Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

thedoc wrote: This kind of subjective reality can interfere with the understanding of the real world, and the realization of any worthwhile meaning in life.

On further thought, I need to correct this sentence. A subjective reality can indeed lead to a kind of understanding of meaning in life, but it must be clearly understood that a subjective reality is not the physical world. But it can lead to some understanding of that world. I have stated that subjective reality is not the physical world, but a subjective reality can be just as real to the individual, in some ways, as the physical world. The key is to be able to differentiate the two, and know which is which.

I think this is also referred to as the easy and hard problem of consciousness as per Chalmers.

Yep, I'm just seeing a need for hard wiring some definitions and allocating clear pathways and signposts, eg: I see perception as antecedent to thinking, and even cognition, that is; we perceive and assemble perception into units of meaning (emotions?) according to our cognitive means and biases. We then think, creating rational or intuitive pathways.

Immanuel Can wrote:Bernard:

"Cognition" is a general term for "thinking" of all kinds -- emotional, intellectual, rational, perceptual, etc. Thedoc, in his addendum, is speaking about "understanding a meaning." I'm just trying to discover whether he's wanting us to perceive his view as physicalist-monist (in which case the brain and all cognitions are assumed to be physical) or dualist (meaning mind and brain) are distinct entities.

We could get off track by arguing the mind-brain problem for its own sake, but I'm really interested in how "subjectivity" is any better at proving a REAL "meaning" than, say, a delusion is at producing a false one. So I want to stay on track with that thought if we can.

I'm also sympathetic to Thedoc's view, because I don't find physicalist-materialism even remotely plausible. It seems very clearly reductional and absurd. And in any case, if true, it just means again that there is absolutely no "Meaning" behind reality, so it does nothing to rescue the idea of "meaning" at all.

Bernard:

The problem is that the *fact* of our assembling things doesn't guarantee there's any *validity* to the assemblage; for we can also "assemble" delusions out of the raw fabric of our perceptions. I'm looking for the distinction between the two.

I don't wish to take the Doc's addressed question away from him but would say that validity depends primarily upon functionality/practically of the assemblage to the individual and, secondly, the rate at which it can be efficiently shared and utilized toward functional ends among others. Note that when that order is reversed we have the first sign of dictatorial empiricism. Which is interesting when you think about it. I mean, in a sense its only when valid experience becomes shared that it can potentially become violated.

A toddler likes to spill milk on the carpet, has validitated for himself that it is an enjoyable thing to do. Mum or Dad invalidate that by imposing another validity that spilt milk spoils carpet.

Bernard wrote: Yep, I'm just seeing a need for hard wiring some definitions and allocating clear pathways and signposts, eg:

shit! you're going to take all the fun out of all this animosity and hostility over definitions and the variety thereof. If we can't fight about that, what will we fight about?

The men: politics and women of course, whilst the women throw in the usual curve balls about that friend down the road who said so and so...

and women can be so practical: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1xs0GJl9xg#t=1

yet are the masters of inter-subjectivity, something more potent than the empiricism/objectivity marriage

Has anyone anything more to say on how "subjective meaning" can be rescued from being merely "the desire for meaning that cannot be found," or "the perception of a meaning that is not really there"?

Because if there's no reality to what we call "subjective meaning" (of life, of death, of the universe, of events, or whatever...) then how do we rescue the hope that any of these things are part of a pattern of meaning?

Do we return to the idea of objective meaning, or do we start claiming that meaning itself is an illusion?

Manny,

Whether either definition: delusion is wholly possible.

If Joe believes meaning is inherent in Reality (he doesn't create it, but -- instead -- finds it) and he sources that exterior meaning in 'THE GREAT GREEN TREE FROG' who squats at the center of the universe pooping out galaxies, how is this not a delusion?

If Joe believes Reality is purposeless (simply an on-going cloud of processes) then he may understand he's responsible for himself and how he moves through an indifferent universe. He may understand that what he values is simply that (what 'he' values) and that such value-ing lives and dies with him.

Certainly, Joe of the indifferent universe can be deluded...he may, for example, believe (since there's no intrinsic meaning to Reality) there's no point in value-ing any-thing or -one...he takes the nihilist's road (down) and perhaps wonders why life is such a shithole (when, logically, that's exactly what he's set himself up for).

So: a possible delusion in definition two is viewing the indifferent universe as the end point.

I, however, view the indifferent universe as a starting point .

Manny,

"...that the universe first appeared for no reason and proceeds toward nothing in particular, and your birth, life and death are no more than an absurd accident within a schema-less chain of happenstance"

I believe this to be the case...can't see how this negates my interest in my own living (and the living of those I love).

The lack of intrinsic meaning or purpose in Reality removes from me not one jot of that interest...if anything: an indifferent universe is liberating (for me) in ways a morally dimensioned universe could never be.

Manny,

How is the meaning I bring to a circumstance illusory?

I am real...the interest I take in 'this' or 'that' (while subjective) is 'my' interest.

The meaning or value I invest in 'this' or 'that' is 'my' meaning, 'my' value-ing.

Again: I am real...what I do is real.

Where is the illusion?

"...If "meaning" is taken to be a synonym for "personally satisfying delusion..."

I don't think the two are synonymous...if meaning is subjective (what I bring to the party; not what's already there) then it 'is' synonymous (or nearly so) with value and value-ing.

Example: my home (which no one, including the universe, gives a fig about) has significant importance to 'me'....it's where I raise my nephew, it's where I lay my head down...I value it as safe harbor and crucible...as structure, it has meaning because of my use of it.

Personally satisfying: yes.

Delusional: no.

#

"...meaning" is an order imaginatively imposed on an inherently purposeless universe to keep us from the emotional burden of facing the facts-as-we-know-them..."

Can't see how living in an indifferent universe is a burden...as for the facts: it's precisely because I adhere to fact that I navigate in the world as I do, enjoying every minute of it.

#

"When we speak of "subjective/(objective) reality," what is it we mean?"

Fire burns: objective.

It cooks my food: subjective pleasure.

It burns my hand: subjective misery.

Immanuel Can wrote:Has anyone anything more to say on how "subjective meaning" can be rescued from being merely "the desire for meaning that cannot be found," or "the perception of a meaning that is not really there"?

Because if there's no reality to what we call "subjective meaning" (of life, of death, of the universe, of events, or whatever...) then how do we rescue the hope that any of these things are part of a pattern of meaning?

Do we return to the idea of objective meaning, or do we start claiming that meaning itself is an illusion?

I think the problem is that of only having objectivity as the basic substance of subjective meaning - if you remove objectivity then there is no ground for subjectivity to build on. If, however there is other sensory input available to us beside an objective one then our ability to form meaning would survive - and furthermore, if we can somehow accept that sensory input can be limitless in scope in terms of input, rather than just limited to objective data input and processed as objective units, then meaning becomes much more important than objectifying everything, because creating meaning would be the only way to keep some sort of a foothold and stability amid all the various types of data input.

We do have at least one other data input that we use: awareness. Awareness itself always supplies meaning and function if we have the equipment to comprehend it with. But we don't see the forest for the trees. We perceive awareness not through specific senses, as we do objects, but with the totality of our all our senses operating as a perceptual unit. It is a capacity though that we use very minimally and only in order to provide meaning for our objective cognition (objective meaning). If we consider that awareness has inputs that are varied we can say for sure that we have capacity for subjective meaning, which in itself is really the operation of intersubjective activity, seeing that awareness supplies meaning anyway - its just a matter of agreeing and evolving with the meaning already supplied. I don't regard awareness as a singular entity, but as infinite manifestation and resource.

I believe this to be the case...can't see how this negates my interest in my own living (and the living of those I love).

The lack of intrinsic meaning or purpose in Reality removes from me not one jot of that interest...if anything: an indifferent universe is liberating (for me) in ways a morally dimensioned universe could never be.

I get that, Henry. But there's a world of difference between how we feel subjectively and what we know to be true about the universe. No one doubts that delusions about our lives having some sort of "deep meaning" would be pleasant, and that many people would desire them. And there's no reason to think they'd be less "interested" in life than other people might be; but that "interest" will be short lived and --as the Bard put it -- "signifiy nothing" beyond that.

I'm glad you're happy. But do you have any real reason to be, if -- as the Bard again said -- our lives are no more sensible than "a tale told by an idiot / Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing"? The "sound and fury" are very "interesting," no doubt: but do they have any ultimate Meaning? That is the question.

Or are you just a faint spark briefly glimmering in the heart of a cold and indifferent universe? Will all that you are, your sorrows and your joys alike, all your actions and hopes, all your relatives and friends, and all the hubub of this terrestrial globe since the dawn of time simply perish into the eternal blackness of an indifferent cosmos? Will it all *mean* anything?

I think the problem is that of only having objectivity as the basic substance of subjective meaning - if you remove objectivity then there is no ground for subjectivity to build on.

Quite right, Bernard.

If, however there is other sensory input available to us beside an objective one then our ability to form meaning would survive

Quite right, except for the "sensory input" part. Sensory input could come from meaningless objects or chance phenomena. There's nothing in our *perception* of meaning or in our *constructing* of meaning that suggests that (assuming a Meaningless universe) those "perceptions" are accurate or those "constructions" real. Again, the point is that they need to be distinguished from delusions.

awareness supplies meaning

All this implies is that "aware" creatures like delusions. The "supply" is only imagined by us...according to Materialism, it's just not there.

I think we need to draw an important distinction: The observation that "humans like / perceive / are aware of / construct / imagine / need / desire / believe in / long for / etc. "meaning" does not go one step in the direction of showing that the universe itself honours that desire or need, or respects the fact that they want them. And the sociological observation that humans routinely fabricate meanings does not go one step in the direction of showing they're sensible or right to do so. If the universe is itself impersonal, the product of mere chance, then there simply is no thing for all those longings to refer to. They are the vestiges of bygone ages, when we knew less about the universe than we do now.

Of course, I don't believe that for a minute: but I'm not speaking for myself. I'm asking those who proclaim the universe empty of meaning how they make subjective meaning anything more than delusional.

consciouse awareness gives the universe meaning and that meaning is a feeling.but the feeling is the meaning.so the meaning dosent need the feeling.consciousness is to be aware of the meaning which is love without feeling.