JeffreyW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:21 am
AshvinP wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:16 am
JeffreyW wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 5:05 am
It is our representation of sense data, which is superficially correct within the small slice of reality we call classical or Newtonian. Nothing deeper can be said from this rational/objective mode, but then this entire thread has remained within that mode. This has been no deep exploration of Being.
OK, so would you then admit it tells you nothing about the Being of consciousness or idea? Perceiving that these "components" or "energy" is "prior to" consciousness tells you nothing whatsoever about the deeper Being of energy or consciousness, correct?
No. Consciousness itself is just our objectification which we observe in ourselves. In our representations its existence is dependent on energy and a living brain. Anything beyond that is mere metaphysical assertion.
Being is of an entirely different nature and is not revealed in mere representation. We lost that when physis was split into physics and metaphysics.
Alright. Well, like I said, this is spitting image of Kant and Schop. What you write in bold could not make that any more clear. That could also be a quote from BK, which makes it even more strange that you are critiquing him. Anyway, I think our respective positions have been made clear, and I have no illusions of convincing anyone this deep into the Kantian divide to realize what is going on. I will just post what I already wrote in response to the other parts of your last comment.
Ashvin wrote:JW wrote:The rational/objective vs. esthetic/non-objective "modes of understanding" philosophy you are putting forth here is simply a reformulation of the object/subject dualism of Cartesian rationalism and Kantian idealism. It is very clear for anyone to see this from the 'outside looking in', so to speak. The concepts match up almost perfectly and they certainly function in the exact same way. What is "objective-rational" (matter) can be spoken about and investigated publicly, what is "subjective" remains a perpetual mystery for each "private" mind to contemplate and nothing else. It is when people are intellectually invested in their own thought-system, which can occur for reasons quite independent of finances, reputation, etc., that they inevitably fail to perceive this dualism in their own thought.
This is a serious misunderstanding of what I mean by esthetic knowledge, which is the sort of thing not only NOT related to Kantian Idealism, but something I doubt Kant could even conceive. Kantian Idealism really is related to metaphysical idealism, which he retained to preserve his belief in god and free will. It rejects the senses in favor of Pure Reason. My approach is to explore what is revealed to our senses prior to any subject/object metaphysics at all. That means to relay poetically or musically what is revealed and remain silent about what isn’t. Of course, that isn’t happening on this thread, which is a conversation resolutely confined to subject/object analysis and argumentation. We are all bi-lingual in this regard, but most are more proficient in one than in the other.
Esthetic knowledge is not subjective as opposed to an object perceived, but an entanglement between our consciousness and the world in which both are equally participatory, negating any notion of what is subject and what is object.
The question is not what you
mean by "esthetic knowledge". Everyone here - BK, Eugene, yourself, me - thinks they mean something that has transcended subject-object metaphysics. The only way to get a better intellectual grasp on the overall philosophy is to see how the concepts
function within the philosophy. This is the pragmatic approach, and it is also a phenomenological approach if we are doing a phenomenology of
concepts and conceptual systems (as opposed to mere sense-perceptions). When it comes to these deeply ingrained habits of intellectual conceptual thinking, we can't simply rely on what people claim they understand or have transcended. If that were the case, then all of your critiques against BK would be a moot point, because he certainly claims to have transcended modern rationalism, dualism, etc.
I know what you are saying above about aesthetic knowledge and revealing deeper meaning of sense-perceptions via art. Many modern and especially post-modern thinkers have said similar things. But the concept is not
functioning any differently than what Schopenhauer or anyone else had to say about music, imagination, intuition, etc. It is serving as an abstraction which you can put at the base of your worldview, leading directly to your
desired mystical conclusion that representational intellect simply cannot discuss these matters in any higher resolution. As Bergson observed, such an approach "
will have no difficulty in explaining everything deductively, since it will have been given beforehand, in a principle which is the concept of concepts, all the real and all the possible. But this explanation will be vague and hypothetical, this unity will be artificial, and this philosophy would apply equally well to a very different world from our own".
Kant wanted to preserve belief in God and free will by critiquing "Pure Reason", and Schopenhauer wanted to preserve
disbelief in God (of Western sort) and the
possibility of freedom by critiquing any Reason whatsoever. You and BK both fall on the Schop side of that same coin. You simulataneously want to claim space-time is representational yet your immediate sense-perceptions are "prior to subject-object distinction", which simply does not hold up to Reason (which is part of the motivation for discounting Reason to begin with). Schop did the exact same thing with "universal Will" - he said all perceptions are illusory representations,
except my own perception of the Will within me. He gives no justification why his naive realism of the will he perceived within him should be given higher epistemic warrant than the naive realism of 'things' he perceived around him. You are also doing the same thing - picking and choosing which sense-perceptions can be trusted and which cannot.
JW wrote:I would agree to the extent that there is a continuity arising from life’s emergence from the cosmos, but that doesn’t imply that what is pre-emergent shares life. All experience would contradict that assumption, which renders it a mere metaphysical assertion.
If what is "pre-emergent" does not share life, then there is no continuity, only non-life/life (matter/mind, object/subject) dualism once again.