KARL
JASPERS FORUM
TA101 (Mohrhoff)
Commentary 5 (to R3)
STRUCTURING
by Herbert FJ Müller
23 May 2008, posted 31 May 2008
<1>
By and large, I think our
views coincide. I want to comment here
on a few points where I have questions.
<2>
The most important one concerns
what you call ultimate reality (UR). In
{11} you equate UR with God. This is a
possible way of talking about it, but it has some problems. Consider for instance, Hegel’s work ‘Phänomenologie des Geistes’ as
first part of a ‘system of science’.
This started from an analysis of mind (one possible translation of ‘Geist’); ‘Die sinnliche Gewiβheit; oder das Diese und das Meinen.’ But he ended by
talking about ‘Das absolute Wissen’, in effect = God’s
knowledge (another translation of ‘Geist’). The result was that he lost much of his
audience, except for instance Marx who transformed his dialectical method into
what he claimed was the (positive) ‘science’ of dialectical materialism.
<3>
Schopenhauer for one did not recognize himself in Hegel’s
description of science, and reacted by centering on an irrational ‘will’ (in
some ways anticipating Freud) and the suffering resulting from it; he
recommended Buddhist-type practices to deal with it.
<4>
Kierkegaard also protested, and to get away from
the absolute, and onto himself, he emphasized ‘existence’, subject-centered
efforts; which were later fused with 20th century
phenomenology. These developments
brought the subject back into action, though in an incomplete way.
<5>
What I think needs to be assured is the contiguity
with ongoing experience. Procedurally, one
can think of Percy Bridgman’s ‘operationalism’, which
requires that one talk about results (MIR or rather as-if-MIR) only while also considering
the subject’s activity; in particular the structuring efforts (as in
constructivism); and from no structures to start with (0-D). This occurs within encompassing experience (à
la Jaspers).
<6>
For instance, the unstructured origin, within which
all structures are created, can be defined operationally, as the activity of
emptying the mind of structures inasmuch as possible, or at least being aware
of the need to allow for that, because all structures are in principle ad-hoc
and temporary.
<7>
Another possible problem with God-likeness (our
true self {11}) is ‘hybris’ (at least if positive
structures are associated with this notion : one could then be tempted to hand out
absolute truths, etc; and that happens a good deal) - but which
you assure me {14} is not a problem in people who have realized their identity
with the self of all selves.
Some other points :
<8>
I am still not quite clear what you mean by
‘surface self’ or ‘surface consciousness’;
is it the lack of access to UR, or to the ‘supermind’
? {8}
<9>
‘The self’ {7} I understand as a structure, a tool,
within SE – we may have a terminological difference here.
<10>
Mathematics – ‘where is this place
?’ {3}
Feynman’s question is discussed by Lakoff
and Nuñez (‘Where does Mathematics come from’, 2000)
with the answer ‘in the embodied mind’ – with which I would agree, except for
the nebulous term ‘embodied’. It has
that in common with all structures, with all reality.
<11>
Also I am still not certain what you mean by
‘numerical identity’ {22}. Do you want
to relate this to the mystical experience of oneness ? {20} This would be similar to the ‘hen’ of
Greek philosophy, it seems; including the ‘ever-present origin’ {30}ff, which
is also implied in Herakleitos’ ‘Πάντα ῥεῖ ‘ (panta rhei).
<12>
{37} The disappearing subject : this has been a problem in modern science, mainly
since Descartes.
<13>
Furthermore I still don’t quite understand in what
sense ‘particles’ are needed {35} for UR. So far it seems to me that this conflicts with
your anti-materialist aims. - By the way, in this connection, do you know
someone who could discuss my questions about Nagarjuna
in R23 [17] (and in R21) of TA93 ?
--------------------------------------------
Herbert FJ Müller
e-mail <herbert.muller
(at) mcgill.ca>