Political Crossfire Forums

[flextone]

he phrase ‘the map is not the territory’ encapsulates the first. We respond to the world
around us through the five senses and how we perceive things. This involves a complex
set of filters, which turn outside reality into subjective experience – in other words,
‘experience’ unique to the person and based upon their beliefs, values, feelings, life
experience and so on. We then act according to our filtered map of the world – the only
world we know. We cannot know reality because of the way our mind structures and
processes it as ‘experience’. Our mental map seems like reality, but in fact can never
equate to reality, or the ‘territory’. The NLP presuppositions in the next chapter reflect
these important fundamental concepts.
These processes inter-relate with other systems, both inside the person and also
embracing the people around and the wider environment. We act not independently,
but systemically and holistically. So we cannot isolate any part of these systems – such
as a specific behaviour – from the rest.

Alder, Harry. Handbook of NLP : A Manual for Professional Communicators.

So then is it ever possible to truely know reality or just have our own experience of it?

i`d love to hear your opinions
thanx



flextone
"my mind is a roulette"

[Saf]

This is, basically, the Kantian epistemological view: we can never know things in themselves, because all experience is predicated on the fact that we bring our own concepts and conditions to experience. Personally, I disagree.

[Phædrus]

I'd just like to say that NLP is crap - albeit well intentioned.

[scorch]

I suggest reading the Tao Te Ching:

http://www.nokama.com/tao/index.cfm?fuseaction=main



To answer your question, yes and no :P

[Striated]

Regardless of the personal "filters", humans know of a common reality - if not many. Our collective understanding of the basic metaphysical parameters for reality proper, such as the concept of chairness, illustrates an "a priori" acceptance of a common - and perhaps true - reality.

Underneath this sort of self-serving instinct, however, there are realities - physical and metaphysical - that humans cannot sense. Whether or not those variables and matrices construct a one, true reality is indeed a possibility.

[goblue]

flextone wrote: he phrase ‘the map is not the territory’ encapsulates the first. We respond to the world
around us through the five senses and how we perceive things. This involves a complex
set of filters, which turn outside reality into subjective experience – in other words,
‘experience’ unique to the person and based upon their beliefs, values, feelings, life
experience and so on. We then act according to our filtered map of the world – the only
world we know. We cannot know reality because of the way our mind structures and
processes it as ‘experience’. Our mental map seems like reality, but in fact can never
equate to reality, or the ‘territory’. The NLP presuppositions in the next chapter reflect
these important fundamental concepts.
These processes inter-relate with other systems, both inside the person and also
embracing the people around and the wider environment. We act not independently,
but systemically and holistically. So we cannot isolate any part of these systems – such
as a specific behaviour – from the rest.

Alder, Harry. Handbook of NLP : A Manual for Professional Communicators.

So then is it ever possible to truely know reality or just have our own experience of it?

i`d love to hear your opinions
thanx
I think reality and experience go hand in hand. You might even be able to put "event" with reality and experience. Everyone's reality will be different if they experience something different. Reality isn't just one thing. Reality is whatever you're experiencing as a human being. If you jump into a 70 degree pool it will be cold to the human being. But maybe not to a polar bear. Some people will be able to go above the five senses of: see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and develop a sixth sense. Those people are able to tap into a higher power or God for an additional sense which would give them strength, inspiration, and direction. They then could head into the fourth dimension where reality is better than it appears to be.


flextone
"my mind is a roulette"

[goblue]

flextone wrote: he phrase ‘the map is not the territory’ encapsulates the first. We respond to the world
around us through the five senses and how we perceive things. This involves a complex
set of filters, which turn outside reality into subjective experience – in other words,
‘experience’ unique to the person and based upon their beliefs, values, feelings, life
experience and so on. We then act according to our filtered map of the world – the only
world we know. We cannot know reality because of the way our mind structures and
processes it as ‘experience’. Our mental map seems like reality, but in fact can never
equate to reality, or the ‘territory’. The NLP presuppositions in the next chapter reflect
these important fundamental concepts.
These processes inter-relate with other systems, both inside the person and also
embracing the people around and the wider environment. We act not independently,
but systemically and holistically. So we cannot isolate any part of these systems – such
as a specific behaviour – from the rest.

Alder, Harry. Handbook of NLP : A Manual for Professional Communicators.

So then is it ever possible to truely know reality or just have our own experience of it?

i`d love to hear your opinions
thanx



flextone
"my mind is a roulette" I think reality and experience go hand in hand. You might even be able to put "event" with reality and experience. Everyone's reality will be different if they experience something different. Reality isn't just one thing. Reality is whatever you're experiencing as a human being. If you jump into a 70 degree pool the reality is it will be cold to the human being. But maybe not for a polar bear. Some people will be able to go above the five senses: see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and develop a sixth sense. Those people are able to tap into a higher power or God for an additional sense which would give them strength, inspiration, and direction. They then could head into the fourth dimension where reality is better than it appears to be.

[Fido]

flextone wrote: he phrase ‘the map is not the territory’

So then is it ever possible to truely know reality or just have our own experience of it?



flextone
"my mind is a roulette"

It is possible to know reality through our maps. It is possible to have finite knowledge of realty through our senses. What we have to understand is the limits of each. Concepts are our maps. Concepts classify what is perceived, and so it involves a judgment, and this judgment is what allows us to say we have knowledge. So, if these concepts, which to an extent are A Priori, are not considered to have a greater reality than the reality they reflect, then these concepts, and maps, if you will, are useful, and help us use knowledge, and to accumulate knowledge. We have to recognize also the inability of our concepts to describe, or to illuminate the infinite in our lives. In order to have a true sense of the identity of any thing we perceive we must first see the end of it. If a quality, like space, or existence, or time is seriously conceived the effort is soon found foolish, since we may grasp at them all we like and have them not at all. Our map of the infinite would be infinite itself, and not fit in our glove-box or car.

[garyd]

The question then becomes what do we mean when we say reality. My 'map is to me quite real as no doubt yours is to you but is there some reality beyond that is essentailly in some manner unknowable and if it is essentially unknowable does it in the broader context actually matter?

[Fido]

garyd wrote: The question then becomes what do we mean when we say reality. My 'map is to me quite real as no doubt yours is to you but is there some reality beyond that is essentailly in some manner unknowable and if it is essentially unknowable does it in the broader context actually matter?

Infinite reality, and infinite knowledge is beyond our grasp. We cannot say for example whether there is a God, or know with certainty any attribute of God. Still we have a word, and everyones version of faith, and so we still have something we can know, and certainly something to deal with. What we know is literally what we can grasp, and so can objectify. What we know can be comprehended in space and time, and so is finite. God, which might be said to contain space and time cannot be grasped, and so cannot be conceived.
Why the unknowable actually matters is because the less anything can be conceived of the more we relate to it emotionally. People cannot objectively measure God, nor truth, nor justice, and so the conceptions we do hold with the names are a key to feelings and apprehensions, fears and affections. It is the subjective reactions to these qualities that makes them truly dangerous. People don't do wrong on the basis of calm reflection, but upon emotional reaction.

[garyd]

Sorry but people go wrong on the basis of calm reflection quite often. The do so because they don't know the whole picture but firmly believe they do.

[W.J. Wilczek]

deleted

[Fido]

garyd wrote: Sorry but people go wrong on the basis of calm reflection quite often. The do so because they don't know the whole picture but firmly believe they do.

The first thing anyone comes to test in calm reflection is belief. Haste makes one believe and guess, and calm gives one time to know and to recognize what one may never know. The real danger from subjective realities is that faith gives certainty that calm inquiry denies, and faith literally calls forth action in defense of faith, as in an auto de fe. The only danger in knowledge of what one does not know is the need to justify ones existence with positive action. In my opinion.