The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
November 24th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation :: Yes, I Have No Holerons :: Axiom 0 and its Translation (1) :: Is Dasein a Reality?
Joseph Polanik wrote:
> >>1: existential or physical reality (ie existents; or, anything made of
> >>matter/energy and spacetime).
>
> >>2: phenomenological reality (subject or object of any experience)
>
> >>3: ontological reality (ie being; or, more generally, anything that
> >>has a reality independent of our experience of it (ie a metaphenomenal
> >>reality); but, which is not an existential reality).
>
> >I don’t see why you distinguish 1 from 3. (Descartes doesn’t - for him,
> >physical reality exists independent of our experience of it)
>
> my inventory of reality types is not 100% identical to Descartes’
> inventory; but, both 1 and 3 are metaphenomenal realities — real
> independently of our experience of them.
>
> >>since nothing unreal is self-aware, I-2 know that I-2 am real (in some
> >>sense). I-2 know that I-2 am a reality (of some sort).
>
> >of the I-3 sort?
>
> ooops. that last paragraph should have stopped after
>
> since nothing unreal is self-aware, I-2 know that I-2 am real.
>
> I inadvertantly put in the qualifiers I use when trying to say the same
> thing without using subscripted pronouns
>
> >>however, since I-2 am a phenomenological reality and there is no
> >>evidence that I-2 am self-instantiating, it follows that I-2 am (or
> >>may be) generated by one or more meta-phenomenal realities (ie
> >>realities of type 1 and/or type 2).
>
> >I thought type 2 was phenomenal reality. So how can they include
> >meta-phenomenal realities?
>
> a typo. that last parenthetical remark should read “(ie realities of
> >>type 1 and/or type 3)”.
Is it possible that the meta-phenomenal “reality” behind “me” is the
same as the one behind “you” (i.e., that our consciousnesses are
actually two aspects of one meta-phenomenal reality)? If not, how do you
know that it’s not? And if so, then wouldn’t that completely undermine
the metaphenomenal reality of the distinction between “me” and “you” and
“him/her”? (i.e., between first, second, and third persons)?
