KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA32 (Muller)

Response 4 (to C11 by Bone)

TRANSCENDENCE AND ENCOMPASSMENT
by Herbert FJ Müller
21 December 2000, posted 16 January 2001

In the following I will respond to some of the points made by Hugh Bone in his C11. I am generally in agreement with what he writes, but I want to clarify some of his points for my own use. Quotations from C11 are in "quotation marks", my responses are in [brackets].

" <1> Definitions of "transcendence" generally treat it as a concept of religion. "

[ The religious meaning of transcendence is in my opinion a special instance of the more general one which results from the concept use. For instance the concept of God transcends all global and particular experiences - this because each concept transcends momentary experience. ]

" "Encompass" has a specific meaning: that which is enclosed by in a boundary. "

[ On the contrary, to encompass means to include. The encompassing is outside (ie, what is not included in) the boundary. ]

" … The entities on either side of a boundary, such as "x", or "y", can be similar or different, but must be specified, or one does not know what is being transcended or encompassed. In the above paragraph, "concepts" are being transcended and encompassed. "

[ Concepts (entities) can be encompassed by wider concepts (entities). But the widest experience does not fit into any concept, and thus is wider than all concepts. Entities on either side of a boundary do not encompass each other, nor do they encompass the boundary. You seem to be thinking of a graph on paper or on a screen; in that case the graph encompasses what is on it (ie, the x and y points as well as the boundary line). In this case the screen corresponds more or less to your momentary field of attention, which is here the encompassing agent. ]

" <3> … It seems that to "think" is to structure, and to present the results of thinking is a "presentation". If we should "deify" a phenomenon we see, hear, or witness via instruments we could say it was God's presentation. A repetition of the event would be a re-presentation by its author. If we communicate our experience of the phenomenon to another person we present our own experience, a personal account of a personal event. "

[ The above is a possible definition of "re-presentation". But there is a problem with it, since the more common use of "representation" is the metaphysical ("realistic") meaning, where it is assumed that one re-presents something which is somehow "given mind-independently", in an already pre-assembled form. This may cause difficulties in discussions. ]

" <5> … anything that exists, must be real. If it cannot be perceived, it must be mind-independent. If mind-independent, minds cannot judge its reality. Clearly this won't work! "

[ Agreed, although the prevalent opinion is that reality is mind-independent. ]

" On the other hand, imagination is mind-dependent, and as real as a new thought, last night's dream, or today's new concept. So we believe - an act of faith - that reason and logic enable the authorities on light and sound to establish an "as-if-reality" "

[ I agree. Faith establishes reality and truth, including in science. The as-if aspect is of course not generally accepted. ]

"<6> In our everyday world, I see new structures following prior experience, new experiences following prior structure as left foot follows right, right follows left. "

[ The only addition I would want to make is that the created structures can themselves become experiences, particularly when they produce useful items such as thought instruments like language or mathematics, or technical gadgets. ]

" <8> One "talks" to one's self. "

[ I am not sure why HB mentions this. One may also dream or hallucinate, but this does not change the primary functions of visual gestalt formation or of language. ]

" <11> Although it's difficult to think of "transcendence" as agent, its common for human thinkers to cross boundaries and entertain new concepts. "

[ I do not think of transcendence as an agent, but as a property of concept-tools. New concepts may come up when needed by experience which is not dealt with adequately by the available concepts. (This would be, or at least include, encompassing experience.) ]

" <14> In my opinion, the TOE people want to correlate present scientific theories by making new discoveries and analyses. Theories of subjectivity would be a new project. "

[ It would perhaps, but I believe the emphasis ought to be on correcting the fundamental point of view, by realizing that an exclusively-objective view is deficient, and needs to be replaced by one which starts from before the subject/ object split. In that case the subject is automatically included. ]

" <15> Doesn't quantum mechanics bring in the observer and the observer's mental attitude? "

[ It has to do that, just as it is needed elsewhere. In QM the need is more evident than in some other areas, because the old MIR-view does not work. But there seems to be uncertainty on how to go about it. It may turn out that what we have to try to understand is actually the opposite : why and how the naïve MIR-belief has been working in so many fields for 2500 years. ]

" <19> Thus the triad: subject/perception/object is essential to contemplation of experience. "

[ The way I put it is that experience (corresponding to what you call perception) becomes structured, and among the first pragmatic structures within experience are subject and object and the division between them. ]

--------------------------

Herbert FJ Muller