Inter-subjective

[objet petit a]

I ran across this term in a prior discussion with TheStumps (here). It is an interesting term that has many meanings and can refer to many different thoughts.

perhaps I should start with a limited description of the term:

Inter-subjectivity is an ambiguous term that is used in many fields, not in the last place that of psycho-analysis. It is used to describe something that several subjects experience. In that sense it is a subjective experience, but since several subjects (hypothetically) experience it, it is often (but not always) used as a 'nous' in the sense of phenomenology.

The question what the word means is a difficult one. To the best of my knowledge the term is (American-) English of the twentieth century. However, it's usage is ambiguous in the sense that many separate writers have tried to connect the term to several other key-issues in their research. Husserl used it as that which first strikes us before analyzing it and making it into something else in our minds. Edith Stein investigated it in the sense of empathy, which seems to contradict the normal experience of this moment to individuals. Karl Gustav Jung uses inter-subjectivity as a denotation for 'objective' thoughts in the sense of Plato's logoi, which he understands as arch-types. In the Freudian branch of psycho-analysis the term is understood as responsiveness to the surroundings, which is translated by Lacan in his 'discours de l'autre'. In Lacan's version the inter-subjective exists in the Other: by understanding that this is about oneself, thus creating the thought of inter-subjectivity in the mind of the subject, while it does not have to be present to be understood as such.


To me this term is interesting in the sense of the question of empathy and 'le discours de l'autre'. In the sens of empathy I must conclude that there is a something that fore goes thought that connects us, upon which I can cognitively found my understanding of the 'Other' (be it 'Other' or 'other'). This thought is supported by Spinoza's 'Tractatus Theologico-Politicus': That all prophets caught on to a divine thought and translated it into the language of their time. It seems to have the same elements as my above thought, which can also be explained into Freud's 'Es', Über-Ich' and 'Ich'.

Anyway, I would like all thoughts on the matter since it is a subject that is most interesting to me, let alone a subject which is still in the process of defining a word.

[Jayson]

How the word relates to me is dependent on the fact that I examine the world for the purpose of learning how to move in it.
Intersubjectivity, therefore, refers to something by which two or more parties can experience without contact between each other, and also understand and experience (translate) in different ways unto themselves.

What is shared is the impact; the resulting translation may vary. (*results may vary)

I consider empathy to be this as sensing what someone feels emotionally and translating that into a replication within oneself based on one's own experiences of similar emotional scopes that were not directly the other persons emotional experiences is not using the same definition of the experience that the observed person is going through...it's a shared divergence of impact.

So for me; this is how the word translates.

[objet petit a]

Does that mean that you think inter-subjectivity does not have to include actually grasping the same thing (phenomenon)? But only requires that the thing to be grasped (noumenon) is the same? Or does that mean that you think there is (and inter-subjectivity is that) some underlying level, before cognition in which a direct connection between things (beings as substratum) exists (okay, that just might be a noumenon as well)?

[Jayson]

Does that mean that you think inter-subjectivity does not have to include actually grasping the same thing? But only requires that the thing to be grasped is the same?

Yep.

If you empathize with someone losing their loved one; you aren't actually grasping the same thing...that's impossible to do.
That was their loved one...not yours.
But if you've lost a loved one, or have a dear loved one, then your emotions to the situation are capable of projecting the empathy of their pain and sorry; so you can grasp the thing (the pain and sorry of losing a loved one).

[objet petit a]

Does that mean that it concerns the same noumenon for all subjects involved in the inter-subjectivity to you? If so, does that come to a 'nous' like Plato's logoi, or to an empathic ('real') connection between the subjects not unlike the Spinoza example I gave?

[Jayson]

First part: Yes.
Second part: both; that depends on the situation and the people.

[objet petit a]

Would you elaborate?

[Jayson]

I'm not really sure what more there is to say about it...it's a shared "thing" in some fashion, yet divergent, even if only divergent by time of first-hand experience.

It's cognitive and emotional in capacity (nous & empathetic) dependent on the people involved - how the "thing" affects them, which is based on what their bio-neurological and psychological make up is.

So...depending on what the "situation/thing" is, and dependent on the people involved, it will be cognitive, emotional; and all areas in between possible.

[JohnJones]

I ran across this term in a prior discussion with TheStumps (here). It is an interesting term that has many meanings and can refer to many different thoughts.

perhaps I should start with a limited description of the term:

Inter-subjectivity is an ambiguous term that is used in many fields, not in the last place that of psycho-analysis. It is used to describe something that several subjects experience. In that sense it is a subjective experience, but since several subjects (hypothetically) experience it, it is often (but not always) used as a 'nous' in the sense of phenomenology.

The question what the word means is a difficult one. To the best of my knowledge the term is (American-) English of the twentieth century. However, it's usage is ambiguous in the sense that many separate writers have tried to connect the term to several other key-issues in their research. Husserl used it as that which first strikes us before analyzing it and making it into something else in our minds. Edith Stein investigated it in the sense of empathy, which seems to contradict the normal experience of this moment to individuals. Karl Gustav Jung uses inter-subjectivity as a denotation for 'objective' thoughts in the sense of Plato's logoi, which he understands as arch-types. In the Freudian branch of psycho-analysis the term is understood as responsiveness to the surroundings, which is translated by Lacan in his 'discours de l'autre'. In Lacan's version the inter-subjective exists in the Other: by understanding that this is about oneself, thus creating the thought of inter-subjectivity in the mind of the subject, while it does not have to be present to be understood as such.


To me this term is interesting in the sense of the question of empathy and 'le discours de l'autre'. In the sens of empathy I must conclude that there is a something that fore goes thought that connects us, upon which I can cognitively found my understanding of the 'Other' (be it 'Other' or 'other'). This thought is supported by Spinoza's 'Tractatus Theologico-Politicus': That all prophets caught on to a divine thought and translated it into the language of their time. It seems to have the same elements as my above thought, which can also be explained into Freud's 'Es', Über-Ich' and 'Ich'.

Anyway, I would like all thoughts on the matter since it is a subject that is most interesting to me, let alone a subject which is still in the process of defining a word.

Here we go again. The empty lure of the "what does it really mean?" or the "something else", quickly followed by the refication of anything we please.

[JohnJones]

How the word relates to me is

How does a word "relate to me"?
The word is the public definition, otherwise you aren't using a word. We already know what the word means to you.

[JohnJones]

Does that mean that you think inter-subjectivity does not have to include actually grasping the same thing (phenomenon)? But only requires that the thing to be grasped (noumenon) is the same? Or does that mean that you think there is (and inter-subjectivity is that) some underlying level, before cognition in which a direct connection between things (beings as substratum) exists (okay, that just might be a noumenon as well)?

How do we conclude that from phrases like "what it means" or "what X really is" that the "it" or the "X" is a noumenon or even anything at all?

[Jayson]

How the word relates to me is

How does a word "relate to me"?
The word is the public definition, otherwise you aren't using a word. We already know what the word means to you.

Are you bored?
The word relates to me in association.
It's meaning being attached to other concepts reflecting back onto it as a concept.

He was asking what the phrase, in the philosophical sense, means to people since it means a wide range of ambiguous things to many differing people.

The very topic asks for philosophical interpretation in the opening post quite clearly.

[objet petit a]

@ The Stumps:
What does 'nous' mean to you exactly?

@JJ:
How is it that we can say anything about the noumena?

[Jayson]

reason, knowledge, rational. (the cognitive effect)

[objet petit a]

I thought it meant a solid thing-in-itself: that from which the word noumenon is derived. Am I mistaken, or confusing it with a different term?

[Jayson]

You might be thinking of it in some philosophical sense that you've read somewhere, but the word itself means those things above and is originated from the Greek νοῦς for "mind", as the faculty - not like "brain", the physical component.

[objet petit a]

Interesting. I ran across 'nous' in Plato btw. I read translations, so I probably got the proper thought...but sometimes such definitions can just flip things over..


Concerning inter-subjective:

I'm not really sure what more there is to say about it...it's a shared "thing" in some fashion, yet divergent, even if only divergent by time of first-hand experience.

It's cognitive and emotional in capacity (nous & empathetic) dependent on the people involved - how the "thing" affects them, which is based on what their bio-neurological and psychological make up is.

So...depending on what the "situation/thing" is, and dependent on the people involved, it will be cognitive, emotional; and all areas in between possible.

Not much help I guess. If I would say that to me inter-subjective can only refer to my cognitive phenomenon of what is inter-subjective, while it can only be an intu"itive feeling as a noumenon, would you agree with that or not?

[Jayson]

I'm not fully certain on the way you are using "intuitive", but generally speaking; yes, that works as a description of the same.

[objet petit a]

I used intu"itive as a reference to that which exists outside of our thoughts, but that we grasp as space and time: the a priori intu"itions.

[Jayson]

OK, then yes; that's what I class as "implicit".
I tend to use "intuition" for the neurological process of determining a sub-cognitive conclusion from the implicit systems of the body and brain.

Either interpretation; yes.

[objet petit a]

Hmmm...any Jungians here to give me an alternate meaning?

[Smears]

I got a book called subjective, objective, intersubjective. It goes on and on about this stuff.

[objet petit a]

Really? Would you be so kind as to share a bit of itś wisdom?

[Smears]

It's all right here.

http://www.amazon.com/Subjective-Inters ... 761&sr=8-1

[objet petit a]

Hey, no breaks for lazy old me?