I only know of other subjects and a ‘world’ to the extent that I can construe these entities on some dimension of similarity with respect to my ongoing system of interpretation. Whatever is wholly outside of this system is invisible to me. Thus, a ‘world’ is built up and continually transformed as variations on an ongoing theme. — Joshs
Wittgenstein agreed with Kuhn, against Popper, that scientific change is like change in the arts , a matter of aesthetic shifts rather than an asymptomatic approach of truth through falsification. — Joshs
If one assumes that an ego is 'given' or 'primary,' then perhaps one can cast everything else as an appearance for that ego. But I don't think this story is plausible. To me it makes more sense to take the ego and the world as 'equiprimordial' or conceptually independent. — jas0n
Ego for Husserl doesn’t mean personality. It is not Freud’s notion of ego. In fact , for Husserl, the pure ego functions as nothing but an empty zero point or center of activity. What is given or primary isn’t a content, substance , subject , phenomenon or entity , but the differentiating activity of temporalization. What is fundamental is the tripartite structure of time consciousness. — Joshs
https://integrallife.com/always-already-the-brilliant-clarity-of-ever-present-awareness/The Realization of the Nondual traditions is uncompromising: there is only Spirit, there is only God, there is only Emptiness in all its radiant wonder. All the good and all the evil, the very best and the very worst, the upright and the degenerate-each and all are radically perfect manifestations of Spirit precisely as they are. There is nothing but God, nothing but the Goddess, nothing but Spirit in all directions, and not a grain of sand, not a speck of dust, is more or less Spirit than any other.
This realization undoes the Great Search that is the heart of the separate-self sense. The separate-self is, at bottom, simply a sensation of seeking. When you feel yourself right now, you will basically feel a tiny interior tension or contraction—a sensation of grasping, desiring, wishing, wanting, avoiding, resisting-it is a sensation of effort, a sensation of seeking.
...
One hundred percent of Spirit is in your perception right now. Not 20 percent, not 50 percent, not 99 percent, but literally 100 percent of Spirit is in your awareness right now—and the trick, as it were, is to recognize this ever-present state of affairs, and not to engineer a future state in which Spirit will announce itself.
And this simple recognition of an already present Spirit is the task, as it were, of the great Nondual traditions.
Events don't appear anonymously as what they are in themselves , they appear to someone, are about something, and reach out (protend) beyond their immediate sense. — Joshs
d you seem to be starting from an implicitly postulated 'ego thing,' for which the world is and must be mediated. I'd call this a constructive approach that tries to patch together a world from snippets of private dreams. IMO, you have not yet made it clear that this isn't just sophisticated solipsism. Is there a world outside of what we know of it? Even if taking about this world is problematic and even if we assume that we only ever get some mediating version of it through the human nervous system? Are you an indirect realist? Or what? — jas0n
https://integrallife.com/always-already-the-brilliant-clarity-of-ever-present-awareness/We begin with the realization that the pure Self or transpersonal Witness is an ever-present consciousness, even when we doubt its existence. You are right now aware of, say, this book, the room, a window, the sky, the clouds…. You can sit back and simply notice that you are aware of all those objects floating by. Clouds float through the sky, thoughts float through the mind, and when you notice them, you are effortlessly aware of them. There is a simple, effortless, spontaneous witnessing of whatever happens to be present.
In that simple witnessing awareness, you might notice: I am aware of my body, and therefore I am not just my body. I am aware of my mind, and therefore I am not just my mind. I am aware of my self, and therefore I am not just that self. Rather, I seem somehow to be the Witness of my body, my mind, my self.
This is truly fascinating. I can see my thoughts, so I am not those thoughts. I am aware of bodily sensations, so I am not those sensations. I am aware of my emotions, so I am not merely those emotions. I am somehow the Witness of all of that!
But what is this Witness itself? Who or What is it that witnesses all of these objects, that watches the clouds float by, and thoughts float by, and objects float by? Who or What is this true Seer, this pure Witness, which is at the very core of what I am?
That simple witnessing awareness, the traditions maintain, is Spirit itself, is the enlightened mind itself, is Buddha-nature itself, is God itself, in its entirety.
I am not an indirect realist , I am a phenomenologist. There is a world outside of what we know of it , every moment, in the very act of intending beyond what we intend. That is the only ‘world beyond’ there is. — Joshs
I find this quite plausible. But what's the status of the world shared with others ? Do they exist 'outside' this consciousness? — jas0n
Husserl actually assumed both that others exist outside my consciousness but that I can never have access to them except as variations of my own experience. An intersubjective world thus emerges for each of us , in which the empirically ‘same world for all of us’ is seen from each’s own point of view. — Joshs
This vision seems to require either some kind of 'divine' synchronization of our video games or a substrate of some kind (what some thinkers have probably meant by 'matter'). — jas0n
The real object is in fact an idealization. — Joshs
Perception constantly is motivated , that is tends toward toward the fulfillment of the experience of the object as integrated singularity, as this same' table'. — Joshs
In order to attain that notion of objectivity we must be able to recognize other egos as being like us. We do this not simply by constructing some sort of internal model of how we think others think. Rather , we directly perceive them as ‘alter-egos’ as beings like us but also different from us. — Joshs
So o hope you can see that this complex and intricate subjective and intersubjective system of reciprocal coordinations is anything but a ‘ divine synchronization’.
It is instead the actual way that we jointly build up a shared world. — Joshs
I like what I know of Pierce, and I'm fairly familiar w/ pragmatism (James, Rorty) — jas0n
I'd add that Popper is also including the social element of technique and communication. — jas0n
But it should at least look bad when it fails at prediction. It has to be specific enough to fail. — jas0n
Steo 1: bin James and Rorty. — apokrisis
The idea that one exception could break the rule itself assumes a particular metaphysics. It says a theory can describe "how the world works" in some kind of totally constrained and exceptionless fashion - reality as a mechanism. — apokrisis
And this is the world that science in fact describes. One that is probabilistic at base and thus always capable of exceptions that break the rule. And yet the rule is only in fact a constraint that limits exceptions to some long-run statistical profile. — apokrisis
There is the popular belief that the scientific method ought to be tuned to producing exceptionless law. — apokrisis
So as far as framing laws goes, being so constraining as to be exceptionless would be to accept the idea that the Cosmos is an actual machine.
Peirce's pragmatism already understood this point. Which is why he stressed that universal laws were only really highly developed Cosmic habits. A propensity based view of probability itself follows. — apokrisis
Consider what I take to be Heidegger's view, that one is primarily 'one' or the generic/default layer of habit/interpretation of a generation (and class and gender, etc.) — jas0n
Note, my friend, that you still don't deal with the problem of the substrate. I think you grant a plurality of subjects? Is there a world that precedes or contains them in any sense? If not, how do we communicate without the synchronization? (I dream that I wave at you and you dream that I wave at you at the same time, etc.) — jas0n
He surmises that Heidegger would approve of Schmid's(2005) assertion that “...the we, the “sense of us” or “plural self-awareness,” precedes the distinction between yours and mine, is prior to any form of intersubjectivity or mutual recognition, and is itself the irreducible basis for joint action and communication.” — Joshs
Being-with is instead the very site of sociality as a referential differential inside-outside. — Joshs
Yes, that's how I see it, and that's maybe my fundamental gripe about the transcendental ego, at least inasmuch as it's involved in constructions of the world from images given through peepholes. — jas0n
To know is to change the object of one’s knowledge. Through intersubjective discourse and culture each of us contributes to the evolution of the world. — Joshs
Folks either want to stuff the world into consciousness or flatten consciousness into the brain. — jas0n
Are we different humans with different minds in the same world? And does this same world need some kind of an elusive substrate that we can carve into in order to communicate? — jas0n
I've made it clear that for me, it ain't a mechanistic view of the substrate. That is reductionist and one-sided. It divides reality in a broken fashion that leaves the idealistic fantasies as its matchingly monistic "other".
The only view that sees through the muddle is the one that can both divide and unite. The good old logic of the dialectic, the dichotomy, the unity of opposites. This steps out of monism and leads us to the triadic systems view of reality - the holism that is an organic causality. — apokrisis
And the true final step is when the holism describes not just the substrate "out there" but captures the holism of the modelling relation, the semiosis, which is about an "us in here" as well. — apokrisis
The levels aren't even that well integrated. The techno-semiotic level in particular is still a half-baked view of reality ... as it needs to be seen in order for us to flourish in the world we are so busily trying to construct. — apokrisis
But Heidegger’s Dasein is involved in constructions of the world from a totality of relevance given beforehand. — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.