KARL JASPERS
FORUM
TA101 (Mohrhoff)
Commentary 3 (to R1)
QUESTIONS OF
TERMINOLOGY
by Herbert FJ Müller
14 March 2008,
posted 22 March 2008
<1>
In
responding to your R1, I think it is best to try, for the moment, to clarify the
meanings of a number of terms, to distinguish between different terminologies
on the one hand, and differing meanings on the other.
<2>
For
instance what is meant by ‘gradual transition’ (R1{1b}
and {2d}) ? If UR corresponds to the
unstructured ongoing subject-inclusive experience (SE), it seems to me that
many aspects are created in it in an all-or-nothing fashion. Say for instance you walk along a street in a
dense fog and then you see a ‘shape’. A
bit later you decide this is a ‘person’.
When you come still closer you decide it is a ‘bush’ of
person-size. These changes are not
gradual but stepwise, in terms of ‘entities’.
<3>
‘The
manifested world’ : this sounds more or
less like Heidegger who wrote that the world is uncovered, or that it reveals -
manifests - itself as it already is (via ‘ἀλήθεια’ = ‘truth’
defined as un-hidden-ness or un-forgotten-ness of something that is already
there and just needs to be found). He
tried to write a ‘fundamental ontology’ starting from phenomenology, which I
think is self-contradictory. It
pre-supposes a ready-made world, neglecting the crucial subject-inclusive
structuring aspect. In a working-MIR
(working-objective) view one can extrapolate from presently viable structures
and construct a working-objective (better than naively MIR-objective)
world.
<4>
‘The
nature of physical space’ : this too involves our doing. We can leave it fuzzy (i.e., more or less
unstructured), or we can follow Descartes and endow it with three dimensions
(or now, in some theories, up to 23 dimensions, I understand). But how would this be ‘relations between UR
and UR’, if UR = unstructured ongoing SE ? (see also <6>
below)
<5>
And
what are ‘ultimate constituents’ ? Again I assume that the constituents are ‘entities’,
of (for instance) visual-gestalt type. A
problem in quantum-physics seems to be that the particles (are they the
ultimate constituents ?) are not clearly defined as
persistent gestalt-entities, one way or another (wave, particle). The statement that the ultimate constituents
are ‘identical in the strong sense of numerical identity’ (TA101[8])
I take to mean that counting (mathematics) is more reliable than
gestalt-features, with which I agree.
(See end-note [copied from C3 to TA96])
<6>
‘The
UR is unstructured’ (R1 {1e}) : I see the encompassing unstructured ongoing
experience (SE) as matrix or background or envelope which is always there; thus
I am not sure about the term ‘manifestation’ in this context either. Structures emerge or are created within SE;
thus I cannot see how structures can ‘consist of relations between UR and
UR’. ‘Structures outside’ would imply
either MIR-belief or as-if-MIR-belief.
<7>
‘The
self’ ({1f}) is in my opinion a structure within SE (or within what you call UR),
like other structures, such as ‘the world’.
The split between self and world (TA101[28]) as
well is a working-ontologic (pragmatic, not ontic) structure within SE.
I suppose this amounts in effect to the same as
what you say.
<8>
I
am not sure that the distinction of ‘phenomenal brains’ versus ‘real brains’
({1g}) is helpful. First we think and
perceive etc., then at a later stage we can, but do not have to, expand our
thinking by considering that we use the brain to do this; most of the time we
don’t, and the ‘process of construction’ (TA101[22]) can go on without this
consideration. Vision is
subject-inclusive structuring just as all mental activity (structuring)
is. Studying brain activity, or nervous
system activity more generally, and its relation to phenomena in SE, is a
specialized endeavour within SE, as are all specialized activities. Extrapolating from such special activity, one
can then say that ‘of course brain activity happens always when one thinks,
also when one does not think about brain activity’; but that is (secondary
working-MIR-)objectivity. Perhaps one
could talk about ‘thematic brains’ in connection with such studies, similar to
‘thematic weather’ when you concentrate on it.
<9>
The
relation of perceived colors to light frequencies, etc., ({1h-i}, {2e}) follows
from here as well :
the frequencies are involved in the same way as brain activity; one sees
colors immediately, studying the frequencies requires special techniques; the
connection between the two is (working-)objectivity, which happens within
SE. The statement (in TA101[28])
that ‘colors exist in the directly perceived aspect of the manifested world’
sounds like a straight MIR-comment (see {2f}), and I think it is
misleading. The difference of qualia
from gestalt-perception is in my opinion only the absence or lesser importance
of (gestalt-)configurations in ‘quale’-situations,
not only concerning color, but also for touch, pain, heat, hunger, happiness,
etc. All of them require
subject-inclusive structuring, just like gestalt-thinking and -perception.
<10>
I
am also not familiar with sophisticated yogic techniques (R1{2b-c}). Thus I try to translate some of those terms
into my own (and would like to know your opinion on that). According to Wikipedia, the ‘atman’ is a sort
of soul, self, or also universal spirit, in Hinduism or Buddhism. ‘Mana’ is an
impersonal force in people, animals, or objects that generates a sense of
wonder (would that be similar to what the Greek philosophers called ‘θαυμάζειν’ =
to wonder, the start, or precondition, of philosophical thinking according to
Plato and Aristotle ?
– If you
don’t question what everybody thinks, or what some authority says, you are
stuck with it). I have been distinguishing (a)
self-structures, which are developed in the same way as other
concept-structures within (b) unstructured experience, and experience can not
only be shared (‘whose experience ?’ R1{2a}), but in a
different sense also become (c) universal including certain structures, for
instance in mysticism (see TA106 [10] to [12]); this last might correspond to
what you call panentheism. Knowledge translates into power, or ability
to do things (‘siddhi’, accomplishment). Based on learning and universal
consciousness, there is a potentially shareable universe, testable by people
who go into it. The result (UR = ‘brahman’) seems to be similar to (b), the encompassing
unstructured ongoing experience-origin from which we have to start; I suppose
that essentially this is = mind, ongoing encompassing experience (once you
abandon the mistaken MIR-notion).
<11>
Concerning
‘dual-aspects’ ({3a-b}) : It would be helpful to clarify the mentioned
points concerning ‘the manifested world’ etc.; they are the main reason for my
impression of a dual-aspect view. In
dualist views the MIR-view tends to take over in practice, if it is not
explicitly excluded.
-------------------------------
NOTE
(copied from C3 to TA96)
......
<8>
IMAGES AND SUPERPOSITIONS
There
is a hidden factor : visual-gestalt formations
are commonly implied to represent, or to refer to, a fictitious generally valid
(even absolute) MIR. This interpretation is strengthened in case words (‘logoi’) with their own identity and authority (‘in the
beginning was the word’) and their potential for wide human communication are
attached to them (word-gestalt-concepts).
But
images are not able to do that (although naiveté, or indoctrination, can make
people believe that they can), and that not only in ambiguous drawings ([37]ff; see also TA93[52-53], and Byers 2007).
Gestalt-formations are our tools like other structures, and we use them to
structure, stabilize, and handle experience. Visual-gestalt-MIR
assumptions, although very common, intuitive, implicit, and mostly automatic, are
erroneous shortcuts of thinking. And if something is ‘weird’ in the
QM-context, it is the imputed MIR-function of the gestalt-view, despite its
intuitiveness.
<9>
Here
again ‘understanding’ refers to the use of notions that are familiar.
Instead of human-like images it is the visual-gestalt image-MIR method per se
which is preferred, but of doubtful help, and may actually be a
hindrance. The analytic non-gestalt, mathematical-only, view (iv) is the
most adequate (since ‘it works’, and QM ‘is, in fact, the most effective
physical theory’ [8]), for instance for situations like the double-slit
experiment, or the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment ([11]ff,
[43]ff). The conclusion is : forget about
the images; despite our habits they are not helpful here. If anything
they are an impediment. The numbers are more reliable than the gestalt
formations (see also TA93 [52-53]).
To
my knowledge no one has proven that visual-gestalt entities, without or with
words attached to them, guarantee either MIR, or certainty. And they
don’t, though in many areas one can act as-if they did; but not usually in
particle physics, it seems. (Nor do, more generally, realist,
materialist, and similar views, which use, or rather only imply, gestalt-MIR as
foundation for their reasoning.)
<10>
Related
to this is the puzzling notion of ‘super-positions’ (of reality-possibilities;
[10]ff). It implies belief in MIR (actually in
visual-gestalt-MIR) of these possibilities, since without that you would simply
talk about possible schemes of thought and action. For instance say you
want to paint a picture : before you paint it,
it can, according to that kind of reasoning, ‘potentially have’ a very large
(infinite) number of fictitious MIR combinations of shapes, colours, styles,
topics, etc. Does it make sense to say that they are all superimposed
until they collapse when you have completed the painting
? Are they resurrected when you then decide to modify the painting ?
<11>
..........
Why
is the gestalt-view (‘can be spread out’, ‘superposed states’) proposed for QM ? The answer is obviously that we use the
gestalt-tool because we like it, because we are
familiar with it and much of the time it works reliably (it works best for
macroscopic solid objects). We want and have structured a world that is
prominently characterized by visual-gestalt-MIR properties. But in the
situation under discussion here, the wish to have an intuitive
MIR-gestalt-understanding leads to a quite counter-intuitive superposition of
multiple possibilities, misinterpreted as MIRs.
------------------------------------------
Herbert
FJ Müller
e-mail <herbert.muller (at) mcgill.ca>