Where is "Reality?" (see photos)

Hello all,

Welcome back after the weekend off `;->

While you’ve been playing, sunning, sleeping ... whatever ... the world’s been happening. Israel moved forward on removing people from Gaza (with some protest by the Israelis as expected), Iran has pull one nuclear enrichment site “off the table” while offering to discuss yet another with Europe, right here in NJ Phil Mickelson leads in the PGA Championship when the round had to be halted due to some terrific storms, Fidel Castro turned 79 in Cuba amid celebrations of his birthday, overall the world seems to be changing ... whether slowly or quickly is a function of how you’re counting more than time ... take a look at the photos of the effects of global warming from today’s link ...

Discussions about “Reality” are typically the province of metaphysicians (this BTW is a word I love ... meta – physicians, imagine the doorbell rings and Sophie answers it calling back into the house, “Grandma, your metaphysician is here for your in-home check-up from the agency.” Would that be cool or what?!?!?! Well in a way this is a metaphysical check-up for you, a consideration of how your metaphysical condition is doing.) However, what I want to get to has to do with another branch of philosophers, although some might say that the work they do too is in the domain of the metaphysical. I ask for your indulgence in the brief history discourse below, before I get on with our discussion of social ontology more directly.

Another branch of philosophy, called “Phenomenology” addresses itself with the study or perception and internal experience. As simply as possible what Phenomenographers, beginning with Edmund Husserl in the early 1900’s, address is the way “ideas” or “thoughts” or “perceptions” arise in as conscious experience for the individual experiencing them without any theory or empirical evidence required – the testimony of the individual is the only evidence that the phenomenographer requires. When idea of addressing only the contents of the mind Husserl referred to as “phenomenological reduction” and the process by which everything else was excluded “bracketing.”

In essence what phenomenographers are saying amounts to them ignoring questions of existence, not denying them just ignoring them, as the mind can attend to non-existent objects as well as those that ‘might’ exist. What phenomenographers attend to that they consider beyond the reach of questions of existence (my phrasing) are questions of description, including those regarding intentionality. When the focus of attention revolves around questions and descriptions of intentionality Husserl defined this as “Transcendental Phenomenography.” However something interesting for Husserl as he was following the path of Transcendental Phenomenology and that led to the development of what he called, “Genetic Phenomenology,” or the study of meaning as it gets build up from experience (through-time). This begins to suggest a “social ontology” to me as the basis for inter-personal experience and of course ultimately the only experience of the individual.

This path will lead directly to Heidegger (,Martin) who was both Husserl’s colleague and critic. His search was for the experience of “everyday things.” He described in his monumental work “Being and Time” (1927 German, 1962 Trans. English) the “structure of everydayness” or what he called “being-in-the-world” and based it in interconnections between systems of objects (equipment/stuff/things), social roles and purposes – and he indicates the impossibility of separating these from one another. In essence Heidegger points to a structure of individual experience based in interconnectedness ... a “social ontology.”  Now it begins to get really interesting for me as I continue my search ...

“To the things themselves.” - E. Husserl

For Heidegger (one of my favorites BTW and one whom I base a significant of my own work upon) a reduction to “one’s own private experience” is impossible. In his model, an individual “is” their role. For him this idea becomes “human action,” especially as it relates to intentionality. A wonderful concept of Heidegger’s has to do with his idea that “meaning” becomes irrelevant when considered in this way, as an individual does not need to consider meaning to act – the object already has meaning and this alone has the power to generate action in relation to it without the need to process the meaning as a special province of the mind. Heidegger may be the most “pure” experientialist of all philosophers.

Then there are the French ... Sartre trying to make Phenomenology, Existentialism – and arguing with Merleau-Ponty (another brilliant phenomenographer who based his thinking about perception in the body and the actions enacted with and through the body ... well worth a read through). This of course leads to the construction of a Existential Phenomenology (which to my mind is “Genetic Phenomenology” all grow’d up and having left “pure” bracketing of existence behind – in other words, there might indeed be something out there).

So we could go further with the history lesson ... and instead we’ll go on for a bit ...

By now you know the argument I’m making revolves around “inter-subjectivity” and the process of inter-subject experience – in fact my argument states that “all experience ultimately must be considered to be inter-subjective, i.e.: subjective experience can only exist as a sub-set of inter-subjective experience – “contained by/within inter-subjective experience.” This is NOT an argument for or even about intersubjectivity, instead intersubjectivity within this argument remains a priori. The distinction being that “intersubjectivity” refers to the idea of interaction between individuals and the consideration of that interaction, while “inter-subjective” experience refers to the idea of the phenomenology of the individual being based solely upon the platform or foundation of experience based in the interactions had with others and the consideration regarding those interactions.

This is a very fine point for some, and essential for me and the argument I am presenting. I am stating that the individual can indeed have a subjective phenomenology and even further that phenomenology, or their experience of their experience, is always subjective. I am also simultaneously stating that that phenomenology is based in and upon their inter-personal experience as the basis of their “reality.” That their “reality” is constructed from the experience of their interactions with others and that these interactions were essentially present from the first cognitive moment of the individual – that there is no reality without other present “in fact” or “in consideration.”

I understand the repetitiousness of the presentation of my argument, yet I also understand the value of this repetition in building the solidity of the argument. Piece by piece I’m layering the argument and welding the layers into a laminate I hope to be stronger than any layer could possibly be standing alone. The structure of this laminate will provide a foundation for moving into and through the world that ultimately sustains the individual in this movement. Then further by “getting” or “understanding” the construction of laminate of my argument you will also build a familiarity with the structure of the laminate of reality, and the durability of it as well. Once you’ve incorporated this learning it will become more available to you when you are presented with arguments that attempt to use or infiltrate the laminate of your reality in any way in the future. In addition you begin in this way to become the “master laminator” of your own reality and the construction of it.

The “glue” in this laminate is social interaction made viscous through communication. This refers us back to the comments made last week when I developed the patterns surrounding the construction and use of language in communication. What I intend to continue with this week are the delineations of communication and languaging as they relate to the construction of the laminate of reality, as well as developing some comments regarding the content of the laminate form as well, i.e.: objects.

So what’re we doing??? This week we’re building the foundations for an interpersonal dynamic model, one that I’m proposing forms the basis of the “reality” you experience as well as being the model used in building your reality with AND for you. “Getting” the structure, form and application of this model will set you free ... (or so we hope, eh?)!

Best regards ... until the ‘morrow,

Joseph
.
PS – I know some of you may be asking yourselves ... “What’s any of this got to do with Joseph’s opening paragraph of “World Politics, Current Events and News Headlines?” However, that is my whole point ... more to come, I promise.


Click Here To See Today's Link...