reply to post by Kruel
Very well stated. I would venture to say that our perception of reality is what defines that reality.
Perspective owns all. If we percieve it to be fake, then it is, for the entity perceiving. That perspective may differ for other individuals involved
I was recently involved in another discussion where the OP would not accept my arguments as valid because they dealt with realities that were
"unreal" in the proveable sense (Spiritual realms, etc). The OP for that thread felt that my version of reality was "unreal", where I obviously
perceived it to be "real". By the same token, I perceived his notions as not entirely "real", while he was certain that his views were most
Reality, existence, being, as we know it, is a collabrative and cooperative effort between a myriad of "personalities". Personality here being the
description of a perceived entity as being "individual", or as containing it's own nature, whether it be impacted by other natures or perceived as
not. Personality will here define any object, entity or group of objects recognizable as having form, physical or metaphysical.
These myriad personalities are in a constant dynamic relationship that is both cooperative, and collaborative. "Real" and "Unreal" are in fact
descriptions of the same thing, from different perspectives. Both perspectives being wholly "real" in the sense that they can be experienced and
observed, both independently or simultaneously.
Reality is a dynamic illusion of such complexity and extent that I don't believe our limited sensory bodies allow for complete understanding of it's
I would maybe break it down, vaguely, into two categories:
1. Personal experience
2. Interpersonal experience
Personal experience would define an experience, or reality, in which only the experiencer is aware of said reality. The only observer being the entity
who is experiencing the reality. From this perspective, "objective" observers not direcftly experiencing the manifestation of said reality will deem
it as fale, fantastic, imaginary, fake or unreal. While the entity experiencing the reality will undoubtedly call it true, experiential, and real.
Interpersonal experience would describe experiences which are verifiable as having been experienced by multiple entities, all agreeing said event was
a shared manifestation, or reality.
Much of what we take for granted as being "reality" fals into category 2. Much of what is discussed here falls into category 1. Still, even more
than both individualy, many experiences fall into both realms of perceiving.
Reconciling the two can be very difficult, if at all possible. It gets really awkward when we begin asking, "Are these other entities I am perceiving
as being here with me, inhabiting this space along my side, also real? Or are they just manifestations of my conscious states"? When we begin asking
this question many of our ideas regarding "experience" and even "Self" come into question.
Typically, humanity identifies what is real with my second category of perception, interpersonal. That which is independently verifiable enough times
becomes known as fact. We take for granted the things around us. We take for granted the natural order that seems to keep us here, and the planets in
orbit. We take for granted that we ourselves exist and we take for granted that the people/entities around us exist.
When we ask what is real, we have to destroy all foundations and begin from just that, the beginning.
Descartes has an excellent statement, "I think, therefore I am". This is a solid statement. My awareness of my self as being an entity capable of
pondering it's awareness as an entity capable of pondering awareness suits a solid ground for personal consciousness. So, from this logic I can
ascertain that I do, indeed, exist in some sense.