Our striving for knowledge is a declaration of love. By gaining wisdom we are loved in return. The most basic structure of consciousness and reality deciphered and a real solution to the problem of free will. Wholeness is absolute unity at a point. Whoever distinguishes, decides. By Claus Janew.
Truth is a controversial concept. Some deny its existence altogether – which would be a truth in itself. Others see it as a fundamental belief, call it "knowledge," and have a hard time understanding why others seem to overlook it. But everyone understands that there can be a difference between what one says, what one believes, and what one knows. And which of these takes precedence when it matters.
What
matters?
I have been trying to understand how people come to their opinions. Pure logic and impartiality are rare - largely independent of intelligence. Emotions constantly distort thinking in one direction or another. Fear of something in particular does this. Often subliminally, but you can see it very well if you pay attention. In discussions, I can sometimes see, as if under a microscope, how someone fails to think ahead at a particular point, but always turns back to what is pleasant. And, of course, the appearance of rationality has to be maintained.
How can we describe an intentional change in reality with minimal assumptions?
None of this is new to a conventional, non-magical worldview. However, the word "reality creation" suggests more: we also create what is usually seen as independent of us.
Radical constructivism was initially formulated by Ernst von Glasersfeld.
Radical constructivists do not speak of creating reality, but of
constructing reality. What is the difference?
"Creating reality" ultimately means creating everything, without exception. "Constructing reality"
means interpreting external "disturbances" and thus shaping effects.
Thus the constructivist has the lesser claim, but at the price of
inconsistency. He cannot avoid including an external cause of effect that essentially
determines his construction. In principle, however, he cannot and does not want
to know by what this obviously pre-structured effect is exerted. What is
important is only what is useful in the context of one's own life, whereby
"usefulness" is equally constructed and thus co-determined by this
external something, and so on.
Instead, he might well admit that there is an external reality, the effect of which he is only further constructing. But he would not be saying anything essentially new. And once he admits its pre-structuring, he might as well go on to ask what else there is to "pre-recognize". And with that, he abolishes the radicality of constructivism.