Okay, Gemini proposes three possible avenues of exploration for our new theory of cosmic ecology and vertical affordances: first, formalize our transcendental affordances (e.g., truth, beauty, and freedom); second, relate this to the ultimate, unifying affordance, the Logos; and third, circle back and bet the house on a fruitful dialogue between Winnicott's transitional space and Gibson's environmental affordances, since each describes a reality that is simultaneously objective and subjective instead of being one or the other.
A tall order. Also, that's quite the introduction to spring on a fellow who hasn't even finished his morning cup. Why so technical and jargony? I don't think anyone will want to read beyond that opening blast.
That's true. If the reader hasn't been paying attention to our recent posts, then he or she will have no idea what we're going on about.
Plus, I'm about to dive into the dryasdust book mentioned in yesterday's post, Perception as Information Detection. However, if all goes according to plan... well, first of all, there is no plan, or rather, we plan to follow the advice given in the final paragraph: to practice concentration without effort by transforming work into play. So, there's no plan, nor will we try to follow it.
I would say that one theme we are pursuing is that we must categorically reject what amounts to an a priori cosmic bifurcation that imposes an ontological divide between knower and known, intellect and intelligibility, truth and being, etc.
Rather, these are one, and indeed (re)become one in the act of knowledge. In other words, knowledge -- which is the bridge between knower and known -- would be impossible in the absence of this prior unity.
Once you sever the noumenon you Kant take it with you?
Ouch. Glad you said it and not me.
But I see your point: once we divide this prior unity, there is no getting it back. But with this unity, knowledge pops into the cosmos like mushrooms from the mycelial network beneath the ground.
This annoying cosmic bifurcation goes to Descartes' blunder, since he literally begins with a radical division between res cogitans and res extensa, the former being immaterial, non-spatial, and indivisible, the latter being material, spatial, and divisible, operating mechanistically according to the laws of physics.
Once Descartes initiated this cosmic divorce and separated these two supposed substances, it seems there was no way to put them back together again, for which reason he made an ad hoc appeal to God, amirite?
That's an excellent summary of the central philosophical crisis that resulted from Descartes' dualism.
Yes, the core problem of Cartesian dualism is the difficulty of explaining the causal interaction between the radically different substances of mind and matter. This is known as the interaction problem.
So, Descartes essentially conjured a philosophical problem he could not solve because it cannot be solved. Our solution... well, first of all, we don't create the problem to begin with. Rather, why not begin with a single substance in two modes, e,g., subject and object? Is this not allowed? Is this frowned upon here?
Satchitananda, baby, the old Vedantic triad of Sat (supraontological Reality), Chit (Absolute Consciousness) and Ananda (Infinite Beatitude). Why can't being and consciousness be two sides of the same reality?
Because there isn't enough pot?
Don't be a wise guy. I think this will work, but first we need to lay some gruntwork.
ISWYDT: grunt is the German word Eckhart used for the ultimate ground of reality.
Correct. I don't have time to look it up, so I'm handing off the assignment to my artificial grad student:
That's an insightful connection. You are correct that Meister Eckhart's concept of the "grunt" (often translated as "ground" or "ground of the soul") fundamentally involves the dissolution of the subject-object split, which is precisely the dualism that your previous critique of Descartes was aimed at. This concept is central to his mystical theology and represents a deep, non-dualistic unity:
The Unseparated Unity: The grunt is the deepest, most primordial essence of the soul, a place where the soul is indistinguishable from the Godhead (the transcendent, absolute divine essence). In this "ground," there is no separation between subject (the individual self) and object (God or reality).
Beyond Distinction: Eckhart speaks of this ground as a place of absolute simplicity, a "desert" where all human distinctions -- including the intellectual categories of self and other, knowledge and known, and even being and non-being -- cease to apply.
Your intuition correctly places the grunt as a radical rejection of the dualism you discussed earlier:
In essence, while Descartes's thought begins by defining the self precisely through its separation from matter ("I think, therefore I am"), Eckhart's spiritual exercise culminates in losing the self in the unseparated ground where thought, being, and knowledge are one.
Well, good. But we still need to see how all of this relates to Gibson's affordances and Winnicott's transitional space. However, I'm frankly not in the mood, because today I'm preparing for tomorrow's colonoscopy, and you know how that is. The procedure is a breeze but the prep is a beast, especially for a diabetic. Suffice it to say there will be no post tomorrow, because this is not a game.
No comments:
Post a Comment