PART 6:
"REALITY"
PROCESSING VS. RECOGNITION
(26Mar98)
It would be obvious that what people do or do not recognize as real
has something to do with:
-
Information contained in memory
and functioning in mental information processing grids;
-
Capacities for observation;
-
World views, ranging from tiny
to large;
-
Blockages or freedoms regarding
information acquisition and processing;
-
Interest, ranging from none to a
great deal;
-
Nomenclature available;
-
Socially-determined concepts and
knowledge;
-
Human nature fluctuations,
internal and external;
-
Tendencies to constructivity and
destructivity;
-
Types of fear and courage;
-
And etc., etc., etc.
Even so, REALTY has an official
definition: "the totality of all real things and events; something
that is neither derivative nor dependent, but exists necessarily."
"Exists necessarily" turns out to be a kind of philosophical
confabulation the meaning of which is that something exists because
it does exist -- the "necessarily" meaning that no one can do
anything about what exists because it continues to do so regardless.
What exists simply because it does exist has always been
problematical -- in that no one has ever been able to explain why
anything exists. Most people are prepared to accept this, and to get
on with whatever.
But certain types of thinkers are not, and some of them can even be
antagonistic toward accepting what exists because it does exist.
Certain of these kinds of thinkers can flagellate their synapses by
attempting to organize reality so that explanations can be offered
up as to why what exists because it does exist has the meaning it
does by virtue of existing in the first place.
This kind of procedure conveniently obfuscates the basic problem of
not knowing why anything exists.
This is a sort of generic philosophical process that usually, but
not always, requires that certain existing things NOT be considered
- because doing so clutters up the few aspects of existence that are
being considered. This is somewhat understandable - because no one
has ever been able to simultaneously cope with the whole of what
exists, largely because no one so far has managed to discover the
whole of it.
Besides, during their whole lives most people only manage to espy a
few really existing things, never the whole shebang of existence.
And from these few things they select only those that have promises
of benefiting their own existence, and which itself exists because
it does exist. This leaves the conundrum of people not being able to
explain the why and wherefore of their own existing.
So this whole affair gets quite complicated -- even more so because,
generally speaking, humans don't like complicated things, especially
if they are too big.
So to resolve this, a rather dependable way emerged at some point
back in history. If limits are placed on reality, then one might
never really learn a lot. But the complications of the overly large
and apparently endless realities are cut back to manageable size.
Thereafter these reduced complexities are quite likely to be
referred to as reality. And if general agreement is obtained about
these cut-back realities, then they can utilized, as in a tall
building, as steel-like infrastructure I-beam supports for the
enormous social edifices that can be erected on them.
The educational processes within the social edifices then set about
teaching what is real, so that upcoming citizens can fit properly
into the social edifice.
This procedure has proven entirely workable -- and indeed it does
work best if no citizen ever self-discovers any reality, but merely
goes with the flow of the social infrastructure.
Thus, most people never need to self-discover a reality, and many
can get through life quite well without doing so. But such are the
social enclosures in this regard that if one accidentally trips
across a reality, one might not be able to recognize it.
After all, there are hardly any schools that teach what a reality
should look like AS a reality. There are schools only to teach WHICH
reality should be seen or not seen.
In any event, even if all of the above didn't exist because it does
exist, reality recognition is an arduous affair. So it's not unusual
for one to accept a reality simply because someone else says it is
one. This saves one the bother and the struggle of having to spot
realities. If the reality gets into print, then it is broadly
accepted as real because the print exists because it does.
One of the not entirely unanticipatable outcomes of all this is that
realities slip and slide around a lot, often resulting in a moody
sense of insecurity as if one can't really figure out what's really
going on or what's really happening.
The whole of the foregoing has been rather sardonically elaborated
in an attempt to suggest (1) that trying to determine what reality
consists of is the realm of spin doctors and usually a messy
polemical affair; and (2) that such is not a profitable way to
proceed if one wants to get anywhere -- at least in some profound
sense.
In any event, if one can't RECOGNIZE realities even if one chances
to trip across them, then the whole polemical edifice of trying to
determine what they are, what they consist of, is more or less a
safari leading to that thickly fog infested land called Nowhere.
IF seen in this light, then the problems attendant upon the nature
of recognition ITSELF somewhat take priority over the problems of
reality. And this would especially be the case regarding any
proposed activation of the superpowers of the human biomind.
Indeed, if one can't recognize what is to be activated, or recognize
what perhaps has already been unknowingly activated, then arrival at
the misty fogs of Nowhereland draw closer and closer.
In the sense of the foregoing, then, it is somewhat amusing that the
modern sciences, philosophies, or psychologies have paid no
attention to the phenomena of RECOGNITION.
Since there is somewhat of a vacuum in this regard, there is nothing
from them that might resemble a trickle-down effect into the
observing-sensing processes of "the masses."
But like all cultural vacuums, this particular one is unnoticed
because it is the nature of vacuums not to be noticed -- even though
they, too, exist because they do.
In the sense of all of this, then, although the nature of
recognition might at first seem far removed with regard to any
desire to activate any of the superpowers, even a brief discussion
of the nature of recognition should take its authentic place within
all the other factors pertinent to the superpowers.
Indeed, it is possible to hypothetically suggest that recognition
might well be among the most CENTRAL CORE factors involved.
RECOGNITION
RECOGNITION is officially defined as "knowledge or feeling that an
object has been met before."
However, why recognition is linked only to objects is somewhat of a
mystery -- because any simple, raw experiencing of recognition
extends into other factors.
So, for the inclusive purposes of this database, this definition can
be extended to include not only "objects," but also subjective and
qualitative experiencing.
Indeed, recognizing the qualities of objects and subjects goes
hand-in-hand with the recognition of objects, and which often cannot
be recognized in the absence of their qualities.
As but one example, if the qualitative distinctions between glass
and diamonds are not recognized, then the meaning value of both
would be somewhat the same.
However, in an ideal or altruistic sense, the official definition is
logical. But difficulties arise when it is understood that what has
been met before has also been responded to in some way, specifically
in that some kind of meaning has been attached to what has been met.
In this sense, if what is recognized is taken to be meaningless,
then it is usually consigned to the landfill of the meaningless. In
this regard, the human species has a rich tradition of assigning
meaninglessness to objects and realities that often turn out to be
quite meaningful.
In any event, it is so far possible to recognize that recognition if
already composed of not one but two factors, the second consisting
of meaning. Indeed, if meaning of something is not recognized, then
the something itself may not be recognized.
RECOGNIZE is said to be taken into English from the Latin RE +
COGNOSCERE -- the Latin combination meaning "AGAIN to know." The
direct implication is that one cannot know again unless one has
known in the first place.
But the use of KNOW in this sense is superlative, when what is
actually meant is EXPOSED to, often without KNOWING and which
requires making sense out of what one has been exposed to.
Here we have but a hint that recognition is most likely a tricky
business -- so tricky that philosophers have elected not to become
involved in it.
However, and moving bravely on, it can be said that meaning has to
be attributed to things to be recognized -- because in large part
the things do not have signs on them itemizing their many possible
meanings -- and, in fact, have no signs at all.
In the sense of our species, then, it can be said that
meaning-making is a reality phenomenology of our species that exists
because it does exist -- while, at the same time, no one has yet
understood the whys and wherefores of its existing. The only thing
known somewhat for sure is that each specimen born of our species is
equipped to be some kind of a meaning-maker.
With regard to the nature of MEANING, here we ARE on traditional
philosophical territory.
ENCOUNTERING THE CERTAINTY/UNCERTAINTY
PRINCIPLE
Even well before the modern period, philosophers had somewhat sorted
out the fact that two basic kinds of meaning can be established:
(1) meanings that increase
certainty; and
(2) meanings that decrease it.
Both of these meaning criteria can be
extended to things, subject's qualities, and experiencing -- and
lead to their recognition either which way.
In this sense, it can be postulated that reality, things, etc., are
not first recognized for what they ARE, but whether they contribute
to certainty or uncertainty.
This is all well and good, of course. But it can be observed that
approaches to whatever increases certainty are well laid out and
demarcated and achieve social support. However, whereas approaches
to whatever increases uncertainty (such as the not yet known) don't
achieve much in the way of social support.
RECOGNITION VIA THE BASIC TWO-FOLD
MEANING DYNAMIC
The two-fold MEANING dynamic
can be very clear here, at least hypothetically speaking.
-
Exposure to something that is
suggestive of an increase in certainty will be responded to via
that meaning.
-
Exposure to something suggestive of
an increase in uncertainty will be responded to via that
meaning.
As a third category of meaning response,
if something is encountered which can not be recognized as fitting
into either of the two above categories, it is usually considered to
be of questionable, even potentially dangerous, merit -- and is
usually shot on the spot.
It would be quite clear in this regard that these two generic kinds
of responses are entirely relative to situations and circumstances.
But in the larger species-wide picture sense, these two responses
have a great deal to do with how realities are recognized and
responded to.
In a certain sense at least, it must be assumed that information or
data one is exposed to does not equate to recognizable knowledge
UNLESS meaning can become attached.
Even modern philosophers have often said that the meaning-less is
not knowledge. If this is carried to the social extremes it usually
is, the implication is that the meaning-less cannot be recognized as
knowledge.
This is rather straightforward so far as it goes. But an attendant
implication is that one cannot recognize the meaning-less -- because
there is nothing there to recognize. Thus, one can not encounter it
AGAIN, or meet with it AGAIN.
This is not completely a matter of obscurant double-talk. It simply
means that if one encounters something dubbed as meaning-less, the
one will have trouble in recognizing it when one DOES encounter it
AGAIN.
Indeed, this concept was one of the earliest officially stated
reasons for the philosophical and scientific mainstream rejection of
psychic stuff. Even if there was the mere chance that psychic stuff
-- such as clairvoyance and telepathy -- really existed, it was
meaningless since it had no real uses.
The illogic of this dismissive attitude is obvious, of course, and
seems to have been based on a very low order of imaginatory
capacities. Behind this, however, can be detected something that
appears to have been more than a hint of a certainty that developed
Psi would increase the uncertainty of established social orders. The
superpowers have always been accompanied by this troubling aspect.
REAL
At this point, briefly touching on REAL can't really be completely
avoided -- but only with the continuing proviso that nothing in this
database is to be taken as an attempt to established any reality.
But in the sense of this essay, certain things might be recognized
as constituting hypothetical approaches to the real.
The modern definition of REAL holds that it is "of or relating to
fixed, permanent, or immovable things apparent in fact, and [as we
have seen earlier] necessarily existent." This definition really
should be extended to include phenomena -- largely because phenomena
as well as things exist because they exist.
One of the more interesting aspects of REAL was that it was not
introduced into English until the late 1400s (a rather late date,
all things considered.)
In the late 1400s, however, the Oxford Dictionary of the English
Languages offers says that the early meanings were "indistinct."
It was only in the later 1500s that REAL began to be used more or
less as we try to do today.
The term was derived from the Late Christianized Latin RES (meaning
thing), but was said to be akin to the very much earlier Sanskrit
RAI (not meaning thing, but particular qualitative essence).
Regarding this, then, something like 5,000 years of human history
seems to have gotten on without the term REAL as we define it today
-- and one wonders how things were managed without this concept.
In any event, we today are irrevocably plugged into this term,
because at the bottom line of everything it is felt necessary to
establish the reality of all things -- and very much depends on the
success or failure of this idea.
Rather exhausting examination of REAL can ultimately reveal that,
like recognition, there appears to be two major categories of THE
REAL. For efficiency here, these can best be illustrated by a
diagram rather than by verbal exposition.
The REAL contingent |
The REAL contingent |
upon known facts |
upon experiencing |
. .
. Whereas both converge .
. on .
. RECOGNIZE .
. . . . . . . . . . . REALIZE . . . . . . . . . . .
|
TO MAKE REAL OR APPARENTLY REAL
In sense of the above, then,
we could say that REAL and REALITY are contingent or relative only
to some kind of unfoldment process having to do with recognition,
the nature of which is imploded into some kind of culturally-avoided
vacuum.
But even so, that our species is multi-tiered regarding recognition
of anything and everything can, by now, seem apparent.
Based on this discussion, certainly only hypothetical, two
trend-like phenomena can sometimes (but not always) be observed.
Both of these major categories, however,
have significant complications:
-
Real experiencing is often not
contingent upon known facts;
-
Factual reality has to undergo
change when new facts are brought to light, and so factual
reality is itself not contingent upon known facts.
One is then justified in wondering what
role "known facts" play regarding anything.
Well, for one thing, they represent the perceived margins between
certainty and uncertainty -- and which is the most obvious reason
why large segments of social strata place conviction not only IN
them but with regard to their necessity.
And it is this that gives recognizable substance to the hearty
resistance toward new real facts if they are of such a nature as to
radically destabilize old real factual bases.
Thus, it can be seen, if only in vague contours, that the matter of
RECOGNITION plays an important role within any approach to
activating the superpowers.
However, each aspirant along these lines will have to mull this over
within their own reality tents than house their own realities --
some new emphasis being on the dynamics of recognition, a matter
regarding which few, if any, have hitherto paid much attention.
Back to Contents
|