<TomN__> zhool, I could only speculate because I don't know all that much about non-western cultures, but from my reading of Indian and Chinese sources they seem less invested in the primacy of self or the sense of the self as substantial and hence they don't think in terms of a reality that is "outside" a person.
<legion_of_dorks> reality is a concept referring to the whole mess of mental objects we use to help us manipulate our sensory input.

<Greenock> I tried to question perceptions earlier
<Greenock> the nature of reality & that kind of stuff
<legion_of_dorks> reality as th eterm is normally used seems to refer to a conglomeration of mental objects that are useful in our everyday manipulations of whatever itis that is outside of our minds
<legion_of_dorks> and then reality is also used to refer to whatever it is that is non-ideological. but the confusion arises when the two senses are pretended to be equivalent..
<Greenock> Well, I reckoned things were non-conceptual
<legion_of_dorks> of coucrse this analysis is based on a presumption that is opposed to primacy of consciousness
<Greenock> 2 senses?
<legion_of_dorks> the sense of reality being what exists that is not ideological, and the sense that reality is a collection of objects as we know them with functionalities and colors etc
<Greenock> I suppose I'mm opposed to the primacy of self
<Greenock> ego
<TomN__> sense 1: how to tell it like it is sense 2: the way it is
<Greenock> ok
<nels> Greenock - which self are you referring to, our personality or our essence?
<Greenock> Isn't concept v non-concept a bit closer to the nub, though?
<legion_of_dorks> we cannot know what objective reality is like, because there is no greater duality than conceptual vs. nonconceptual
<legion_of_dorks> reality as we know it is necessarily ideological/conceptual
<legion_of_dorks> any other duality that can be thought of is a [juxtaposition] of two concepts and thus is minor compared to the duality aforementioned
<Greenock> The prime concept being self
<Finlandia> we connect to objective like, like because there is a word as such as duality - as in conceptual as apposed to the non? which is the same thing?
<legion_of_dorks> i think the prime concept is self vs. other, they come together
<Greenock> By which all is measured / perceived
<legion_of_dorks> this is the root of all duality

<TomN__> reality in a social sense is the ideology that is allowed to presume that it is not ideological (hence reality represents an agenda)
<legion_of_dorks> interesting "hence reality represents an agenda"
<legion_of_dorks> is that related to the fact that the purpose or agenda of reality as a concept is to aide us in manipulating what is utside
<TomN__> I like pink.
<legion_of_dorks> er reality as a group of concepts that is
<TomN__> no, legion, I mean the insistence on "getting real" "being real" etc. The whole notion that someone's conceptualizations can be dismissed as "unrealistic" is significantly a social or political pressure.
<legion_of_dorks> oh, i see
<legion_of_dorks> yeah, it's really flaky the way people sarcastically invoke the concept of reality
<legion_of_dorks> saying 'get real' can be arrogant in that it's an indierct way of trying to force the point that your perception of actuality is the more correct
<legion_of_dorks> the phraseology belies that underlying truth though
<TomN__> yes, but an unrealistic conceptualization is any conceptualization which threatens (or at least ignores) the current conceptualization being endorsed as "real".

<Nymph_lode> I would have thought that some essence goverened personality, not really distinct, but I'm having trouble following this in the first place, so I will just watch.
<Greenock> My point is that conceptualisation is, by definition, unrealistic
<legion_of_dorks> Nymph_lode, i don't know what thread you're responding to but i agree with you

<Nymph_lode> there are minds within reality, parts of reality are mindful
<legion_of_dorks> there are realities within minds
<TomN__> It (reality) is claimed to be the ultimate concreteness which is the basis of all abstraction.
<legion_of_dorks> part of minds are realistic
<legion_of_dorks> tomn : the funny thing is that you can try to find concreteness by reductionism (your only possible vice) forever and upon closer inspection every concrete entity is revealed to be an abstraction.

<Greenock> I might claim that reality is the ultimate abstraction
<Greenock> from which all concreteness comes
<Daemon> this is some damn good pizza
<TomN__> yes, I only note the claim...I don't endorse it because reality seems like such an obvious abstraction from experience.

<legion_of_dorks> the fact that time and space are intermeshed, while we intuitively perceive them as discrete, and the fact that our perception of reality is fundamentally based on the modality of space and time, shows by itself that actuality is nothing like what we think it [is.]