conciousness/subjectivity as being becoming non-being
A thought that's been zigzagging its way through my synapses for awhile now.
It's kind of like this -- there's stuff that has positive ontological "content". It "takes up room" in "being". Whatever that means. But this stuff is constantly passing into non-being, constantly ceasing to exist. I don't know where the stuff originally comes from -- the big bang? -- but it doesn't matter, it could never be comprehended anyway. The point is that subjective experience is the means by which this constant ceasing-to-exist happens.
So I'm looking at a computer screen right now, as I type, and this computer screen (whatever it ultimately is) has positive ontological content that is, right now, passing into nothingness. And that "passing into nothingness" = my perception(s) of the computer screen.
To put it another way, where does what we perceive "go" when we perceive it? Sure it "goes" into our memories to some degree, but that's just the trace of it. Where does the thing itself go? Nowhere -- it dissolves. Our perception of it is precisely that dissolution.
Water going over the edge of the cliff -- consciousness as that edge.
This is way too metaphysical for even my taste, but it's a thought that keeps bubbling up to the surface of my attention, so I'm starting to think there's *something* to it, even if the thought itself is functioning as a kind of metaphor for something I'm not fully aware of (like the metaphorical aspect of dreams).
5 Comments:
Good to have you back, Jay.
I'd suggest confronting this intuition about "passing into nothingness" and "dissolution" with Bergson's critique of metaphysics.
I think, perhaps, your mistake lies in the solidity you give to the "positive ontological content".
My amateur's reading of Bergson tells me that there is a durable process of matter passing into memory. That may not be the best way of putting it, but it avoids the "something" vs. "nothing" dichotomy, which is a source of (I'd argue) pseudoproblems.
Yours,
kidpszl
Thank you, Thomas. I think you're right -- something vs. nothing is quite the (artifically) binary opposition. I've got a few others in there too -- subject/object, mind/matter and so on. And I'd not thought about this with regard to Bergson, but Bergson seems so obvious now that you mention him.
On the other hand, I think I'm trying to find a metaphysical account that's at least congruent with experience. To that end, I think the binary oppositions do make some sense -- we do experience something that could be characterized as "a sense of self" and "a sense of world" separate from that self (even if neither of those senses things is stable and even if their boundaries aren't clear).
(I find myself suddenly aware of the difficulties that consideration of the role of language throws into all of this. When I say "congruent with experience" do I simply mean "congruent with the conventions by means of which we tend to talk about experience -- whatever we mean by 'experience'"? I'm not sure).
Yes, I think you are using words like "self" and "world" here in senses that are determined by (what else?) language, and rather ordinary language at that.
Interestingly, however, you derive a strikingly "philosophical" conclusion from it. I'm not sure that the words "passing into nothingness" are "congruent" with my experience of, say, five apples in a bowl. You have to do a lot of thinking before those words fit the experience.
And I guess I'm saying you have to start with an error in thinking.
What I'm suggesting is that you never start with "positive ontological content". You start with ordinary things (that are not dissolving) and you then consider(philosophically) their "conditions of possibility".
You only get to a tension between nothingness and somethingness (the passing of something into nothing, for example) if you forget that these conditions apply equally to the apple and whatever lurks behind the eyes, to the world and the self.
It is the not the existence of the apple that makes us wonder but the existence of the experience of the apple.
2nd that about having you back; and your thoughts about perception & memory are so poetic, and open such a universe of poetic subjects...
Doug
Hi Jay - I've just discovered this whole new blogger world and I can see I really don't need to ever leave home again.
This post made me think of both Sartre & Milan Kundera. But I'm sure there are a million others of whom I'm not aware. Eclecticism is a favoured notion of mine, but knowledge of anything/one will always necessarily be partial. Still, specialisation tends to block thrilling alternatives.
Looking forward to more of your thoughts.
Post a Comment
<< Home