Consensus reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Consensus reality[1][2] is that which is generally agreed to be reality, based on a consensus view.

The difficulty with the question stems from the concern that human beings do not in fact fully understand or agree upon the nature of knowledge or ontology, and therefore it is not possible to be certain beyond doubt what is real.[3][4] Accordingly, this line of logic concludes, we cannot in fact be sure beyond doubt about the nature of reality. We can, however, seek to obtain some form of consensus, with others, of what is real. We can use this consensus as a pragmatic guide, either on the assumption that it seems to approximate some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more "practical" than perceived alternatives. Consensus reality therefore refers to the agreed-upon concepts of reality which people in the world, or a culture or group, believe are real (or treat as real), usually based upon their common experiences as they believe them to be; anyone who does not agree with these is sometimes stated to be "in effect... living in a different world."[5]

Throughout history this has also raised a social question: "What shall we make of those who do not agree with consensus realities of others, or of the society they live in?"

Children have sometimes been described or viewed as "inexperience[d] with consensus reality,"[6] although with the expectation that they will come into line with it as they mature. However, the answer is more diverse as regards such people as have been characterised as eccentrics, mentally ill, enlightened or divinely inspired, or evil or demonic in nature. Alternatively, differing viewpoints may simply be put to some kind of "objective" (though the nature of "objectivity" goes to the heart of the relevant questions) test. Cognitive liberty is the freedom to be the individual's own director of the individual's own consciousness and is fundamentally opposed to enforcement of the culturally accepted reality upon non-conforming individuals. Effects of low cognitive liberty vary from indifference to forced-medication and from social alienation to incarceration to death.[citation needed]

General discussion[edit]

In considering the nature of reality, two broad approaches exist: the realist approach, in which there is a single objective overall space-time reality believed to exist irrespective of the perceptions of any given individual, and the idealistic approach, in which it is considered that an individual can verify nothing except their own experience of the world, and can never directly know the truth of the world independent of that.

Consensus reality may be understood by studying socially constructed reality, a subject within the sociology of knowledge. (Read page three of The Social Construction of Reality by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann.)

Consider this example: reality for people who believe in any particular God is different from reality for those who believe that science is sufficient for explaining life and the universe.
In societies where God-centered religions are dominant, that understanding would be the consensus reality, while the religious worldview would remain the nonconsensus (or alternative) reality in a predominantly secular society where the consensus reality is grounded in science alone.

In this way, different individuals and communities have fundamentally different world views,[7] with fundamentally different comprehensions of the world around them, and of the constructs within which they live. Thus, a society that is (for example) completely secular and one which believes every eventuality to be subject to metaphysical influence will have very different consensus realities, and many of their beliefs on broad issues such as science, slavery, and human sacrifice may differ in direct consequence because of the differences in the perceived nature of the world they live in.

However, realities may also differ amongst a population of those who believe in the same "particular God". These differences in realities between two or more distinct populations within the same religion have a wide range of real consequences. For example: the differences in the perceived realities between Sunni and Shiite interpretations of Islam; have left the two groups at odds with each other for centuries. There is a well documented history of disputes arising from these theological differences within certain pockets of the Islamic faith, which has repeatedly led to violence between the two groups. The same can be said for the Great Schism within Christianity between Catholics and Protestants, which has many similar conflicts as well. The differences between Christian and Muslim perceptions of reality ultimately led to The Crusades. Many would point out that the same holy war between these two religious groups has continued well on into the 21st century (See Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom).

A third group worth mentioning would be those with an Agnostic perspective of reality, which is ultimately more humble in its assessment with reality than both the atheist and "any particular religious" reality. Their view of reality expresses more humility in the sense that they do not go about assigning answers to questions which they don't understand. The reality of an atheist or religious individual is one with definitive interpretations and proclamations of absolute truth in the metaphysical and physical universe often based of real life experiences that others may or may not have experienced. This reality requires arrogance on the part of individuals who claim to understand absolute truth. However, we all have such arrogance in one form of another regardless of our belief system. It is important to note, that the lack of religion as a function of an individual's reality does not necessarily entail a lack of concern or emphasis of morality. Likewise, the existence of religion as a function of another individual's reality does not necessarily entail the understanding or commitment to morality. It is important to note that often one individual or group may in fact have an experience that is able to bring light to any particular reality that others have not experienced. In this fact those who have not the same experience may feel it is unwarranted or non-existent. If a majority of people do not have the same experience it does not make the experience any less real. However, the majority consensus will likely be of different opinion due to this fact. This does not make the experiences any less real or true. This can be very frustrating to those who experience it. It often even makes the general consensus view of one particular group or belief system as wrong despite the experiences of the minority. Facts do not always play a roll in a particular view even amongst the scientific community.

Consensus reality in science and philosophy[edit]

Spiritualists[edit]

[further explanation needed]

Objectivists[edit]

Objectivists, though not necessarily materialists, also reject the notion of subjective reality; they hold that while each individual may indeed have their own perception of reality, that perception has no effect on what reality actually is; in fact, if the perception of reality differs significantly from the actual reality, serious negative consequences are bound to follow.[citation needed]

Idealists[edit]

Some idealists (subjective idealists) hold the view that there isn't one particular way things are, but rather that each person's personal reality is unique. Such idealists have the world view which says that we each create our own reality, and while most people may be in general agreement (consensus) about what reality is like, they might live in a different (or nonconsensus) reality.[citation needed]

Materialists[edit]

Materialists may not accept the idea of there being different possible realities for different people, rather than different beliefs about one reality. So for them only the first usage of the term reality would make sense. To them, someone believing otherwise, where the facts have been properly established, might be considered delusional.[citation needed]

Social consequences[edit]

Views on the term "consensus reality"[edit]

The connotation of the term "consensus reality" is usually disparaging: it is usually employed by idealist, surrealist and other anti-realist theorists opposing or hostile to this "reality," with the implication that this consensus reality is, to a greater or lesser extent, created by those who experience it. (The phrase "consensus reality" may be used more loosely to refer to any generally accepted set of beliefs.) However, there are those who use the term approvingly for the practical benefits of all agreeing on a common set of assumptions or experiences.[8]

Social aspects of consensus reality[edit]

Singers,[9] painters, writers, theorists and other individuals employing a number of means of action have attempted to oppose or undermine consensus reality while others have declared that they are "ignoring" it. For example, Salvador Dalí intended by his paranoiac-critical method[10] to "systematize confusion thanks to a paranoia and active process of thought and so assist in discrediting completely the world of reality".[11]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Reality by Consensus": An Analysis of the Metapragmatic and Therapeutic Dimensions of Vampiric Live Action Role-playing. Reviews Indiana University, 1998.
  2. ^ Quantum Consciousness. By Lily Splane. Pg 51
  3. ^ Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chicago Press. p. 259. ISBN 0-226-46804-6. "In summary, Putnam has shown that existing formal versions of objectivist epistemology are inconsistent; there can be no objectively correct description of reality from a God's eye point of view. This does not, of course, mean that there is no objective reality—only that we have no privileged access to it from an external viewpoint." 
  4. ^ Putnam, Hilary (1981). Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
  5. ^ Stork, David G., editor (1998). Hal's Legacy: 2001's Computer as Dream and Reality. MIT Press. p. 201. ISBN 0-262-69211-2. 
  6. ^ Rostow Kuznets, Lois (1994). When Toys Come Alive: Narratives of Animation, Metamorphosis, and Development. Yale University Press. pp. 228, note 14. ISBN 0-300-05645-1. 
  7. ^ According to philosopher Ken Wilber. See Ken Wilber's book A Brief History of Everything.
  8. ^ Zane Crawford. "ideotrope: consensus reality". Retrieved 2007-06-19. [dead link]
  9. ^ Scott, Aaron (August 19, 2005). "Angel in America: Holcombe Waller's seraphic voice provides comfort during Troubled Times". Just Out (Portland, Oregon) 22 (20). p. 37. 
  10. ^ "DALI.UFFS.NET - Salvador Dali - Odjinud ...". Retrieved 2007-06-07. 
  11. ^ Bryan M. Papciak. ""Thank God I'm an atheist: "The surrealistic cinema of Luis Bunuel". Retrieved 2007-06-19.