This Week I read Searle (1998); Berger & Luckman (1967), Smullyan (1977), Prisig (1974):
Searle (1998) : He begins his chapter by explaining Enlightenment Vision. The world was intelligible and we understood reality. But then in the beginning of the twentieth century a number of events happened and challenged the traditional optimism of both nature and our ability to comprehend it. He moves on from the postmodernist challenges to the concept of Reality. He does a very good job of explaining our cognitive limits of understanding the same. He then explains different theories of realism existing, explaining and pointing out their limitations. Perspectivism looks at reality from a point of view, whereas idealism isolates it in a different context.
Again you can choose to be a skeptic . At the end he talks about religion and how it is unfashionable to talk about it in the current light of things. Religion is a choice, a preference. Knowledge of a lot of things have demystified religion. He ends the article by summarizing that all these arguments are flawed, as they make sense only in particular contexts. They look good when looked through individual lenses. He goes in to say, maybe that reality is not a theory at all but instead it is a framework.
My Stand : I have a stand close to the author. I completely agree to the facts that the theories look credible in isolation, but contradict each other when put together. I agree to his stand that all these can be true, without confronting each other. I can be 72 kgs and still be 160 pounds. It depends on the context you choose and the vocabulary adopted to explain the same. I connect with his thoughts more so because I hail from a country which is multicultural, multilingual and multi religious. I have grown up to accept point of views without necessarily contesting or challenging them. I believe in existence of God in multiple formats (being a Hindu), yet I am a student of science and understand that God is one. So I will say that I am something else.
My Questions: 1. Just because the advancement of science allows us to experiment with a lot more things now than when these theories were formulated, should we look at it in the new light? Should we use scientific methods to judge reality? 2. Can we send these authors to the moon and then ask them to comment on perspectivism? Will they say that there is no gravity any more? 3. What is the difference between reality and dreams?
Berger & Luckmann (1967): They at the very beginning differentiate their methodology from that of a philosophical task. They had adopted a phenomenological method analysis of everyday life to throw light on social construction of reality. The language of everyday life continuously provides them with necessary objectifications and posits the order within which these make sense within which everyday life has meaning. They go to great lengths explaining about the reality of everyday life and how it is organized around the “here and now” of the present. They also explain other realities that they are conscious of and its inter-subjectivity (namely dreams). They explain very clearly as to why face to face communication in reality is so massive and compelling. In the last part of the article they explain the importance of language in everyday life. They further probe into signs and how they make sense in terms of pragmatical and symantical context.
My Stand: I agree with the authors that Everyday Life has an inbuilt, organized objective order. It can be stated more like : intuition has an inbuilt logic. You can be very spontaneous but your spontaneity has a fuzzy logic. However on page 26, para 1, the author speaks of how he distorts reality of dreams as soon as he begins to translate his experience into paramount reality of everyday life. Salvador Dali would use his surrealistic techniques and came up with art pieces which cannot be said something that distorts reality. I would say that this distortion that the author speaks of is an act of creativity. I also believe that face to face situation is massive and compelling. However I would want to refute his stance that misrepresentation and hypocrisy is more difficult to sustain in face to face situations.
Questions: 1. I wonder as to what happens in a big group which involves face to face communication. Will it still be very massive and compelling? Or is there an optimum number in a group which will sustain a compelling experience? 2. Does typification bring in a sense of purpose in an act? Can it motivate a person to go out of his way and achieve something? 3. Language allows me to typify experiences in turn allowing me to subsume them under broad categories in terms of which they have meaning not only to myself but also to my fellowmen. So is Facebook a type of language? 4. Can we say “tutoiement” and “bruderschaft” serves as gestures to a given language? 5. Why are we interested in news of other countries even though they don’t concern me in my everyday life? According to the author we should not be interested, so how would I typify my this everyday act?
Smullyan (1977): I Loved both the stories. It was funny and cheeky to the core. The dream talks about nothingness. You can understand nothingness but when it comes to explaining it, there is a problem. There is no reference point relative to which you can explain it. The so called scientific ways of probing fails. A wonderful pun about the emptiness of the universe leaves you asking for more. So if I were to explain it in Indian terminology, I would say “Sab maya hai”. The same concept was taken forward to the next chapter. Zen master, asks a novice to answer how he could have a stick in his hand but at the same time not. The novice gives up and returns after 12 years to find out the truth, reality only to find that the master now does not believe that he could have asked such a question. Does reality change due to change in perspective? Or does perspective change as a result of reality?
Prisig (1974): In Smullyan, it was difficult to define nothingness. In this story of the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance , a father does a very good work of explaining an abstract concept of ghost to his son. Does it mean that if something cannot be proved by scientific means, it does not exist? Was there no gravity before 17th century, when Newton discovered it? And if something does not have matter or energy, does it mean it is non existent? An interesting comparison of ghosts with scientific laws leaves you with a lot of unanswered probes. An amazing perspective / angle of looking at things. My Question: Do you believe in ghost?
