While my instinct/habit is to defer to an imagined idealized
"objective reality", I see no evidence to the contrary that we
construct a highly agreed upon Model which eventually reaches the
declared quality of "objectively real" when enough of (the right)
people agree on all the nuances and claim to have verified the
evidence on the table, up to and including discovering/presenting yet
new evidence through repeatability under current standards of such.
For me this string of sentences unravels. Do you know what you mean
by “objective reality”? I don’t start out knowing what I would mean,
and find myself very cautious in throwing down for some gloss. Does
it root as far down as you can go into the body? If so, then that
rooting didn’t come from anybody’s intersubjectively-granted
permission. Wouldn’t that count as “evidence”? If not, what does the
term refer to? If the higher-level models are just models, then you
aren’t granting them any impulse to behaving metaphysically, and you
didn’t need the extra term, no?
Eric
I don't know if this is responsive but I feel as if I *can* invert
thisand see the Objective as "what is" and the inter/subjective as
"speculative"? Somewhat Necker-ish?
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
