..let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as 'pure reason', 'absolute spirituality', 'knowledge in itself': these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective knowing; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our 'concept' of this thing, our 'objectivity' be...

This passage from Nietzsche is extremely close to Zahavi's understanding of Husserl's direct realism. I haven't emphasized entanglement yet, but to me the subject only makes sense within the same world that it perceives, so that seen and the seer are interdependent like a donut and donuthole, like up and down.

I offer what I hope is a solid perspectivism within a 'phenomenological direct realist' framework. — plaque flag

You and I can see the same object at the same time. We see the same object in the intentional sense (it's that one shared object we talk about), and yet this single object is given to us differently, as a function of our perspective in a generalized sense, not just in terms of spatial location, but also in terms of a 'prejudicial' position in 'personality space.' And of course I might be nearsighted and you might be colorblind.

Your last statement, " ... 'seeking the truth' is best made sense of as seeking the best possible 'view'
on the 'infinite object' of the world -- in terms of becoming the/an ideal viewer.", I find overflowing with impossibility and delusions of grandeur.

Who the hell would know what "the best possible view" of anything was, even if it existed or they encountered it?

And what does "becoming the/an ideal viewer" mean? Striving to have some kind of supreme, impossible, godlike perspective of the world?

Please clarify.

Your last statement, " ... 'seeking the truth' is best made sense of as seeking the best possible 'view' on the 'infinite object' of the world -- in terms of becoming the/an ideal viewer.", I find overflowing with impossibility and delusions of grandeur. — charles ferraro

I welcome the criticism, but do you not see the performative contradiction ? Are you not advertising that you yourself have a better view on what is the case ? And what could 'delusions of grandeur' even mean if there were not better or worse ways of looking at things ?

Is what disturbs you the ambition, and the implicit elitism, involved ? Do you think people who spend years studying fish don't tend to see fish more clearly and completely than others ?

Who the hell would know what "the best possible view" of anything was, even if it existed or they encountered it? — charles ferraro

I suggest you reread the opening post. I explicitly emphasized (fucking underlined) all we ever have is belief. I go on to mock the idea of some perspective-independent Final reality hidden behind all perspectives. I draw the conclusion, hopefully not so unwarranted, that we ought to do what we can to seek good beliefs. Such beliefs simply are the [ conceptual aspect of the ] world from our point of view. The world is only given thru/to such points of views. My beliefs are the 'linguistic' meaning-structure of the world as seen by me. So I see the world better (what once might have been called 'more truly') by seeing it from a better 'perspective.'

It's like me turning on a lamp and bringing an object close to my eyes in order to have it more completely. But instead of eyes seeing, we have the 'mind' 'seeing' the conceptual structure of the world, and this apprehended/given structure is belief.

Striving to have some kind of supreme, impossible, godlike perspective of the world? — charles ferraro

For me, it's similar to the critical-synthetic tradition of science/philosophy. We work together to build the best set of beliefs we can by pointing out one's another's blindspots and biases. It's only 'godlike' in the sense that it's best thing we can sensibly hope for. There's nothing above it, but the project is selfconsciously revisionary down to its bones and never finished. Rationality is attempt to ameliorate our innate stupidity through a teamwork that requires both optimism (a better view is possible ) and humility (it won't be easy, and I'll need help).

1. You do not welcome my criticsm.

2. There is no performative contradiction in what I stated. I am not performing a Cogito Sum while simultaneously claiming, in the first person present tense mode, I do not exist. You are obviously trying to employ an unwarranted diversionary tactic, here, that simply does not work, to show your intellectual superiority.

3. I do have a better, more concise, view of what is the case than you do.

4. All we ever have is the conscious recognition of our ignorance, along with belief, and the scientific method.

We have internal perspective foundations, influenced by beliefs, that give us "feelings" about reality and are continuously refreshed by interacting with the physical and emotional world. But across the landscape of time these can be misleading. Try to imagine an event that occurred, say, a century ago. Do your best to place yourself in the context of the time, but it can never happen, no matter how carefully you surround yourself with the accoutrements of that period.

I have seen this in the world of climbing when a few modern day climbers attempt to replicate an ascent having taken place in the late 19th century, using the equipment of that period. It's never even close to reliving the original experience.

I practiced forms of meditation over the years, and once, not too long ago, had the astounding adventure of inadvertently slipping into the consciousness of another person, very briefly. Instead of an old man in Colorado, I found "myself" in the mind of a woman living in a cabin in Ireland. The experience goes beyond words to express, and it lasted only a few brief moments. "I" looked out the window onto rolling green hills and everything was changed for me - I saw through another's eyes what I would not see through mine.

My conclusion: There are no common internal perspective foundations. Even common beliefs vary from person to person.

Two cents worth.

I do have a better, more concise, view of what is the case than you do. — charles ferraro

:up:

Instead of an old man in Colorado, I found "myself" in the mind of a woman living in a cabin in Ireland. The experience goes beyond words to express, and it lasted only a few brief moments. "I" looked out the window onto rolling green hills and everything was changed for me - I saw through another's eyes what I would not see through mine. — jgill

Sounds amazing and maybe scary.

My conclusion: There are no common internal perspective foundations. Even common beliefs vary from person to person.

Two cents worth. — jgill

:up:

To me one of the things that glues us together is language. We intend the same object from our differing perspectives. We talk at the world in common, but we only see/feel/smell it from a perspective. So language has a sociality that the rest of us lacks. So I agree with you that even common beliefs vary, but we can only know this by intending the same set of worldly objects ( I include concepts like justice and freedom in these objects, along with anything that is mixed up in the reasons we give for beliefs and actions.)

Sounds amazing and maybe scary — plaque flag

Not at all. Powerful and illuminating. Highly recommended. :cool:

Not at all. Powerful and illuminating. Highly recommended. — jgill

Your experience suggests a kind of 'tunnel' between perspectives on reality. I've had some powerful experiences (largely on the level of feeling and 'spiritual' realizations), but I've not yet experienced anything as metaphysically radical as what you describe. Did you ever see Being John Malkovich ? It's about that kind of thing, and it's pretty great. It's a bit like Schopenhauer's idea of the illusion of individuality breaking down, but more visceral than metaphorical sounding.

Saw the film some time ago but don't remember much about it - something about crawling through cabinets.