it seems doctor, that only when I’m intereseted in something, does something else interesting come along,
and that’s when I can’t seem to keep a focus on anything interesting. the other times in life are just a drag, you know?
<——————-more proofreading ———————->
Plato seems to refer to the original idea as being authored by God, and perhaps that is true, perhaps not, but why,
or should I say how, does it happen to occur to Man anyway?
Nature provides a place for all the animals to rest. It doesn’t seem to need any
naming; not until he comes along. But why really? Perhaps because man needs an improvement, and perhaps
that is the essence of ideas; an improvement. Take walking for example. If man has an idea for walking, it usually
occurs for a reason, health-wise for example. Thus I wonder if all ideas originate from a lack.
The reality of things. If some object possesses realness. Plato argues that images (paintinings) are imitations, not real.
Although the image is unreal, the container object – even in the case of, say a
dimension-minimized poster – exhibits realness. Only if one attempts
to penetrate into the image in-and-of-itself does one manage to escape reality at all. Whether this is possible,
or not, is besides the point.
Does Plato suggest realness having a functional component? i.e., what makes a chair
real is the fact that it has some function; it serves a purpose.
If I observe the bed in my mother’s room, I can surmise this bed surely is real. It appears real. I believe that. If
my guru tells me surely otherwise, I would dismiss the claim because I am sure. How am I so sure? The bed is
contained within the framework of reality; the painting of a bed as well, only perhaps not the inner image.
All objects seem to display some quality of realness. Thus I conjecture to say, reality is gestalt, only the image – paintings, film, etc – remains in conflict. Plato would argue, the true reality is in the form of ideas only, God’s bed is the
only real bed, the maker of furniture only designs a particular bed. In computer science they call this an
instance. My counter argument tends to be that reality has a visual property, perhaps alongside with other
characteristics. It is this look that causes us to believe in what real and not real. At the same time, our bodies
also seem to exist within reality itself. There is no thread that allows us to unravel our shape to better determine
the nature of reality…
One complaint I have is that certain words are often easily exchanged for another, such as reality and truth. I don’t think
that an idea like “everyday life” should be thought of as reality.
My definition of reality…phenomena that pervades all things,
providing them the quality of realness. So what is real? All
things are essentially real, some are animate, some possess
life, etc. It’s surely a laziness or dumbness, perhaps a
dissatisfaction with status quo, that allows the use
of a single word to replace or become analogous to other words,
especially in a language that is so obviously overloaded.
Strictness of wording is too late for the times, but one can try.

On second thought, perhaps Plato’s thinking derives from function, or usefulness after all. He talks about the three arts: user, maker, imitator. I gather he tends to
sway towards ideas as being the truly real thing. That may be due to his philosophical quest, and in this sense, ideas
are even more useful than the objects that represent them.
I suppose I don’t agree with Plato on his usage of the word reality. I tend not to think that the idea form is the true reality. As I mentioned above, my grasping of reality is more surface level. In fact, I tend to feel interrupted when the word is used otherwise. The use of terms like “alternate reality” often are suggestive of a sequence of events unlike that which occurs in normal reality. For some reason this usage bothers me, but it’s so common that I can easily dismiss.
I wonder if reality is dropping us a clue – mind my anthropomorphic usage.
Our instincts are surely guiding our capability to discern the realness of things.
On the surface it seems that all things that have realness also provide value. The more functional, the more real it seems. Perhaps this is reality’s intention.
I wonder what Plato would have thought about the French Symbolists or the Abstract Expressionists? Imitation arts?

The meaning becomes imbued in the work – writing, painting, etc..Obviously, Kant is heavily influenced by Plato; reason is their
favorite thing. Doesn’t he seem like a cop that Plato? I don’t know, I suppose in a way it’s liberating, but then
also seems constricting in his condemnation; the Buddha perhaps, having similar recommendations, but not nearly
as severe as Plato.
And what about the term invention. Is the bed not an invention? I can sleep on a table, but surely no sane
person would call it a bed. Plato seems to indicate the bed is firstly created by God in the form
of idea I suppose. Thus inventors merely imitate God’s design. The inventor’s bed is not the true bed, only an instance.
But to invent seems to create something genuine, in both the functional sense and the descriptive. A bed is a place for resting still, and since I can rest on a table, or on the grass,
what exactly is being invented in a bed? Some quality or qualities other than a place to rest perhaps give it
invention status. A lack precipitates invention.