Tamminen wrote: ↑
December 16th, 2017, 1:37 pm
So, after declaring that; "An object is a thing, the subject is not. ", you seem to either be agreeing with me that 'subject' and 'object' refer to the same thing, just from different Perspectives, or you are confused.
We must make a distinction between objects of the world and objects of consciousness.
"We"? We = people who accept the dream, the 'make-believe', the 'apparent' as "The World" (tm)?
Certainly not the 'we' who Know better!
Who Know that, ultimately, this 'The World" (tm) about which you distinguish, only exists within Consciousness, IS Consciousness!
No matter what 'object' you choose, whether a rock from "The World" (tm) or an afternoon daydream, all are ultimately comprised of the exact same thing, 'information waves', Mindstuff! Nothing 'solid', no 'matter' other than as an 'appearance', a mirage living in the duality of the thoughts/ego that you perceive.
We perceive the code for 'thoughts' just as we perceive the code for rock, for 'hard', for 'green', for 'cold', for 'rough'... for everything that is ever perceived, which is everything.
Making crude distinctions between 'objects of the world' and 'objects of thought' is a very scientifically ignorant and shortsighted Perspective. In my opinion, no philosopher is devoid of the cutting edge of science/QM (and beyond) to inform his theories.
When I see a tree, the tree is an object of the world, and my perception of the tree is an object of consciousness.
Again, although pragmatic as common speech (at the moment), it is still a false (based on ignorance) distinction and will, ultimately, fail.
When I reflect my relation to the world, for instance my perception of a tree, those relational elements become objects for the I, the transcendental subject. But the I is neither an object of the world nor an object of consciousness. It is something point-like, similar to what Wittgenstein spoke of in Tractatus. We can speak of objects of the world with the language of physics, we can speak of objects of consciousness with the language of psychology, but we can only refer to the transcendental subject with the language of philosophy. Even Descartes, after his famous insight of the being of cogito made the mistake of starting to speak of the soul as some kind of spiritual substance.
You seem well educated, perhaps that is what is hindering your thought processes?
...philosophers and not "philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it.
Unless you refute QMs demonstration of the obsolescence of the ideal of classical physics/science; that the independent 'objective observer' (subject) studying/experimenting with the 'object' (object), that is exactly repeatable by other Perspectives/people, is impossible, that the observer and the observed, the 'subject' and the 'object', are inextricably One, then I'm afraid that the present discussion is merely repetition and fruitless.
In your education, perhaps you ran across Aristotle's bit if enlightenment when he declared Knowledge is experience?
Re; transcendence, I speak from Knowledge/experience, that is why I needn't invent facile alternate (exact opposite) definitions. It's as simple and elusive as the 'distinction' between the 'conditional' and the 'unconditional'!
From another angle, if you are a God person, and accept the 'Omni-' attribute; Omni- means One! ALL inclusive! *__-