Multisense Realism

I consider MSR to be neither dualist nor monist, but an “Orobouran” monism in which the universe as a whole is seen as a pansensitivity through which both absolute and relativistic ranges of qualities of experience present and represent each other physically. This means that physics itself is the capacity for sensory participation and discernment and that it is involuted in a reflexive, “umbilical” relation to itself. The idea is that experience and matter are the private and public ranges of physical phenomena. The involution (like a Klein bottle or Möbius strip) refers to the orthogonal or perpendicular juxtaposition between sensorimotive-based private experience and spacetime-based public realism.

Below, the little person on the cool end of the spectrum is the image that the participant on the warm end of the spectrum has of themselves, or rather of their body as seen by themselves on the scale which is native to the individual (as opposed to looking in the mirror and seeing billions of cells or gazillions of molecules). It is the scale of the participants experience going back to the beginning of the universe (I know this sounds insane), which is ultimately a reflection of its history more than mechanics.  What we see as objects are tokens, snapshots of private disposition which are represented as public positions – forms in places. We can’t relate to some ‘one’ who is as small as a single cell, and what or whoever it is that is represented to us by the cell finds us much too large to relate to. This is a rather fantastic way of utilizing everything subjectively and objectively. Everything gets to be the star of its own show on one level, and to be surrounded by the public facing fragments of every other star to use as props, tools, and worlds.

From this foundation, a compelling synthesis of physics, information, and subjectivity can emerge.

(R. Buckminster Fuller) Einstein, Planck, and other leading scientists said, “We’re going to have to reassess and redefine the physical universe.” — They defined the physical universe as “an aggregate of non-simultaneous and only partially overlapping transformation events.”

• partially overlapping = multi-sense (privately aggregated/segregated aesthetics).
• transformation events = (thermodynamically irreversible public) realism

The case of the Bent Pencil

“Let us consider the pencil-in-water example. The representation of the pencil in your head is bent. The real pencil is not bent. That which misrepresents reality is, by definition, wrong.”

That is right in one sense, but only when you extend your naive realism (the pencil looks bent) to additional levels of biased realism (I can tell that it only looks bent, and I understand that it is possible for things to seem one way in one sense and a different way in another sense).

What this means is that when you say “The real pencil is not bent. That which misrepresents reality is, by definition, wrong.” you assume that there is a “real pencil” based purely on the bias of perceptual capacities of your human body. Your psychological capacities elevate that low level perception to a more subtle level of  interpretation (which is still a form of perception of perception) in which you can entertain a difference between a real pencil and a visual appearance.

I submit that the bent pencil is, in a sense, a much more ‘real’ pencil than the understood straight pencil in that it reflects not only the distant object of physical surfaces of a pencil and water, but it conveys a condensed encyclopedia on optics and perception which lead directly to discoverable neurological truths.

It is the simplistic interpretation of a literal reality that ‘simply is’, independent of a perceptual experience of that reality which seems to be a misrepresentation of reality.

That’s right. Fiction is primordial, fact is contrived.