Birds eye view

[Reciprocality]

Reality is a personal engagement and a personal abstraction that pertain to every particular thing but its identity appear to never be contradicted by any of these particular things, the items of perception. How would it be possible to infer anything about other peoples reality-concept if it never even appears to us that it could be different from our own via how every single experience is consistent with out own reality-concept?

 

I can not see the world beyond the way in which its various items becomes the same reality I have always imagined.

It really follows that I can not be other than who I am, but also that I cant not be me.

 

But if by some weird inquiry, deduction or contemplation we could reach the ways in which others reality is or has to be, then how would we succeed at that? If that which is the same in all of us could be pinned down, distinctly identified, how would we succeed with doing so, how could we avoid that line of thought turning recursive or self-referential? And if we can not avoid that self-reference problem then could that actually imply that reality is the same thing for all of us?

 

edit: a few imprecisions. 

Edited November 6 by Reciprocality

[Sugarcoat]

What is the main point?

[Reciprocality]

45 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

What is the main point?

@Sugarcoat Are there always main points?

I am saying several coherent things, and since the concept of a "main point" and "coherence" have a very similar relation to their respective compliments such as "subservient points" and "several inputs" the coherence should answer your question.

I could state their coherence directly, it would require overly abstract language, and it would be somewhat like putting the cart before the horse.

The coherence of many things can be elucidated by mutual exploration and exemplification, if your question couples directly to something I said it should have a higher chance of me providing a good answer.

Edited November 6 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

@Sugarcoat Or what if the main point means the purpose of the post and that purpose could only be revealed in the answers to the questions I asked? 

[Sugarcoat]

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@Sugarcoat Are there always main points?

I am saying several coherent things, and since the concept of a "main point" and "coherence" have a very similar relation to their respective compliments such as "subservient points" and "several inputs" the coherence should answer your question.

I could state their coherence directly, it would require overly abstract language, and it would be somewhat like putting the cart before the horse.

The coherence of many things can be elucidated by mutual exploration and exemplification, if your question couples directly to something I said it should have a higher chance of me providing a good answer.

I just didn’t understand what you meant. Do you mean that we can’t know if others reality are similar to ours? I think about it sometimes that’s why I asked

Edited November 6 by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@Sugarcoat Or what if the main point means the purpose of the post and that purpose could only be revealed in the answers to the questions I asked? 

It was just me who didn’t understand what you meant