Re: "Reality"

Robert Parks (
Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:52:29 -0500

Thanks for the response, Philip... a clarification follows...
>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).

I follow your notion of interdependence, and agree such interdependence
sets the outer boundaries of our constructs of reality. Let me ask, though,
if this interdependence must necessarily be an aspect of our "control".
When we receive sunlight from long dead stars, we are influenced, but can
hardly productively consider the influence of our suntan on the birth of
the universe. There may be connections in principle, but as far as our
"control" or influence are concerned, we don't seem to be the sorts of
organisms that can take such influences into our constructs for action.

However, I may be misunderstanding the significance of interdependence in
your scheme of "reality".

>>Could we consider "language" as an hypothesis about those aspects of
>>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
>best regards,
>Philip Michelson
>Griffith University
>Brisbane Australia