1. there is an objective reality and we can know things about it
2. there is an objective reality and we cannot know things about it
3. there are more options that i cannot comprehend
from the fact that i observe anything it seems to follow that there is an objective reality that i am experiencing in some way filtered through sense perception. if there were only the perception and no reality, then the perception would be the reality. the statement "there is neither perception nor reality" seems like the other option, and it seems that i can't even contemplate this statement without bathing it in perception and nullifying it. which doesn't mean i can say that it's an invalid way of describing reality (or that there are no other options), hence #3 above.
"cogito ergo sum" is too definitive a statement for me, though. why does descartes use his theoretical tricky demon to cast doubt on his sense perceptions but forget that such a demon could also influence him in a way that makes him think he is reasonable when he is not? or, for that matter, make him believe that reason is a valid tool for describing reality?
all i really feel comfortable saying about reality is
it seems as though something is happening.
anything else is just guesswork.
sense perception is a code. language is a code. pure thought is a code. the idea of "the" is a code. the idea of "of" is a code. the idea of "is" is a code. the idea of "a" is a code. the idea of "code" is a code. the idea of "idea" is a code.
it seems that unacceptance is not the same thing as assertion, though at other times in my life i've thought that it was.
am i looking at my eyes or am i trying to bite my own teeth?