[MD] The Problem of the Subject-Object Dictonomy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 23 Jul 2009 at 23:50, Zenith Uzbeckistan wrote:

> 
> Its been a super-long time since I've been on this discussion forum and even longer since I can remember what the MOQ is all about, and I couldn't really find a place to squeeze into one of the existing discussions so here I am, trying to fly solo into the storm clouds of philosophical discussion. Well, I recently wrote something and I thought it might be something ya'll might help me out with, since I am having difficulty wrapping my mind around it, or even articulating it adequately. So here goes nothing:
> 
> The subject-object dualism seems inescapable, ingrained in our science,
> our language, and our way of thinking about the world. Some would even
> go so far as to say it "created" our world.

What "some say" is right. But our world is different from the real world. 
We divide to survive, but the real world is everything all at once, i.e., 
"To see the world in a grain of sand, Heaven in a wildflower . . ."  

> Biocentrism (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31393080...ence-science//)
> postulates that living things give time and space their meaning. In
> this theory, time and space do not exist except as the tools of the
> living organism. If this is true, then it begs the question: why did
> living organisms "create" time and space? Why did a bit of the universe
> suddenly become categorically separated from the rest of the universe? 

Why? Because of the urge of living beings to survive. (The question of 
why are there living beings who want to survive remains a mystery.) 
Threats to survival come from "outside" a living being's surface. 

So you have 1) an elemental division of life/death, 2) a practical division 
of life in here/threat to life out there, and 3) an intuitive division of  
good/bad -- all stemming from the urge to survive. .     

> Why am I, the subject, capable of interpreting the objectivity that is
> the world around me? How did this framework of experience get started? 

A framework, though false, necessary for survival.

 > I'm not looking for a history of consciousness. I'm looking for the
> "why" of consciousness. Maybe its a futile question. I'm very confused
> about it all, but I think that somehow our assumption about the
> universe and ourselves is fundamentally wrong. 

Why consciousness? Like "Why life?" there's no answer. Yes, a futile 
question, but fun to ponder anyway. Pirsig's answer is the best  I know, 
"Because life and consciousness are better than the alternatives."   

> Take an example from brain science: There is a region in the brain,
> called the posterior superior parietal lobe, that controls spatial
> distinctions and navigation. This region of the brain normally works by
> creating a map of "you" distinct from all that which is "not you."
> However, when deprived of sensory stimuli, it cannot create that map.
> This results in an experience of expansion of the self, a merging of
> oneself with all that the mind can imagine. (See Why God Won't Go Away,
> by Andrew Newberg M.D., et al.) Such mystical experiences suggest that
> there is another way of conceptualizing the universe beside the
> standard self-other model. 

Yes, the mystics know something beside the self-other model, only its 
not a concept, it's an experience. Everyone has experienced it, too, if 
only briefly, like when totally focused so that one's separate self-sense 
disappears. 

> If one follows the philosophy of biocentrism, it doesn't make sense
> that the self-other model should predominate. After all, if space and
> time have no objective existence, why should it be more adaptive to
> live within artificial parameters? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to
> see life the way it "really" is, without time or space? Or is some
> framework, even if wrong, absolutely necessary? If so, why? Its not
> even certain that the subject-object duality is necessary. 

Again, the survival imperative.Because of the life/death division we
create space and time(which Einstein proved are not separate) and exist 
in a paradox -- always separate but never apart.

Which is why when it comes to answering fundamental questions such 
as yours, intellect is next to worthless, but beauty points the way.  

Platt