On ''what there is''

@mahgister, I must not be explaining myself very well. There is only one reality. That reality can be interpreted differently but there is only one reality. As an example, the color red is defined as light energy with a wavelength at 700 nm. That is the reality. If we are all presented with light at 700 nm we will all call the color red because we have been taught to do so even though we are all having a personal experience in viewing the color.  Same thing happens with sound in a more complicated way.
If a system comes close to emulating a live performance just like the colors we will all interpret it the same way even though we are having a personal experience. I have seen this happen on a number of occasions. I use to work with a very high end Audio store and we were setting up these systems on a regular basis. As soon as deviations from the reality start occurring personal biases start infiltrating the evaluation. Which defects can you tolerate, which defects bother you the most? The vast variety of opinions you see here are based on deviations from reality. The "reality" has to be based on acoustic or lightly amplified instruments. Large concerts represent a maze of variables you can't account for. There are great live recordings many of them superior to the actual concert experience. But, you can't hear the light show.

@nandric,  sad isn't it? I prefer to call it primitive human behavior. Will we ever learn to overcome our instincts? All those characters are the same it is only that their weapons got better as time marched on. Thank god the vast majority of us are not suicidal but the Japanese Kamikaze should serve as an important lesson. God will not help us if certain people get a bomb. In the end it will be religion that is the ruin of us. 

@mahgister, I must not be explaining myself very well. There is only one reality. That reality can be interpreted differently but there is only one reality.

mijostyn I misinterpret what you said yes.....Yes you are right men defines reality by agreeing in a consensus...This consensus is defined by numbers.... And these numbers can be verified by an experimental consensus...

But then it lacks in this reality what is lacking in the numbers, the meaningful perceptive effect interpreted and also added on the phenomena by each consciousness...

We can agree about that....

I then apologize for my over reaction...

Miyostin, The ''shorthand'' description of truth is ''correspondence
with reality''. The other is to state that something is a fact. But
the general opinion among logician, linguist and philosopher
of science is that those are statement , sentences or propositions.
This is to say that the only linguistic ''entity'' which can be true
or false are statement and not ''notions'', ''concepts'' or ''ideas''.
When we look at older philosopher like Kant, Hegel, etc. we
will see that they talk about ''concepts'' ( Begriffen ) as ''things''
 that are true and are actually ''explaining'' the meaning of
concepts. Those are then put in ''opposition to each other'',
Since Frege and modern linguistic only statements are considered
to be either true or false (tertium non datur). However ''correspondence'' should not be seen as ''identity relation''. This
was Frege's error caused by his admiration of Kant. ''German sickness is the need to admire 'some' persons ''. Kant btw is also such person. So when in  Germany don't ever criticise Kant and Hegel only very cautious. 
They still need to discover Frege. So in this case Americans and
English (Russel) were first. 

There is no such thing as ’’rationality’’ to find
in human history.

Rationality is not an object supposed to exist, nor a concept only supposed to be eternal... Latin rationality inherited from the greek Logos... It is a living RELATION, an internal TOTALITY encompassing what we call "reality" now, which is material only, discourse and speech and consciousness and thinking mind... The transformation of this internal totality of experience in Three external totalities is the passage from the beginning of our civilization to the actual "hubris" and Faustian will of our own actual world, culminating in technological idolatrry called transhumanism...Which is the absolute death of reason by separating it from freedom and then separating it from the reality and from language....

Rationality is a meaningful creation by imaginative moral perception...

When someone say: "Dont do to others what you dont want the others did to you, " this person by a FREE act of moral perceptive imagination create a NEW reality where it is possible to experiment in himself what others will feel...Without this freedom this is not possible...Free moral imaginative perception is a new organ of perception literally.... How can we perceive pure love without it?

Rationality is a NEW meaningful phenomenon created in the cosmos and it came into being by a free act of thinking ONLY....It is not a dead rule... But something that is born new each day , it is evolutive growing process...

Then rationality exist at the same time like an absolute creation and like an absolute new world...It is the living link between the two...

What is reality without rationality: a nightmare who work to exist and will disapear...Look in an horror movie

What is reality with rationality : something no numbers can define, a changing, evolving, meaninful growing living new cosmos...

Calling that wishful thinking is abolishing freedom...And calling that wishful thinking is negating reality not endorsing it...It is endorsing a condemned reality promised to disapear not by a judging God external to it but by the power of our freedom...



Reality need us to exist....If not, something lack for his perpetuation as conscious life....

Kant was wrong... what moves human being to act is not an external God or an external imperative , a duty... It is freedom to love....

Miyostin, The ’’shorthand’’ description of truth is ’’correspondence
with reality’’.

Truth come into being by participation not ONLY by an EXTERNAL correspondance between language,mind and reality...This participation participated to an INTERNAL totality of meaning between reality, mind and language... Technology is powerful but BLIND... Technology is not science itself.... And science is not ONLY knowledge... It is not enough for science to exist....It lack free consciousness and moral perceptive and creative imagination....The cult of technology is an idolatry of power without science nor reason...

All misunderstanding in philosophy mostly come with the lost of an innate meaning and the freedom of pure power inherited by the emergence of nominalism...It was a detotalisation of the original logos...History after biological evolution could not exist without this pure act of possible freedom without this lost of innate meaning which was an original "programmation" of consciousness...This history is a revelation (apocalypsos in greek ) of our own FREE being ....We are free to create hell or heaven.... It is not religion here.... Read science fiction book.... Like "Blade runner" inspired by Philip K. Dick....

Any act of perceptive and creative moral imagination is a prophecy or a potential prediction... We choose between horror or beauty... Freely....

They still need to discover Frege. So in this case Americans and
English (Russel) were first.

By the way it is impossible to understand history of philosophy which is also an history of consciousness ( like music history is or art history etc) without going back to the origin of our own civilization with the birth of nominalism and BEFORE at the times of Parmenides...

But it will take a book for me to explain that not a post....

There is no such thing as ’’rationality’’ to find
in human history.

Pythagoras. Galileo. Newton. The guy with the frizzy hair.