Re: MD Looking for the Primary Difference

From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 10:52:43 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "Re: MD Straight to bin"

    Ham,

    You ended your last post like this:
    > Clearly you and I have different views of reality. Perhaps we can reach
    > some accord on the levels issue at a later time. But not now. I don't want
    > a metaphysical dispute to spoil my pleasure in your declaration that the
    > subject/object divide is fundamental to reality.

    I'd be happy to leave the metaphysical debate until later, but not
    until I point out that I _did not_ claim that "the subject/object
    divide is fundamental to reality". What I DID say was that "the
    subject/object divide is fundamental to what we are". I need to clear
    up the difference - I'm not trying to get you to agree, and I'm not
    even sure I'll be able to explain to you, because we have such hugely
    differing views about reality.

    I don't say that "the subject/object divide is fundamental to
    reality", because that implies that there is something, well,
    _objective_ about dualism. I don't believe this, partly because (since
    reading Barfield's historical analysis of language) I don't think the
    subject/object divide was experienced "fully", i.e. in the way we
    experience it, until about the 17th century. But of course, this
    sounds very strange because I haven't cleared up exactly what I mean
    by subjectivity. Let's dip in to the can of worms for a moment.

    You quoted me:
    > To me, the transition from 3rd level to 4th level is the transition
    > from mythological/participatory reality to intellectual/scientific
    > reality. It's the beginning of subjective intelligence, and therefore
    > something that I would expect you to treat as more substantial than a
    > "mystical metaphor".

    You replied:
    > Do you mean to say that reality changed when humans became less
    > "mythological" and more "scientific"? Now that IS mystical! I don't know
    > what "participatory reality" is supposed to mean, as you yourself said: "I
    > retract any claim that social- or mythological-level human beings did not
    > distinguish between self or other", so there was subjectivity fron the dawn
    > of human history.

    Taking the bit about subjectivity first: just because a prehistoric
    person could distinguish self from other, this doesn't mean he saw
    himself as a thinking, feeling subject in a world of mind-independent
    objects. Far from it. The realisation (or creation) of subjectivity
    has been an extremely gradual historical process.

    And now back to the crux: "Do you mean to say that reality changed
    when humans became less "mythological" and more "scientific"?"

    If by "reality" you mean "objective reality" then no, of course not.
    But the point is that this notion of "objective reality" doesn't go
    much further back than Plato, and even he didn't conceive of it in the
    way in which we do. Why use the objective/subjective divide to refer
    to humans who were not conscious of it? What relevance or interest
    could that have? But of course _you_ probably want to say that humans
    gradually "discovered" the subject/object divide, which was REALLY
    there the whole time. And this goes back to our differing views of
    reality. But thinking about it, if you agree with Hoffman that
    "consciousness and its contents are all that exists", then you must
    have some sympathy for what I'm saying?

    I'll address another chunk of your post, and then leave this can of
    worms on the shelf for the time being:
    > I note that you are again stating the emergence of
    > subjectivity as an historical event -- "how we CAME to feel", as opposed to
    > "how we COME to feel". As an essentialist, I see creation and intellectual
    > development as an ongoing process. Thus, I would use the present tense and
    > say that Essence "creates" and proprietary awareness "arises".

    Well noted. However, I do agree with you that creation and
    intellectual development are an "ongoing process". Subjectivity (in
    its full sense) is a relatively recent invention by this creative
    process. In fact, I see subjective consciousness as the new platform
    or the new theatre of this creative process. Armed with subjectivity,
    _we_ can do the creating.

    Anyway, should you ever want to open the can of worms again, you'd
    stand a better chance if you give Barfield's "Saving The Appearances"
    or "History In English Words" a try.

    Regards,
    Mike

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 11:42:31 GMT