a much better understanding of all the things which are existentially dependent upon and/or consist of both the objective and the subjective. — creativesoul

You don't seem to have discarded the distinction between the objective and the subjective. Can you rephrase the above sentence without using the terms "subjective" and "objective"? If not, and you need to use the terms, then they will be of no use unless you maintain the distinction between them.

The now of consciousness is mediate rather than immediate. This radical mediacy at the heart of the supposed pure self-aware subjectivity of consciousness destroys the realist's dream of the purely empirical at the same time that it deprives the subject of its independence from the objects it perceives. Subject and object become only subjective and objective poles of an indissociable interaction in which there is no longer a subject that it is someting like to BE, nor an objective world independent of that subject which it engages with from out of its solipsism. — Joshs

I mostly agree, but what of this speech act itself?

The person demonstrating says and points out to me: “This is rational, this is true, and this is what is meant by law; this is how you must think when you think truly.” To be sure, he wants me to grasp and acknowledge his ideas, but not as his ideas; he wants me to grasp them as generally rational; i.e., also as mine. He only expresses what is my own understanding.
...
All presentation, all demonstration – and the presentation of thought is demonstration – has, according to its original determination – and that is all that matters to us – the cognitive activity of the other person as its ultimate aim. — Feuerbach

The subject and object are vital concepts, despite their imperfections in certain contexts.

a much better understanding of all the things which are existentially dependent upon and/or consist of both the objective and the subjective.
— creativesoul

You don't seem to have discarded the distinction between the objective and the subjective. Can you rephrase the above sentence without using the terms "subjective" and "objective"? If not, and you need to use the terms, then they will be of no use unless you maintain the distinction between them. — Janus

Using to refer is mention.

What is there to say about ancient people’s assuming that our vision ‘shone outward’ rather than light ‘shining inward’? — I like sushi

Could be a poetic way of talking about the good affects/effects that we sometimes have upon others...

Maybe?

I recall reading that was the Greeks conception of how vision worked. But maybe it varied across cultures and philosophical schools. We do experience vision as if we're looking out through our eyes at the world. It's just that the scientific understanding is also there to correct us. Similar to watching "sunsets" and "sunrises" or not feeling Earth's movement.

Ah.

:smile:

It’s even used in English. To ‘look at ...’ rather than to ‘have brought to you image of ...’.

If you can provide any examples of a language which doesn’t show at directed ‘outward’ I’d love to see it - maybe there is one or two, but I doubt it.

My point was how we layer on accumulated knowledge and regard it as if it is our natural intuitive attitude.

My point was how we layer on accumulated knowledge and regard it as if it is our natural intuitive attitude. — I like sushi

Yeah, like how we all know ordinary matter is mostly empty space with electromagnetic bonds holding molecules together tightly enough so that we can't see or put our hands through it without smashing it.

But that wasn't the conception of solidity before atomic theory developed, excepting those from the atomist school of philosophy.

I don’t think this is the case. That said, people have been arguing over what Kant meant for a very long time.

There is certainly a similar aim with Husserl in that they both looked for a ‘firmer’ grounding. I don’t believe either assumed the task as one that could be complete - this is made explicit by Husserl at least.

What are logical forms taking account of?
— creativesoul

Illogical thought; irrational reasoning.
— Mww

What about logical thought, and rational reasoning? — creativesoul

What about them?

You: Why did you say that?
Me: Because (_____), so it had to be (_____).
You. Oh. Right. OK.

Now what?
————————-

You're going to have to replace it (the subjective/objective distinction) with something...
— Mww

Nah. I reject it based upon my own knowledge of all human thought and belief. I 'replaced it' with a much better understanding of all the things which are existentially dependent upon and/or consist of both the objective and the subjective. — creativesoul

Ok, fine. Your own knowledge is sufficient for you to reject something. No problem. Nevertheless, claiming the ends (I replace it) justifies the means (better understanding) says nothing whatsoever about the means. You could fall back on sufficiency here as well, re: your better understanding is sufficient to replace, but that says nothing about whether the replacement is necessary because of the better understanding. To be necessary requires adherence to a law or a principle, the enouncement of which seems to be missing.

You’re always saying that a thing is possible, or that a thing can be done, but never how it is possible or how it is done. Without a how, it is reasonable that I maintain my own knowledge for the standing and authority of the subjective/objective distinction, rather than entertain yours in rejecting it.

Hell, you haven’t even shown how the subjective/objective distinction actually is inadequate.
———————

As if it's impossible to discard. Read my threads. — creativesoul

Threads. You have threads, separate from your entries in our dialogues? So you’ve already given a how, someplace else? In the chance you meant comments in our dialogues, I haven’t seen any how’s. And when I mentioned this before, you didn’t come back with the suggestion to read your threads. You’ve never suggested other threads to me for anything.

I don’t think I’m asking too much.

Using to refer is mention. — creativesoul

What are you referring to if there is no coherent distinction? Now, don't get me wrong, I think human experience, primordially speaking, is prior to any such distinction, but we cannot get any conscious handle on that primordial experience; it is rightly thought as transcendental.

I think human experience, primordially speaking, is prior to any such distinction — Janus

Primordial. Fundamental state or condition.

I don’t understand how one can speak about experience primordially.

And if the distinction is the subjective/objective distinction, how can experience be prior to it?

Think experience in the sense of undergoes. Like the mountain experiences erosion. Conscious experience emerges out of a matrix of primordial process or undergoing which is beneath, I.e. transcendental to, conscious experience.

Emerges out of, of course. That’s the opposite of prior to.

On the other hand, if I take mountain/erosion as metaphor for change, then I must say experience doesn’t change; each is as it is in itself. Experience is singular and successive, not a unity and changing, the technical definition of consciousness.

Don’t want to take you off on a tangent, but......just wonderin’.

What are logical forms taking account of?
— creativesoul

Illogical thought; irrational reasoning.
— Mww

What about logical thought, and rational reasoning?
— creativesoul

What about them? — Mww

Are logical forms taking those thoughts and reasoning into account as well?

What are you referring to if there is no coherent distinction? Now, don't get me wrong, I think human experience, primordially speaking, is prior to any such distinction, but we cannot get any conscious handle on that primordial experience; it is rightly thought as transcendental. — Janus

First of all, I've never said that the objective/subjective dichotomy was incoherent. Secondly, I am referring to the typical use of that distinction. I can refer to another linguistic framework without assenting to it and/or accepting it. Thus, I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at in that regard. It's as if you seem to think that one must somehow assent/accept that which one claims to deny simply because one talks about it.

I'm suddenly being reminded of NOS in the racism thread...

The last bit, of course, I reject. Not only can we, I have gotten quite a good 'conscious handle' on primordial experience, if by that we mean experience prior to language acquisition and/or language less creatures' experience. One cannot get a good handle on primordial experience, if one doesn't have the basics of complex experience right.

Thought and belief.

Same story brutha! That's where it's at! Get that right, and much is gleaned...

...the mountain experiences erosion. — Janus

That is what can happen if one does not have the basics of complex experience right. Mountains do not have what it takes. Anthropomorphism.

This is perfectly normal parlance. Beyond what is consciously experienced we experience processes and forces just as the mountain experiences erosion. If you thought I was implying the mountain is conscious, then you didn't read carefully enough.

I don’t think I’m asking too much. — Mww

Coming from someone who has demonstrated a habit of ignoring all the tough questions leading up to a refutation of their own claims... well... that's a bit rich...

First of all, I've never said that the objective/subjective dichotomy was incoherent. — creativesoul

What exactly is your issue with it then?

One cannot get a good handle on primordial experience, if one doesn't have the basics of complex experience right. — creativesoul

If primordial experience, as distinct from conscious experience, is pre-conceptual then no discursive handle can be gotten on it, despite your promissory notes.

Perhaps it would be easier for me to understand what "mountains experience erosion" is taking about on your view if I knew what criterion you employ as a means to determine whether or not it makes sense to attribute experience to some thing or another.

I'm all ears...

I understood. It is, like everything, something that could be refined to the point where things get a little hazy though.

If primordial experience, as distinct from conscious experience, is pre-conceptual then no discursive handle can be gotten on it, despite your promissory notes. — Janus

Surely you're not really going to forward such an argument?

On the other hand, if I take mountain/erosion as metaphor for change, then I must say experience doesn’t change; each is as it is in itself. Experience is singular and successive, not a unity and changing, the technical definition of consciousness. — Mww

I'm not sure what you are aiming at here...isn't erosion a process of change?

True, but I think the two senses of 'experience' are related in ways which may be helpful to understanding the nature of the transcendental. I understand the transcendental to be not "above", but "below", our conscious experience, and thus not "transcendent" but immanent, and not ideal but real.

It's better than forwarding no argument at all!

And that it the point where Husserl took Kant’s work as faulty - but I think he misread - and broke out of the dichotomy of ‘subject’ and ‘object’.

First of all, I've never said that the objective/subjective dichotomy was incoherent.
— creativesoul

What exactly is your issue with it then? — Janus

It is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of that which consists of both. Experience is one such thing.

It's better than forwarding no argument at all! — Janus

I think you'd change your mind if you carefully considered the logical consequences of that argument. It leads to a reductio.

Beyond what is consciously experienced we experience processes and forces just as the mountain experiences erosion — Janus

How do you know this? That is... how do you know what experience is beyond conscious experience?

I think you may be conflating causality with experience. The latter is existentially dependent upon the former, but the former is not equivalent to the latter. Experience takes quite a bit more than causality.