Nice. It seems to be the case that at some time the West became fixated by measuring/quantifying things and jettisoning other experiences. But perhaps part of this was a retreat into materialism because it offered a distinct territory and safe haven from a homicidal church which claimed total control/gatekeeping of all other domains.

I think that dynamic had a lot to do with it. Might have turned out very differently had some of the more gnostically-oriented sects prevailed at the outset. But of course we’ll never know.

Actually just picked up this book second-hand at a local store:

I don't reject physicalism because of the spiritual--I have no idea what spiritual means. I reject physicalism because it is incoherent. If we say everything is physical, we have explained nothing.
Physicalism is a metaphysics.

If every facet of being produces what only exists from its vantage, the it makes no sense to speak of the absence of perspective. If you take away perspective you also take away the very facts that make up a universe. — Joshs

Right but I think you are dancing around an important point. You said here:

So you have a universe continually developing , but not in some perspective free sense, because a perspective isn’t simply an observation for a point of view, it’s a contribution to the production of a universe. — Joshs

I am not sure what that means. How is perspective "a contribution to the production of the universe"?

The conceit of a lot of modern thinking is to believe that science really does exclude the subject. In fact that is impossible. What scientists endeavour to do, is to arrive at an understanding which is as general as possible, devoid of personal, subjective or cultural influences. That's what 'the view from nowhere' is trying to achieve, and it can do that. But it's not a metaphysic. To mistake it for a metaphysic is to lapse into scientism.

It's an inconvenient truth for our objectivist culture that 'the subject of experience' is an inextricable pole or aspect of reality. To which the objectivist will immediately respond: where is this 'subjective pole'? Show it to me! And that's the blind spot. — Wayfarer

I've posted at length about considering Whitehead's process philosophy, as you may or may not remember, way back. A couple times actually.

I agree that people confuse "the view from nowhere" as a scientific approach to include as little bias or cultural influence in the science is different than "the View from Nowhere" which is a sort of metaphysical conundrum of thinking about a universe with no perspective. This latter one is what I am referring to.

And yes, general relativity and some interpretations of quantum mechanics must consider observers, so there is that. But my question also included ideas of localized interactions. Whitehead proposed atomic "occasions" of experiences. That still seems odd to me. I mean it's as good a conjecture as any, but doesn't really get beyond being conjecture.

Information-enthusiasts who reify information processes will somehow try to make the zombie information a point of perspective. For example, in this perspective, RNA decoding and encoding into DNA would be some sort of perspective. Or similarly, electrons interacting with nuclei or other electrons is a perspective. That seems odd to me. It is like a zombie, pseudo-scientific version of Whitehead. Perspective comes about through fiat. The verb "to do" becomes "perspective" here. Making something a process does not confer on it observational powers.

Anyways, interesting ideas.

We can examine it from a metaphysical ...perspective. — T Clark

That's the point. We can imagine, is different than what is going on. You are giving privilege again to humans. Our view of a "planet" would then be approximately "the planet". How odd and Platonic of you. Our Form of planet inheres in reality.

I wonder what all that elephant brain's 257 billion neurons actually do; certainly not philosophy. But perhaps some glorious, unfathomable sense of well being. A world of extraordinary experiential depth and breadth, I would hazard, is there. — Constance

I am not discussing knowledge versus other experience here. Rather, I am asking, what is a universe without any perspective? We imagine a universe independent of humans, but that imagining takes on the character of what "we" perceive it as.

Try it then. Try to remove the human temporal perspective, so that there's no "now". You'd have the entire temporal expanse of the universe at once. There'd be no separation of any object from any other object, because everything would exist everywhere all at once. If you wanted to imagine just a short portion of time, what would separate that portion from the rest other than your chosen perspective? — Metaphysician Undercover

I have tried it. I think what you're describing is the essence of the experience meditation is looking for. Yes, I can imagine it. I can grasp it intellectually. No, I cannot experience it directly.

Do you think a universe can persist if there is no observer/perspective? I know we can't imagine that world, but I guess my bigger question is, "what" is being outside perspective?

If you say, there is no "being" outside perspective, that is indeed Idealism and Schopenhauer would get on board with that. But, let's say you weren't an Idealist. Is there any other way to answer this?

I’d take time to read that article carefully, it has sound provenance. — Wayfarer

You are right, and I hadn't read it all the way. So now I've read it, and I do appreciate the direction it takes. But my views on this run rather radical, perhaps you've noticed. Take this: 'Our experience and what we call ‘reality’ are inextricable."

I put it quite differently: Our experience IS reality, and this is not an idealist claim. It is just to say that whether you want to talk about what is out there and in here or not, experience is not such that it is to be compared to or set apart from what is real. Then the matter takes its epistemic course: The cat considered out there has no "proximity" to me, since there is nothing about out thereness that is at all intimated. But the presence of the cat there, just as it is, this is where the "real" gets its meaning; this is the "originary" locus where talk about the real begins. It is not "in here" but simply "there". It is the intuitive presence of the cat as well as the eidetic presence of the thought that conceives it, these are, I would argue against others, direct and unassailablein their presence, whatever that means, which brings me to the problem: I say "whatever that means" because meanings distort presence, and the word 'presence' is itself embedded in a system of thought, which is freighted along with the simple utterance.

Hard to put this succinctly; there is a premise lurking in the shadows of all this: the point of philosophical work is not to arrive at propositional truth. It is to realize value; it is liberative (which is why I take Eastern thinking seriously. I suspect philosophy's issues were solved long ago, sitting under a fig tree) Value rules inquiry, not thought; and thought is pragmatic, a utility, to achieve value. We think to make things happen, but thought cannot "deliver" reality any more than a hammer can deliver a house. Language has use value. Talk about universals vs particulars, e.g., is simply more talk about meanings and how they converge, reflect, straddle, agree with, and so on, each other. And this is a big point: Concepts will never converge with the real, but they themselves are real. One simply has to abandon the scientific insistence on a fiction called materiality. Thinking is not disputable as a "presence"; what thinking is about is entirely different. Of course, I did just say that all language is like this, distorting or interpretative, so it has to be explained how a "direct" intuition unassailable in its affirmation, while the language's nature is inherently something assailable.

Anyway, this is where my thought begins on the matter of what is real. Bringing inquiry back to the foundation of all things, the actual presence of the world. One has to ask, then listen at the intuitive center, where, as Eugene Fink puts it, the "being-tendency (enworlding)" is revealed. One discovers, again, I argue, something alien and profound vis a vis our naturally lived lives.

I am not discussing knowledge versus other experience here. Rather, I am asking, what is a universe without any perspective? We imagine a universe independent of humans, but that imagining takes on the character of what "we" perceive it as. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, but I think you know where this goes: In order for the "without any perspective" to make any sense at all, the concept of perspective has to make sense. Of course, a perspective only makes sense vis a vis other perspectives. There is no single, privileged "perspective" except in the "mind of God" and this puts the idea clearly in the area of bad metaphysics. This is nonsense.

There is no single, privileged "perspective" except in the "mind of God" and this puts the idea clearly in the area of bad metaphysics. This is nonsense. — Constance

Your idea of "bad metaphysics" was just asserted without any jumping from your claim to your conclusion. A philosopher can't just write an article "Bad metaphysics. The end".

But anyways, you seem to be answering your own objections.. Yes, a universe has no privileged perspective on its own. But my question is what is a universe without a perspective? I mean literally, what does that look like? The only thing I can posit that people might say (especially information-enthusiasts) are localized interactions somehow inhering in the universe. But I don't really know if I buy that.

I also get we must use our human language and imagery to describe non-human perspective, but that is assumed in this argument. We obviously can't get outside our own framework. But that doesn't mean we can't have some discussion on it in a conceptual way, even if that really can't translate to our true understanding of it.

I think the idea of the blind spot is a metaphor for the failure to recognize a bias held by our own position - humans often assume a god-like, objective understanding of reality when it is actually a perspective with limitations. In this I think the notion is appropriate and I think Wayfarer states the problem well. — Tom Storm

The idea of a blind spot implies that we re blind to something, something there that we cannot "see". If it is conceived as a metaphor, then it has to be such that both sides of the metaphor are known. I have brought this up earlier: a metaphor only makes sense, as in, Ingrid such a tiger in political conversation, if one knows about tigers and Ingrid. Both. Witt argued that one sided metaphors are nonsense. So the blind spot in this context, would be a one sided metaphor. Blind, but blind regarding what?

That's the point. We can imagine, is different than what is going on. You are giving privilege again to humans. Our view of a "planet" would then be approximately "the planet". How odd and Platonic of you. Our Form of planet inheres in reality. — schopenhauer1

Here's what I wrote:

I think it is probably possible to escape the human perspective. Even if we can't do that, we can imagine what it would be like to escape the human perspective. We can examine it from a metaphysical ...perspective. — T Clark

If we can escape the human perspective, it would be without words. I think this is the essence of what meditation strives for. I certainly have never experienced it, but I think it may be possible.

I can't speak for Wayfarer but surely any metaphysics is always based on a human point of view. — Tom Storm

I agree. I think metaphysics is the set of tools we use to bring the world into human perspective. I'm not sure if that's exactly what you mean.

If a metaphysics, to be considered valid or substantive, must reflect a "reality beyond human perception" and all our metaphysics are merely human creations or at best "co-creations" (whatever that could be thought to mean), then there are no valid metaphysics, or at least no metaphysics which we can demonstrate or know to be valid. — Janus

Metaphysics is a tool. If it works, it's valid.

Your idea of "bad metaphysics" was just asserted without any jumping from your claim to your conclusion. A philosopher can't just write an article "Bad metaphysics. The end".

But anyways, you seem to be answering your own objections.. Yes, a universe has no privileged perspective on its own. But my question is what is a universe without a perspective? I mean literally, what does that look like? The only thing I can posit that people might say (especially information-enthusiasts) are localized interactions somehow inhering in the universe. But I don't really know if I buy that. — schopenhauer1

Bad metaphysics is metaphysics that has no grounding in analysis of experience. Talk about God as omniscient, omnipotent and so on--one asks, for evidence and it isn't forthcoming. Talk about God as, say, a grounding for ethical affairs that are inherently incomplete due to undeniable features of the given world, then metaphysics is not entirely a fiction.

If there is no privileged perspective, then the term 'perspective' stands in its meaning only against other perspectives, and loses meaning entirely in talk about "a universe without a perspective". Anything you say is already "perspectival"; to speak at all implies perspective; to say "without perspective" is itself a perspective.

Metaphysics is not my thing, so apologies. That said, my understanding is that our metaphysics amounts to a collaboration between ourselves and what it is we describe as reality. We create the measuring systems, the tools, the very language of description. And as we learn or grasp more, our metaphysics shifts and evolves. So that's what I mean by co-created. Do we ever grasp the real? Isn't even the notion of real a human construct? Or am I now sounding like a stoner? Physicalism as understood by most scientists is a metaphysical position, but many, like Bernardo Kastrup, would hold that this is questionable in the light of some interpretations of QM,if nothing else, right? — Tom Storm

I agree with this, except for the stoner and QM parts.

If there is no privileged perspective, then the term 'perspective' stands in its meaning only against other perspectives, and loses meaning entirely in talk about "a universe without a perspective". Anything you say is already "perspectival"; to speak at all implies perspective; to say "without perspective" is itself a perspective. — Constance

This just sounds like a complaint without content. If there are no sentient beings. What then? I'll try to use as little words that you don't like as possible here...

I think physicalism is a metaphysical position (and is invalid as any other) if it holds that the nature of reality in itself is physical. Reality as we understand it is indeed physical, but that is an empirical or phenomenological claim, not a metaphysical one (unless you want to redefine metaphysics and ontology in terms of phenomenology). — Janus

I agree with this except for "invalid."

This just sounds like a complaint without content. If there are no sentient beings. What then? I'll try to use as little words that you don't like as possible here... — schopenhauer1

It's is just an argument from nonsense. To talk about perspectivelessness is nonsense.

Physicalism is a metaphysics. — Jackson

Sure, but then all ways of knowing the world except for direct, unspoken experience are metaphysics.

It's is just an argument from nonsense. To talk about perspectivelessness is nonsense. — Constance

Nonsense in the Wittgenstein meaning of it? If let's say Earth is no more, what of the universe? That's an event that can (and will) happen. So how is that nonsense? There was a universe "before" humans and "after". So why the hostility? It's not nonsense, you are just unreasonably miffed by the subject. Wittgenstein's idea of "nonsense" isn't a license for shutting down all inquiry in the name of calling out "Nonsense!".

But anyways, you seem to be answering your own objections.. Yes, a universe has no privileged perspective on its own. But my question is what is a universe without a perspective? I mean literally, what does that look like? The only thing I can posit that people might say (especially information-enthusiasts) are localized interactions somehow inhering in the universe. But I don't really know if I buy that. — schopenhauer1

A Taoist might say that the universe doesn't exist until it is put into human perspective. "Existence" means "put into a human perspective."

If there is no privileged perspective, then the term 'perspective' stands in its meaning only against other perspectives, and loses meaning entirely in talk about "a universe without a perspective". — Constance

I think this is true.

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a long time. Lots of well-thought-out posts. No sniping. Responsive responses. Really interesting. The question of perspectives seen from many perspectives.

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a long time. Lots of well-thought-out posts. No sniping. Responsive responses. Really interesting. The question of perspectives seen from many perspectives. — T Clark

:up:

Nonsense in the Wittgenstein meaning of it? If let's say Earth is no more, what of the universe? That's an event that can (and will) happen. So how is that nonsense? There was a universe "before" humans and "after". So why the hostility? It's not nonsense, you are just unreasonably miffed by the subject. Wittgenstein's idea of "nonsense" isn't a license for shutting down all inquiry in the name of calling out "Nonsense!". — schopenhauer1

Well, not hostile, just in disagreement.


Witt writes:

Thus the aim of the book is to draw a limit
to thought, or rather—not to thought, but to
the expression of thoughts: for in order to be
able to draw a limit to thought, we should
have to find both sides of the limit thinkable
(i.e. we should have to be able to think what
cannot be thought).
It will therefore only be in language that
the limit can be drawn, and what lies on the
other side of the limit will simply be nonsense.


One cannot think of a limit to thought for one cannot conceive of the opposite of thought. It takes thought to conceive. He knows that to have an idea at all in mind is to have logic in play already. One can't imagine a logic-free "world". Having a perspective is exactly the same thing in this matter here.
Imagining a universe before humans is, of course, a conception. When we talk about a Big Bang, it is a projection of what the world is processed in logic and experience. Take away this latter, the BIg Bang is just meaningless.

1

I am not sure what that means. How is perspective "a contribution to the production of the universe"? — schopenhauer1

A perspective is not a passive observation from a certain vantage, it is the creation of something new from
a certain vantage . Any ‘observation’ alters not just what it relates to, but also that which is doing the observing.

One cannot think of a limit to thought for one cannot conceive of the opposite of thought. It takes thought to conceive. He knows that to have an idea at all in mind is to have logic in play already. One can't imagine a logic-free "world". Having a perspective is exactly the same thing in this matter here.
Imagining a universe before humans is, of course, a conception. When we talk about a Big Bang, it is a projection of what the world is processed in logic and experience. Take away this latter, the BIg Bang is just meaningless. — Constance

Yes, a priori, this kind of conjecturing must be projections and imaginations. We can still try to "describe" it. Like if I say, "What do you think a dog's perspective is like" and you say, "It has a lot to do with smells, patterns of reward, belly rubs, and such" I can still meaningfully gain some insight into this from my limited human perspective without actually "being" a dog myself. Of course, I am never going to have the POV of a dog, but it can be discussed like anything else.

I'm just saying not to use Witty to weaponize any inquiry on metaphysical or epistemological conjectures. Sometimes it's more about how to view a subject matter, not necessarily getting at "it" directly. We all know that there is a contradiction in thinking about non-perspective, but the dialogue surrounding such ideas is not thus a non-starter, it's just keeping in mind that it can only be conjecture.