Ive been thinking about direct and indirect realism. Mostly im a direct realist because my interpretive powers are corrupted a bit by thought disorder. Most things are understandable through direct realism which i think has the most power in terms of making argument about truth. But sometimes indirect realism is needed where the simulation in your mind presents perceptual problems. One issue is transgendered people. Direct realism causes one to argue a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Then when you see a man that looks like a woman direct realism is challenged. So there is a whole interpretive area surrounding this issue and i think hard core direct realists will stay grounded in their observation that a man is a man and a woman is a woman but then there is an indirect theoretical interpretive way of thinking about gender which is not really a direct realist concept except when it relates to gender roles and appearances related to gender. So its a war between direct and indirect realism to see a transexual as their gender identity.
This topic is actually how I interpreted one of your sketches. Not sure that’s what you were going for, but it made sense to me
The question isn’t as simple as it appears. it’s dependant upon one’s state of mind. Representational reality seems the way we view things in an every day state of mind.
However, in an altered or higher state of consciousness, direct observation becomes reality, and an incredible beauty arises from that perception
Just my own observation and experience
In a way a transgendered person exists in an indirect reality in relation to their sex. While most people see they are a boy or a girl they accept that. However a transgendered person concludeds that the sexual reality they perceive is not the real reality. So it makes sense that this would be a natural case of direct vs indirect realism conflict
Indirect realism is in my mind the ironic position of science because while science is direct realist in terms of making observations such as taking measurements it is indirect realist in terms of understanding the human mind. It is accepted that an individual lives in a simulation of the world created by their mind. But most of what science does is try to produce exact observations in understanding the world even using instruments that are designed to see the world exactly the way it is. Of course scientific studies interpret their findings but those interpretations are closely based on observation
Related to zwaynopolous’s question about the nature of conscious experience (history) in why i used the flag of ireland in a sketch that i made is there is some connection on the orange side to indirect reality and science and a connection on the green side to naive realism. Afterall to someone in the 18th century the scientific intetpretation is not reality unless they were l’orange. And the religious side of orange is the interpretation of reality in determining gods will for each of us. I think the science of that time was extremely corrupt by interpretive biases and much of the popular science became interpretations of evolution such as social darwinism, eugenics, superiority of the white race excluding green and a weird psychiatry that the confederates used such as saying want for freedom was a mental disorder.
Do you become more in touch with yourself if you use cannabis? What about tobacco/nicotine?
I’ve heard pot is not good for meditation and things like that.
It’s apparent that there a dichotomy between the mind and body but I think the mind is a difficult thing to comprehend but I can conclude based on the effectiveness of current antipsychotic medication that it is physical in nature. The extreme position of indirect realism that is essentially solipsist is absurd and in my view is a reducio absurdum argument against indirect realism. The world is physical and the mind is physical. Issues of perception don’t cancel out direct realism because that’s the only argument you can make against the extreme view, and it clearly doesn’t render it absurd. If anything it just reveals the nature of physical reality is that it doesn’t occur without defect.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.