Descartes claims that if he had created himself, he would lack nothing, for a self-creating being would necessarily possess all perfections, making it God. This assumes a distinction between the created and the creator, a duality where existence is either self-derived or given by an external source. But if we step outside this framework and reinterpret “God” not as a separate entity but as the totality of existence—pure objectivity—then the question shifts. The paradox is not whether an imperfect being could have created itself, but whether perfection itself, in its totality, can create anything at all.
If one were to create oneself, one would already be the totality of all that is: an omnipotent being that lacks nothing. But if it lacks nothing, it lacks the ability to create something new, for nothing exists outside it. Totality has no external vantage point from which to act; it simply is. In pure objectivity, everything is fully known, not in fragmented parts, but as a singular whole. But here lies the paradox: if totality only knows itself as totality, it does not know itself as distinct perspectives. The only thing it is not is its own opposite: subjectivity, or rather, the illusion of subjectivity. For in pure objectivity, there is no falsehood—only what is.
For objectivity to perceive itself in distinct aspects rather than as an indivisible whole, it must generate a limited vantage point, a perspective that does not experience itself as the totality. This is what we call subjectivity. It is not an independent reality but a mode of perception that allows the infinite to experience the finite without ceasing to be infinite. Yet objectivity cannot become falsehood, for falsehood has no independent existence; it only arises as an experience. Even truth, as a concept, emerges only in contrast to falsehood, but in pure objectivity, nothing stands in opposition. In the absence of contrast, even truth loses its meaning. Thus, objectivity generates the illusion of separation—not by becoming divided, but by experiencing itself as if it were divided.
This illusion of separation is what we, as human beings, experience. We are not separate from objectivity; we are objectivity perceiving itself through a limited lens. But our biological structures, particularly our cognition, reinforce the illusion of division. Our survival-driven minds construct a model of reality that divides experience into “self” and “other.” We say, “That is a tree, and I am a person,” or “You are you, and I am me,” as if the experiencer of each life were fundamentally distinct. The experience itself may differ, but the experiencer (the awareness in which all experience arises) is the same.
Yet many argue that human consciousness sets us apart, that it is our ability to think and reflect makes us unique. But this assumes that consciousness itself is separate. It is not thinking that creates the illusion of selfhood; it is the awareness of thought. The act of observing cognition gives rise to the perception of subjectivity. What makes us appear “separate” is that our brains generate an internalized self-model. An illusion necessary for survival. This self-model is what we identify with, but it is not the observer. The observer, the awareness itself, does not change. Only the contents of the experience change.
The awareness within us now is the same awareness that existed before cognition evolved to construct subjectivity. It did not suddenly appear with the development of thought; it merely became aware of thought. Before thought, it was aware of raw sensation. Before sensation, it was simply aware. Now, it perceives experience filtered through the lens of identity, but it remains the same fundamental presence.
It is only our thoughts that tell us we are separate from existence. Awareness itself perceives no distinction. There is no sameness or difference in pure objectivity, because both require the possibility of separation. In totality, nothing can be separate, because everything simply is.
Thus, Descartes’ argument is both true and incomplete. If one were to create oneself, one would indeed be God but not in the way he imagined. For God is not a separate creator, but the very awareness in which all experience arises. The “self” Descartes questions is not an entity apart from God, but an aspect of God experiencing itself through the illusion of individuality. In reality, there is no self to have been created or to have created itself; there is only being. The illusion of separation is what allows objectivity to see itself in motion, as if from the outside.
Gosh.
Write a backwards statement and expect people to wade through the first post.
Objectivity is the illusion. The subjective is what we actually experience. It’s only “subjective” though in reference to a framework which posits a possible objective position. Such a position can never exist.
All we may hope to do is agree, one with the other, that our experiences align enough to find accord. Then we delude ourselves that sush a position is “objective” when, in truth is is just a collective subjectivity.
That delusion persistes until another comes along with a POV so far removed from out “objective” one that we either try to accomodate it, or reject the other as a fool or delusional.
Thanks for your post, and welcome to ILP!
Explaining Descartes through appeal to the notion of awareness-as-such is really interesting. This is a more ‘eastern’ or ‘mystical’ approach to what is otherwise a very western and rationalist, non-mystical philosophy.
^ I thought was very well said. I have to go for now, but I look forward to exploring this more later.
Thank you for your critiques! I’ll come back later today or tomorrow to attempt to respond and dive deeper into the ideas you brought up
Thank you for engaging. Please let me know more of your thoughts and critiques when you get the chance
Is this how you kick the topic into the long grass?
I would question the idea that totality or the objective whole of everything, existence itself, is somehow “perceiving” anything let alone has any sort of drives or desires or conscious experience. I could be wrong and the cosmic brain idea could be correct, maybe all galaxies, planets, stars, everything is linked in a huge cosmic neural network and ‘God’ sits at the top as an actually sentient thinking being. But I mean, we have no real evidence for that other than the idea is pretty cool to think about and at least isn’t logically impossible.
To the idea of perfection, I think this is a value judgment that doesn’t necessarily apply to something like existence itself, or the totality of all matter/energy everywhere all at once. What is it ‘perfect’ compared to, in terms of what standard of measure or value-set? If we mean it is complete, as in “it is everything that exists and nothing which exists is outside of it” then ok, but I still cannot see how that is perfection. Certainly there are countless other possibilities and future and past permutations yet to be or already gone, which are not included in the totality of the objective ‘here and now’ of existence-as-such. Even if we want to extend temporally and think about this total objectivity outside of time, the frozen sculpture idea containing past and future as every possible configuration of matter and energy that ever was and ever will be, a superposition… that does seem to resolve the problem of alternate possibilities from a pure deterministic point of view, but I still fail to see where the value judgment angle of ‘perfection’ enters in. Maybe the culmination of all possibilities everywhere at any place and time, existing together in the vast godly superposition, is perfect from the point of view of containing all possibilities for everything… yet I still see that as completeness, not really a kind of “perfect”. Who can say this existence is from a values point of view better or worse in any given aspect than alternatives we might imagine or which might reasonably be considered to exist in alternate dimensions or parallel universes?
The idea of self-creation is interesting but I think misunderstood. No one can create themselves entirely because that would mean ex nihilo, out of nothing, just “popping into existence” for no reason which is silly and irrational. If there is any ‘why’ behind its popping into existence then that why contains external factors and reasons disproving ex nihilo and disproving a pure self-creation. For logically we cannot have a thing cause itself because cause precedes effect in time. Maybe ‘time’ doesnt exist and somehow an ouroboros-like pattern of causality is the case where God or whtatever thing is continuously self-creating being its own cause and effect simultaneously. I dunno. It seems hard to conceptualize. Something like that could exist as a kind of self-contained perpetual motion being but it would first need to have been setup like that, I cannot see any logical reason or otherwise reason to think something like that, or anything else for that matter, would simply pop into being suddenly and for literally no reason at all other than “itself” as if somehow its not existing still contained some kind of reasons for its own being that those reasons being located within itself abstractly or pre-existently somehow caused it to self-create itself into existence.
But self-creation is very real in limited ways. We are always creating ourselves from moment to moment in certain aspects, just not entirely. We are still subject to many causes beyond ourselves and beyond our control. Our self-creation is very real but exists within a limited space of possibilities. This is getting closer to my idea of free will, that what we call free will is a kind of relatively self-creating causality logic that human beings have access to by virtue of many things including out large brains, inherited language and culture, etc.
What you say about subjectivity seems true to me, it is a partial perspective that cannot experience the totality and cannot experience itself as the totality. Its limitation is part of what spurs its subjective activity or ‘mind’ or whatever we want to call it, the experiencing-ness that pushes subjectivities outward toward the unknowns in the world and inward toward the unknowns within themselves. I have said before as part of my philosophy of Tectonics that being is “self-inexpressible, self-irreducible and self-inexhaustible”. This touches upon the subjective nature as you are also talking about.
I don’t think separation is an illusion, any more than it is an illusion that a bolt inside of a car’s engine is both separate from the car itself and contained within and connected intimately to the totality of the car. Both can be the case at the same time. Subjectivity is separate from objective totality yet not entirely separate, it is also a part and intimately connected to that larger objectivity and totalized whole. Indeed, as we examine our own subjectivities and think about the reasons why we are what we are, or why we do what we do, the causes involved move increasingly toward more objective frameworks. From something like personal preference or idiosyncracy or our individual life experiences to things like societal factors, environmental pressures, even into biology and inherited genetics, into chemistry and physics and outward and backward into the universe that preceded us and back to the big bang or whatever occurred.
Therefore I see subjectivities, beings like us, as fountains or vortexes of subjectivity-perspective accumulating experiences which parse both truths and falsities, generating for us what we call free will, composing memories and meanings and all that including the vastness of the psyche and interpersonal societal-psychological connections including paranormal supernatural stuff we don’t fully understand yet, and all of that is “us” as the living conscious being, a kind of vortex of subjectivity within larger objectivities. I say vortex because I see a geometric slope pattern here, as in the further out we move away from the center of ourself the more and more objective things become. The more we become “objective” and part of the totality is also the more we lose what makes us a unique individual within our own special subjective context and perspectives.
Next I want to touch on awareness and how that works within this picture I am painting here, but I’ll have to get back to that another time.