In the prior post we discussed the difference between the material reality that we experience as “objective” space, and the non-material reality that might exist in our individual “subjective” space.
What is the nature of “subjective space”? What could it possibly contain? And what is the evidence of such things that could be believed to be valid?
First, let’s examine “evidence”. Evidence is that which is “evident”, not necessarily that which is purely material. Material evidence is a subcategory of evidence, which includes such non-physical information as witness testimony. For purposes of our journey into subjective space, witness testimony might well be held off until later; personal investigation should not be biased by others' experience in advance.
Also, it is important to remember that just like for empirical science, material evidence is not absolute, it is contingent. Material findings are never absolute, they are probabilistic, being contingent on the limits of observation and the possibility of new, refuting inputs. Empiricist David Hume even doubted the validity of “cause and effect”, declaring that a constant conjunction of two events, one occurring always before the other, does not guarantee that it will always occur thus. But the probability of being drawn toward the Earth due to gravity existing tomorrow morning is very, very high; not = 1.0, but very close to it. Hume reluctantly admitted that "cause and effect" is useful as a construct.
Although transparently a Philosophical Materialist and virulent Atheist, Hume advertised his belief system as “skepticism”, which is a predisposition toward disbelief in any evidence that is not material; it is an attempt to limit knowledge to the contingent and to eliminate absolutes (God). Skepticism is closed to certain evidentiary inputs by definition, due to a need to force all experience, all reality into a material context. Failing the ability to do so, all non-conforming experience is denied as delusion, illusion, or hoax.
But given that Philosophical Materialism of the Hume kind is contra-rational, we must continue to explore beyond such roadblocks anyway, despite Hume’s attempt to halt such inquiry.
Now let’s examine “Truth”, capital T. Since all material evidence and empirical factoids are contingent and not absolute, there can be no Truth in the material realm of reality. This position is evident not just in our current relativistic society, but also in Lenin’s Scientific Socialism, and Hitler’s National Socialism, where truth was created, not found. As with Nietzsche, who specifically rejected the First Principles, the existence of absolute truth was rejected, and the Darwinian fight for survival with the resulting domination of the most powerful was accepted as incontrovertible scientific “fact”. There is little doubt that residual Marxists are still of this opinion.
But is there really no Truth, absolute and beyond doubt? What of the First Principles that Nietzsche summarily waived (as with Hume, to eliminate considerations of absolutes such as God)? If the First Principles are not true, then rational thought itself is not valid, because it is based on the assumption that the First Principles are, in fact, not just valid, but are "incorrigibly" True. Since it is rationally acceptable to base assumptions on unprovable axioms (which the First Principles are), we shall declare them – for now – axiomatic so that we might continue to use rational thought in our investigation. But we will return to this issue at an appropriate juncture.
Let’s now return to the issue of the nature of subjective space; if we cannot accept its existence then we cannot probe its limits. If we are to describe the nature of subjective space as internal experience, what would it include? If we are physically hurt, the event causes a chain of physical responses via nerve channels, culminating in a mental experience and possibly an “automatic” physical response such as a jerking motion, for example. But nothing in this description relates the discomfiture of the personal “experience” of pain. Even if the pain signal is captured en route and sent simultaneously to another individual by wire, what the second individual experiences is not necessarily the same experience as the first individual experiences. This is true even if the same portions of their brains “light up” on MRI scans, because no two brains are wired alike. So certain experiences are confined to subjective, personal internal experience.
If we reach further into personal experiences, we can see that a person’s creative moments are confined to that person. The fruits of the creativity can be coded, transcribed using language skills – or music or math or whatever – and shared with others, only well after the creative fact. But we cannot share the impulses of creativity that the creative person experienced.
The space in which such subjective experiences occur is personal; internal; mental. It is also transient, volatile, and ephemeral. Objects such as creativity do not last long in such a space. (And they do not necessarily occur on command).
Does such a space really exist? I have known people who seemingly had no conscious power of creativity, whose total conscious energy was absorbed by repetition, replication of previously acquired thoughts and modes, and directed solely by unquestioned dogma. For them the deeper subjective space appeared not accessible or at least long dormant.
The existence of subjective space is thus a subjective topic. Only the individual can decide.
Next: What sort of objects fit into a “subjective space”?
As always, comments and questions are welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment