In a recent discussion with another whose opinion garners much of my respect, the concept(s) of time and space became the focus of a digression in thought due to the focus being upon the notion of objective reality and/or the possible distinction between it and actuality. I have just realized that my thoughts need to be reassessed.

Can we even make that distinction? Does our language/knowledge allow that possibility?

I realize that this could and most likely will invoke the old empiricism vs. rationalism debate(s) and possibly even the 'Kantian solution' regarding those which may subsequently further lead into post-Kantian thought, which is fine but... I would rather not get bogged down in thought regarding what is individually considered to be the appropriate terminology. That is not meant to be a slight in any way, just that I want to avoid the possibility of talking past one another, without developing a mutual understanding of the meaning behind the words.

IOW, I want to avoid the old adage - "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Honest effort applies.

Are you saying whether on not we are able to comprehend objective reality, saying that language and our own perception of knowledge could be a potential hindrance?

i think you are trying to understand how 'objective reality' and actuality relate to each other.

of course the distinction can be made. the differences are both subtle and huge simultaneously.

objective reality is absolute term and actuality is a particular of the absolute. i think they sit a little like the relation of noumenon to phenomenon.

one hell of a simple answer but sometimes it's more difficult to imagine things are complicated!

Are you saying that the terms 'objective reality' and 'actuality' refer to the same thing but, from different perspectives?

i think it is impossible to think that objective reality and actuality relate to each other in cogent ways (that can lead one to talk of differing perspectives being their shared root).

they occupy entirely irreducible positions even though they each have a very clear and relatable definition for each other that actually makes possible the meaning of what 'each' is.

(the relation of what they are makes the relationship between 'objective reality' the content of form and 'actuality the form of content)

this seeming reducibleness appears to create a inherent relation between the terms (such as form and content appear to share) but the relation actually is unshared. each term relates to the other in ways that are entirely asymmetrical.

it's kind of like the difference between viewing the concept of sciences' movement anterograde and retrograde...

viewed anterograde: science is the movement of truths to higher truths
viewed retrograde: science is the overturning of one inaccurate idea with another inaccurate idea

this way of viewing the same thing creates a shoreless divergency that makes a singular concept irreducible to itself(!)

so, 'objective reality' and actuality' share this singular non absolute quality. individually they can be related in ways that refer back to ideas of 'different perspectives' but in reality (ho ho) they themselves occupy 'other worlds' to each other.

aaaahhh, i hope that makes more clear what i meant to mean when i mean what i meant.

I have a feeling we're going to end up talking past each other but, an honest effort is required.

susanpohthompson wrote:
i think it is impossible to think that objective reality and actuality relate to each other in cogent ways (that can lead one to talk of differing perspectives being their shared root).

Impossible? It must be that you and i think differently.

they occupy entirely irreducible positions even though they each have a very clear and relatable definition for each other that actually makes possible the meaning of what 'each' is.

I'm sorry; i don't understand how they can have 'a definition for each other.' We have definitions for them; isn't that how it is? 'Objective reality' as i see it is the fullness of Being as it presents to us; that we then experience and talk about as phenomena. I am less clear on 'actuality;' i imagine the Absolute as some idealized space and, actuality as the actual facts of the matter that perhaps might condense from idealized form and initial action (entirely theoretical.)

To clarify my own position; i think there's been an error incorporated into the dogma of the day that puts consciousness on a pedestal. There's an epistemological exercise that acknowledges the primacy of consciousness but; it's an epistemological thing, it says nothing about the form of Being.

(the relation of what they are makes the relationship between 'objective reality' the content of form and 'actuality the form of content)

this seeming reducibleness appears to create a inherent relation between the terms (such as form and content appear to share) but the relation actually is unshared. each term relates to the other in ways that are entirely asymmetrical.

Again, you're loosing me. First, they don't relate in any cogent way and, now they do have a relationship but, it's asymmetrical and therefore only imagined? Could you elaborate on 'asymmetrical?'

it's kind of like the difference between viewing the concept of sciences' movement anterograde and retrograde...

viewed anterograde: science is the movement of truths to higher truths
viewed retrograde: science is the overturning of one inaccurate idea with another inaccurate idea

this way of viewing the same thing creates a shoreless divergency that makes a singular concept irreducible to itself(!)

Aren't singular concepts generally irreducible to themselves? And shouldn't it be "...one inaccurate idea with another idea, hopefully slightly more accurate?" And "...truths to higher truths" seems a tad idealistic; don't you think?

so, 'objective reality' and actuality' share this singular non absolute quality. individually they can be related in ways that refer back to ideas of 'different perspectives' but in reality (ho ho) they themselves occupy 'other worlds' to each other.

At least we can agree they occupy different worlds to each other.

aaaahhh, i hope that makes more clear what i meant to mean when i mean what i meant.

Not really. Is that how you have it? Objective reality is the content of form and actuality is the form of content? Content of form.... .... ..? Form of content... .... ..? Some kind of nested structure? Does it require god and subject reiteration?