"We ought to take middle reality as realest because it is what our senses lead us to focus on." But don't they reveal generalities first?
Last time, I argued that intellectual and perceptual maturity attunes us to middle reality -- if we judge the middle in terms of parts and wholes. The better we see and understand things, the more we realize that reality is in the middle. If, however, we judge the middle according to originals and copies, we do become better at seeing [...]
You'd expect organisms that survive to be attuned to reality, and most attuned to what is most real. We're attuned to things that are on the middle level of reality. So . . .
When I say reality is realest in the middle, what do I mean? Well, let me explain. No, please let me explain. This is so important to me. Pleeeeease
Imitating Aristotle leads us to conclude that reality is in the middle. And we should imitate Aristotle. Down with reductionism and its opposite!
Idea: Reductionism is incompatible with one form of generalism, but not the other. Reductionists believe reality is at the bottom. You don't really exist. You are just your parts, behaving and interacting in the various ways they do. In contrast, generalists think reality is at the top. But there are two versions of this belief. One version says wholes are primary. [...]
Idea: There are good reasons for believing that the more original a thing is, the realer it is. Let's call reality-is-at-the-top-ism in general, "generalism." The type of generalism we examined last time is what I called "unificationism." But there's another version. "Originalism" will be my name for the idea that a thing derives its reality from its [...]
There's a mix of reasons for believing that larger, more inclusive things are realer. Some of them seem perfectly reasonable. Others are questionable.
Starting October 1st, it is officially Pumpkintide. But what is Pumpkintide? Where did it come from? What is it's purpose?