[MD] Knots

[118]

There is some discussion on the use of the subject-object analogy in MOQ
discuss, and the attributes of Value to such an analogy.  This bears inquiry
as it could also be interpreted that such an analogy is at the heart of many
religions.  This SO divide brings out the search for the true subjective.
Vedic philosophy can be interpreted to have assigned such subjective the
“I”.  That is the “I” that is witnessing what I appear to be.  In such
philosophy, that subject is compared to a vibration or a hum.  Buddhist
thought which arose from such Eastern tradition, used intelligent thought to
describe the subjective as not inherently existent, and described such a
concept with a co-dependent arising metaphor.  More recently, Christian
metaphors were interpreted by Kierkegaard, who proposed that the ultimate
union of the subjective and objective could be achieved through extreme
belief and devotion, requiring a leap.  Much existentialist interpretation
followed his lead, including Heidegger’s “Being”.



In terms as what is referred to as Western philosophy, it is the opinion of
this author that the subject-object analogy was converted to an
object-object description.  That is the comparison of two objects.  Plato
provided such description by objectifying the subjective.  More recently,
Descartes further congealed the objectification of subjectivity by defining
it as thought.  The statement “I think, therefore I am” suggests that
thinking is the underlying presence of self.  Previously, in the Eastern
thought described above, thinking was something that the self experienced as
an object.  The description of the objectified sense of thought as the
subjective sense of "I" has more recently led to notions by scientific
materialism that the self can be explained physically through appropriate
investigation into the brain itself.  Such studies are ongoing, but
difficult.



Western considerations of the subject-object confused the subject with the
object.  The metaphorical root of this transition could arise from the use
of language.  As a matter of logistics, language must express the subject
object idea as object-object to be useful.  Subject-object Metaphysics
cannot be discussed without the objectifying of the subjective side.
Indeed, the conversion of thought into words is a process of
objectification.  Is this  notion therefore something that creates a
roadblock and cannot be truly discussed due to the structure of language,
and something that we have no control over?



Perhaps, but consider the following thought experiment (science fiction as a
metaphor).  At some time in the future, the principle of telepathy will have
been understood and harnessed.  There would be direct communication between
brains through some kind of brain-wave harnessing.  Would such communication
be in the form of words?  The answer is no.  There would be no need for
words since entire awareness could be communicated.  Words would be bypassed
so that entire appreciations could be conveyed such as the sense one gets
when looking at a painting.  This would mean that thoughts as words would
not be necessary, and words would only be used temporarily over long
distances if there were no other means of communication.  Such words would
be considered primitive communication, like the telegraph is now.



The awareness of how words form our subject-object metaphysics is, in the
opinion of this author, a fruitful interpretation which is provided as
analogy.  Through the development of such metaphors it is possible to
appreciate (or create) some more meaningful underlying principles (or
metaphors).


The opinions expressed in this post are the author's and do not necessarily
represent positions of the MOQ.


Mark