The Paradox of Separation: The Knowledge of Subjectivity

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

If knowledge cannot exist outside the realm of subjectivity, and
Knowledge is often used to reference and describe objects in an objective world, then
Any knowledge used to reference and describe the objects in an objective world cannot exist outside the realm of subjectivity.

Therefore, our descriptions and knowledge of an object are not actually describing the object in itself, but rather the subjective feeling we derive from the object.

My issue revolves around the paradox that ensues when following this line of thought. We act like we know the world around us intimately, especially materialists, but we don’t have any actual information about the objects separated from our own experiences of them. There is no way we can touch or experience them without our subjectivity interfering. In essence, we may “know” an object through its impression upon us (essentially, we know them through referencing our own feelings about that impression), but we don’t have any information about that impression before it impresses. Furthermore, we don’t have any information about the subjective before it is impressed upon as well (because objects of experience are necessary for experience). More importantly, how can an objective something, impress the subjective, if the subjective is not of the same reality or substance as the objective. This is one of the central issues with dualism.

We can go on to say that it is simply a property of mind (or the subjective) to be ‘subject’ to impressions. But this requires the subjective and objective to maintain some connective tissue/substance/ or property allowing them to influence each other. Of course, we haven’t found such a property shared between the two; and we never will, because our definitions of each completely separate them from each other.

So here’s my overall point. When we separate the objective and the subjective, they can’t relate to each other. They will never be able to influence each other, and essentially, neither can be known without the other.

If this is the case, and they exist apart from each other, as two separate and distinctive realities, then the subjective will and can only know and ultimately describe itself (feelings and experiences), and the objective will sit apart from this description, being a separate reality to itself.

It’s apparent that this is not how our reality shows up. In order for the subjective to even have knowledge of anything, it must be experiencing and connected to impressive objects, and therefore, there mustn’t be a separation between the “experiencer” and the experienced/ the objective and the subjective.

For reference:

2

Is it possible that when the mystic talks about the experience of unity (say, his experience of Brahman or of Emptiness) that there is just a unity of consciousness (let’s say, just awareness) without any awareness of that awareness (or a minimal' or implicit’ awareness), and that a full-blown subject-object division comes into the picture when that experience is recalled and named? In other words, is it possible that, although in the mystic the continuity of consciousness is broken up in such a way that there is no self (the continuity of consciousness or experience or memory is what creates the self), there is still a physiological lingering or trace of a previous experience? And is it possible that, although there might not be any explicit subject-object distinction at the time of experience, a memory of it becomes possible later because the physiological trace is translated at that later moment as a memory experience, and as a consequence, one recognizes and names the experience (albeit calling it nameless)? It may well be that the experience now is remembered as one of formless emptiness or of energy or of ecstasy. In any case, it would be remembered as being free from any of the delineations of ordinary experience.

Suppose it is possible for the mystic to experience unity in such a fashion. In what way would this unity be compared to the unity posited by the physicist? Is it not possible to interpret this unity (or the experience of it) as just a subjective (although uplifting) experience of the mystic? Does this imply that there is unity (such as of consciousness, or whatever the scientist might be speculating about) in the universe as a whole? If there is any unity in the universe in the scientific sense, then it is not something the scientist can observe (for the scientist always has to remain outside of it as the observer). And if it can be observed, then we can’t know if it is the unity of the universe or not.

Given such a paradox, it seems the unity professed by the mystic and that professed by the scientist are not comparable. In fact, I think we got into the trap of comparing these only because of the ambiguity in the term `unity’. The unity for the physicist has to remain a conceptual and objective unity. And unity for the mystic has to be an experience where there is no observer, and hence there is no distinction between objective unity and the subjective experience of it.

3

This very thought really hit me hard as of recent.

I’ve been using the words “imposition and interpretation”. We impose forms onto objects to make them intelligible to us, and then we wind up interpreting our own projections, and only our own projections.

Kant and Schopenhauer have been making sense to me lately.

4

I think I just touched on the resolve to this on the Absolute Materialism thread.

The connection between the objective and the subjective is an issue of perception. And perception is an issue of affect. We perceive objects in accord to their affect upon us, on our senses and/or instruments.

Normally and commonly, it is then thought that since perception stands between our presumed subjective knowledge and the objective world, then we cannot be certain of what is really out there. Although that isn’t entirely a non-issue, it is not exactly a show stopper either.

We define what exists or doesn’t by its affect. And by its affect, we can cross verify our suppositions concerning its predictability in affecting. Use two eyes, two people, different instrument types,… As long as it affects in a consistent predictable manner, we know all we need to know. We have formed “knowledge”. Knowledge in not based on objective fact, but on objective effect.

We test the effect that we supposed anything to have and thereby come to know it, not merely perceive it. Subjective thought merges with objective effect (not objective fact).

5

Problem is, we don’t perceive the objects themselves, we perceive the affects (how they feel or show up for us in experience); at least, at our level of conscious experience. What lies beneath that perception I feel, is an unconscious and uninhibited connection to the object itself. Through the connection, we both arise as individual objects, differentiated at higher and higher levels, until the difference can be perceived. As such, differentiation appears on the surface, and at that level, perception connects the differences. What is perception other than recognition? You can’t recognize something unless you’ve already been in contact with it.

What is the “something” affecting? In order to affect, something else must be affected. Therefore, we are not forming knowledge about one object, but at the very least two. Moreover, we must “perceive” the effect, which means, in some way, we are being affected, and inevitably, we must inject a part of ourselves into the knowing. In order for this to happen consistently and predictably across various ‘subjects’ (us), the ‘subjects’ must share a similar experience of affect.

Yes.

No. They can’t merge unless already being connected. Subjective thought is a description of subjective effect.

6

If a continuity of conscious allows for an individual self, I don’t think the mystic is without that experience. Instead, he is allowing that continuation to occur without any interjection from a struggling ego, who has issues with accepting the experiences. The previous experiences (memory), are no longer held onto because they don’t exist in the right now. They hold no importance, only the present moment does.

There is always a physiological constant, that is why the mystic does nothing different. In fact, he is all the more likely to act and “work” per se, because he now has no objections to it. “Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop wood carry water.”

The layman, who is constantly analyzing or as you put it, translating the physiological trace, is pseudo-separating himself from the experience, and as a result, a separation of object and subject is revealed.

Exactly, hence the paradox… you continue:

Yes, but they are in different realms. One is allowing experience to hold its natural unified state, while the other is restraining it in order to gain more information into the details of the unified state. They are comparable, in fact they are the same thing entirely. The mystic describes the whole, while the physicist describes the part. My thought, is who has the better description?

7

Well said… it would seem, that if knowledge had a purpose, it would be to “know thyself”.

8

And this effect, where is it? It doesn’t exist at one or another etheric mental level — it is here, it is part of the body. Therefore the body works out its own dilemmas, and the body can do that in a very intelligent and successful way if you just give it a chance. Your desire to affect your physical effect at some other level will not be honored. It just remains a hope and nothing else. After all, there is nothing that can be done. But that’s unacceptable, because the instrument used for that is the thinking, and the thinking can’t accept that because it has always gotten results for you.

9

Wow… that really resonates.

James S Saints Concepts
10

That isn’t the problem. That is the solution. We only CARE about how it affects us (how it is perceived). We only need be weary of being deceived by not verifying what we perceive, “Presumption”.

How did you ever come up with that notion? Once you suspect something, test your hypothesis and there you have the cure for the worry.

Perception is founded on contrast of affect. We do not mentally determine that level of sensory input. We merely choose to objectize it (with a degree of error) then verify it if we are smart. Problem solved.

US or our instruments, silly. What else do we care about?

No, we can only form “knowledge” about a difference between two objects, an “affect”. You cannot have affect (existence) without at least 2 objects which happen to have to mutually affect each other. Knowledge is ONLY about how they affect each other. That is why measurements are relative.

Emm… did you read that sentence after you wrote it? Effect means they are connecting via contrast or comparison. Merging is the person allowing the effect to be accepted as real rather than blocking the merge by insisting that it isn’t.

It is literally at your finger tips. It happens at your senses.

To the degree that it could, it has already.

Your conscious mind is part of what your body created so as to help IT succeed further. Your body, in essence, knows that it cannot handle all that is happening. It knows that it might die. It produces a brain with a mind that can perceive the “outside world” so as to investigate more and hopefully find out how to further ensure success/joyous survival.

Your mind exists with an inborn purpose whether you realize it or not. And that purpose is “Self-Harmony”; joyous survival.

It is the affecting of your self-harmony that creates the entire paradigm of your knowledge and your concerns in life. The contrast to your harmony is the affecting that allows your senses to pickup the probability of an objective entity so that your conscious mind can further assist your body’s effort to joyously survive.

11

Anything you do to escape from the reality of this world will make it difficult for you to live in harmony with the things around you.

We have an idea of harmony. How to live at peace with yourself – that’s an idea. There is an extraordinary peace that is there already. What makes it difficult for you to live at peace with yourself is the creation of what you call “peace,” which is totally unrelated to the harmonious functioning of this body. When you free yourself from the burden of reaching out there to grasp, to experience, and to be in that reality, then you will find that it is difficult to understand the reality of anything. You will find that you have no way of experiencing the reality of anything, but at least you will not be living in a world of illusions. You will accept that there is nothing, nothing that you can do to experience the reality of anything, except the reality that is imposed on us by the society. We have to accept the reality as it is imposed on us by the society because it is very essential for us to function in this world intelligently and sanely. If we don’t accept that reality, we are lost. We will end up in the loony bin. So we have to accept the reality as it is imposed on us by the culture, by society or whatever you want to call it, and at the same time understand that there is nothing that we can do to experience the reality of anything. Then you will not be in conflict with the society, and the demand to be something other than what you are will also come to an end.

The goal that you have placed before yourself, the goal which you have accepted as the ideal goal to be reached, and the demand to be something other than what you are, are no longer there. It is not a question of accepting something, but the pursuit of those goals placed before us, and which we have accepted as desirable, is not there any more. The demand to reach that goal also is not there any more. So, you are what you are.

12

Other than the first statement, all of that seems like fatalistic presumption. You are presuming that I am seeking an invalid goal and suggesting that I cannot reach it so I should stop trying. “Sleep. There is nothing you can do. The World is coming to an end. There is nothing that can be done. The world is falling apart. There is no escape.” (I actually picked that out from a “Dude, Where’s My Car” DVD menu subtle background track.

13

The mind exists outside of the physical/biological, including the brain. That outer mind has created you for the purpose of maintaining the status quo which is an arbitrarily invented ‘harmony’ of sane and intelligent living.

14

Such is your religion, not mine.

15

yeah … you are striving for something you already have in the smooth functioning of the organism stripped of the machinations of thought.

16

if you want to call society religion okay I guess you could.

17

Rhetorically, so as to not side track;

  1. When are you going to die and how painfully?
  2. Is that really what your body is striving for?

Your mind is supposed to be working on the cure for that problem, not dismissing itself into oblivion.

18

Since the body is not born, so it has no end.

It is the thought that has created the body, and established a point and says it’s born here, and is going to end there. So it is the thought that has created the time factor.

We don’t know the beginnings of it. So the whole concept of the creator is redundant. We are caught up in the field of logical thinking, and that there is no beginning, that there is no end, is something which shatters the whole fabric, the foundation of our logical thinking.

This body, you talk as if it is separate from the totality of the universe or totality of nature, or whatever you want to call it. It is the thought that has created the body, a separate entity, and tells that this has a beginning, this has an end. This is the end that is the beginning. It has created the space. Thought creates the space, thought creates the time. So it cannot conceive the possibility of anything outside the field of space and touch. Actually, the thought is the one that has created the space and experiences the space, but actually there is no such thing as space at all. What is there is a space-time-energy continuum, which is a continuum, but it has no end. The thought cannot conceive of the possibility of a movement without a beginning and without this point where it is going to arrive someday or sometime.

It cannot experience the body because thought is something dead.

19

From my perspective, it’s a problem. When we describe something as an object, and actually what we are describing is an effect or perception of such effect, a lot of confusion ensues, and people end up on this forum debating the existence of objectivity. Why say one thing when it’s another? That’s an issue for me.

The effects you perceive between objects happen at the level of “physical sense”. This is literally the tip of the ice berg. Beyond sense, you have a myriad of physiological operations occurring that allow this sensing to function. Biologically, at the surface level things appear extremely varied, but as you delve deeper, we begin to see that all of existence is pretty much made up of the same “stuff”, merely different compositions of it. This inevitably exists at the level of mind as well. If we keep the analogy, every separate mind is made up of the same stuff as every other mind, and that stuff is physicality. The mind doesn’t have anything to be mental about without the ‘physical’. Since it can’t exist without it as we experience, it must be connected, and furthermore it is connecting the same way everyone else has it connected. Hence our ability to confirm what “something” is. It is obvious there is a connection, and it has to be different levels, otherwise everyone would experience the same thing and all of our descriptions of anything will be unitary. Everything would be confirmed. My hypothesis offers an explanation, do you have a better one that acknowledges the various levels of our experience of physicality?

Yes, and the contrast of affect doesn’t just happen at the conscious level you happen to describe it at, it must go deeper, in order for perception to be “founded” upon it. If we hold your idea, then perception must be an emergent property of “contrast of affect”, which means it is happening before our consciousness recognizes it. At our level of consciousness, in order for something to “show up” for us, it must in some way already be affecting us, ie. “in contact” with us.

Precisely, and in order for it to affect us, it must be affecting our subjectivity… see my initial point in the OP.

Exactly, we form knowledge about a “difference between two objects”, which refers back to the subjects perception. Hence it being subjective.

Your description of the person allowing the effect to be accepted as real implies the effect to have already impacted the subject. He/she needs only to accept the reality of the affect, that in some way, must already be connected to themselves. The merging isn’t actually a merging, but a recognition (there is that word again) of the connection that has already been established.

20

There cannot be any `experience’ of unity or union with reality. A claim to any experience presupposes not only an awareness of the experience as an object, but also a recognition of it as an experience. And these conditions are enough to destroy any possibility of there being a unity, let alone an experience of unity, because any recognition implies a duality or division between the subject and the object. How can there be an experience of unity where there is a subject left out of the object of experience?