[MD] The Examined Life

[Ham Priday]

On Friday, Oct. 23, 2009 1:05 AM, Willblake 2 wrote:


> I understand that Quality is experienced relationally, for me
> that is intrinsic in the word itself. I also understand what you
> say about nothingness and its negation. I would assume, then,
> that which is not negated is nothingness. This is where I
> cannot get to where you are. It would seem to me you are
> describing not a double negation, but simply an appearance.

And you would be correct.  Existence is simply appearance.  In metaphysical 
logic, negation of a negation produces the "appearance of .otherness".  That 
appearance, however, requires the cognitive realization of a sensient 
observer in order to exist.  Appearance is like Value; it doesn't exist 
unless it is realized.

Something you said in your last post has since caught my attention:
> Values must be communally recognized and shared in
> order for them to exist at all.  Just like a particle is only a particle
> relative to the rest of the universe; if a particle exists in isolation,
> then it IS the universe.

If a particle -- or the universe -- exists in isolation, what exactly is it? 
It can't be an "appearance" if there is no one to observe it.  It can't be a 
value if there is no agent to realize it.  All existence is fundamentally 
dualistic in that it presupposes both the phenomenon and its apprehender. 
That's why I maintain that existence cannot be reduced beyond the dichotomy 
"being-aware".  And everything in the universe of existence is made 
relational by that dualism.

Incidentally, it isn't "communal recognition" (i.e., the collective society) 
which gives existence or value "validity"; it's individual sensibility. 
Only in the methodology of Science is "universal confirmation:" regarded as 
"proof" for a theory or principle.  Metaphysical theory must be postulated 
without the support of such confirmation.

> Your first paragraph ...gives me the sense of two circles
> overlapping to create a common shared area. The overlapping
> of two nothingnesses creates beingness. I understand that it is
> a bit different, which brings me back to a metaphor I used in a
> previous post: that of a bubble in a fish tank. The bubble only
> exists when it is in the water. Because it it defined by the water.
> This negation, if you will, makes the air aware of its own
> sensibility.

A good analogy, if it works for you.

> By the way, I am in the process of gaining an understanding of the
> Mechanical Garden of Essentialism, following the introduction,
> I have begun to concentrate. Reading a thesis is by no means as
> effective as a verbal discussion, but this posting will help me.

That's great news, Will!  "Mechanical Garden" was my metaphor for the 
philosophy of materialism which is inimical to Essentialism.  It stems from 
the notion that improving the objective world (tending to "nature's garden", 
as it were) for posterity's sake is the sole purpose of human life.  This 
totally misses Socrate's point that "The unexamined life is not woth 
living."  (As you can see, I decided to take your suggestion and paraphrase 
Socrates for the new thread.)

> I would postulate that what you state as self-awareness is a
> reflective positioning which is by no means the entirety of
> being aware. In a previous post you dismiss the use of certain
> neurologically different individuals. However, you would concede
> that much of what we know about the physiological
> compartmentalization of things such as memory, emotion, and
> cognitive thought are understood from studying those who are
> diseased or become impaired (such as surviving a stake through
> the head). Perhaps a similar understanding of the awareness
> paradigm is possible, through such study.
>
> It is through the study of autism, for which I have a tendency for
> personal reasons of love and necessity, that I arrive at some of the
> conclusions I do about the nature of our awareness. Bypassing
> discussion on the actual condition and its spectrum of behavioral
> manifestations, one can study the writings of brilliant intelligences
> imparting a personal description of such thought. A place where
> there is no self/other relationship.

I see your point, and am likewise drawn to the study of autism.  My previous 
comment was only to caution against formulating philosophical paradigms from 
abnormalities.  But, yes, I think we can learn a lot about brain development 
and the cognitive function from such studies.

> As I have expressed before, this stream of thought and reflection
> on sensibility (a word which I use to impart that which is psycho-
> emotional, here) is only a small part of our daily experience.
> So, imo, we go through the day with interspersed moments of
> autism and rational thought. ...
>
> It is quite possible that thoughts are more a result of electromagnetism
> than chemistry. Is it possible for electromagnetism to negate itself?
> Again I suppose you would state that EM is something and essence
> is nothing. But if one experiences no otherness, where is nothingness?
> Nothingness is a word to describe something, and so we get into the
> limits of language to impart the psycho-emotional..

I'm more interested in the identity of the "knower" than in the mechanics of 
thought.  The thought process, like the human being, can be explained purely 
in electro-chemical and biological terms.  Indeed, biophysicists have 
provided volumes of research data in support of this objective approach.
Philosophy itself seems to defer to the notion that man is some genetic 
mutant whose consciousness and intellectual capacity is merely a fortuitous 
result of  "neurological complexity" in the evolutionary chain.
However, I doubt this is what Socrates meant by "the examined life".

Essentially yours,
Ham