Metaphysics
Sunday, July 1st, 2001 06:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinturnerAt last I have got round to starting the third and final part of my mega-paper Notes Towards a Philosophy of Desire (pretentious, huh?). Working title for Part III is "Metaphysics and other flaky stuff", though if I ever want to get it published I'll have to think of something a little more academic-sounding.
This part is the most interesting for me, but also the hardest, since what I'm trying to do is relate the straightforward, bottom-up approach of the first two parts to the grandiose, top-down approach of my overall philosophy. This is something I've been trying unsuccessfully to achieve for the past two years, so I'm not sure if I'm up to the challenge.
The basis of the metaphysical part is a kind of substance-dualism, though a Tantrik rather than a Cartesian one. Any system of ordered information (objects, events, qualities etc.) are classed as "pattern" (in Indian Tantra, Shakti or "power"), leaving only a structureless and suitably undefined "awareness" (Shiva in Tantra) as the other element. A thought is thus simply an encoded pattern of which something is aware. To be more accurate, perhaps I should say "in relation to which there is awareness", since I haven't got as far as subjects yet.
The way I'm trying to link this to desire is to assume that patterns of sufficient complexity have what I call "intrinsic tendencies", which is a bit like Aristotelean telos but more modest in its implications (e.g. I'll accept that an apple has an intrinsic tendency to grow into an apple tree, but not to become food for humans). Some really complex patterns generate or tie into awareness in some way I haven't worked out yet and probably never will. Put the two together and you get desire. If an apple were aware, it might well think "Oh, to be a noble apple tree!", and, to twist John Searle's example, if a heart were aware, it would probably be thinking "Gotta pump that blood, boy."
What do you people think? Have I got a brilliant new theory which solves the "Hard problem", or have I gone completely over the edge?
This part is the most interesting for me, but also the hardest, since what I'm trying to do is relate the straightforward, bottom-up approach of the first two parts to the grandiose, top-down approach of my overall philosophy. This is something I've been trying unsuccessfully to achieve for the past two years, so I'm not sure if I'm up to the challenge.
The basis of the metaphysical part is a kind of substance-dualism, though a Tantrik rather than a Cartesian one. Any system of ordered information (objects, events, qualities etc.) are classed as "pattern" (in Indian Tantra, Shakti or "power"), leaving only a structureless and suitably undefined "awareness" (Shiva in Tantra) as the other element. A thought is thus simply an encoded pattern of which something is aware. To be more accurate, perhaps I should say "in relation to which there is awareness", since I haven't got as far as subjects yet.
The way I'm trying to link this to desire is to assume that patterns of sufficient complexity have what I call "intrinsic tendencies", which is a bit like Aristotelean telos but more modest in its implications (e.g. I'll accept that an apple has an intrinsic tendency to grow into an apple tree, but not to become food for humans). Some really complex patterns generate or tie into awareness in some way I haven't worked out yet and probably never will. Put the two together and you get desire. If an apple were aware, it might well think "Oh, to be a noble apple tree!", and, to twist John Searle's example, if a heart were aware, it would probably be thinking "Gotta pump that blood, boy."
What do you people think? Have I got a brilliant new theory which solves the "Hard problem", or have I gone completely over the edge?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2001-07-01 07:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-07-02 02:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-07-01 11:07 pm (UTC)Anyhow, lemme think about this. An apple has it's own unique patterns starting with those that are universal (patterns which all things share) and when these defining patterns become more and more refined (shifting the apple's identity from existing down to a tree's seed then down to a fruit) the possible awarenesses is that can be applied to that new definition also reduce and become refined.
Or when viewing the apple with a certian form of awareness, patterns are projected onto the object. And when a certian pattern elicits itself from the apple, related awarenesses can be brought forth.
You can also get into the precision or roughness of an awareness or an pattern one has created. A very precise pattern is made so by both it's inclusions and exclusions. An awareness with a very coarse perspective can allow for many more patterns to define something by, an extreme case would create so much confusion that it hinders the viewer.
I am not sure if I interpreted your ideas and applied them accurately, but perhaps it may give you a chuckle.
no subject
Date: 2001-07-02 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-07-02 04:20 am (UTC)the world of the apple being the essence of what apples are
no subject
Date: 2001-07-02 08:04 am (UTC)prepositions!
Date: 2001-07-02 05:02 am (UTC)Re: prepositions!
Date: 2001-07-02 08:02 am (UTC)I'm not down with Heidegger, because I haven't read him (shame on me!).
I'm not down on Heidegger because I don't particularly have anything against his philosophy (his politics ....well).
I'm certainly not going down on Heidegger.
Going down on Heidegger
Date: 2001-07-02 06:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-07-02 03:25 pm (UTC)Heidegger probably wouldn't be down with that.
Lemme try to clarify my heideggerian approach to your problem.
An apple's essence deals with an apples existence in the world, it's being. With this also comes the semi-aristotolian logos or ontology. Heidegger also delves into the history of the thing, be it the river in his home town and how people have lived with it, or the history of all humans through time. I was first introduced to Heidegger in an aesthetics class. We went into how a work of art creates it's own world into which the viewer is drawn. I've used that here with repsect to all things and the world into which they can draw people.
It seems as if this may fit into both sides of the awareness pattern ideas of yours. As heidegger gets into ontology and logos which seem related to awareness. And the patterns of awareness also relate to the phenominological side of patterns and our perception of them.
of course it's not in the least bit eastern, and does not get into desire. But it is bottom up.
no subject
Date: 2001-07-03 02:15 am (UTC)