Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 15th, 2017, 8:09 pm

Tamminen wrote:
December 15th, 2017, 5:32 pm
Namelesss wrote:
December 15th, 2017, 4:07 pm
Making distinction between 'subject' and 'object' is a fool's errand!
They are one and the same thing!
An object is a thing, the subject is not.
I'd be interested in your definitive definition of 'thing', and that which is not.
A clear and decisive boundary between the two.
For instance, would you consider a 'thought' a thing? A quark? A vacuum? The Universe?

Re: 'things';
classical physics has admitted to not ever being able to find a definitive place where one 'thing' leaves off and another begins!
Quantum has found that there can be no clear distinction between the observer and the observed, that the old ideal of science's 'objective observer' (as distinct from the observed) has been proven to be erroneous, obsolete! (Putting to rest the whole 'objective' vs 'subjective' nonsense!)

Again, I would support the "one and the same thing" theory, though there are many alternate theories based on 'appearances' (the appearance of 'duality', for instance) that, eventually, are shown to fail. *__-

Tamminen
Posts: 749
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 16th, 2017, 5:16 am

Namelesss wrote:
December 15th, 2017, 8:09 pm
I'd be interested in your definitive definition of 'thing', and that which is not.
A clear and decisive boundary between the two.
For instance, would you consider a 'thought' a thing? A quark? A vacuum? The Universe?
I would say that a quark, a vacuum, and the universe as a whole, as I define it, are clearly "things", they are objects for the subject and describable with the language of physics. A thought is part of my relation to objects, so it is not a "thing". But a thought is an object of reflection, as the subject observes its own relation to the world. The subject can also be detected in reflection, as Descartes, for instance, found in his famous cogito. But the subject is not anything that can be described with the language of physics or with the language of psychology. That is what I mean by saying that it is transcendental. The subject is not an object. There is nothing "thing-like" in it. It is the ontological precondition of the being of all things and my relation to things.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 16th, 2017, 6:56 am

Tamminen wrote:
December 16th, 2017, 5:16 am
A thought is part of my relation to objects, so it is not a "thing". But a thought is an object...
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. *__-
But the subject is not anything that can be described with the language of physics or with the language of psychology.

Of course it is, look at any dictionary under 'subject'; "The subject of our study is art!" "The 'subject' weighs 15 pounds!"
That is what I mean by saying that it is transcendental. The subject is not an object.

And again I tell you that you are misusing that term in the exact opposite of it's real meaning.
It's already taken.
'Transcendental' is "unconditional", non-dual, All is One, perhaps making up a new term for your 'conditional' notion? Hey, I Know, how about 'egoic mirage'?
There is nothing "thing-like" in it. It is the ontological precondition of the being of all things and my relation to things.
If you'd like to dig yourself in deeper, while still ignoring scientific and philosophic examples/demonstration of the impossibility of the 'subject' and 'object' being essentially different 'stuff/things', please, elaborate on what, exactly, in plain language (shouldn't be difficult if you understand the 'subject' matter) you mean by this?
(I am unimpressed with jargon, it's often intended and used as a smokescreen to hide confusion.)

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 16th, 2017, 6:57 am

To add another Perspective; the 'subject' is the 'object' of contemplation!

Tamminen
Posts: 749
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 16th, 2017, 1:37 pm

Nameless:
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. When I see a tree, the tree is an object of the world, and my perception of the tree is an object of consciousness. 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.
And again I tell you that you are misusing that term in the exact opposite of it's real meaning.
It's already taken.
'Transcendental' is "unconditional", non-dual, All is One, perhaps making up a new term for your 'conditional' notion?
My use of the term 'transcendental' seems to differ from yours. I use it in the sense similar to what Kant understood by it, and what also Wittgenstein adopted. It is almost the opposite of 'transcendent'.
If you'd like to dig yourself in deeper, while still ignoring scientific and philosophic examples/demonstration of the impossibility of the 'subject' and 'object' being essentially different 'stuff/things', please, elaborate on what, exactly, in plain language (shouldn't be difficult if you understand the 'subject' matter) you mean by this?
I am afraid I cannot explain it more clearly at the moment. Perhaps when I get wiser.
To add another Perspective; the 'subject' is the 'object' of contemplation!
The word 'object' can certainly have many meanings, but what is essential is the subject-object relation that constitutes the basic ontological structure of reality. Words are words, but we must see the basic facts behind words, and define our words according to those facts.

Tamminen
Posts: 749
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 16th, 2017, 3:37 pm

...impossibility of the 'subject' and 'object' being essentially different 'stuff/things'
This is exactly the point you are missing. An object of the world is some kind of a thing or stuff, but the transcendental subject is not stuff of any kind. This was the mistake of Descartes, too. Therefore it is, not impossible, but necessary that an object of the universe and the subject are radically different, because the being of the subject is an ontological precondition for the being of objects.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 16th, 2017, 3:45 pm

Tamminen wrote:
December 16th, 2017, 1:37 pm
Nameless:
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! *__-

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 16th, 2017, 3:51 pm

Tamminen wrote:
December 16th, 2017, 1:37 pm
Words are words, but we must see the basic facts behind words, and define our words according to those facts.
'Facts' = 'beliefs'.
Neither science nor philosophy deal in 'facts'.

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216551?from=rss

As for words;

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Tamminen
Posts: 749
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 16th, 2017, 5:14 pm

Namelesss wrote:
December 16th, 2017, 3:45 pm
I'm afraid that the present discussion is merely repetition and fruitless.
Yes, I agree, but hopefully it has inspired someone else to think better. :)

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 16th, 2017, 9:31 pm

Tamminen wrote:
December 16th, 2017, 5:14 pm
Namelesss wrote:
December 16th, 2017, 3:45 pm
I'm afraid that the present discussion is merely repetition and fruitless.
Yes, I agree, but hopefully it has inspired someone else to think better. :)
Personally, I find great value in these discussions just to help hone my own thoughts.
To present them in a lucid manner to the largest demographic is a never ending 'process'!
Thank you for the convo!

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7426
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Greta » December 17th, 2017, 2:05 am

What I liked was the vigorous disagreement while maintaining focus and decency. When people behave sanely online, it gives me hope for the future :)

You may find part of another topic here - "What is an Object?" of interest. http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =2&t=10808

At the time I thought it was straightforward but by the time other members were finished with me, I had many more doubts about my understanding. The deeper you hone in, the less clear the concepts.

Syamsu
Posts: 2569
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Syamsu » December 18th, 2017, 12:52 pm

The spirit is properly you, because the spirit chooses. And soul is more properly you, because it is the spirit of all choices you have made in life. The mind and body are chosen over by the spirit or soul, the mind and body belong to the spirit.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 18th, 2017, 7:51 pm

Greta wrote:
December 17th, 2017, 2:05 am
What I liked was the vigorous disagreement...
At first glance differing Perspectives seem to ... 'disagree', while;

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!"
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!
Win/win! *__-

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 18th, 2017, 7:53 pm

Greta wrote:
December 17th, 2017, 2:05 am
The deeper you hone in, the less clear the concepts.
So, you just have to hone them! *__-
New concepts, new 'honing'.
Never ending Self exploration/Knowing!

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7426
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Greta » December 18th, 2017, 7:57 pm

Namelesss wrote:
December 18th, 2017, 7:51 pm
Every Perspective is unique every moment!
Yes, I believe that every person (and living thing) has a valid perspective to express, even when they talk lots of bull pucky. Somewhere in the words will be that person's truth, even if deliberately obscured.

Post Reply