dmb
Please note the statement "James seems to have fallen into the trap of
reifying his own concept of a field of consciousness" :
"The asymmetry in James's view of mind and matter may be due in part to his
advocacy of a "field theory" of consciousness, in contrast to an "atomistic
theory," which he vigorously rejects. I would argue, however, that the nature
of consciousness does not intrinsically conform either to a field theory or an
atomistic theory. Rather, different kinds of conscious events become apparent
when inspected from the perspective of each of these different conceptual
frameworks. Using James's field theory, one may ascertain an individual,
discrete continuum of awareness; and using the atomic theory one may discern
within the stream of consciousness discrete moments of awareness and
individual, constituent mental factors of those moments. Thus, while certain
features of consciousness may be perceived only within the conceptual framework
of a field theory, others may be observed only in terms of an atomistic theory.
This complementarity is reminiscent of the relation between part
icle and field theories of mass/energy in modern physics. The crucial point
here is that neither conceptual framework is inherent in the nature of pure
experience. James seems to have fallen into the trap of reifying his own
concept of a field of consciousness, and this may have prevented him from
determining, even to his own satisfaction, the way in which consciousness does
and does not exist.
(Wallace, B. Alan, 'The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of
Consciousness')
On Jun 1, 2011, at 11:53 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>
>
> Ham said:
> Zero or nothingness may be an "abstraction" in relational logic, but not in
> metaphysical reality.
>
> Ron replied:
> ESPECIALLY in a Metaphysical construction of reality! it's not experienced!
> Essentialism all rests on a abstraction. You really can't deny this. ...Do
> realize that dualism and opposites result from the act of explanation and the
> use of language; to take them as actual constituants of reality is a
> reification of those relational concepts of meaning.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I agree with Ron. Ham's key terms are so highly abstract that they don't even
> refer to anyone's actual experience. The whole system of relations is purely
> verbal, untestable in experience and unusable in life. This is exactly what
> James hated most about the rationalistic philosophers, especially the
> Absolutists. Ham's Essentialism seems to be a matter of moving a few pieces
> around on some metaphysical chessboard and none of those pieces makes contact
> with actual experience at any point. The game is confined to those 64 squares
> and none of the moves makes a difference to anyone or anything. That's
> vicious abstractionism. That's why reification is a real problem. This is an
> abuse of concepts and such misuse is to be avoided because it will lead you
> down a dead-end road, lead you into confusion and isolation and endless
> arguments about nothing at all.
>
> "Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of reality
> metaphysics is too 'scientific.' Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is
> names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a
> thirty-thousand page menu and no food."
>
> "The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
> 'Quality' in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality
> doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of
> definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
> intellectual abstractions."
>
>
>
> 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
___
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
