[MD] From Psychology to Empiricism

[Ham Priday]

On Sept. 2 at 1:01 PM, DMB quoted Robert Richardson on William James:


> "In 'Does Consciousness Exist?', which Bertrand Russell claimed 'startled 
> the world', James says the answer is no. 'Consciousness is the name of a 
> non-entity'. As we generally conceive of it, consciousness is the 'faint 
> rumor left behind by the disappearing 'soul' upon the air of philosophy'. 
> If we were to speak precisely, James says, consciousness is 'only a name 
> for the fact that the 'content' of experiences IS KNOWN'. ...

The next day Andre praised this quote, comparing it to a statement by 
another writer on Buddhism.  He also added an observation of his own 
regarding contradictory propositions:

Andre:
> A 'knower' without anything 'known' is a contradiction in terms.
> The 'objective' looking over the 'subjective' is a contradiction in terms. 
> It is a fallacy, and for some here on this list to suggest that the 
> intellectual level is just that: the objective over the subjective, is 
> plain silly.

I don't believe that William James or Andre Broerson have clarified the 
issue of duality by these simplistic statements.

James' assertion that consciousness does not exist because it is "the name 
of a non-entity" certainly can't mean that there is no consciousness.  If 
that were true, why would we, as conscious organisms, be trying to define 
what consciousness is?  Likewise, I fail to see the reasoning in Andre's 
assertion that "a 'knower' without anything 'known' is a contradiction in 
terms."  I submit that "the existence of things without a knower" is just as 
contradictory a proposition.  The Knower has the "potential to be aware". 
If that potentiality is not primary to consciousness, there is no 
knowledge...and I should add, no value either.

Andre later concedes that duality (dualism) exists:
> Yes there are dualisms. We cannot do without them. Our language is
> an attempt to assist us in making explicit these quality events, these 
> relationships. The West has taken these to the extreme, indeed that 
> dualims are opposed to each other and as dmb has pointed out in various of 
> his references, different schools have sought different ways of uniting 
> the two. Thing is; they were never 'opposed'.

It is clear to me that subjectivity/objectivity characterizes the duality of 
existence.  The reason philosophers like Pirsig want to dismiss duality is 
not that the concept makes metaphysics fuzzy, or that Descartes and the 
dualists were "intellectually challenged".  Rather, it's because they 
believe existence is all there is; that existence therefore must equate to 
Reality.  From this belief system (existentialism) comes the notion that 
mind and matter, consciousness and patterns, are unified by Value which is 
then posited as the "true" Reality.  But, as I have pointed out previously, 
even "value" requires a conscious subject.

Incidentally, I've been reading John Searle's 'Mind" recently, mainly to 
satisfy my curiosity about the man's philosophy.  It is a very thorough 
introduction to consciousness as a process, but it's not nearly as 
interesting as D'Souza's 'Life After Death' which actually explores the 
mind/matter issue in metaphysical terms.  (I expect to have more to say 
about these writers at a later time.)  Meanwhile, I'm still reviewing the MD 
posts on a daily basis, although sadly I've seen no evidence that you folks 
are any closer to agreement on the MoQ than when I joined this forum eight 
years ago.

Happy Labor Day to all,
Ham