Can one think outside of their language? Of course. Intuition is one such thing. Other thoughts require the invention of new words in order to be able to externalize the thought and explain it to others.

And I am not keen on using the word "truth". Reality isn't "truth", "truth" is a value judgment and as such requires a thinking being to assign a value to it. As such the way you phrased the question forms a tautology.

In keeping with your terms above, Reality would be the object of its subject and vice versa. It is merely a statement of fact that exists independently of us.

Take gravity. Gravity exists. We can measure it, we can predict it, we know how it will respond in certain circumstances. Now do we know everything about it? No. Does its existence mean that we might not eventually find exceptions where it doesn't apply? No. But a more definitive definition doesn't necessarily exclude the existence of something.

See I don't take that extra step. In science nothing can ever be proven because all it takes is one exception to invalidate a trillion cases where it had occurred. However I don't take that extra step. I don't think that this means we can't know reality. I believe that we can always achieve a more definitive view to the point where the things that are currently unknown, while interesting and worthy of further research, are both knowable but at the same time, non critical for understanding.

Yes, I understand that there is a contradiction in what I wrote. But the contradiction only applies if you place an importance on the unknown as it exists for itself, and not as something that needs to be converted to the known.

The constant is that it is what it is. If aliens appear before me and I show them black, assuming that they see on the same wavelenghts as me, then no matter what they call the absence of color or hue, they are going to be seeing the same thing I see. What they call it, or how they relate to it is not going to change the reality of what it is. If they see in some wavelength that I can't see, and are unable to see black as I see it, the condition of no light and no color still exists in the wavelengths that I can see and perhaps they would need some mechanical device in order to percieve the same wavelenghts as me and therefore see the reality of no color no light, no hue.

It is still there even if their eyes are unable to percieve it just the same as the infared and ultraviolet spectrums are there even though my eyes are unable to percieve them. They are what they are and even though I can't rightly imagine what they might look like, they still exist in reality and my inability to accurately conceptualize them in my mind only reveals my own shortcoming, not the slightest change in their reality.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

So out of the blue, you come up with a new idea that is a quantum leap from any previous argument you made and find that you are completely unable to accurately explain what you mean.

Right.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

I didn't say we can't know reality. I am saying there is no concept called reality. You couldn't explain it if you wanted to without language. And intuition is NOT without language, its a fantasy that events can take place faster than a thought! It is the thought which is in a language, be it "turn around" or anything else intuitive. To say it is without language is to say we couldn't explain the situation. There is only one thing I know of that is without language.

yes, there is this crazy mystical "reality" which permeates through everyone. If that was true, we would all experience the same instances in the same way. It just isn't so, reality, even if it was there, would be unknowable, and what is it to appeal to the unknowable but religion?

We do. We just dont' tell ourselves the same stories about the experiences.

If we both stand naked in a -50 degree environment for any length of time, we will both experience the same reality. We will both freeze to death. We may view the experience in different ways, but the actual reality of being dead due to exposure to cold will be identical for each of us.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

you keep listing this ridiculously random examples! yes, i get what you're saying, black is black, dead is dead. Can you prove you GET what I'm saying? I feel like we're going in circles, and if I am missing a step, if there is a flaw in my understanding of irony, enlighten me whenever you're ready, without, of course, repeating these tired ideas.

the consistency between the two experiences DOES NOT mean those people experienced the same thing, or that one instead of two events took place. One man thought he was going to heaven, the other thought he was going to hell. There, big difference, neither experienced "death" the same way, though both did die. Two people take a shit, one likes the smell the other doesnt. Same thing, again, different experience entirely.

Lexi, if someone murdered someone else, and in court said that that person was not alive to them, do you think the murderer should get away?

__________________
Gun control is giving criminals guns and taken guns away from law abiding citizens.

No. But, if most people in our society agreed that the victim was less than human, then it would be completely okay. It happens frequently, its called war. "Terrorists" are somehow less than human, and therefor legal to murder.

It happens every day doesn't it?

__________________
"its potential, its potential, its potential because I said so, there's your proof" --- Palerider