I see some current contentions which have a relatively invisible crux with respect to the concept of real. I’m increasingly doubtful that the concept means very much. I think ‘real’ or ‘reality’ is probably a mostly needless reification over several different and not fully compatible distinctions. Note this is largely a cold take in a good part of my circles, but it’s not yet common knowledge, and so seems worth laying out explicitly.
It doesn’t seem like a primate nervous system comes out of the box with a notion of “reality”. Experiences are meaningful with respect to our values, capacities, and channels for meaning, regardless of their truth values or the accuracy of our world-models.
Certainly, there are lies, and there are dreams, and there are hopes that do not come true. On the other hand, there is mathematics, and there are models of deep time (let alone QM or Tegmark levels), which we cannot touch but still believe in.
Physicalism has no account of the truth of logical statements, nor does logical consistency of the predictive power of physical models. Nor, importantly, do either of these on the emotional and psychological reality of violence, music, winning, or love. These are just some important kinds of realities.
There have been various attempts to construct reifications of the various realities which we encounter, in terms of one another, or grounded in some metaphysical ontic, which is never to be found. I have yet to see an account of ontology which can do anything but wave its hands or stomp its feet when it comes time to narrow down what “reality” actually is. I see this as making the same mistake as “is it really a blegg?”
This is the basic mechanism of reification. I claim that reification is simply the process of the construction of salience or weight, phenomenologically.
Furthermore, I have yet to see an account which captures all of the realities under one roof. “That which cannot be denied” might almost suffice, but some of these views lead people to deny experience whatsoever.
This doesn’t mean you should start believing in magic. (Though, having messed around with this stuff, some kinds of magic seem to be much more real than I had originally thought.)
I’ll be direct about what I’m contesting here: it’s not clear how we should regard the ontological status of prayer, meditative experiences, “energy practices”, etc. I think that existing reified ontological theories are causing a good amount of trouble in figuring this out–on both sides. Traditional theories of these phenomena are also high reified and confused.
This is a legitimate question for me, I’m not a committed hippy trying to convert people to my side. I’m quite confused as to how to regard these phenomena, and I’m very frustrated by the quality of current conversations about them.
Attempting to Deconstruct “Real”
I see some current contentions which have a relatively invisible crux with respect to the concept of real. I’m increasingly doubtful that the concept means very much. I think ‘real’ or ‘reality’ is probably a mostly needless reification over several different and not fully compatible distinctions. Note this is largely a cold take in a good part of my circles, but it’s not yet common knowledge, and so seems worth laying out explicitly.
It doesn’t seem like a primate nervous system comes out of the box with a notion of “reality”. Experiences are meaningful with respect to our values, capacities, and channels for meaning, regardless of their truth values or the accuracy of our world-models.
Certainly, there are lies, and there are dreams, and there are hopes that do not come true. On the other hand, there is mathematics, and there are models of deep time (let alone QM or Tegmark levels), which we cannot touch but still believe in.
Physicalism has no account of the truth of logical statements, nor does logical consistency of the predictive power of physical models. Nor, importantly, do either of these on the emotional and psychological reality of violence, music, winning, or love. These are just some important kinds of realities.
There have been various attempts to construct reifications of the various realities which we encounter, in terms of one another, or grounded in some metaphysical ontic, which is never to be found. I have yet to see an account of ontology which can do anything but wave its hands or stomp its feet when it comes time to narrow down what “reality” actually is. I see this as making the same mistake as “is it really a blegg?”
This is the basic mechanism of reification. I claim that reification is simply the process of the construction of salience or weight, phenomenologically.
Furthermore, I have yet to see an account which captures all of the realities under one roof. “That which cannot be denied” might almost suffice, but some of these views lead people to deny experience whatsoever.
This doesn’t mean you should start believing in magic. (Though, having messed around with this stuff, some kinds of magic seem to be much more real than I had originally thought.)
I’ll be direct about what I’m contesting here: it’s not clear how we should regard the ontological status of prayer, meditative experiences, “energy practices”, etc. I think that existing reified ontological theories are causing a good amount of trouble in figuring this out–on both sides. Traditional theories of these phenomena are also high reified and confused.
This is a legitimate question for me, I’m not a committed hippy trying to convert people to my side. I’m quite confused as to how to regard these phenomena, and I’m very frustrated by the quality of current conversations about them.