tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post7769954291932772627..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: Are objects enough or do we need a subject experiencing them?elisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-45448700737922728092010-10-15T15:43:14.621+02:002010-10-15T15:43:14.621+02:00Elisa,
I am going out on a limb, but the notion of...Elisa,<br />I am going out on a limb, but the notion of a pure consciousness (Atman) that pre-exists the object seems to me to be tantamount to a pure meaning which pre-exists its occasions. I know this is vague here, and it's all too plausible that I am misconstruing the Upanishads here. In case it needs saying, 'pre-exists' here means for me timelessly, not temporally.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-66240155909075534362010-10-12T15:13:21.672+02:002010-10-12T15:13:21.672+02:00Thanks Elisa for pointing out the 'ambiguity&#...Thanks Elisa for pointing out the 'ambiguity' in my original post. I use quotes because 'ambiguity' only arises if there is in operation a subconscious picture of inner and outer, subjective and objective. Being an inner hard-wired predisposition does not mean being a subjective condition that gets projected on to the objective or external world. It's a complicated because very simple idea. Both the predisposition and the world get switched on at the same time, neither exists 'in the dark' waiting on the other.michael reidyhttp://ombhurbhuva.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-42297736223956700712010-10-12T15:05:15.057+02:002010-10-12T15:05:15.057+02:00"the same object X causes the same reactions ..."the same object X causes the same reactions in various subjects. "<br /><br />I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'meaning'. <br /><br />But it is patently the case that we don't always agree on the meaning of objects or the statements of philosophers for that matter :-)Jayaravahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815277098386812048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-20931478832190582962010-10-12T12:05:28.391+02:002010-10-12T12:05:28.391+02:00Michael, thanks for this interesting dialogue. Wel...Michael, thanks for this interesting dialogue. Well, I do not think that natural sciences are as neutral as you seem to imply. They presuppose, for instance, that objects are somewhere outside their observer and they long assumed that they were "already" there, ready to be observed. I understood your first comment as implying that this scheme could be questioned. Did I miss your point?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-30777530266300376522010-10-11T23:43:29.897+02:002010-10-11T23:43:29.897+02:00Elisa:
Where's the projection in science? I ...Elisa: <br />Where's the projection in science? I thought science was a reflection of what is really there and not something that we dream up. Of course theories are adapted because new information becomes available through experiment or observation.michael reidynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-62156082177031860672010-10-11T11:10:48.922+02:002010-10-11T11:10:48.922+02:00Jayarava,
I see your point. But I guess Gibson wo...Jayarava, <br />I see your point. But I guess Gibson would answer that we can know, because we can observe this pattern (I'm sure G. would explain it it in a much nicer way): the same object X causes the same reactions in various subjects. Hence, the object is the core, not the subject.<br /><br />Michael,<br />this is an interesting point of view. The only point which does not convince me is its "natural scientific" allure. Could not we avoid it? After all, natural sciences are exactly the result of the kind of projection you seem to refute (a scientist sits by her microscope observing inert entities…).<br /><br />Skholiast,<br />do you mean to say that meaning pre-exists the event of its being grasped or actualized? Why such a presupposition-load theory? Why not just the event of the actulization of meaning?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-82371009001414529542010-10-09T23:17:24.821+02:002010-10-09T23:17:24.821+02:00Perhaps there is meaning "first," (ontol...Perhaps there is meaning "first," (ontologically) which then coagulates (as it were) into the events (= encounters between objects) which are its own occasions.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-53232544809561215632010-10-09T15:01:16.093+02:002010-10-09T15:01:16.093+02:00When you consider that everything on this planet h...When you consider that everything on this planet has evolved from the primordial cosmic soup then it is logical that in the higher organisms there is internalised all the lower that they have used as a launch pad. They are informed by those lower forms of life so there is a built in resonance. The focus on consciousness as though it were a matter of complete disjunction from all other forms of life is dualism. Basically the more autonomy, the more information, the more complexity of structure. The idea that recognition of structure is a projection is a denial of common heritage. <br /><br />Advaitins hold that the organs are of the same category as the objects. In this acute pre-scientific intuition, physical interaction throws up real information. There is no tabula rasa.michael reidyhttp://ombhurbhuva.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-25186580071231355432010-10-08T19:02:15.064+02:002010-10-08T19:02:15.064+02:00If objects are a priori meaningful... how would we...If objects are a priori meaningful... how would we know?Jayaravahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815277098386812048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-4138504632699971822010-10-08T16:46:51.213+02:002010-10-08T16:46:51.213+02:00Thank you Dominik. That's exactly my point. A ...Thank you Dominik. That's exactly my point. A sound (unlike, arguably, a fallen tree) exists only for a hearer.elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-82737878333212918852010-10-08T16:36:08.380+02:002010-10-08T16:36:08.380+02:00Somewhere in the middle of all this, a tree falls ...Somewhere in the middle of all this, a tree falls in the middle of a forest, unheard ...Dominik Wujastykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06012632349340220464noreply@blogger.com