Reality, Truth and Inquiry
This Topic assumes considerable familiarity with the Taxonomy. It does not belong in the Inquiry Satellite, but I presume that some readers will be preoccupied with this issue.
The Puzzle of All Puzzles
The question of «reality» bedevils philosophy and science. Closely connected is the notion of «truth». I regard «reality» as the way things are, and «truth» as a statement that corresponds accurately with that.
It would be a nice fiction to imagine that what we regard as truth and «reality» emerges from careful , but a moment's reflection will tell you that this is not the case.
We cannot engage in a rigorous research process every time we need to deal with reality: life is too short and too many things happen too quickly. Furthermore we experience pressures of all sort to manipulate both truth and reality.
Most people take both «reality» and truth for granted, and may regard detailed scrutiny and analysis of such things as abstruse and arcane. But we care deeply about lying and we may suffer greatly from being unrealistic.
Arguments about the status of assertions in social life are rather frequent, and from this perspective, scientists have a rather narrow focus. When the frame of reference is "scientific", then «reality» is viewed either as:
- what exists utterly apart from human wishes, beliefs or intentions, or as
- what is most fundamental and on which everything depends (including wishes, beliefs etc).
The present frame of reference is personal functioning in its totality, and this is far broader than science which reflects one small part of personal functioning.
Here, the distinguishing quality of «reality» is that it can be discriminated because it is causative i.e. it makes things happen. Being psychosocial, any experience of «reality» must be shareable: which is why reference to «truth» is unavoidable. Truth claims, once articulated, become part of psychosocial «reality», and the two can become almost indistinguishable in practice.
A recent investigation of the seems to shed light on the age-old puzzle of truth and reality. From this cause perspective, «reality» turns out to be where our personal functioning (i.e. our mind) and the unknowable world interact. I refer to this as the Primal Nexus. To remind you of this conception, I will highlight it like this: reality .
There are 7 (corresponding to the ). The analytic explanation below splits into a lower set of 5 Domains and an upper set of 2 Domains.
Control in the Lower Set
Advance Summary Table for Lower Set
In the , achievement is about production of some change in reality via management.
This is the level of doing and practice, and so reality becomes whatever is significant for achieving in the broadest sense. Objects within reality may be an outcome, an obstacle, an opportunity, a factor—anything connected with getting something done.
The attitude here is pragmatic to deal with the pressures for performance.
Truth is what works or what has happened and the process of achievement is akin to a «truth machine». It is meaningful to talk about "reaching the truth" insofar as that is about events unfolding, potentially in public view. We say that "the proof is in the pudding". In regard to the reality-truth of future states, you say: "we will see". So truth assertions embody an inevitability and a promise of eventual certainty.
Hierarchy: This is the base level for what counts as reality-truth for everyone. There is no lower level on which to depend.
Representative Use: Daily life.
Name: Practical Reality.
Alternative:
In the , knowledge is about investigating reality, starting from conjectures.
The position taken is that reality is uncertain, and can never be known, but that it is definitely there. If we could know it, then we would possess absolute truth. As a result, the focus is on the search for truth, something which is taken to be endless. For those engaged here, it is often said that questions are more important than answers—at least you can be certain about your question. Any truth claim is provisional (i.e. hypothetical). Progress is based on getting deeper understanding via a focus on current anomalies and efforts to falsify existing knowledge. Belief is comfortable but the perfect paradigm does not exist and an idea that is not falsifiable does not belong.
The attitude here is skeptical so as to confront pressures for certainty.
Scientific findings are naturally conflicting and confusing. Any comprehensive account invariably reveals gaps, inconsistencies, anomalies, disagreements, assumptions and mysteries (cf. Weinberg on physics
). The complexity, uncertainty and fragmentation (cf. Newton's "pebbles on the beach") is intolerable for most people. Even dedicated scientists in their everyday work cleave to a paradigm that permits serious anomalies to be minimized or ignored.
Hierarchy: Scientific propositions and hypothesis testing appeal to experiment or analyses, which depend on . Establishing knowledge optimally involves managing and documenting specific achievements in a highly controlled, systematic and shareable way. Because science depends ultimately on practical achievements, it shares the problems and difficulties of reality in the e.g. resource shortage, time pressures, fraud, mistakes, breakdowns &c.
Representative Use: Scientific output
Name: Unknowable Reality.
Alternatives:
In the , discrimination is about recognizing significant features of the world and depicting them as reality. This relates to change because
It is taken for granted that there is a partly known and partly knowable reality. However, it possesses a depth, complexity and detail that engenders confusion and uncertainty. As a result, truth depends on the depth of penetration, on the effort to represent, and on relevant intentions. As a result, reality only gets represented in terms of some interest in it. That means people are liable to differ in how they represent the same reality. Truth is perspectivist because it lies in the model unconsciously used or perspective consciously taken. This position shapes what is emphasized, what is excluded, what connections are made, and what conclusions are drawn. Seeing with these blinkers is then believing.
The attitude here is self-interested as a response to pressures for acceptability.
Hierarchy: Any representation of reality usually draws on the results of , for which the may have been more or less stringent. However, systematic inquiry findings may be cherry-picked, distorted or discounted in the name of truth. are also selected and incorporated strategically.
Representative Use: Presentation by a group leader to insiders or outsiders, or an account by an investigative journalist.
Provisional Name: Constructed Reality.
Alternatives:
In the , individuality is about recognizing a sense of self that functions within its own reality.
We allow and expect our self to differentiate and determine reality in its own preferred way. This produces a personal truth. What you experience in your life, especially socializing and traumatic experiences, creates a reality that you find yourself constructing, inhabiting and using. It is then the truth you live by. This reality includes inner fears, wishes, hopes, and feelings as well as what you sense, perceive, and know or believe about the world. Being personal, much of this is kept private or secret. The uniqueness of each person means that both idiosyncrasy and secrecy is acceptable.
The attitude here is idiosyncratic due to differences in how pressures for well-being are handled.
Hierarchy: The self primarily depends on from the Domain below. It draws into its reality-truth ambit preferred discriminations () because self-interest is so important for survival. () and () may also contribute.
Representative Use: Personal expression.
Name: Subjective Reality.
Alternatives:
In the , association is about getting together and sharing a reality within a group. A common language is intrinsic to group formation and reality formation.
In other words, reality has become intrinsic to the Domain. Language is used to construct reality and enable stable enduring interactions with others, but language implies a group. The group confuses reality with the shared reality. It determines what must be taken as truth. Truth for us i.e. truth in my group, is therefore a function of socialization, belonging and popular pressures and it becomes self-evident and taken for granted. Any plausible reality-claim, even a lie, rather easily becomes true based on repeated assertions by authority figures—as Lenin observed and propagandists know. Self-preservation of any group has a high, even top, priority. That is why the shared reality may be imposed coercively or dissidents expelled. There may be taboo issues to avoid hostilities if sub-groups have members feeling strongly about divergent truths.
The attitude here is conformist. The approach to communicating is tactful and diplomatic so as to avoid personal offence. The reality shared within your main group is like the water that fish swim in: largely taken for granted. Pressures for understanding are then easily met without the need for any depth or genuineness.
Hierarchy: Truth for us builds on the truth for me. The shared reality used here must fit with the members subjective reality or associating will not be congenial. Members will leave or become isolated and need to find others with whom to share their experiences. The lower levels are also relevant e.g. propaganda uses of reality, as well as findings, and on the ground. These lower level truths are incorporated unpredictably and unreliably.
There seems to be a cyclic pattern evident here in that carrying responsibility for is a function of to perceive and engage with a certain reality (See: levels of work framework
).
Representative Use: Social interaction.
Name: Group Reality.
Alternatives:
Control by the Upper Set
It is evident from the lower set that reality is either unknowable or whatever you want to make it—which is perilously close to the same thing.
It seems that all handling of reality in the upper two ) occurs under a variable pressure to respect truths from all lower level Domains.
However, the reality that matters most in practice, probably due to evolutionary pressures, relates to achievement (). Life is pragmatic, and so what happens is the focus for control within the upper set.
In the , the psychosocial pressure is autonomy. Combined with personal power, which is intrinsically anti-rational, autonomy permits truth to be handled flexibly. Truth may be twisted, bent, deformed or ignored, so that reality may be adjusted for good ends or bad.
Autonomy may lead to helping others or benefiting the group. In this regard, the critical feed within the comes from . This determines the production of goodness in all endeavours. Remember, however, that the Primal Need in this domain is governance, and this depends on politics. Autonomy is used politically to extract personal benefit from social goods for you or your group.
The challenge here appears to be operating via the -shared reality of your main group, recognizing your own -subjective reality, and using truths derived from handling reality in other applicable realms, but especially .
In the , professionalism (competence, service) is about being effective in order to generate benefit for oneself and others in particular social situations. Under the pressure of selflessness, personal biases and self-interest are put aside in a spirit of service. See details here.
Reality and Truth of any form are handled sensibly in order to facilitate the relevant outcomes and ultimate ().
The focus here seems to be on mastery of reality within the limit of personal capability () and a readiness to apply any relevant perspective while engaging with the challenge.
Review of Concepts
Here is a Summary Table:
Remember that there is a cumulation. So a "journalistic" account (RL5) may have all the qualities of the lower levels i.e. be descriptive (RL1), be skeptical (RL2), take a perspective (RL3), and/or be confessional (RL4)—so long as it also conforms to the group's conceptions of reality (RL5).
| L | Root Levels | Psychosocial Pressure | Primal Need via Primal Means |
Reality Form |
Dominant Attitude |
Truth Quality |
Example Output |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RL7 | Selflessness | Competence via Effectiveness |
Effectiveness and Politics demand selection of realities and attitudes to produce outcomes. |
Serves impersonal requirements. | ||||
| RL6 | Autonomy | Governance via Politics |
Serves personal values/interests. | |||||
| RL5 | Understanding | Association via A Shared Reality |
|
Group | Conformist | Given | Journalistic | |
| RL4 | Well-being | Individuality via A Sense of Self |
|
Subjective | Personal | Idiosyncratic | Confessional | |
| RL3 | Acceptability | Depiction via Discrimination |
|
Constructed | Self-interested | Perspectivist | Narrative | |
| RL2 | Certainty | Knowledge via Conjectures |
|
Unknowable | Skeptical | Provisional | Scientific | |
| RL1 | Performance | Achievement via Management |
|
Practical | Pragmatic | Certainty | Descriptive | |
There are other compound terms in use e.g. mundane reality, psychosocial reality, inter-subjective reality. By examining each in context, the reference should become evident.
Psychosocial reality is a standard phrase used to refer to the field of the Taxonomy. It is described here as something created by a person that is shareable with others. It is therefore an aspect of reality. Part of the notion is that social sharing should often occur e.g. in a family, project or organization, and wider society. If that occurs, it supports development of part of the reality.
The applications and incorporation of taxonomic conceptions into appropriate groups is a goal of TOP.
Initially posted: 30-Nov-2013. Last amended 21-Feb-2022.