Start to my essay proposing a (contrived) analogy for reality and to propose multiple realities. WARNING LONG?

Most people subscribe to the concept of a singular reality, which is supported by their environment and the people they interact with and congealed in their actions and subsequent reactions, and generally being part of a web of beliefs and opinions and attitudes to life. 'Good' and 'Bad' are totally arbitrary and differ hugely across space and time. For example human sacrifice like the Aztec peoples for example was the norm in their culture, as it went with a heavy religious belief. However, across a few thousand years this has disappeared into history and into the realm of genocide by today's standards. The slave trade could undergo a similar analysis, from the norm into the realm of "the very bad, horrific". Conceptions of right and wrong can-and do-differ massively between different cultures; take for example if you will the current tension between several major religions, in Israel and Lebanon currently, and closer to home the recent change in attitude towards Muslims in America. Well not change, specifically, but increasing fear and distrust, animosity, embodying itself in average Caucasian America, with one of the main reasons being the ridiculous war in Iraq, as any country at war naturally feels some sense of hostility towards "the enemy". Anyway, examples over. Back to the question. Well there is no question, so the general direction of this essay. So, we have seen how concepts of right and wrong are liable to switch around and generally be unstable. Even the most taboo of society's wrongs, murder, is legitimised in a conflict context. Rights and wrongs probably originate from a combination of tradition, logical thought (for example the Jewish commandment forbidding the consumption of pork. As Judaism is an Ancient religion originating in warm climates, and the first Jews supposed to be nomads wandering the deserts, this is nothing more than a bit of common sense, as meat can spoil very quickly in hot weather, and pork is notorious for being the origin of illness and food poisoning due to the care that must be taken with the cooking process and the large number of illness causing bacteria liable to be present feasting upon the meat prior to the intended consumers) and vestigial instincts retained as the successor of other species, but a major factor in this is religion and their ignorance of the world’s microscopic processes.



Homo sapiens USP (unique selling point) is the fact that we have pondered over and made autonomous choice to ignore once useful instincts- indeed the Latin taxonomic name is translated as "wise human" or "knowing human",-and thus we have created for ourselves artificial living; no longer do we heed the warning of ‘danger!’ of the brightly coloured fish or the repellent smell of mouldy cheese; indeed we enjoy these bizarre treats and value them highly. No longer do we roam naked and employ a purely straightforward instinctual system of mating, but a whole culture and semantic field based around clothes and modesty, and complex and conflicting system of sexual morals and beliefs. These types of ‘step over the fence’; being aware of the instinct but pursuing excitement for enjoyment and a varied lifestyle is the human trait, the experimental being with only traces and relics of instinctual behaviour from times past, now built upon and contrived to such extremes; to put forward the fetish of inanimate objects i.e. shoes. And the important thing to note here is that behaviours and practices are not universal across the world, as each sentient life experiences and constitutes their own reality with their mental capability. The deformities and differences that arise in the world’s human society, particularly injuries to or abnormalities of the brain illustrate the complex areas involved in interpreting and processing the world.



This explanation of the differences in personal reality will help to outline my proposal. In the style of the Greek tradition, I shall put forwards a Platonic type analogy, I always enjoyed the poetic style of Plato and the hypocrisy of using mimesis to devalue mimesis.



Imagine a round ball (as opposed to a oval ball). In your mind's picture, imagine the centre of the ball, and right in the middle lies a golf ball. Now, the golf ball is held in the middle away from the edges of the ball by some sort of thread or cord stretched taut, and secured one end onto the surface of the golf ball, and the other to the inside surface of the ball. Now repeat this a few hundred times until the most of the inside surface area of the ball is fastened to the golf ball, holding it in position. (If you are struggling, think of the relationship on a bike wheel; the outer wheel and the cogs at the centre, with the spokes supporting all around. Now just convert this to a 3 dimensional shape sphere).



So we have our bizarre string filled ball ready. My analogy takes a Kantian form, indeed I may just be rephrasing more illustriously the main ‘Copernican Revolution’ argStart to my essay proposing a (contrived) analogy for reality and to propose multiple realities. WARNING LONG?
Beliefs and belief systems have little to do with reality. Reality is what is, though opinions and beliefs may have alter ones view of reality, they do not alter reality. If one sees horns behind a fence and says, "there is a cow". Being raised on a farm it would seem logical. When the Viking comes around the fence, his view of reality changed but not reality.

If I didn't take you seriously I would not have read it, There are good ideas in it. My only objection is the above.

bad makeup