Reply to comment

What I find most fascinating about the idea of taking in, or being altered by, other people's false "realities" or perspectives on reality is the part about it that's integral to every interaction and to every definition of reality. Considering the pervasive nature of the falsity and of the effect everyone has on everyone else, is it even possible to say that the view, system, or reality being affected was at all pure or "true" to begin with? In thinking about the nervous system, it seems as if we're finding a way to account for falsity not just coming from without but also coming from within -- from the I-function's always unique way of functioning, from physical and chemical differences, from randomness, from molecular habit. Maybe in order to account for the seeming reality of the story that each of us tends to know, we can say that the story is always false but that it's a pattern of little stories, a system of ways of thinking that we each get used to using and that we each use to filter our interactions with other people's systems.