Re: "Reality"

Philip Michelson (
Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:41:29 +1000 (EST)

Thankyou Bob for your interesting comments. I'd like to discuss some of the
points that you have raised.

>Could it be productive to take "reality" as an hypothesis about precisely
>the sorts of things we "must" adapt to, the things that are irretrievably
>(or inconceivably) beyoond our control?

Firstly, it is more fruitful to consider REALITY as life itself. The thing
then to be adapted to is life rather than any one thing (broader and more
workable). One is then able to pose the question "what is beyond our
control". The answer then becomes NOTHING ! What is really the question here
is the degree of control. The argument then moves to issues involving the
morality of control exertion, the positive/negative effects of interference,
and the reason for that interference. The reason that nothing is beyond
control stems from the holistic assumption that everything influences
everything, and that nothing is static (ie: quantum physics).

>Could we consider "language" as an hypothesis about those aspects of meaningful
>social life that are to be taken as beyond control of the current social
>processes? In other words, could we take "language" to be an hypothesis
>about those aspects of interaction that must be stable and unmanipulable in
>order to communicate?

You are really on to something here. Everyday language has been turned into
double-speak by the subsumation and inclusion of jargonised terminology from
a dozen different scientific specialities. With the inclusion of technical
jargon ordinary usage of the terms has begun to assume that the terms are
accurate, valid, and based on some unflawed observation of reality. None of
this is of course the case. Thus a Tower of Babel has arisen which divides
and disempowers individuals and groups. Nobody understands what the other is
really saying ! Responses to language then become guesswork and are
fragmented, defensive, and destabilising.

You are correct in your observation that language must be stable,
understood, and therefore unmanipulable for normal communication to be possible.

best regards,

Philip Michelson

Griffith University
Brisbane Australia