Reality

Language is much like the tools we use to create sculpture, or build a home. We can use these tools with brute force, to create gravel of the sculpture or kindling of the house, or we can use the appropriate tool at the appropriate time to create things of beauty, practicality, and/or necessity.

When we do not use language correctly, not the nit picky sort of "correctly" but where the very meaning of a word, or the very thing to which is supposed to be explained, is necessarily cast into shadow at best, we are akin to the wannabe scultor who decides that his only tool will be the sledgehammer. Hitting the rock may feel satisfying, but it will not bring out the fine detail that creates beauty, nor can it create functional items.

I am not speaking merely of the sort of confusion that many have over the use of "who" and "whom" but rather the confusion that some have over the very meaning of basic words. Specifically I have in mind a set of words that are all connected by their reference: real, reality, reason, true, truth, etc

How many times have you heard someone say one of the following:

"well it is real to them"
"That is their reality"
"Well that is your reality"

Or something along these lines?

What is real? That which actually is. So is Santa claus real? Nope.. not even for those children who believe. They believe that there is a Santa Claus, but they are mistaken in that belief, just as I would be mistaken if I believed that the earth was flat. We can hold a belief strongly and that belief can still be mistaken. Having a belief does not make the subject of that belief real.

What is reality? Reality is what is. Nothing more nothing less, reality is simply that which exists. So when someone tries to use "reality" to dismiss a point, a perspective, or to add some importance to something specific to an individual, they are literally uttering non-sense. The word when used in plural or divided means nothing, refers to nothing. "My" reality, is identical to "your" reality, because reality is simply what is.

Usually when the word is so abused, the speaker means something along the lines of "their experience" or "their lifestyle" or "their belief" or "their occupation" or any amongst a long list of other possible meanings. Since the term refers only to what actually exists, it fails to refer to that which the speaker wishes for it to refer, at the same time that it contributes to the clouding of the water so that understanding is more difficult if not impossible.

To put it another way, it prevents true communication from happening.

"True" simply means "corresponds to reality" so all of the problems that arise with the abuse of "reality" also arise with the abuse of "truth."

X is not true FOR someone, unless it is true FOR everyone. X may be true OF someone but not another, but these are specific claims, such as John is tall, the barn is red, etc. which can be verified and are not dependent upon some belief or another, but upon the nature of reality.

More later.. though I believe that I may address some other topics before returning to this one..

A slight turning

I had intended this blog to be simply a place to post those responses to what I catch on the news, or from other sources that I would like to send, but for various reasons choose otherwise. Usually this is out of the desire to stay off the radar, else to simply avoid the troubles that can come from speaking out on what is right, and against what is wrong. Those who know me, know that I am far from silent on these two subjects, but there are lines I try not to cross, lines that will garner me as an individual more attention than I desire. Especially since it is never about the person, but always about the ideas and truth.

With that in mind, I have decided to expand this blog to include some responses/reactions to other items, to things that others say and do, to incidents not on the news, but in my own life. I will still post the original sorts of letters with the same infrequency as they have appeared already, but hopefully will be posting the reactions to more common, more mundane if you will, sorts of events and occurances.

So with that in mind, a recent event, the one that spawned this change for many reasons, begs for some attention here.

In a discussion with a friend, we found ourselves at loggerheads over what I believe to be simple but crucial notions. This lead to the realization that there were different attitudes at play, different approaches to the discussion of ideas, as well as different meanings being used, which of course means that what appeared to be communication was nothing more than a fun house illusion of communication.

Consider words.. What gives them meaning? Some would say that we (each) determine their meaning by use, but what does this tell us? It could tell us that we each have a private language, which shares words, but not necessarily meanings, with the private languages of others. If this is the case, then when you say "barn" I may think of a mild vegetable which grows from vines. This does not seem to be the way that we communicate, or the way that we use words in general. Of course we know this from the misuse of words, such as the example here would indicate, but also from the fact that words point to something. If we are confused or uncertain of the meaning of "barn" we can physically point to a barn. This is true for a vast number of the words we might use, regardless of language. This even works for verbs, as to demonstrate the meaning of "running" or "to run" we need only demonstrate that action, so clearly this is not limited to nouns alone.

Words have meaning based upon the connection to that to which they refer. Consider a word to be a pointer to some item or action. The word itself may be unimportant in that it could take almost any form (though languages usually develop along defined paths for a reason) but regardless of the specific pronounciation, that to which it points (the barn for instance) remains the same.

When we converse we seldom think about the possibility of error. We do not consider that one or the other of us may have been misinformed as to the meaning of a word, or we may be sloppy in our usage, or perhaps we simply uttered the wrong word. If the other already has a given opinion, which happens to coincide with what was uttered, though not what was intended, then it is not unlikely that the intended meaning will be lost by the actual meaning of what was uttered.

This is just the first point of contention, but without this one simple element of common ground, without this connection to reality, communication will not happen.

We must understand what the words are referring to, without this we are simply are not communicating, the pointers are not pointing to anything..

More later..