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