Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
A scientist who observed me looking at the light, or down the corridor, or at the TV program, might say that "objectively" there was only one "real" light or corridor or TV program, and that what I was experiencing was an "optical illusion," caused by the two separate "points of view" generated by each eye, but his explanation would not change the "reality" of my experience. [One type of question I would like to ask the scientist is whether s/he would say that I was experiencing a "real" optical illusion or an "imaginary" one! Another question would be which one of the images is the "real" one.]
This reminds me of what Hegel would call "pure subjectivity." I think the Eastern mystics also spoke of it.
If we zoom out as far as possible, behind our mental-models of self, we can imagine pure consciousness. As if consciousness were a light that discloses all beings.
Our idea of our personality is just a mental-object, and cannot be consciousness itself. And our mental model of consciousness cannot be consciousness itself.
Is this why Heidegger crossed out the word Being, because the word/concept is not the thing itself?
Indeterminate being sounds like nothingness. It's light that isn't visible until it bounces off something particular. It's the sound of one hand clapping. The first hand is consciousness/Being/existence/light as metaphor. The other hand is beings, the particular objects of consciousness, including self-image/personality. Neither makes sense without the other.
Hegel represents an extreme of the Idealist position, which Ortega critiqued and tried to overcome. Husserl apparently was influenced by Hegel with his notion of "pure consciousness."
About the rest, I have no comment, except to refer your question about Heidegger and Being to Dasein.
yeh hi reconstructo
The idea (or is it circumstance) that life is the root of reality. That life is the interaction between I and circumstance ....... is mystically attractive.
Its a bit like all is mind. The conciousness of and the sense of me behind it.
But what is the self? Is that also a circumstance in this scheme? If not (to avoid contradiction?) then all ideas of the self are circumstance. So what makes this scheme any different to another world scheme by its own categorization of circumstance? Its consistency as an idea is the same as any other world view....... so presumably its worth comes from more accurately recognising reality, I and circumstance. If so in what way?
I can't figure out the being. Is it I. Is it a collection of I's. My life is presumably not just the I of being but also the circumstance. But the 'My life' implies a self? But at this 'my life' level in the scheme the self is everything since it includes I and circumstance and the interaction between the two? Which level is the self (my life or i executant) and what is it?
The other bit i don't get is memory. This seems to me to be like seeing and thinking and walking, so to remember is I executant and the memories are circumstance? If so then 'My life' seems to be a circumstance of primary i executant remembering........ and thus reverses the whole scheme.
But also this scheme is an idea, so therefore it is a circumstance, including the concept of my life? Thus again the scheme is reversed from overarching 'my life' to my life as a circumstance idea?
I suppose one could say why should 'my life' be logically consistent? But if not, then why use logic to persuade others to adopt this scheme?
........for the most part Ortega refers to circumstance as being the physical phenomena we encounter, including, however, not only plants and animals, but also other people and our body, Then from time to time he will mention ideas as circumstance, in the sense that the ideas are present already in the circumstance in the form of beliefs of the culture that the person learns, as well as the ideas that "occur" to a person as they live. For the most part, however, Ortega focuses on the role that ideas play as responses of the individual to situations involving physical circumstances.
hmmm ..... thanks for your replies longknowledge. Yes i am still playing catch up.
There is bound to be it seems a kind of struggle and therefore debate of language with regard to Ortega His scheme of being and world reversing certain well established 'objectifications' within analytical western culture. All established cultural forms get into the language they use to communicate in this world.
At first i was surprised by your reply here and the distinction you made. But then i read on about the horse and i thought well "i agree with that", so the other is just a semantic detail. But upon further reflection i am not sure again .....
there seems to me to be 3 possibilities.
1 the act of being a thing
2 the act of being a thing that observes another act of being a thing.
3 the act of being a thing that observes its own act of being a thing.
'The act of being a thing' i meant as 1 but you interpreted it as 3? When you reworded it to "the act of being [of] a thing" i think of 3, while you mean 1?
So 1 is only half the story in a sense. It is a thing acting out its being. eg a horse prancing. But a thing acting out its being with no consequense (circumstance) has no life, since life is the conjunction of the two. (executant and circumstance) Even if the only circumstance is a sense of resistance upon the feet, it is a life. Prancing about without any knowledge or resistance is not a life.
E. "My Living" may consist of the "Occurring" of a "Thought" which, at that moment, is an Action of "My Circumstance" that "Occurs" to "My I."
longknowledge - Yes, you're correct, except for the wording, according to Ortega's model.
F. "My Living" may consist of "My I" Executing an Action of "Thinking" the "Thought" that "Occurred" to "My I," i.e., focusing my attention on the "thought" for a period of time.
G. "My Living" may consist of the action of "Thinking About" the "Thought" that "Occurred" to "My I," i.e., the action of letting other Thoughts" that may be related to the first "Thought" "Occur" and then "Thinking" or focusing my attention on them.
longknowledge....It doesn't matter, for the purpose of this discussion, what the explanation of how or why the "Thought" "Occurs" to us....
.....So when we "Think," first the "Thought" "Occurs" to us; it's as if Our Circumstance was "speaking" to us, but I won't get into that.