“Reality” defined

“REALITY” Defined

There was a time not so long ago when it would have been completely unnecessary to define the word “reality”.  Like the word “truth,” “reality” meant something and there was a shared consensus on what it meant.  Times have changed.  “Progressive” thinkers have co-opted what once was a widely shared vocabulary to introduce their own world-view oriented definitions of key words (shades of Orwellian “newspeak”).  By co-opting the language they control the debate – because in fact words have meaning.  We use words to convey thoughts and ideas and beliefs.  Perhaps no words are more central to the thoughts, ideas and beliefs that are associated with world-views than “truth” or “reality.”  By creating a state of confusion about what is meant by “truth” or “reality,” one sets the stage for anything that the mind can imagine as the premise for a world-view, a belief system.  Like the proverbial Ostrich, progressives think that by changing the definition of the word “reality,” they can free themselves from the constraints on their free thinking associated with said reality.  So instead of discussing “reality” they want us to buy into their fanciful illusions that there is really only “your reality” versus “my reality.” Of course it doesn’t take a genius or an expert in linguistics to recognize that what they are talking about is what also used to be commonly referred to as “perception of reality,” but now they just drop the word perception and call it “reality.”  Hence, by changing the definition of the word from what we all understood by “reality” to really mean “perception,” but substituting the word “reality” instead, they satisfy their own sense of intellectual integrity in supposing that such reality itself goes away.

Before launching into such a complicated subject as the definition of the word “reality” (amazing! – how could something so obvious be complicated?), let me set the stage with experiential albeit anecdotal illustrations of the point I hope to make.   Lets call it a tale of two divergent “realities” (using the progressive, postmodern definition).

I get a call from a friend’s wife (let’s call him Bob).  Her husband has just been arrested.  After dining out he refused to pay his bill.  When the police came he told them they did not have any jurisdiction over him.  When they took him to jail he refused to cooperate with anything, and proceeded to disrobe himself because like Adam and Eve before they sinned he didn’t need to cover himself.  Sitting naked in court he pled not guilty and informed the court they had no jurisdiction over him as a “sovereign citizen.”  He claimed that God was requiring him to do everything he was doing, and he was getting it from seeing things in the Bible that nobody else was seeing.  This was his reality.  He had become quite sleep deprived in the preceding weeks mostly because of a preoccupation with studying the legal arguments and reasoning of the “sovereign citizen” movement, and one thing led to another.

A few days later I am dragged (against my better judgment, given the social setting) into a conversation with a professional colleague (I’ll call him Joe), which went from “global warming” to politics, to a discussion about what is reality.  This person was quite concerned that we are not doing enough in time to stop climate change before its too late, and was agitated over the craziness and divisiveness in the country over politics today.  He expressed a strong belief that people just need to put aside their differences and come together (though I sensed he had a definite bias as to which side of the debate needed to compromise on what they believe – and it was not those who agreed with him).   When I tried to confront him with what I perceived to be the reality of the situation, that it’s about the clash of world-views which are quite diametrically opposed (such as socialism and liberalism versus capitalism and conservatism),  he became only more agitated and could not accept such an explanation.  When I explained further that there are conflicting perceptions of reality based on belief systems that cause us to disagree, and the real underlying question is, which perceptions are reality-based and which are not really so in touch with reality, that launched the debate about whether or not there is such a thing as “reality” beyond each individual’s perception of reality.  His argument was that “perception” is all the reality there is – and he seemed quite disturbed by my suggestion that the word “reality” refers to something that exists independent of any observation or perception.

This line of argumentation (can’t really call it “reasoning”) is classic “Post-modernism” – “there are no absolutes.” It is popular and very prevalent among the politically correct groupthink crowd, the kind of doctrine that is embedded in and exudes from virtually all the talking heads of the mainstream media of our day.  It provides the intellectual underpinnings of elitists who feel so morally superior in making such blatantly inane statements as, “no one religion is better than another” (an inexact paraphrase per Peter Jennings on network news).   Of course, if the premise is true that there is no objective reality, then there is a real sense in which such a statement is true, in that it means that all religions are nothing more than matters of perception, i.e. the personal reality of the individual, with no basis in any kind of independent objective reality.  This of course is simply a modern progressive’s way of saying that no religion is true or reality in the classic, traditional sense of those words.

My question for my progressive friend Joe is this – “what about Bob?” (name is changed to protect the innocent).  What about my friend Bob who deigns himself a sovereign citizen, does not have to pay for what he consumes, is not under the jurisdiction of legal authorities in this country, and is being led by the Spirit of God to do things everybody else perceives as bizarre?  He is quite intelligent, prides himself on his ability to think logically, has informed himself on legal matters and his constitutional rights, and only has the best of intentions at heart.  How can anyone question his sanity when it is his reality?  Who has the right to take away his freedom, or to require him to accept psychiatric treatment or medication – isn’t his reality just as valid as anyone else’s?

I have spent literally thousands of hours as a professional counselor dealing with all kinds of “realities” of people with what are usually referred to as psychological problems.  I spent several years as an evaluator for a psychiatric hospital analyzing and diagnosing “patients” and deciding whether or not they needed to be admitted for psychiatric treatment.  The underlying premise for my work, indeed for the whole profession and even the existence of such a hospital was that there is such a thing as objective reality.  The primary definition for any kind of psychosis or what in lay terms may referred to as “insanity”, is that the person is “out of touch with reality.”  What reality?  The paranoid schizophrenic is living in and very much acting out his own reality.  Given the post-moderns definition of reality how could we diagnose anyone as being any more in touch with reality than anyone else?

I found it very interesting that my friend Joe was arguing with me.  Given his own definition of reality, and his ensuing philosophy that all sides of the issues should just put aside their differences and get along, why was he arguing with me?  Surely he didn’t think that his perception of reality was superior in any way to mine, did he?  Surely he wouldn’t claim that his views were more reality-based than mine, would he?  On what possible grounds could he become disturbed with me and my views, or feel so superior to me and my type (as he obviously did), since he is so sure that neither of us have a lock on the truth (his words) – and anyway, truth is relative?  How can he be sure of anything that he doesn’t even believe is reality-based (since according to him there is no such thing)?

I submit that the logical inconsistency and irrationality of such a line of argumentation, and such a definition of the terms in question (reality and truth) is so self evident as to be impossible to conceal.  As soon as one takes such a position on anything, including this very subject itself, they have undermined that position and demonstrated that they don’t even believe it themselves.  That is only because it is so patently absurd.

I am always amused that such progressive thinkers like to attempt to appeal to what they perceive as scientific principles.  Joe, with the help of another colleague, tried to appeal to Einstein’s theory of Relativity.  While I make no claim to being smart enough to fully comprehend Einstein or his theories, I do grasp the gist of the layman’s explanations of what he proposed.  And indeed, Einstein argued quite convincingly that our perception of reality is affected by and largely a function of our state or position (primarily with respect to time and motion and relative speed) relative to what we are observing.  However, Einstein never entertained the notion that there really wasn’t any objective reality to be observed – in fact he devoted his time and energy and his whole life to trying to observe and understand that reality, which he obviously believed existed (interestingly his arguments with Bohr and the emerging theories known as Quantum Mechanics was over the fact that the latter seemed to imply that nothing really existed until it was measured or observed).  Ostensibly this is what all of science is all about (and much of philosophy), trying to find out what is objectively real, as opposed to what people may perceive. The attempt to invoke Einstein’s Relativity either General or Special as an argument in support of a postmodern denial of the existence of reality is comical, and betrays the ignorance or complete lack of understanding of those who do so (though some such theoreticians do make such leaps in logic).

Almost as comically was an appeal made to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.  While Quantum Mechanics (to which it pertains) indeed challenges classical scientist’s perceptions of reality, including Einstein’s theories of Relativity, it never comes close to questioning its objective existence.  The Uncertainty Principle in fact is only associated with the measurement of real particles in a real world, stating “the principle that the momentum and position of a particle cannot both be precisely determined at the same time.” (New Oxford American Dictionary)  To get from this to a philosophical metaphysical application saying that it means or implies or in any way supports the notion that we can’t know anything about the real world, goes way beyond a leap in logic to a leap in blind faith – albeit it is a faith in nothingness.

I hope I can be pardoned for being so offensively simplistic and small minded as to suggest that both of my friends cited above may have essentially the same problem – out of touch with reality.  But I have more hope for the first friend, because he at least knows there is such a thing as reality, and is invested in trying to find it (and with sleep and medication he seems to be doing so).  The latter doesn’t even believe such a thing exists, and feels quite superior to the rest of us who do – with what then will he ever be in touch (so to speak).  And if not really believing in any objective reality means we can forget about our differences and just get along, why is he being so argumentative about it (of course he would probably say everyone else is being argumentative, not him)?

Ok back to the definition – or is that really even necessary?  I think the cat may be out of the bag by now.   I know it is a big secret, or a new and revolutionary concept but reality is not perception.  Is that really a controversial assertion, or is it really so hard to grasp? Furthermore, reality does not depend upon perception to exist, or to be real.

Lets go back to an age old proverbial illustration.  Six blind men are describing what they perceive as a reality (something in the room).  One says it is like a pillar; another says it is like a rope; a third  says it is like a tree branch; a  fourth says it is like a hand fan; a fifth perceives it as being like a wall and the sixth a solid pipe.  Is this old proverb illustrating the idea that reality itself is only a function of the perception of a bunch of blind men?  If so it is a very poor illustration.  In fact they were all feeling something that was real – objectively real as in an elephant in the room.  The elephant’s existence is not threatened by the six blind men’s perceptions.  It is not reduced to a pillar, a rope, a wall etc. etc. depending upon what the blind men thought they were feeling.  The fact that each of them did not have enough information to adequately perceive the objective reality, does not in the least diminish the elephant or require its inexistence.  The “elephant in the room” for the Progressives is – well, the elephant.  They may imagine things that don’t exist, or their perception of what does exist may be distorted (and usually is) – either by a lack of, or inaccurate information.  They may even imagine that such things don’t exist, or that nothing really exists (as per variations of “nihilism”).  But like the Ostrich with his head in the sand, this doesn’t quite make it all go away.

            “Reality” as the term is being used here, is that which exists independently and objectively whether or not it is perceived accurately, or even perceived at all.  Physical realities, [1] while not necessarily the only kind of reality, are for the most part tangible to the physical senses, hence observable and measurable.  Hence we have the only justification and rationale for what we call science.  Another kind of reality is that of human experience – events and happenings and developments in lives of individuals and societies and cultures – hence we have “History.”  Another kind of reality exists in the realm of logic and rational though processes, which we usually refer to as rules of logic, inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning or inference.  The determination of what is real vs. what is not in any of these realms, is not only a legitimate and desirable but a necessary function of the intelligent species known as Homo sapiens – or man.  Abandoning such pursuits, or abrogating our responsibility to seek for objective truth about reality is tantamount to embracing Nihilism, and the ensuing chaos in every area of life.  To deny that such reality exists – is plain and simply the worst form of insanity.

Furthermore, the hapless and profoundly misguided notion that denying that reality exists, or abandoning the pursuit of reality-based living will bring world peace, is about as rational as proposing that we all stop breathing and eating to end sickness and disease – except that the latter would actually work.  Nobody is more judgmental of or intrusive in other people’s affairs and lifestyles than the self-styled elitists and self-righteous moderates who pride themselves in being “tolerant” of everything and anything, except those they perceive to be refusing to go along with their utopian ambitions for the whole world.  It’s not the conservatives who are passing all the laws and regulations and making public policy restricting the rights and freedoms and confiscating the property (as in earned income) of our citizenry.   It’s not the “dangerous right wing extremists” who are using in-your-face tactics to attempt to bring about change – such as tearing down the economic, social and moral traditions and principles upon which this society and nation and culture was founded.  Ironically it is the very provocateurs that are the instigators and activists in creating the very conflict and hostility they delight in denouncing.  Obviously eliminating “truth” and “reality” from their worldview, and redefining the meaning of the words to suit their purposes whatever they may be at any given time, has done nothing to make them more peaceful or compatible with the rest of us.

Differences in perception of reality will never go away in this world – nor will such reality.  But denial of reality is what the insane do, which keeps them insane as long as they remain in denial.  Thank God my first friend (AKA Bob) is coming out of denial and getting back in touch with reality – with the help of some medication.  My other friends probably still don’t even believe it exists, and they have a lot of company – that folks is really sad.

[1] It is not unusual, and indeed common in the literature and blog sites on this subject, to be using the word reality as if it only refers to physical, material objects.  As the word is used here, it refers to anything that is objectively real.  That includes not only immaterial realities or a dimension that may be spiritual and not necessarily physical, but it also involves an experiential realm, which includes what we might refer to as historical realities or events – i.e. things that actually did happen, as opposed to distortions of historical realities.