KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA 61 (Andemicael)

Commentary 3 (to C2 by Muller)

( WORKING SPACE-TIME )
by Peter Mutnick
23 July 2003, posted 12 August 2003

(Quoted from C2)

"<2> Discussions of time tend to suffer, more than that of many other concepts, from the Cartesian subject-object split, which for such topics needs a correction (this point is discussed in more detail in C2 to TA60). In practice, the main problem can be a tendency for the discussion to waver between a fictitious subject-in-itself and an equally fictitious object-in-itself, in attempts to decide which side we are on, or to get from one to the other. But although we may pretend to be on only side, we are always on both simultaneously. Both of these structures are created inside experience from no given structures (zero-derivation, 0-D), and with no primary division between them, only a secondary pragmatic one."

[Peter Mutnick]

So, what about the status of experience-in-itself ? One can assert that it is obviously the only true premise, but that assertion rings hollow, except to the true believers. First of all, there are two types of experience: phenomenal (objective) experience and transcendental (neutral) experience. It is obviously the latter to which Muller refers. Secondly, there is the question of what does "itself" mean - what is the "self" of experience? If experience is transcendental, i.e. neutral between subject and object poles of metaphysical reality, its "self" must nonetheless be mental, and therein is the limit of Muller's claim to an absolute and unconditioned initial premise.

(from C2) "<5> Existence is a dynamic process [4] because it is produced from inside ongoing subject-inclusive experience (SE), which is dynamic because it goes on, flows.

[Peter Mutnick]

Here there is confusion / conflation of phenomenal experience and transcendental experience. The latter, which is neutral, is ecstatic, not dynamic, while it is the latter that flows as a stream of consciousness.

(from C2) "Persistence [10] in the flow of experience (i.e., in time) is one of the facets of existence, not its foundation; actually, existence (reality, truth) is established by the investment of trust, as warranted, in the reliability of the structures we create inside experience."

[Peter Mutnick]

Existence is precisely the attempt to stand outside of experience (as flow) and to in that sense exist in the context of the eternal, for that is all existence can truly mean. That which is but a passing and ephemeral phenomenon does not possess true existence, for it is a mere illusion, here today and gone to Maui, never to be confirmable to itself or others as anything more than a will-o-the-wisp. The project of existence is to achieve something of the eternal, of God, as Sartre has proclaimed in his magnum opus, Being and Nothingness.

(from C2) "(What is or is not warranted depends on beliefs, on the basis of widely differing evidence : research, authorities, intuition, revelation, and other sources. Consider, for instance, the reality of angels, witches, the great satan, the axis of evil, quarks, black holes, dark matter and energy, or the big bang, to name a few that are currently in vogue. The beliefs are also driven by forces such as adventure, fads, and economics, cf. the Harry Potter boom. {1} Which does not imply that under scrutiny all beliefs or sources are equally valid.)"

[Peter Mutnick]

What is valid depends on how you assess the project of existence. If you fail to do that, it can be said that your "existence" is inauthentic, as are the values that bouy up that "existence". This is the central problem of our time, as capitalism or bureaucratic socialism (which are flip sides of the same coin) try to foist upon us meaningless values that all have their origin in a mindless attitude toward the project of existence.

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

Peter Mutnick