Chasing a fantasy is a worthwhile endeavor? That doesn't fly with me.

This has problems with measuring oneself against other people, and strays away to notions of relative truths as opposed to truth.

Is it true that there is no such thing as truth?

What exactly is this "perfection" that you are pursuing?

Creating successively better models to approximately predict future events is nice.

When did anyone say anything bout measuring oneself against other people? And all truths are relative, there is no "truth."

Not in any absolute sense, no. You're asking, "is it written on the bedrock of reality that there is no bedrock of reality." And clearly, the answer is no. If there is no bedrock of reality, then there can be nothing written there.

An image of ideal self.

I'll just leave this one alone. I don't understand your notion of truth, so I don't think I can adequately comment on why this makes no sense to me when trying to view it with your worldview. It has something to do with no bedrock of reality, yet trying to predict some sort of reality even though it doesn't seem to really exist.

I've always been fascinated (amused?) by people who construct their view of the universe as if there is no universe even though they live every day as if there is one. This was something that never sat well with me. I considered it to be self-delusion for me not to try believe that the clothes I put on every day may not be real, or that the people I interact with might not actually be there, or whatever.

What is this image? What part of you are you seeking to idealize?

Yes, I've always had a problem relating to these "created realities" too. I also consider it somewhat risky because it seems like actual real experience is the very best experience we can learn from and change too big and radical is hard to compensate for if it goes wrong.

Communism is a pretty good example of a constructed reality (Marx and Lenin's reality) that went absolutely haywire.

Philip K. Dick said "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Even my dogs make predictions - they know when it's time to be fed or walked.

Who said there is no universe? I'd say it's not true that there is a universe, I wouldn't say that it is true that there's not a universe. These are logically distinct propositions, even if you equate them in your worldview.

You know, the conception that "the universe exists" comes, on average, at about puberty. So does a 7-year-old "act as if there is a universe?" It seems to me that a 7-year-old can interact with those around him without any belief in some kind of overarching metaphysical "truth."

In what way are my actions any more consistent with the proposition "there is a universe" than with the proposition "not(there is a universe)?" And why do you assume the proposition "there is a universe" implies that there is some framework of absolute truth? I don't see how the universe necessitates such a framework, but if you can prove it for me I'll be glad to see it.

I'm not seeking to idealize, I'm chasing after an ideal. It's not the end that matters, it's the process.

If you see someone jogging in the park, do you ask them "where are you trying to get to in such a hurry?" Is it pointless if they jog in a big circle?

No, the assumption that jogging is simple a means of transportation is erroneous. Same goes with self-improvement; it's not about an end result of a superior self, it's about taking care of myself in the present. Having goals and dreams, no matter how unrealistic, helps me achieve that. If I run toward the horizon, it doesn't mean I'm trying to "get to the horizon," I just need a place to focus my eyes while I run.

What is the nature of the relationship between "reality" and "truth"? The existence of a reality seems to imply that existence of truth. There is no "bedrock of reality," but there's a reality? I really don't understand your position at all.

How so? Anyhow, I'm not saying reality "exists." That seems a bit crude to me. I'm not ascribing any properties to reality, certainly not the property of existence. But reality "is there."

You could argue that in the English language, the verb "to be" implies existence. And you may have a point. I know there are some languages that don't rely as heavily as English on "to be," but unfortunately I don't know any of them. And I'm not a poet; I won't stop using plain English to cleverly avoid seeming contradiction.

Most adults in this society (world?) seem to assume that simply acknowledging or referencing something implies its existence in some form. I've yet to hear any real justification for this position, but there it is.

Personally, I don't know that "existence" holds together as a concept - there's something shaky about it, and while it's useful as a tool for communication I wouldn't rely on it for anything. But if I have to apply the property of "existence" (and to apply it as if the property itself "exists," which I hate to do), then the first thing that I consider to "exist" is the flow of shifting sensations to which I'm exposed. Everything else is my perception of those sensations.