reason vs faith vs reality

[genkaus]

This is a very interesting assumption.

Not an assumption. The same way that its not an 'assumption' that all bachelors are unmarried.

So you believe that reality is foundational to existence itself that reality is the un-generated generator and basis of the structure of existence?

Nope. I believe reality is existence. What is real, exists. What exists is real.

And our minds only observe that reality which is actually existent.

Yes.

Reality is thus independent of the space-time continuum being the primal entity which generates existence?

That is not a conclusion you can draw from my statement.

or do you consider reality to be co-terminous with the space-time continuum? If there were no space-time continuum would there be no reality?

That depends. As per our current knowledge, reality may be co-terminous with space-time continuum, but our current knowledge certainly does not cover the whole of reality. Whether or not there is something to reality beyond the limits of space-time - we do not know yet.

and an aside on construction and defining terms - dictionaries are not the arbiters of meaning, merely the compilers of the current standard of a language by a certain set of standard setters at a particular time in the living, organic, mutating, growing life of a language.

The current standards of language are the arbiters of meaning and dictionaries, being the compilation of those standards - become the proxy arbiters of meaning.

Language maybe changing constantly and words may have a different meaning now than the one they had in past, but that is irrelevant. The simple fact is that they have a specific meaning now - a specific way in which it is used - and if your goal is clear communication of idea, you have no excuse not to use it in that way.

Most disagreements and misunderstandings are due to the fact that we all really do use language differently. That is why we need to listen to one another to figure out how your language can best be translated into my language and vice versa. Dictionaries do nothing for communication.

If most disagreements are due to different usage of language, then the simplest solution is not to constantly keep translating, but to use the same language. Set up objective standards and use the language accordingly. That is the simplest and most effective way of resolving communicative disagreements and dictionaries - being compilations of those standards - provide us with excellent tools for doing just that.

I dislike resorting to any sort of "scriptural" arbiter of either meaning or language. Communication is best appreciated when it is a rush through the rain laughing, getting wet, and finding out how and why we think like we do.

Such sentiment is what I would expect from someone who is not actually interested in clarity of communication. From someone who doesn't want to get his ideas across effectively, but simply to confuse and obfuscate the meaning in order to trick others into thinking that his ideas have greater depth and meaning than they actually do.