There is some discussion on the use of the subject-object analogy in MOQ discuss, and the attributes of Value to such an analogy. This bears inquiry as it could also be interpreted that such an analogy is at the heart of many religions. This SO divide brings out the search for the true subjective. Vedic philosophy can be interpreted to have assigned such subjective the “I”. That is the “I” that is witnessing what I appear to be. In such philosophy, that subject is compared to a vibration or a hum. Buddhist thought which arose from such Eastern tradition, used intelligent thought to describe the subjective as not inherently existent, and described such a concept with a co-dependent arising metaphor. More recently, Christian metaphors were interpreted by Kierkegaard, who proposed that the ultimate union of the subjective and objective could be achieved through extreme belief and devotion, requiring a leap. Much existentialist interpretation followed his lead, including Heidegger’s “Being”.
In terms as what is referred to as Western philosophy, it is the opinion of this author that the subject-object analogy was converted to an object-object description. That is the comparison of two objects. Plato provided such description by objectifying the subjective. More recently, Descartes further congealed the objectification of subjectivity by defining it as thought. The statement “I think, therefore I am” suggests that thinking is the underlying presence of self. Previously, in the Eastern thought described above, thinking was something that the self experienced as an object. The description of the objectified sense of thought as the subjective sense of "I" has more recently led to notions by scientific materialism that the self can be explained physically through appropriate investigation into the brain itself. Such studies are ongoing, but difficult. Western considerations of the subject-object confused the subject with the object. The metaphorical root of this transition could arise from the use of language. As a matter of logistics, language must express the subject object idea as object-object to be useful. Subject-object Metaphysics cannot be discussed without the objectifying of the subjective side. Indeed, the conversion of thought into words is a process of objectification. Is this notion therefore something that creates a roadblock and cannot be truly discussed due to the structure of language, and something that we have no control over? Perhaps, but consider the following thought experiment (science fiction as a metaphor). At some time in the future, the principle of telepathy will have been understood and harnessed. There would be direct communication between brains through some kind of brain-wave harnessing. Would such communication be in the form of words? The answer is no. There would be no need for words since entire awareness could be communicated. Words would be bypassed so that entire appreciations could be conveyed such as the sense one gets when looking at a painting. This would mean that thoughts as words would not be necessary, and words would only be used temporarily over long distances if there were no other means of communication. Such words would be considered primitive communication, like the telegraph is now. The awareness of how words form our subject-object metaphysics is, in the opinion of this author, a fruitful interpretation which is provided as analogy. Through the development of such metaphors it is possible to appreciate (or create) some more meaningful underlying principles (or metaphors). The opinions expressed in this post are the author's and do not necessarily represent positions of the MOQ. Mark Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
