Interesting. I like this definition that intimacy is defined in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. Yes, there is a relationship between initimacy, privacy and subjectivity. The more private details we share with someone, the more close we feel to that person. It is a common phenomenon in social networks. The closest form of intimacy would be zero privacy and total match of subjectivity, if we could climb into skin of someone and walk around in it. As Harper Lee observed "you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view — until you climb into his skin and walk around in it".
There are actually places built for this purpose: cinemas, which contain dark rooms where humans go to watch humans pretending to be other humans. They are devices to solve the hard problem: they show us what it is like to be someone, let us say Martin Brody or Indiana Jones. -J. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.-------- Original message --------From: Russ Abbott <[email protected]> Date: 2/19/2016 21:27 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly). It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private) subjective experiences with another. I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for intimacy?
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
