John:  Shane, What’s your take on the conceptual level of understanding reality vs the actual reality that is independent of human concepts? Is there much of a difference for you when you look at it? I don’t see Kent’s base assertion here as a problem, as much as I see his assertion that there’s evidence for divine as a problem. If you Street Epistemologize me on this, I’m venturing you would at least see that Kent is making sense on that portion.

Shane: John, I don’t see Kent as having made any assertion of the divine.

His assertion appears to be all over the place. Firstly it’s that things don’t exist physically unless they are recognized by a mind. Then it’s that things in the mind, like metaphors, also need a physical element to exist. I’m not sure he’s clear on what he believes.

My take is probably not helpful to express, whilst I’m still trying to understand Kent’s take.

John:  Shane.  I think Kent has a different way of seeing things. Sometimes it makes it hard to work past misunderstandings because the way he explains things can throw a person further off.

But I think I can explain it in a way that makes sense. I would say it this way:

“We can’t understand anything around us in any way without using concepts to translate what’s real into what we can understand”

Kent: John. I wouldn’t put it that way, but it is a statement I agree with.

Shane:  John,  I agree with that statement as well. You’ll note it is about understanding things, and makes no claims about the nature of “existing”.

John:  Shane. What if you run that again with “exist” as a concept used to translate a reality as well? What kind of changes if any come from that?

I see this as more being about language barriers. It’s hard to talk about what can’t be conceived lol.

Kent: “It’s hard to talk about what can’t be conceived lol” Acknowledging rational existence solves that problem.

John: Kent. Well I think we all are on the same page with that part.

I just don’t call it “rational” because rational seems to me to be about operating with proper use of concepts, and conceptual existence seems to be about recognizing that we are limited to concepts entirely.

But I think where it gets confusing is that in Hinduism for instance, all existence is an illusion of consciousness. And they don’t mean conceptualization of an actual reality, they mean it’s entirely illusion based on no actuality.

So, in other words, people might mistake what you are saying as being about something closer to what the Hindu’s believe.

Kent:  Let’s hope not.  Shane.  I made no claims about the nature of existing either.

Shane:  Kent.  Sir, your very first post, on the 28th of April, begins with this sentence.

“Rational existence is a belief system which asserts that human existence is nearly entirely rational, not physical.”

A claim about the nature of existing is literally the first thing you said… You want to contradict the whole point of your post, and the discussion we have been having?

John:  Shane. What about the qualifiers in the Original Post though? “Existence is not physical, though it has a physical dimension. Without the rational there is no matter, worth, value or use for existence.”

I think that it’s just a misunderstanding for this one. Still I think there is a good conversation to be had of what he extrapolates at the end about order.

 Of course that one hinges on the definition of matter. Kent, so in this one “matter” can mean “situation” “purpose” or “physical matter”. Not knowing which one you meant could further reinforce a reading that matched a more Hindu take.

Shane:  John.  The first sentence is about existence. The second sentence is about value. The second sentence has no bearing on existence at all. This is where his confusion is. That somehow the human value of something is connected to its existence.

John: Shane.  I also think the wording easily confuses a reader. But I read it as trying to make sense of what’s behind the curtain. Value plays a huge role in decision-making and choice. It’s one of the easier things to spot when trying to understand what’s happening behind the curtain.

But I see it as for him it all boils down to *everything we take as real is just all what we see through this system of order or reason*.

We had a good conversation about it … But really what he means is the conceptualization of existence we operate within. But he thinks that this order points to a divine source. That’s where I disagree with him. I think it’s just the product of more and more precise concepts being able to be discovered and put to use.

Shane:  John.  If the wording is easily confusing, then that’s on him and needs to be fixed. And honestly, it seems the confusing wording comes from the fact that he is not sure what he is trying to say.

The fact of the matter is the physical world is rational. He is trying to separate physical and rational into two separate things. Like saying, Water is more wet than physical. The two things are not separate.

Kent: You asked what existence was and I sent you a Wiki link.

We cannot know planes of existence, platonic forms, ontology, real existence or metaphysics. It is futile to theorize a secondary or tertiary reality outside of our own. The human intellect makes models, tells stories, designs, and copies and orders those elements of reality we discover in our lives and categorizing types of reality does not help us understand our worlds. Abandon attempts to qualify or differentiate realities or classify types of existence. This is how the journey to personal existence, to rational existence begins; by recognizing a universal existence with nothing outside of existence, making no attempt to further define or qualify our obvious existence.

The wording is clear, there is existence. And it is rational. Any other existence than what we have is not our existence. I can’t know about existence that is not known to humans. I did not differentiate types of existence, I have said repeatedly and emphatically that existence is rational, not physical. There is only existence, not non-existence or any types of existence that are useful to humanity. I have asked you why you differentiate types of existence and you have asserted that I did too, and I have denied it.

Shane:  Kent, You did not differentiate between types of existence?

Kent:  I agree there is a difference between two ants, two windows and two web sites. But they are still the same classes of objects.

Here is my entire comment which you disingenuously edited:

“I agree there is a difference between things that exist physically and things that exist in the mind. Humans exist in the mind primarily, and existence only exists in the mind. Dreams exist in the mind, and hammers exist in dreams.

“If you have a division to make between kinds of existence I believe first you need to make a definition of existence and show that such a definition exists.

“As it is existence as you have delineated it, does not exist, but a hammer with no name, no one to recognize it or use it, exists.”

Obviously there are differences between dreams, hammers, humans, minds, physical and definitions. But they all have existence. If you want to delineate between types of existence, go ahead, but why?

Shane:  I copied your entire sentence, and its meaning is straight forward. I don’t think there is any ambiguity, so I don’t think I was being disingenuous.

I’m happy if you want to say you misspoke, and want to change that sentence. Do you think there is a difference between things that exist physically and things that only exist in the mind?

 “I agree there is a difference between two ants, two windows and two web sites. But they are still the same classes of objects.”

But that’s not what we’re discussing. Is there a difference between me thinking about an ant, and an actual ant? Is there a difference between me planning on building a website, and an actual website that exists?

John:  Shane. I am not sure if the significance of this distinction has sunk in yet, but Kent’s not wrong with this by any means. You thinking about an ant and talking about it isn’t merely “thinking about an ant”.

It’s you conceptualizing the actuality “that you are performing thinking” and conceptualizing that actuality into the form of a thought about it.

Is there a difference between that and the actuality of your thinking? Now if we add the subject, is it the ant, or the conceptualization of the ant that you are further conceptualizing as a thought about it.

 I’d compare it to the idea that we never actually touch things because there’s always a field in the way.

In other words the conceptualization of an actuality is not the actuality itself.

Kent: I will let your words speak for me, John.  I am not sure if I like your word “actuality” yet, but I understand what you said and I am not sure if Shane has gotten it yet.

Shane:  John.  It is the difference between an ant, and everything I could possibly conceptualize about an ant. The existence of an ant, somewhere on Earth that no human has ever come into contact with, and everything I know, and can communicate, about ants. It is the separation between my mental “works” in totality, and what actually physically exists. Kent.  Do you think there is a difference between an ant that actually physically exists, and the thoughts of an ant in my mind?

Kent:  Of course there is a difference between anything that physically exists and whatever your conception of that thing is.  John.  For the record what you call “actual” or “actuality” I call Order or Universal Order that pre-exists our knowledge of that order or actuality.

Shane:  Kent.  And you understand how, and why, we would differentiate between the two?

Kent: The two? The difference between “actuality” and “order”? I don’t see any difference.

John: Kent, why do you call it order? What makes “order” most meaningful for picking when you are trying to parse this out?

Kent:  What we generally assume wrongly is that existence is physical. So if instead of calling the essential part of reality “actual” we should call it the order that exists. The order underlying reality is the essential part of reality that we use to learn, understand, model and communicate all of the ideas we need to build reality.

Shane:  Kent, I was referring to your reply above that. The difference between physically existing and my conception of that thing.

Kent:  Yeah, I was answering John. If there are differences between kinds of existence I see no point in delineating those differences. That something exists is enough explanation for me.

Shane:  Kent, You can see the difference between things that physically exist, and things that are in my mind, but you do not understand how, and why, we would differentiate between the two?

Kent:  Right. What do you gain by saying one thing exists one way and another thing exists another way?

Also I deny that anything known exists physically, although everything has a physical aspect.

Shane:  Kent.  Do you understand why we differentiate between solids, liquids and gases?

Kent:  I can think of several reasons to name and refer to many objects by their attributes.

John:  What about calling it “Structure”?

Kent:  Maybe. Seems like it needs more explanation, though. Deep Structure or Innate Structure or Pre-existent structure… Why don’t you like “order”?

John:  Order is so concept-associated. But also I think the universe has no concept of order. It just has structure. We observe the structure, see that it’s formed of connections and call that relationship order.

Kent:  Pre-existence is loaded, Order is conceptual. Structure is more neutral. Rational Existence is conceptual, so I still like Order.

Shane:  Kent.  But you can’t think of a reason to name and refer to objects by the attribute of physically existing, as opposed to existing solely in a mind?

Kent:  We have a word for everything for nothing for the universe for non-existence… Obviously the word existence refers to things which exist. That which does not exist is not in that category.

Shane:  Kent. That’s not an answer. Are you unable to think of a reason…?

Kent:  I asked you many times over our very long conversations to name a reason to separate kinds of existence. I have stated clearly I can think of none, and that Rational Existence sees no reason for it. I have clearly answered your question a dozen times.

Within Rational Existence there is no reason to delineate any types of existence. Things exist or they do not exist. That is enough.

Shane:  Kent.  The reason to separate physical existence and mental existence is the same reason we separate existence as a solid, existence as a liquid and existence as a gas. Categories are useful. If you have just one category that includes “everything” then it has no benefit as a category.

To put it another way, what is an example of something that does not exist?

Kent:  We have the category “everything” and you used it. We have the category “existence” and we use it. Why separate kinds of existence, or kinds of everything? Examples please.

Something that doesn’t exist?  Something for which we have no knowledge.  An example? Something never discovered, imagined, designed, and unrelated to anything known or imagined.

Shane:  Kent.  Can’t something exist for which we have no knowledge? Can’t something exist that we haven’t discovered, imagined, designed, and be unrelated to anything known or imagined? Doesn’t everything we discover fall into that category, prior to us discovering it?

Kent: There is pre-existence of order or structure or the rules that guide existence, which are entirely rational with no physical aspect.

John:  Kent, how do you reconcile identifying a “pre-existence of order is present”, with “no reason to delineate any types of existence”. To me they seem to conflict. What’s your take?

Kent:  Order is essential existence while material existence is secondary, tangential, and relational. There is no reason to delineate whether either thing exists. They exist only together as essential and relational, neither can exist without the other.

Even things that are thought but never communicated exist materially as synaptic connections.

Pre-existence is that which rules all things which exist. Pre-existence is Order, Structure or that which rules our existence.  There is existence and pre-existence.  Existence has a physical aspect, relation, or attribute.  From a human perspective pre-existence is purely rational.