Page History

...

1.  Analysis  discloses  that  "real"  and  its  cognates  are  systematically  ambig­
uous ambig­uous,  in  that,  while  it has  a  "field-invariant  force,"  it has  "field-depend­
ent depend­ent  standards."  This  is  not  surprising,  of  course,  because  the  same  syste­
matic  syste­matic  ambiguity  attends  "true"  and  its  cognates,  with  which  "real"  and  its 
cognates  its cognates  are  correlative.  For  this  reason;  then,  one  could  say  that  the  dis­
tinction  dis­tinction  between  "being-in-itself"  and  "meaning-for-us"  is  misleading,  insofar 
as  insofar as  it implies,  or  appears  to  imply,  that  "reality"  is  not  thus  systematically 
ambiguous systematically ambiguous,  and  hence  field-dependent  as  well  as  field-invariant. 

1.  Analysis discloses that  "real" and  its cognates are  systematically  ambig­uous,  in  that,  while  it has  a  "field-invariant  force,"  it has  "field-depend­ent  standards."  This is not surprising,  of  course,  because  the  same  systematic  ambiguity  attends  "true"  and  its  cognates,  with  which "real"  and  its cognates  are  correlative.  For  this  reason;  then,  one  could  say  that  the  dis­tinction  between  "being-in-itself"  and  "meaning-for-us"  is misleading,  insofar as  it implies,  or  appears  to  imply,  that  "reality"  is  not  thus  systematically ambiguous,  and  hence  field-dependent  as  well  as field-invariant.

...

5. An  analogy  may  be  useful.  The  criteria  appropriate  for  common  sense  talk about  what  is  real  allows  one  to  say  of  the  sun  at sunset  that  it is  "really red."  To  deny  that  such  talk  is  about  the  real,  on  the  ground  that  yet  other criteria-those  of  the  physicist,  say-require  one  to  say  that  the  sun  at  sun­set  is  "really  yellow"  is  simply  to  shift  the  discussion  to  another  mode  of reasoning.  What  the  religious  mode  of  reasoning  means  by  ultimate  reality  is what  confronts  us  with  the  possibility  of  authentic  self-understanding.  To deny  that  the  talk  involved  in  the  religious  mode  of  reasoning  is  about  the real,  on  the  ground  that  yet  other  criteria-those  of  the  metaphysician,  say­require of the metaphysician, say, ­require  one  to  say  that  ultimate  reality  is  the  universal  individual  that  is the  ground  and  end  of  all  other  individuals  and  events,  etc.,  is,  again,  sim­ply  to  shift  the  discussion  to another  mode  of  reasoning.

...