foucaultnut (foucaultnut) wrote,

If subjectivity is the result of man's primal belief that he is not merely an object an interesting question becomes how he has been reobjectified by his own structures.  The constraints of the physical world are rejected as omnipotent determinants of our existence.  Implicitly, we identify ourselves as an emergent property of these constraints.  Whether by complexity theory today or the philosophical construction of free will in the past, we continue to produce homologous intellectual abstractions of this fundamental experience.  Simply through being in the world as a being and not an object we assume knowledge of our distinct position, the revelation of awareness.  Yet to what degree are we aware of our constraints and what does this bode for our subjectivity?

Inasmuch as physical constraints represent a dimension of reality in which we are mere objects we face a fundamental problem.  A multivalent scientific approach to the world is simultaneously reductionist and fragmented.  The linear heirarchy of paradigms according to scale is supposedly complete in spite of their wildly different approaches to the same phenomena.  First, if this is true we become objects in total.  Second, if this is false we must understand the origins, implications and possibilities of these paradigms.  They would then represent  a truly subjective experience. Whether this divergence from realism represents a phenomena independent of reality is a question better left for another day.  Regardless, individual awareness appears to range from one extreme to the other - from the purely physical to the quasi-physical to the paradigmatic.  Respect for only physical constraints objectifies a man.  More precisely, he is considered an animal and we consider animals to be mere objects.  Thus another range appears to exist, whereby respect for non-physical constraints becomes coincident with subjectivity.  The recognition of social mores is fundamental to humanity.  So far as these expectations act to guide our action, we are objectified by our own subjectivity. 

(I think in this situation 'we' represents a strange object.  This object is the encapsulation of a very specific idea - the average person.  Choice still appears to be relevant.  People act in disregard to physical and non-physical constraints.  These people, however, suffer the consequences.  Death - be it social, economic, biological, etc - serves to regulate behavior.  Thus it becomes possible to speak of the group of relatively average people... as long as we admit that deviation is a normal phenomenon in many settings.)

  • (no subject)

    Keep track of the words you use on any given day. At the end of the day, tally which words expressed what you meant and which did not. Next, for…

  • (no subject)

    I went to the Funky Buddha tonight. Those uninitiated - it is the popular center of hipster dance activity in Chicago. I was not cool enough, for…

  • (no subject)

    There are many who teach me. Whether I learn or whether the abstraction of me learns makes me worry. At the same time, to think that the mind and the…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.