which remove 'our view' from whatever might be the Totality we love to call 'Reality'. Seems likely to me as much about "how it is we organize stuff". Legions of philosophers / psychologists have postulated models for how homo-sap "constructs his/her personal Universe". There is some consensus which suggests that our minds operate largely via association*, and the refining of metaphor: at least, re. anything we are ever able to communicate to others.

* that is: all previous remembered experience adds-to the latest one; we do lots more than some simple funnel sort - and in principle: we revise our personal 'Reality' with every new experience! (that would be in the case of a fully functioning homo-sap, of course - not for most of us). Since that is in metaphorical form (if one buys that theory) - no wonder it is hard to translate to another. Seems to ~work though, if only on the rare occasion where both parties have had similar-enough experiences, and patience enough to eschew the BS.

There may be internal awareness of much else -?- however, for that to be expressed (or an attempt made to do so) these umm 'intimations?' must first be translated into words. Then the rules of language apply: you need a [referent] for each word. (It had best be a common one, or in case of small groups, two? or a few? - one accessible to the meaning which that group has decided upon.)

Which may be why most theological discussions are doomed to failure - that referent thingie again + ego + habit and the inevitable self-delusion - just to make it really Hard to talk about the ineffable, except to assert, I Believe ____

Our metaphors are never the territory called [The Real] and they seem most often to be highly customized maps - quite less useful to others than to the mapmaker 'writing'.

So if 'Reality' has a referent ~ "All There Is" - then it follows that homo-sap may never claim to possess that Reality; ergo such sentences as begin, In reality, it's like ____ this reduce to - meaninglessness, however common the phrase may be.

'Certainty' I believe follows similar rules. To be Certain is to claim perfect comprehension of Reality. In daily events we talk about - we tend to take statistical data about some phenomenon as a measure of how 'certain' we are = how good will be our prediction. But even on that scale of mere physical phenomena, Maxwell's Demon symbolizes the highly unlikely - yet statistically possible! - event wherein all the air molecules in a room congregate in a 'corner' = and you suffocate. ;-) Has it ever occurred? Let's look at all the mysterious 'suffocation deaths' ever, shall we?

So one need not reductio absurdum (as tse suggests) about all this Reality, Certainty stuff: just keep it in proper scale ie when speaking of the infinite, it is impossible to exaggerate! Or maybe: only The Absolute possesses Absolute Truth\ufffd ..and around we go. -->|<--
:-\ufffd



And that's the truth about The Truth or..
never mind.


Ashton