Reality and the Just Society

[Odhinn]

Reality is most certainly a perception of life, our surroundings, and observations. We not only observe through our eyes, rather think of the concept being one in which all sense plays a part. We hear, smell and touch things, and also feel, using our emotions. Thus senses must include emotional intuition. All these factors aid and help us develop the observation aspect of the perception of reality.

The second portion, our surroundings, are obviously different depending on the geographical location of the individual, the culture, language, media influences, and countless other examples, from personal hygiene to religious or spiritual influences. The lists of variables are quite numerous in these terms I would hope you’d agree.

Thirdly, an individuals life is one which only the person living can assume the path. I highly doubt that each individual is the same; in the logic that no other will walk every single step another has performed. Life has so many different paths I would suggest as many as the global population.

The perceived reality is thus influence by many variables and so the outcome of the perception does differentiate depending on the outcome of the many variables. If there are enormous amounts of influence, a great number of variables, we might come to the conclusion from the laws of probability that it would be highly unlikely that the same result would occur twice.

Independently we perceive reality; however there is another tangible in the discussion of the development of a Just society that I can not give another title but Reality. I chose to capitalize the word to indicate its differences from the perceived reality. This Reality is simply the events that people are observing, wherever and however they chose to. It is not judgmental or right or wrong, it is simply actual happenings that will inevitably direct the path for tomorrow. Action – Reaction. Cognitive ability to understand consequences.

Reality must be an issue in the question of the development of a Just society and the understanding that our decisions from our perceived reality make events transpire, Reality, which will be the judge of the evolution of the society.

The need for the society to differentiate from these two similes is necessary to understand the advancement of society, positive or negative, and make wise decisions that will direct human kind into a more positive situation.

Believing in a set of outcomes dismissing Reality and its function, making claim of an almighty descending from the skies to save the willing and rid itself of the non-believers. A path that is already laid before us and we are simply mere walkers in its guided direction. These are obstacles in acquiring a positive evolution, and they hinder our ability to obtain a Just society. It is ignorance by its truest definition.

Justice, the pursuit of truth, is far from being hand-locked to the guise of ignorance, and is necessary to lead us to a more positive situation as an individual from the positive advancement of society. A Just society is the benchmark in the attempt to acquire a positive evolutionary path, which should be the goal of the society.

[KMFDM]

I happen to agree with what you have to say. Clutching onto past traditions does hinder societies from movig forward. I for one am for society moving forward into a "new age".
However it would be fair to say that many people in today's societies/society are not ready. Perhaps thats why they cling to these ancient tradition within even more passion. Without these traditions and belief systems they have to make decisions that they are not ready to face or not want to face.
I find myself in a similar situation in my life at the moment. I don't mean to compare myself to society in some sort of "man of the people" kind of way but more in notice in some similarities.
I'm finishing my senior yearof college (finally) and have my career and life ahead of me like everyone else in the world. But I find myself already lathargic of the past (short as it may be). I am concerned about future choices and causes I will support. Seeing the years beginning to pass by quickier like my parents said they would. These feelings have pushed me more to the conservative side of thinking comparatively (though conservatives perhaps even liberals would have a hard time with me). Having my waying of thinking changing so radically over a short period of time is a little unnerving. I think this is what society is going through. I am prepared for "my great journey" as the graduation speaker will pronounce and push me out the door just like I was out of the nest.
Religion has been a constent through the entire time of man. Because man has asked why is the reason why religion exists. We have been looking for answers to questions our enire lives. I agree that we are passing by the "because I said so/ God is great" responses and are more interested in a tangible answer. But traditions difine societies. People take pride in their differences. I am not extremely religious but if I were pressured to remove associations with groups I found to help define me I probably wouldn't be to thrilled about it. I don't think "going back to past values" is the answer but I think natural progression will move society forward. Whetheror not that involves religion in our life time or ever remains to be seen.
Happy Holidays

[heel31ok]

I happen to agree with what you have to say. Clutching onto past traditions does hinder societies from movig forward. I for one am for society moving forward into a "new age".
However it would be fair to say that many people in today's societies/society are not ready. Perhaps thats why they cling to these ancient tradition within even more passion. Without these traditions and belief systems they have to make decisions that they are not ready to face or not want to face.
I find myself in a similar situation in my life at the moment. I don't mean to compare myself to society in some sort of "man of the people" kind of way but more in notice in some similarities.
I'm finishing my senior yearof college (finally) and have my career and life ahead of me like everyone else in the world. But I find myself already lathargic of the past (short as it may be). I am concerned about future choices and causes I will support. Seeing the years beginning to pass by quickier like my parents said they would. These feelings have pushed me more to the conservative side of thinking comparatively (though conservatives perhaps even liberals would have a hard time with me). Having my waying of thinking changing so radically over a short period of time is a little unnerving. I think this is what society is going through. I am prepared for "my great journey" as the graduation speaker will pronounce and push me out the door just like I was out of the nest.
Religion has been a constent through the entire time of man. Because man has asked why is the reason why religion exists. We have been looking for answers to questions our enire lives. I agree that we are passing by the "because I said so/ God is great" responses and are more interested in a tangible answer. But traditions difine societies. People take pride in their differences. I am not extremely religious but if I were pressured to remove associations with groups I found to help define me I probably wouldn't be to thrilled about it. I don't think "going back to past values" is the answer but I think natural progression will move society forward. Whetheror not that involves religion in our life time or ever remains to be seen.
Happy Holidays


That all depends on what moving forward is. Traditions can be good or bad just like new ideas can be good or bad. Moving forward towards a destination is good but moving forward into a busy intersection may not hold the same reward. Truth never changes and true values never change only the packages they come in.

what do you consider the right destination for society to move towards?

[Craig]

Reality is most certainly a perception of life, our surroundings, and observations. We not only observe through our eyes, rather think of the concept being one in which all sense plays a part. We hear, smell and touch things, and also feel, using our emotions. Thus senses must include emotional intuition. All these factors aid and help us develop the observation aspect of the perception of reality.

The second portion, our surroundings, are obviously different depending on the geographical location of the individual, the culture, language, media influences, and countless other examples, from personal hygiene to religious or spiritual influences. The lists of variables are quite numerous in these terms I would hope you’d agree.

Thirdly, an individuals life is one which only the person living can assume the path. I highly doubt that each individual is the same; in the logic that no other will walk every single step another has performed. Life has so many different paths I would suggest as many as the global population.

The perceived reality is thus influence by many variables and so the outcome of the perception does differentiate depending on the outcome of the many variables. If there are enormous amounts of influence, a great number of variables, we might come to the conclusion from the laws of probability that it would be highly unlikely that the same result would occur twice.

Independently we perceive reality; however there is another tangible in the discussion of the development of a Just society that I can not give another title but Reality. I chose to capitalize the word to indicate its differences from the perceived reality. This Reality is simply the events that people are observing, wherever and however they chose to. It is not judgmental or right or wrong, it is simply actual happenings that will inevitably direct the path for tomorrow. Action – Reaction. Cognitive ability to understand consequences.

Reality must be an issue in the question of the development of a Just society and the understanding that our decisions from our perceived reality make events transpire, Reality, which will be the judge of the evolution of the society.

The need for the society to differentiate from these two similes is necessary to understand the advancement of society, positive or negative, and make wise decisions that will direct human kind into a more positive situation.

Believing in a set of outcomes dismissing Reality and its function, making claim of an almighty descending from the skies to save the willing and rid itself of the non-believers. A path that is already laid before us and we are simply mere walkers in its guided direction. These are obstacles in acquiring a positive evolution, and they hinder our ability to obtain a Just society. It is ignorance by its truest definition.

Justice, the pursuit of truth, is far from being hand-locked to the guise of ignorance, and is necessary to lead us to a more positive situation as an individual from the positive advancement of society. A Just society is the benchmark in the attempt to acquire a positive evolutionary path, which should be the goal of the society.


Maybe to clarify this discussion, we should discuss your ideas not in terms of "reality" and "Reality", since using the word in two different ways is a form of equivocation and therefore confusing, but rather draw the Kantian distinction of the phenomenal versus the noumenal. (I can't believe I'm trying to clarify a discussion with Kant's philosophy!) And, as Kant would no doubt ask you, how can we even get to know the nouminal, or "Reality" as you call it, when our perception of it is entirely phenomenal?

[KMFDM]

That all depends on what moving forward is. Traditions can be good or bad just like new ideas can be good or bad. Moving forward towards a destination is good but moving forward into a busy intersection may not hold the same reward. Truth never changes and true values never change only the packages they come in.

what do you consider the right destination for society to move towards?

Yes I agree that moving into a busy intersection is not a tops idea. That there have been "mistakes" societies have made in the past. But society learns just like a child does through trial and error. We as a whole have made poor choices in the past and its probably not the last time we will make poor choices. I always found the argument "this is the best of all possible worlds" to be very mind stretching (I forget the name of who said it, I'm a business major). We can try our best to avoid busy intersections but hind sight is 20/20.
The perception of truth and true values are all in the eye of the beholder. Society's values of human sacrifice have changed significantly. There are entire socities that encouraged and practiced homosexuality. Values of a "family unit" are lost in cultures where the children were brought up as a whole by the entire society not our traditional nuclear family. Societies with no concept of ownership would have a hard time stealing from each other. I guess you could argue that those are all packages and that a societies value system is its package and then I'd be more tempted to agree.
As for truth, it's difficult to define truth without the word true or reality. Truth is a perception of what you believe cross referenced with your expriences. People and societies beliefs and expriences are different and people's and societies' beliefs change over time. Yes we all have a basic idea of whats right and wrong according to what we believe in but I doubt that it is the same for everbody. ( I think Craig is saying something along the same lines I don't know Kant's work)
To answer your question I guess I would like to see society move past these empty arguments on which religion is correct. There is no way to change peoples minds over what they believe. There are such things as converts but you can't convert a whole society and they won't give up everything. The word tolerance if you really look at it isn't a great thing to be pushing. When I think of the word tolerence I see people putting up with other people even though they hate them. Removing the word tolerance and putting in words like compassion or understanding or empathy are much more beneficial to society. The world is getting smaller and we are having to encounter more and more different value systems and everyone is going to have to learn how to interact with people who don't think like them. I'd also like to see a shift in values in the "western" socities away from consumerism (odd comong from a business major I know). Its one thing to spend money its another to base a life around material possesions. I guess thats what I'm hoping for.

[Odhinn]

Maybe to clarify this discussion, we should discuss your ideas not in terms of "reality" and "Reality", since using the word in two different ways is a form of equivocation and therefore confusing, but rather draw the Kantian distinction of the phenomenal versus the noumenal. (I can't believe I'm trying to clarify a discussion with Kant's philosophy!) And, as Kant would no doubt ask you, how can we even get to know the nouminal, or "Reality" as you call it, when our perception of it is entirely phenomenal?


What a great question. The initial step in the seperation of the two begins with knowing that your perception of reality exist, and understand that it is unique. Reality is an aggregate where the reality plays a part but does not define the former. The nouminal is the actual occurence and order of things that changes depending on the present situation and their itended or unindented consequences. The nouminal is there, but cannot be seen in a way. It can be measured in progress by aggregating numbers of the society and then compare them over time. The nouminal is continuous, change is inevitable, attempting to steer this change into positive evolutionary paths is why we need to acknowledge it exist, then understand that our aggregate decisions can implicate change. What is deemed to be positive, or good would be then contributing to the interpretation that the nouminal is getting better, thus taking a positive evolutionary step. This is a perception as well you would say, and that is true, however it is not the nouminal that we are perceiving it is its direction. The nouminal cannot be seen, it is not tangible.

[Craig]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your answer. What exactly do you mean by "aggregating numbers of society and then compare them over time"? Are you refering to collecting data about various people's sense experiences regarding a particular thing over time, and from that, you induce what the noumena must entail?

[heel31ok]

Yes I agree that moving into a busy intersection is not a tops idea. That there have been "mistakes" societies have made in the past. But society learns just like a child does through trial and error. We as a whole have made poor choices in the past and its probably not the last time we will make poor choices. I always found the argument "this is the best of all possible worlds" to be very mind stretching (I forget the name of who said it, I'm a business major). We can try our best to avoid busy intersections but hind sight is 20/20.
The perception of truth and true values are all in the eye of the beholder. Society's values of human sacrifice have changed significantly. There are entire socities that encouraged and practiced homosexuality. Values of a "family unit" are lost in cultures where the children were brought up as a whole by the entire society not our traditional nuclear family. Societies with no concept of ownership would have a hard time stealing from each other. I guess you could argue that those are all packages and that a societies value system is its package and then I'd be more tempted to agree.
As for truth, it's difficult to define truth without the word true or reality. Truth is a perception of what you believe cross referenced with your expriences. People and societies beliefs and expriences are different and people's and societies' beliefs change over time. Yes we all have a basic idea of whats right and wrong according to what we believe in but I doubt that it is the same for everbody. ( I think Craig is saying something along the same lines I don't know Kant's work)
To answer your question I guess I would like to see society move past these empty arguments on which religion is correct. There is no way to change peoples minds over what they believe. There are such things as converts but you can't convert a whole society and they won't give up everything. The word tolerance if you really look at it isn't a great thing to be pushing. When I think of the word tolerence I see people putting up with other people even though they hate them. Removing the word tolerance and putting in words like compassion or understanding or empathy are much more beneficial to society. The world is getting smaller and we are having to encounter more and more different value systems and everyone is going to have to learn how to interact with people who don't think like them. I'd also like to see a shift in values in the "western" socities away from consumerism (odd comong from a business major I know). Its one thing to spend money its another to base a life around material possesions. I guess thats what I'm hoping for.


i do agree with your take on tolerance and I feel it is more of a lazy way to deal with people. It is good to have compassion and understanding and it is good to strive towards them. I just think that since it is perception from each person you get a different standard from each person. If left to people to decide their on reality then their is one for each person and nothing is right or wrong except to that person. Even if some agree that does not make all accountable to that agreement. So in my mind a standardof reality and right and wrong and whatever has to come from outside ourselves to be able to apply to others.

[Odhinn]

I'm not entirely sure I understand your answer. What exactly do you mean by "aggregating numbers of society and then compare them over time"? Are you refering to collecting data about various people's sense experiences regarding a particular thing over time, and from that, you induce what the noumena must entail?


We can express Reality in part by utilizing and defining parts of it and over time the change in these parts could be perceived as going in a 'good' direction or opposite. Think of Calculus, in that, we don't know the number we are seeking, but we can assume that while we approach that number a pattern formed will determine the number. We can use the same approach when dealing with the Nouminal. Then take a series of data we've collected on the moment and compare to the same number, but in a different time frame. By comparing these we can see if collectively agreed upon positive advancement is occuring.

[KMFDM]

We can express Reality in part by utilizing and defining parts of it and over time the change in these parts could be perceived as going in a 'good' direction or opposite. Think of Calculus, in that, we don't know the number we are seeking, but we can assume that while we approach that number a pattern formed will determine the number. We can use the same approach when dealing with the Nouminal. Then take a series of data we've collected on the moment and compare to the same number, but in a different time frame. By comparing these we can see if collectively agreed upon positive advancement is occuring.

Wouldn't then you have to do the same study again on the people who collectively agreed on the study? I mean when interpreting people's interpretations there is no way to have a constant. The study will always be tanted by other peoples interpretations isn't it possible they are going to disagree on how to evaluate the original focus groups. I mean the only way to be sure is if every person were to have the same response word for word. Which would basically mean we would all have become the same person at that point of "advancement". Uniform. That doesn't sound like advancement to me. Uniqueness is positive in my eyes. I'm sure it would never get that far b/c we all have different experiences. I think its just ironic how much we value being unique then turn around and try to get everyone to think like us.
Snowflake? :flowers:

[KMFDM]

i do agree with your take on tolerance and I feel it is more of a lazy way to deal with people groups of people. It is good to have compassion and understanding and it is good to strive towards them. I just think that since it is perception from each person you get a different standard from each person. If left to people to decide their on reality then their is one for each person and nothing is right or wrong except to that person. Even if some agree that does not make all accountable to that agreement. So in my mind a standardof reality and right and wrong and whatever has to come from outside ourselves to be able to apply to others.

People do define their own realties. That’s why everybody thinks they’re right so much including me. :lol: Sometimes they do agree with each other. They group up and have different values and belong to different faiths and political parties then other groups. This is where religion and government comes into play. Both are forms of outside control on a populous that doesn’t agree 100%. Religion doesn’t exactly change its way of thinking or doing as quickly as a government does but I do see a lot of people eating meat on Friday that used not to. In a republic where the populous votes on representatives to make these kinds of decisions the people don’t agree because they have different “truths” that they live by. So people argue and debate about laws and morality hence Whistler Stopper. And though we can’t change each others complete way of thinking or believing we can get them to rethink about their own and perhaps make them more aware of others.

[Odhinn]

Wouldn't then you have to do the same study again on the people who collectively agreed on the study? I mean when interpreting people's interpretations there is no way to have a constant. The study will always be tanted by other peoples interpretations isn't it possible they are going to disagree on how to evaluate the original focus groups. I mean the only way to be sure is if every person were to have the same response word for word. Which would basically mean we would all have become the same person at that point of "advancement". Uniform. That doesn't sound like advancement to me. Uniqueness is positive in my eyes. I'm sure it would never get that far b/c we all have different experiences. I think its just ironic how much we value being unique then turn around and try to get everyone to think like us.
Snowflake? :flowers:

I don't believe I explained myself properly. In answering the question as to what Reality, or the nouminal is, and how can the individual, which has perceived his own reality, understand the nouminal? It is not a study of people that define the nouminal, it is unseen, which is why I brought forth the calculus example. I think you are thinking more along the lines of who chooses the "Good", or equate a change in the dimensions we have chosen as a positive evolutionary advancement? In a democracy we decide which elements of society we deem to be important and thus obtaining these objectives we can say we have made a positive change. For example, there are 5 basic needs in life for our survival, it was obvious that a society that provides these things are a 'better' or in my words a more positive, or Just society. In other terms, look at the relativity of poverty. The poor in Canada are much better suited to deal with the five necessities then the African poor, the absolute poor, which is defined as a person making less then $1USD a day. Bums on the street in Canada and the USA can get a $1 in an hour by simply asking for it. Some people in the forgotten world toil for hours to get less then $1. These types of benchmakrks are societies responsibility to define and they do so most equitably through democracy. I don't think it would be a stretch of the imagination to agree on certain collective well beings, until it comes a time when the basics are meet, mostly, and we need to focus on more elusive goals, such as health, and education, but different societies might try to obtain different outcomes. It is the societies choice, however in a Just society we should be attempting to reach Just goals. And thus begins the question of what is Just. This article was mainly directed towards Reality, the nouminal and the different perceived individual reality and the intertangling of these.