depending on context, language, and intention. The binary image (“everyone agrees = reality”) was used as an idealized illustration, not a definitive mechanism. Your comment shows that I need to develop a more nuanced model of the consensus threshold — one that could include strength, duration, and the kind of acknowledgment involved. This objection opens an important door — thank you.

You're welcome, but I write because thinking about phenomenology is my idea of a good time.

Everyone agrees=reality: Language is inherently agreement, clearly. And if Heidegger is (sort of) right, and language is the house of being, then agreement and being are indissolubly bound together. As I see it, the important thing is be first descriptive, that is, to resist the temptation to argue until the world has been observed in good faith, so as not to construct contrived thinking out of mere discursivity (as analytic philosophy does. See, e.g., a pet peeve of mine, the Gettier problems). Reality has to be discovered (notwithstanding Rorty). If language is all that can be said, and language access to being exhausts meaning vis a vis reality, then Heidegger stops us at the threshold of eternity (not a linear infinity. See Heidegger's time) for language binds the world to thought in meaning. There would be no beings, with an 's', without language, no universals (dogs, clouds, computers, etc.) that allow one to affirm particulars and say, Look, there's a cloud! (Kant of course holds the analysis for this). Saying reality issues from intersubjective agreement must reach into the object as such, and for a dog to be a dog, this belongs to a thousand contextual possiblities about dogs--cats, breeds, eating habits, social tendencies, and on and on. This is Heidegger's "space'. He doesn't use the term 'reality' but central to his thought is 'being' because this is a Greek term and he wants to use the ancient Greek thinking to reconceive philosophy. Being, ousia" (οὐσία) refers to the essence of something, and Heidegger uses this a LOT. He is a Kantian, and assumes the Copernican Revolution, but not just for an analysis of reason, but for the whole of being which is disclosed IN us, in dasein.

It is a dissertation, really, to get to the bottom of phenomenology. But to understand reality, one must go deeper into the interiority of human existence, down to the very encounter with the "uncanniness" that lies in the indeterminacy of all things: concepts are "open" because they are in time, and time is a movement into an unmade future, so the future is the indeterminacy of the concept as it is "played" in everydayness. Seeing my pen on the table, I not only know what it is prior to the seeing, but that recollection is inherently forward looking, anticipating, thatis, as I see it, know it, I am also in the same act of recognition, anticipating what it will "do" in the forward looking experiential encounter. Reality has just this structure. As you say, the real is not some stationary thing; rather, being stationary, like this cup on the table, is an implicit affirmation of what it IS: the kind of being that sits quietly and is useful and has a predictable appearance (interesting note: compare this to the scientific method, which is about repeatable results. Every time the cup comes into view, it affirms that it is a cup. Withdraw my gaze, and this recedes into the background again; look again, and the "result" of the looking is the same. Reality is confirmed in the very structure of this method, the conditional proposition: IF I lay eyes on the cup, THEN its designation as a ccup is confirmed, not at all unlike what science explicitly does. We are all scientists walking down the street, and every glace, every step where the foot yields to the sidewalk, then lifts just so.....all to affirm the "theory" we call walking down the street. Step on a steep crack, trip, and all eyes are now on the anomaly, the corrective. This IS science. Reality IS method.

3. “Language doesn’t function like a tally of agreement; meaning always depends on context.”
Fully agreed — and I did not mean to suggest that existence depends directly on a simple verbal act. Rather: what stabilizes as real in shared space must pass through language — but language understood broadly: as the whole symbolic structure, not just utterances. Thinkers like Derrida and Wittgenstein are indeed allies here, though not necessarily direct sources. Your point emphasizes that TCR must treat the notion of “agreement” not as a binary point, but as a process. This will be taken into account.

Context, and there is no final context, no final vocabulary, as Rorty says. But Rorty was a language, pragmatist philosopher, and he didn't think "non propositional" truth made sense. Truth, he argued, is something sentences have, and there are none of these over there in the woods. Heidegger's alethea is a radically different kind of truth: This object (an idea, a mood, a bicycle) appears, and therein lies truth, "primordial" truth in the essential presence that is presupposed in any proposition. Certainly logical truth, the structure of propositions and truth tables that outline this, still abides, but prior to this is simply that the world is given. This is very hard for most people to grasp because they have, and this includes me and everyone else, beneath it all an educational and experiential body of implcit assumptions that rests with common sense and science, and these pretty much pay no attention at all to basic questions, like the kind Kant asked about logic. Science doesn't think things "appear," they are just laying around in a physical present-at-hand way. Phenomenology is a radical idea compared to this thinking. But a scientist's reality has no ontology, or, a scientist's ontology is instantly assailable. How, Kant asked, are synthetic apriori judgments possible? Science doesn't even know how this is a questin at all, yet it goes to the foundation of knowledge and being.

Ignoring Kant, as anglo american philosophy does, has led to a crisis in philosophy, a dumbing down of basic issues to very rigorously conceived (not dumb at all. Just read Quine or Dennett or Strawson or any of them) yet vacuous (snow is white if and only if snow is white?) thinking about reality, or rather, about arguments that seem to be about reality but are really about themselves. Reality without metaphysics is NOT reality.

4. “You use the term ‘reality’ vaguely: what about suffering, fire, pain?”
This is a foundational issue that must be incorporated into the further development of TCR. The idea of “stabilization as reality” is not meant to deny the intensity of experience, such as pain or fire. You’re absolutely right: pain doesn’t require verbal acknowledgment to be real to the one who suffers. But TCR does not say that something “doesn’t exist” without consensus — rather, that it doesn’t stabilize as part of the shared, durable human reality. In other words: pain is real, but only its integration into language, communication, care, and culture makes it real for us, as a community. This indicates that TCR needs a second level: between individual reality and shared reality. I am grateful to you for showing this tensi

on.

"Makes it real for us" is loaded. Keep in mind that it is consensus that also makes what is real unreal. It is a reduction of Kierkegaard's original wonder, filled with depth of meaning, to the platitudes of ordinary living. Once the ancient mind conceived of Gods because reality was a powerful imposition that came from no where, absent of the confidence that the modern "consensus" gives to all things-- now the sun is fusion reactor, as are the stars, and the black of night is filled electric light. Interesting question: Does General Motors exist (is it real)? There was a time when it was nothing at all, but this "consensus" produced it almost ex nihilo. We talk about GM, recognize it as a company with thousands of employees, and so forth, but when philosophy asks whether it exists, it becomes problematic: can reality be brought into existence just like that? If you and I form a club, and you are the ceo and I your subordinate and we gather acorns to plant oak trees and name ourselves The Oak Club, TOC, have we summoned into "reality" a new existence, so to speak? My parents named me, and so I "am" Constance (not really), and so this verb "to be" is seriously in play wherever I go. My "being" indeed was summoned into...being. How does one parse this out?

We use these terms casually and in contextually variable ways. Being and reality are not the same. Being refers to the very 'to be' which is pervasive in language. Being is language, and its ability to confer meaning, turning being to beings (of course, language is certainly not language as a body of utterances sitting like some superstructure upon a foundation of the real.; not a "tag" or a stratum. Language is as deep as experience itself, and contexts of meanings, Hegel's zeitgeists, are not a divine evolving rationality incarnate, but something entirely tout autre. So does GM exist? Look at it as a phenomenologist: it has two existences or realities: one is the everydayness fo throwing the term around, and in this world meanings come and go. Things conceived in language in remote reaches of aboriginal societies, say, are completely lost now. And yet, they did exist as events, as pragmatic utilities, as institutions people talked about and centered their affairs around. When I think of a unicorn, the event, the actuality of the thinking is REAL! Unicorns are not. Analytic talk about reality has to be able to draw a line like this, a line between what societal meanings are in play, and what the foundational reality of their existence, so to speak, IS.

5. “Consciousness is not localized — the brain is not a mirror of reality.”
Fully agreed. TCR is not naturalistic in a reductionist sense. Consciousness is primary to reality in TCR — it is consciousness that contains the world, not the other way around. Rorty, Quine, Putnam — they all touch here on the paradox of representation. TCR tries to avoid this not by rejecting reality, but by shifting it: from an “objective out there” to a “relational here” — that is, into the space of intersubjective exchange. And yes, I agree with Marion that this space will never be full, because transcendence — whether of God or Being — always exceeds it. But even if reality “in itself” remains a mystery, the reality “between us” is practically the only one in which we live and act. And that’s the space that TCR seeks to describe — not as an absolute, but as a practical structure.

Then you are in Rorty's world, and Rorty read Heidegger and Wittgenstein and Dewey and Derrida. But is your reality foundationally pragmatic? Heidegger went way beyond this. I mean, "the space that TCR seeks to describe" is this Heidegger's space? See Being and Time and his account of "deseverance": Walk into a classroom, see the desks, chair, whiteboard, etc. and in the glancing around you turn to the lectern, and notice notes sitting on the top, and now what you know about notes, lecterns, referring, taking notes, standing before a group and speaking, perhaps nervous, perhaps authoritative, and all of this "hovers" like a halo (Husserl's term. See how he puts it, referring to the

heeding of Objects of consciousness which seizes upon and picks them out.
It is likewise obviously true ofall such mental processes that the
actional ones are surrounded by a“halo” of non-actional mental processes;
the stream of mental processes
can never consist of just actionalities.


This "halo" is a totality of localized language possiblities that apply to whereever one is, and it is "desevered" (which is Heidegger's word for stepping into an environment of specified relevance, and having language emerge to occupy the "space" of apprehension), that is, dispositional made occurrent, in analytic terms, in the "consensus" of terminology that discloses being. Language IS a consensus of regional, that is, contextual, possibilities that is historical in nature (Hegel).

6. “Intersubjectivity is a question, not an answer: what is ‘subjectivity’ anyway?”
Exactly. This question goes straight to the foundation. TCR assumes that subjectivity is not given, but co-created — precisely through relations with other conscious beings. “Intersubjectivity” is therefore not a settled premise, but an operational hypothesis: a way to think about how mutual recognition of things, meanings, and beings comes about. Your question forces a deepening of this aspect: what kind of “I” is the participant in the consensual field? Is it ontologically primary, or relationally constituted? These questions are not yet resolved within TCR — but they will be, thanks to reflections like yours.

Your are in Heidegger's world, then. Not Husserl's. But see how Heidegger brings subjectivity and objectivity (intersubjectivity) together. I discover reality in this locality of myself (dasein), yet it is a reality that is public (the they), and as I come to awareness of my "there being" and I realize that I exist (derived from Kierekgaard) I can wield this inherited constitution to be what I say it will be, and this is freedom (interesting to note, Kierkegaard called this inherited, rather than original, sin: this fascination with culture, and the "habits of the race" over God---God discovered in the existential breach of the integrity of this normalcy and familiarity that one experiences when one asks the fateful questions that go to the foundations of our existence. For me, it's Why are we born to suffer and die? which is the existential foundation for religion).

[B0R5]

1. Who do you read, who is supposed to be the center of thought in your TCR?
We do not base the TCR (Theory of Consensual Reality) on any external authority, but treat the Revelation of God as the source of ontological truth, and consciousness as the instrument of recognition. Our “center” is therefore not a specific philosopher, but the act of co-creating and sustaining reality by conscious beings — thus, consensus, not citation, is our point of departure. Philosophers are mirrors, but not sources.

2. But why not pure perception?
Because “pure” perception is already a myth. Perception always implies interpretation — it is filtered through the structures of consciousness, language, memory, and socialization. What we call perception is already a consensual interpretation of stimuli.

3. How does the world “get into” my statements about knowledge “of” it?
The world “gets into” our statements through a process of symbolic mediation. Language, as a social tool, stabilizes meanings in a community, but those meanings are not absolute — they are updates to the original contract of understanding. Knowledge of the world is thus knowledge within the consensus.

4. Is it even possible to doubt that in this encounter with my cat, there’s nothing “there” at all?
This doubt is legitimate only as a thought experiment. Phenomenologically, the experience of the cat is real — it has intersubjective consequences and confirms itself in the consistency of consensus. The cat “is,” because I see it, I speak of it, others respond to it. Its reality is a shared relational fact.

5. But then, WHAT is it that “becomes” unconcealed?
It is the event of co-existence — the revealing of a being in the web of relational consciousness. In TCR, unconcealment is not the arrival of a “thing” in isolation, but the integration of a being into the dynamic consensus that grants it a role, a name, a meaning.

6. Does General Motors exist (is it real)?
Yes, but not as an object — rather, as a consensual structure with agency, meaning, and social force. Its existence is conditional on collective recognition and participation. It “exists” in the way that currencies, nations, or clubs do.

7. If you and I create a club, and you’re the CEO, and I’m your subordinate, and we gather acorns to plant oaks, and call ourselves The Oak Club — have we summoned a new existence into “reality,” so to speak?
Yes — we’ve created a new layer of consensual reality. The club has a name, structure, purpose, and identity — all of which affect our behavior and perception. It is real within the social web that sustains it.

8. How to break this down?
By analyzing the conditions of emergence: naming, shared intention, repetition, external acknowledgment. TCR treats such formations as consensus-based realities — neither illusions nor substances, but constructs sustained by agreement.

9. So does GM exist?
Yes — conditionally and intersubjectively. It exists not as a physical entity per se, but as a reality of roles, documents, effects, and expectations. It is part of the second-order reality created by conscious cooperation.

10. But is your reality fundamentally pragmatic?
It is fundamentally relational — which includes pragmatic dimensions, but transcends them. Pragmatism speaks to what “works,” while TCR focuses on what “sustains” shared being. Functionality is a symptom of harmony within the consensus.

11. I mean, is “the space that TCR tries to describe” the space of Heidegger?
Partly. Heidegger's ontological difference and emphasis on unconcealment align with TCR’s dynamic view of being. But TCR adds a layer: a theological and interpersonal dimension, seeing reality as a shared project of consciousness under the guidance of divine order.

12. But look how Heidegger connects subjectivity and objectivity (intersubjectivity)?
Indeed — and TCR affirms this move. Intersubjectivity is the ground of reality. But where Heidegger stops at Dasein’s openness, TCR claims this openness is dialogical, not monological — and ultimately rooted in the consent of created beings with their Creator.

13. For me, it’s: Why are we born to suffer and die?
TCR does not deny suffering or death. It frames them as conditions of the learning environment that reality constitutes. We are not born to suffer — we are born to know love, freedom, and being through contrast. Suffering is the shadow that reveals the light. Death is not an end, but a return to the meta-consensual source.

Closing Tribute
Without the courage, depth, and relentless questioning of all the great philosophers before us, the Theory of Consensual Reality could never have come into being. Every axiom of TCR echoes the ancient echoes — from Plato’s forms to Kant’s categories, from Aquinas’s synthesis to Heidegger’s clearing, from Augustine’s heart to Wittgenstein’s language-games. TCR does not seek to overthrow them, but to integrate them — to become, God willing, the final dot over the “i” in the word reality.

[Good_Egg]

For something to be fully real, it must exist in the shared field of recognition — that is, as a conjunction of perceptions, meaning it is co-experienced or co-acknowledged by conscious beings.

This doesn't deny the possibility that something might exist "in itself."
But from the standpoint of lived and shared reality, only what enters the intersubjective web — what can be seen, spoken, agreed upon — becomes stabilized as real.

But there is no single "intersubjective web" or "field of shared experience".

If there are two (functionally-adult) humans in a room with a zebra, it will be part of their shared reality, real-to-them. And they will find a way to communicate about it, even if they start with no shared language.

If there are two such humans in a room with a shared language that includes the word/concept "zebra", they will be able to communicate about zebras even if there is no zebra within a thousand miles.

But the set of humans on the planet includes tribes that have no experience of zebras, no concept of zebras and no word for zebras.

And also children who are too young to have encountered and retained the concept of zebra even though they are growing up in a culture that has the concept and a word for it.

So it seems to me that any description of "shared reality" is a greatly-simplified one, useful at an early stage of explanation. And a more accurate usage would be explicit as to who shares what, and to whom zebras are real.

With an added complication. Some cultures and subcultures have a word for zebra and a shared belief that these exist. But it is possible to have the concept but believe that this is a mythical creature like a unicorn that doesn't exist. Or for the culture to have the word but be agnostic about the existence. E.g Foreigners claim to have seen these things but they may be lying. The existence of zebras may be a "private truth" but not a "public truth" within the culture.

[B0R5]

The Zebra and the Problem of Objectivity — TCR from a Meta-Level Perspective
In the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR), we affirm that the objective world — created by God, absolute and coherent — truly exists, but it is no longer fully accessible to us, because our images of reality have become too fragmented. The shared foundation has been obscured by overlapping layers of local, cultural, and individual consensuses which, though necessary, are not identical with the truth.

The Zebra as an Example of Epistemological Fragmentation
The "zebra problem" — whether it is real, known, shared, or merely imagined — illustrates how what is real to one group may be a myth to another. The word zebra can refer to:

a concrete animal (when experienced jointly),

a symbol (when heard about but not confirmed),

a mythical or ambiguous concept (when the word is known, but belief in its reality is lacking).

Meta-Level: We All Know, But Must Pretend Not To
At the meta-level — the deep layer of primordial awareness — we all know everything.
That is, each conscious being has access to truth, inscribed in it by God (or through the foundational unity of being).
But the conscious act of pretending not to know is the price of participating in consensual reality.

This is why children — who have not yet joined the “game” — must learn to pretend that they don’t know what a zebra is, or gravity, death, or God.
This learning process is called socialization: the initiation into the local theatre of reality, whose scripts have long been rehearsed.
The more a culture has drifted from the source (the ontological consensus with God), the more painful, complex, and senseless this learning becomes.

My Reflection: Truth Is Not Content — It Is Memory
It’s not knowledge about the zebra that determines its reality, but rather the capacity to remember the truth at the moment aligned with the order of reality.
Thus, “returning to truth” is not a matter of acquiring new data, but of cleansing the image — so we may again see it together.

This leads to something profound:
A “zebra” exists not when we see it, but when we stand together in readiness to affirm it.
And such affirmation is not merely a cognitive act — it is a moral, relational, and spiritual one.

[boyjohn]

Hi everyone,
I'm new here, and I joined because I’ve been working on an idea that tries to bring some structure to how we think about reality. It’s not a finished system or rigid theory — more of a framework in progress, open to critique and refinement.

I don’t have a formal degree in philosophy yet, though I’m seriously considering starting a Master’s program in the near future. For now, I treat philosophy as a discipline of honest thought and shared inquiry — and I’d really appreciate thoughtful engagement from people who see things differently.

The core question driving my thinking is:
How can we meaningfully talk about “reality” when everyone seems to experience it a bit differently?
Is there a minimal shared ground we can stand on — without falling into relativism or rigid dogmatism?

The working name for the framework is The Theory of Consensual Reality. It assumes that what we consider “real” emerges from a kind of ongoing consensus between conscious beings — not just socially, but ontologically. I’m still working through the implications, and I’d be grateful for any feedback, challenges, or questions.

Thanks for reading — looking forward to the conversation.

Hi Could I ask where do you stand on reality. is it of the mind, of the world or some other conception?

[B0R5]

Thank you for a very thoughtful question — it touches the heart of what I’m trying to explore with this framework.

In my current approach, called The Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR), reality is neither purely "in the mind" (as in idealism), nor purely "out there" (as in naive realism). It’s something in between — emerging as a dynamic consensus between conscious beings.

That means:

Consciousness plays a central role in shaping what we consider real — but not in a purely subjective way. Rather, reality arises through co-participation.

The “world” is not just a raw collection of data, nor is it a delusion — it is a stabilizing image that emerges from shared agreement between perspectives.

This consensus happens on multiple levels: biological (perception), social (language), spiritual (revelation), scientific (paradigm), cultural (value).


In other words, reality is not “in the mind,” nor “outside the mind,” but “between minds” — and at the same time, rooted in something greater than those minds (in my view: the revealed structure of reality, which can be recognized but not invented).

I’d love to develop this further or hear how you might see it differently. Your question is a great doorway into deeper reflection.

[Pattern-chaser]

The Zebra and the Problem of Objectivity — TCR from a Meta-Level Perspective
In the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR), we affirm that the objective world — created by God, absolute and coherent — truly exists...

TCR hidden-Axiom #1 — Objective Reality exists.
TCR hidden-Axiom #2 — God exists.
TCR hidden-Axiom #3 — God created Objective Reality.

...but it is no longer fully accessible to us, because our images of reality have become too fragmented. The shared foundation has been obscured by overlapping layers of local, cultural, and individual consensuses which, though necessary, are not identical with the truth.

I don't quite understand this bit. But, if you know certain things are not "identical with the truth", *how* do you know? And what is the standard of truth that enables you to make this comparison?

Meta-Level: We All Know, But Must Pretend Not To
At the meta-level — the deep layer of primordial awareness — we all know everything.
That is, each conscious being has access to truth, inscribed in it by God (or through the foundational unity of being).
But the conscious act of pretending not to know is the price of participating in consensual reality.

Your TCR shows every sign of being an approach to fundamental Christianity, in disguise. And we apparently all know about it, but pretend that we don't know, in the name of "consensual reality"? I think some clarification might be in order here?

[boyjohn]

Thank you for a very thoughtful question — it touches the heart of what I’m trying to explore with this framework.

In my current approach, called The Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR), reality is neither purely "in the mind" (as in idealism), nor purely "out there" (as in naive realism). It’s something in between — emerging as a dynamic consensus between conscious beings.

That means:

Consciousness plays a central role in shaping what we consider real — but not in a purely subjective way. Rather, reality arises through co-participation.

The “world” is not just a raw collection of data, nor is it a delusion — it is a stabilizing image that emerges from shared agreement between perspectives.

This consensus happens on multiple levels: biological (perception), social (language), spiritual (revelation), scientific (paradigm), cultural (value).


In other words, reality is not “in the mind,” nor “outside the mind,” but “between minds” — and at the same time, rooted in something greater than those minds (in my view: the revealed structure of reality, which can be recognized but not invented).

I’d love to develop this further or hear how you might see it differently. Your question is a great doorway into deeper reflection.

I myself having been looking in to the idea of "Truth". And find many similar question you raise regards " reality" As for truth i have came to the conclusion there is no final or absolute truth to be discovered. There is only various truths at any one time. And furthermore theses truths are always contingent be scientific, religious , political , moral an so on. I feel you could be heading to a similar conclusion with reality ?

[Good_Egg]

Meta-Level: We All Know, But Must Pretend Not To
At the meta-level — the deep layer of primordial awareness — we all know everything.
That is, each conscious being has access to truth, inscribed in it by God (or through the foundational unity of being).
But the conscious act of pretending not to know is the price of participating in consensual reality.

This is why children — who have not yet joined the “game” — must learn to pretend that they don’t know what a zebra is, or gravity, death, or God.
This learning process is called socialization: the initiation into the local theatre of reality, whose scripts have long been rehearsed.

I'd answer that your ignorance may be a conscious act of pretence, but mine is real.

If conversely you allow that we all experience ignorance as real, then is it unreasonable to ask for evidence that it isn't ?

The “world” is not just a raw collection of data, nor is it a delusion — it is a stabilizing image that emerges from shared agreement between perspectives.

This consensus happens on multiple levels: biological (perception), social (language), spiritual (revelation), scientific (paradigm), cultural (value).

In other words, reality is not “in the mind,” nor “outside the mind,” but “between minds” — and at the same time, rooted in something greater than those minds (in my view: the revealed structure of reality, which can be recognized but not invented).

Something emerges from the consensus of minds in communication, yes. And that something influences our perception of "raw data".

But you are using the label "reality" for that something. And then going back on yourself to suggest that reality is something deeper that is "revealed" (to whom ? By whom ? How ?)

Whereas I would call that something "culture" and include in that term not only values but also language and ideas about what exists.

[B0R5]

Pattern-chaser

Objective reality — created by God — exists independently of our perceptions. However, our access to it has become obscured over time by layers of local consensuses. When I say that something is “not identical with the truth,” I’m referring to the primordial Revelation — the fullness of meaning inscribed by God into every conscious being.

The meta-level refers to that deep layer of the self where truth is not learned but remembered. TCR holds that participating in consensual reality requires a temporary “suspension” of that knowledge — much like the act of incarnation in Christianity.

So this is not pretending in the sense of deception, but rather a necessary forgetting — one that makes shared experience possible and opens the path toward rediscovering the truth.


boyjohn

Thank you for your reply — you touch on a very important issue concerning the nature of truth.
Allow me to address one point: if we accept that no objective truth exists, then the statement “there is no objective truth” itself cannot be true — which leads us to a paradox of self-refutation. This logical contradiction indicates that there must be some level of truth that is not dependent on perspective.

In my understanding — and here we approach the foundations of the Theory of Consensual Reality (TCR) — objective truth does exist, but it is not directly accessible. It can be known only through revelation, i.e., through an inner awakening of consciousness to a meaning that was previously hidden. This is not limited to religious revelation alone but is a broader phenomenon in which reality breaks through into consciousness with fullness of meaning.

I am not certain if I describe TCR well — it is a very abstract theory, still in the process of formation. But this is precisely why I greatly appreciate conversations like this. I have a deep conviction that at this stage, it is not about having ready answers but about asking questions about what reality actually is. Is it objective? And if not — then what is it?

TCR is developing by a method of elimination. I have noticed that the current scientific paradigm has reached a boundary: attempts to explain the problem of observation affecting measurement in quantum mechanics lead to an impasse. That is why I am searching for a different language — perhaps a more metaphysical one — that can better help us understand what the act of knowing is and what it is that we know.

Good_Egg

Ignorance appears to me as the only way to explain that we do not fully understand how this system works, while at the same time we ourselves have co-configured and shaped it. I’m not dogmatic about this, but if we do not acknowledge ignorance, it means we did not participate as potential beings in shaping all the laws of nature and did not give our consent to existence — instead, someone forcibly placed us here.

In this context, I distinguish two layers of reality:
the first is the absolute, primordial layer — where everything is arranged according to God’s order, a fullness of harmony and structure, which as conscious beings we strive toward;
the second is the consensual reality — the one we create among ourselves, through culture, language, and values, but which is marked by evil, sin, and suffering.

[boyjohn]

Ah the paradox not my most loved concept. But I can refute if I may. My suggestion was that there is no final/ absolute truth(s) to de discovered. I am not disagreeing objective truth, only that it is provisional, contingent. For example' Everest is the highest mountain in the world objectively true. But it is provisional /contingent on Everest being the highest mountain in the world. It is entirely possible even probable that one day Everest will not be the highest mountain in the world. And so it is with reality whether objective or subjective reality, realist or anti- realist reality is not some discoverable static state!

[thrasymachus]

boyjohn wrote

I myself having been looking in to the idea of "Truth". And find many similar question you raise regards " reality" As for truth i have came to the conclusion there is no final or absolute truth to be discovered. There is only various truths at any one time. And furthermore theses truths are always contingent be scientific, religious , political , moral an so on. I feel you could be heading to a similar conclusion with reality ?

Most who think like this are simply reading the wrong things, especially philosophy whichis inherently nihilistic, that is, dead set against affirmation because philosophical affirmation is the end of philosophy (and the same can be said about religion) as the latte, simply put, IS inquiry that stands entirely open. There is no closure to religion except closure that comes from outside of discursivity, discourse, exposition, you know, thinking!; that is, faith and its leap into metaphysics, the "pure" openness of the foundation of our existence, will not examine what faith is, and when it does, you end up with bad metaphysics, theology and its dogmas. BOR5, posting above, doesn't know it, but he sits in this rocky boat of dogmatic affirmation, yet announces certainty---in my book, almost as bad as the blind belief in churchy fetishes (my derisive little term)!
But is this just an inevitability? And no true affirmations possible in metaphysics? This is the question facing religious inquiry that is in earnest. Wipe the slate clean and ask, what IS religion, anyway? For only here does one discover, not religion, but the existential ground for religion, and the ground for affirmation.
It is not BOR5 consensus, but one has to understand consensus, that which make shared knowledge shared, common, available for all. I don't think BOR5 is altogether wrong, but he seems unwilling to do the work of thinking, and consider: a society thinks its way," if you will, INTO itself through that which is thought and the generations of thinking that gave rise to this "medium" of possibilities. Only thought can get one out of the hard set assumptions that ground this. And philosophy's nihilistic work is exactly for this one thing, the undoing of assumptions.
Alas, to carry forth with this takes a radical philosophy, not the empty spinning of wheels of anaytic philosophers. It takes a radical phenomenology.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser

Objective reality — created by God — exists independently of our perceptions. However, our access to it has become obscured over time by layers of local consensuses. When I say that something is “not identical with the truth,” I’m referring to the primordial Revelation — the fullness of meaning inscribed by God into every conscious being.

The meta-level refers to that deep layer of the self where truth is not learned but remembered. TCR holds that participating in consensual reality requires a temporary “suspension” of that knowledge — much like the act of incarnation in Christianity.

So this is not pretending in the sense of deception, but rather a necessary forgetting — one that makes shared experience possible and opens the path toward rediscovering the truth.

Ah, so this "TCR" actually is a religious theory. There's nothing wrong with that, but I find the secrecy a bit confusing. It would've been clearer and easier if you'd just started out honestly. Maybe you could've placed this into the religious forum?