To any MySpacers

[Hexadecimal]

I've set up a new group to discuss 'Deconstruction' - a philosophy that reality cannot be known, and what we consider to be real is nothing but virtual simulation through our six senses and mind (5 basic, and EM recognition).

http://groups.myspace.com/DeconstructTheLie

I joined...

[SilentMind]

I didnt.

-proud-

i'm in-- I'll see you on there

[KikoSanchez]

Does it really make sense to say reality can't be known then go and define what is 'real'?

It dosen't matter. His theory is nonexistant like everything else. All a figament of your mind.

Sounds a lot like nihilism.

I bookmarked it.

Might be interesting...might not.

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Does it really make sense to say reality can't be known then go and define what is 'real'?

he didn't define what is real, he explained what we belive is "real", and how we came to that conclusion

sounds like nothing more than an updated take on nihilism or solipsism

[bobsled]

If I push you off a cliff to your death and the world continues to exist will you apologize for your stupid theory?

_____

www.electronarmy.net.tc

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I've set up a new group to discuss 'Deconstruction' - a philosophy that reality cannot be known, and what we consider to be real is nothing but virtual simulation through our six senses and mind (5 basic, and EM recognition).

h ttp://grou ps.myspace .com/Decon structTheLie

what a sucker, i have a real cult, and am a messiah to a group of people i've brainwashed. sad how they truly believe in me.

nobody gives a fuck, dickface.

never opened the link, but does this sound like the matrix to anyone else?

maybe im jsut trippin. haha

quote:Originally posted by americaftw:

nobody gives a fuck, dickface.

I do

[Dark_Magneto]

Hahahaha, this is amusing!

A group of people gathered together, discussing how they don't believe in eacth others' existence.

Hahahaha!

That's not it at all.

We believe that the world we percieve with our 6 senses (touch, hearing, taste, scent, sight, electromagnetism), is the distorted view of a more real existence. We see the world through our human consciousness filters, and thus are getting warped and inaccurate subjective views of the objective world around us. It's not that we don't all exist together, it's that what we define existence as-and believe we are living in-is not true existence.

The aim of this group is to realize - and discard these filters so that we see the world through only self-evident truths, or axioms.

[This message has been edited by truorion (edited 01-05-2007).]

[Dark_Magneto]

But the question you have to ask yourself is, how to you discern between a world where everything you ever experienced from the beginning is an artificially induced illusion, and a world where one's sensory inputs are (for the most part) an accurate representation of basic reality?

Wouldn't it be more rational to operate under the pretense that what we perceive is genuine until given a strong case to doubt it?

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 01-05-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

But the question you have to ask yourself is, how to you discern between a world where everything you ever experienced from the beginning is an artificially induced illusion, and a world where one's sensory inputs are (for the most part) an accurate representation of basic reality?

Wouldn't it be more rational to operate under the pretense that what we perceive is genuine until given a strong case to doubt it?

Yes, sir. But that's what science is. An extension of our own senses, with our personal mental cognition of the subject at hand. We know now through science that there are colors we cannot see. They simply are out of the range of colors capable of being viewed by the naked eye. But with inventions such as the spectrometer, we can see much, much more.

So yes, up until we were technologically capable of seeing that there is indeed more, we were plagued with your question: Which is it, blurred or clear reality?

Now we have answers

maybe he just wanted to get people's myspaces to see what they look like

but... looks neat.. might join.

[I_Like_Traffic_Lights]

This computer won't allow myspace (I'm at work at a library) so I didn't click on the link, but I haven't heard a very satisfactory definition of deconstruction in this thread.

Or read, excuse me, symbols you see.

That's actually one of the main points, is it not? Deconstruction started out literary, through Derrida, text is representative of language; language is representative of thought; so text is a few times removed from reality.

You look up the definition of words and there are more words.

The differance (spelled correctly) is that meaning is constantly differed elsewhere. Not that it doesn't exist, but that it's constantly moving.

The idea was to create a new way of thinking, and I think Derrida would laugh at a bunch of people (especially amongst the hyper-reality of the internet) discussing Deconstruction.

I could be wrong though, I haven't slept in a while, and I'm very very tired. I'll give it a gander when I'm a bit more coherent, but wanted to give a better definition. If after sleep what I wrote is garbage I'll delete it.

Or not, they're just symbols.