[MD] Stacks

[John Carl]

Platt,

So "awareness" equates to subjectivity, is what you're saying.

Platt:

I think so. Cells are observers (subjects) of their own value level like
> human observers (subjects) are at the higher levels. Pirsig says those
> cells
> are "aware." Subjects are aware, objects are what subjects are aware of.
> Thats what intellect "sees."
>
>



What is subjectivity?

It's interesting, because I've never thought about it that much.  Turning
the lens of inquiry upon subjectivity, sounds like a very good idea, then.

The connotations of the term, that pop immediately to mind, are negative to
me.  Being a subject implies being under control of higher authority, thus
reducing freedom.  I'm not your subject.  I'm not the church's or the
state's.

I'm my wife's, to an extent.  But even there, not ultimately and not
intellectually.

But admittedly, I am  reality's subject.

Therein lies the rub.  We derive our sense of self, from other.  I think
(about something), therefore I am.  Descartes omitted an implied necessity
in his formulation.   From comparison with other, I derive self and
subjectivity.  Therefore, my self is 'subject" ultimately to objects.  To
the objects of perception around me which create me.

So is it possible to transcend subjectivity?  I say yes.  Idealistically, it
is.  By identifying the self with the whole, one can transcend being subject
to anything but one's higher self.

And I would call that kind of intellectual pattern "non-subjective".  But I
wouldn't call it "un-aware".  So I'll have to have this difference between
subjective and awareness disentangled.  Perhaps Ham will come up with a way
of seeing that makes sense to me.

Thanks for intriguing,

John