Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Non-thetic Consciousness

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre s terminology, especially his term non-thetic . Does anyone here have a grip on it s exact meaning? I
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre's terminology,
      especially his term 'non-thetic'. Does anyone here have a grip on
      it's exact meaning? I will appreciate any ideas.

      Thanks - Joe
    • Christopher Bobo
      I may be wrong, but I always read it as meaning something like a bare phenomenon or percept. It is an awareness about which no proposition or thesis has yet
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I may be wrong, but I always read it as meaning something like a bare phenomenon or percept. It is an awareness about which no proposition or thesis has yet been asserted. In other words, you have something laid before consciousness but you don't yet know what it is and it has no meaning. I think we often experience this non-thetic consciousness. Sometimes when we see something at a distance, we can't tell what it is--we have yet to propose a proposition or thesis for what this object in our consciousness it, but we know something is there. When our understanding does ascribe meaning, propose a thesis or assert a proposition about it, then we see it as that thing. Then we are in the mode of thetic consciousness. Does that help? Any one c are to comment or criticize?

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: decker150
        Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:45 AM
        To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Sartre] Non-thetic Consciousness

        I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre's terminology,
        especially his term 'non-thetic'. Does anyone here have a grip on
        it's exact meaning? I will appreciate any ideas.

        Thanks - Joe


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • james tan
        i may not be wrong, i always read it as meaning something like what is usually meant as non-positional self-consciousness, the pre-reflective cogito. sartre
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          i may not be wrong, i always read it as meaning something like what is
          usually meant as non-positional self-consciousness, the pre-reflective
          cogito. sartre rejected husserl's distinction between cogito and cogitatio;
          noetic, act and noema. but accepting husserl's characterisation of
          consciousness as intentionality, he recharacterised consciousness as
          essentially aware of itself, but not as an ego (this ego is to be
          distinguished from the way sigmund freud used it). consciousness is
          necessarily aware/conscious of itself as consciousness of an object. this is
          not the same as descartes' reflexity of the cartesian cogito. there is no
          self in this consciousness of an object. u are late for a date, u rush for
          the bus, and as u rush, u don't think: "i am rushing for the bus"; rather,
          ur thought is without the "i", such as: "must-catch-up-the-bus". it is a
          primary process, a pre-reflection. consciousness can then be seen as
          'being-for-itself' because its existence consists in its dependency on
          objects, and the recognition of itself in hte cartesian cogito. a reflective
          consciousness, or thetic consciousness, it is a different consciousness
          which reflect from that which is reflected. in introducing non-thetic
          consciousness, sartre wanted to emphasize the mistaken notion of husserl's
          transcendental ego. as far as sartre is concerned, subject is not relative
          to experience, but it is this experience. there is no ego 'in' or 'behind'
          consciousness, the subject is simply consciousness itself. 'i' is a
          artificial, secondary construct. consciousness of consciousness (u are aware
          of the lady in red; but not only that, u are aware that u are aware of the
          lady in red; and so on, ad infinitum; but this is already reflective and
          secondary, u already posit an 'i', which, strictly speaking, is not
          necessary and not really 'thing in itself'. try again. THERE is an awareness
          of the lady in red, there is an awareness/consciousness of the
          awareness/consciousness of the lady in red, so on; this is more 'original',
          'primary'). the non-thetic consciousness is somewhat akin to heidegger's
          discussion of dasein's 'primitive' world of the equipment. such
          consciousness is not about knowledge of self, it is beyond its explicit
          knowledge of itself. descartes' reflection, as its name suggest, is
          reflective; ie, thetic; he has what sartre would call a reflective cogito.
          (knowledge for sartre is essentially reflective, ie positional). but all
          consciousness, be it thetic or non-thetic, according to sartre, is
          self-consciousness. reflection (what philosophers love to do before and
          after their breakfast, lunch, tea break, dinner, supper, toilet breaks; some
          even think and reflect while making love; pathetic creatures) is the
          expression of prereflective consciousness (the act and sensation of fucking
          itself, and not thinking ABOUT fucking); and the reflective cogito is the
          expression of prereflective SELF-consciousness. in this characterisation of
          the two types of consciousness, it serves well to remember heidegger's
          distinction between ontic self-recognition as manifested in our actions and
          attitudes towards ourselves and ontological self-recognition, in which we
          actually verbalise this conception, such as when chris wrote a reply to joe
          in a sartre forum.

          james.


          From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
          Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: Re: [Sartre] Non-thetic Consciousness
          Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 12:21:54 -0800

          I may be wrong, but I always read it as meaning something like a bare
          phenomenon or percept. It is an awareness about which no proposition or
          thesis has yet been asserted. In other words, you have something laid
          before consciousness but you don't yet know what it is and it has no
          meaning. I think we often experience this non-thetic consciousness.
          Sometimes when we see something at a distance, we can't tell what it is--we
          have yet to propose a proposition or thesis for what this object in our
          consciousness it, but we know something is there. When our understanding
          does ascribe meaning, propose a thesis or assert a proposition about it,
          then we see it as that thing. Then we are in the mode of thetic
          consciousness. Does that help? Any one c are to comment or criticize?

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: decker150
          Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:45 AM
          To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [Sartre] Non-thetic Consciousness

          I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre's terminology,
          especially his term 'non-thetic'. Does anyone here have a grip on
          it's exact meaning? I will appreciate any ideas.

          Thanks - Joe


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









          _________________________________________________________________
          Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
          http://www.hotmail.com
        • decker150
          It strikes me that we cannot take a look at raw sense experience because we focus to completely upon the objective world. We focus upon
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            It strikes me that we cannot take a look at raw sense experience
            because we focus to completely upon the objective world. We focus
            upon seeing-with-added-associations-from-memory rather than just-
            seeing-raw-uninterpreted-experience. We are always saturated with
            judgement, belief and meaning unable to see what 'just is'.

            It seems we are dominated by our mental programming.

            Your comments help.

            Thanks - Joe

            as--- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
            > I may be wrong, but I always read it as meaning something like a
            bare phenomenon or percept. It is an awareness about which no
            proposition or thesis has yet been asserted. In other words, you
            have something laid before consciousness but you don't yet know what
            it is and it has no meaning. I think we often experience this non-
            thetic consciousness. Sometimes when we see something at a distance,
            we can't tell what it is--we have yet to propose a proposition or
            thesis for what this object in our consciousness it, but we know
            something is there. When our understanding does ascribe meaning,
            propose a thesis or assert a proposition about it, then we see it as
            that thing. Then we are in the mode of thetic consciousness. Does
            that help? Any one c are to comment or criticize?
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: decker150
            > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:45 AM
            > To: Sartre@y...
            > Subject: [Sartre] Non-thetic Consciousness
            >
            > I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre's terminology,
            > especially his term 'non-thetic'. Does anyone here have a grip on
            > it's exact meaning? I will appreciate any ideas.
            >
            > Thanks - Joe
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Christopher Bobo
            I agree that this form of meaning saturated perception is common. Nonetheless, from time to time, we experience something for which we lack a thesis or
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              I agree that this form of meaning saturated perception is common. Nonetheless, from time to time, we experience something for which we lack a thesis or meaning-attribute or proposition to explain. Just to give an example from my own experience (that I hope doesn't cause me too much embarrassment). One of my hobbies is astronomy. One night without much planning or forethought I set up my telescope and pointed it at a bright light in the sky, not knowing in advance what it was. When I first saw it, it was immediately struck by it strangeness. I didn't recognize it. It looked like a flat circle with handles on either side. For a moment, I thought I was looking at an artificial object. I thought maybe it was a satellite or for a moment I thought it was UFO. Both of these seemed unlikely, so I wiped my eye and looked again. Then it hit me. It was Saturn and those handles on the sides were rings. With that realization, it went from looking like a flat, artificial object to a three dimensional object--a gaseous planet with rings. I think in this example I went from non-thetic to thetic consciousness of the phenomena without the phenomena itself changing in any way. A classic example is something coming toward you from a long distance, say through heat waves rising from the desert floor. It may take some time before you can form a thesis about what you are consciously experiencing. In this common example, the phenomena and the conditions under which it is observed changes as the object gets closer, providing more data about what it is.

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: decker150
              Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 8:10 PM
              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [Sartre] Re: Non-thetic Consciousness

              It strikes me that we cannot take a look at raw sense experience
              because we focus to completely upon the objective world. We focus
              upon seeing-with-added-associations-from-memory rather than just-
              seeing-raw-uninterpreted-experience. We are always saturated with
              judgement, belief and meaning unable to see what 'just is'.

              It seems we are dominated by our mental programming.

              Your comments help.

              Thanks - Joe

              as--- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
              > I may be wrong, but I always read it as meaning something like a
              bare phenomenon or percept. It is an awareness about which no
              proposition or thesis has yet been asserted. In other words, you
              have something laid before consciousness but you don't yet know what
              it is and it has no meaning. I think we often experience this non-
              thetic consciousness. Sometimes when we see something at a distance,
              we can't tell what it is--we have yet to propose a proposition or
              thesis for what this object in our consciousness it, but we know
              something is there. When our understanding does ascribe meaning,
              propose a thesis or assert a proposition about it, then we see it as
              that thing. Then we are in the mode of thetic consciousness. Does
              that help? Any one c are to comment or criticize?
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: decker150
              > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:45 AM
              > To: Sartre@y...
              > Subject: [Sartre] Non-thetic Consciousness
              >
              > I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre's terminology,
              > especially his term 'non-thetic'. Does anyone here have a grip on
              > it's exact meaning? I will appreciate any ideas.
              >
              > Thanks - Joe


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • decker150
              I am wondering still if Sartre was not referring to something other than a wrong interpretation, away from any object oriented concern. Am I wrong to think
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 7, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I am wondering still if Sartre was not referring to something other
                than a wrong interpretation, away from any object oriented concern.
                Am I wrong to think that the non-thetic consciousness is more about
                pure sense perception in general and not so much about the object or
                ensemble of objects being viewed?

                When Sartre said "consciousness is always consciousness of something"
                it seems this included objective considerations. However, when he
                referred to "consciousness of consciousness" in the sense of the
                cogitos, the objective ground was secondary.

                So I am wondering is the non-thetic consciousness refers more to non-
                objective grounds?

                The impression that I keep picking up is that until we make this
                break from being distracted all the time by 'what' we are seeing-with-
                association, then we never see 'that' we are just seeing it. And
                what this seems related to me is 'freedom'. I mean, how free is a
                person who is enslaved to so much meaning and memory association?
                Sure they have choices, but freedom is not so much about choosing
                what you want like some y in the road, as it is effectively bringing
                yourself to the point of awareness that you a free to decide in the
                first place, enough so that you might not take either road, but cut
                out across the raw and uncharted fields.

                Thanks - Joe


                Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
                > I agree that this form of meaning saturated perception is common.
                Nonetheless, from time to time, we experience something for which we
                lack a thesis or meaning-attribute or proposition to explain. Just
                to give an example from my own experience (that I hope doesn't cause
                me too much embarrassment). One of my hobbies is astronomy. One
                night without much planning or forethought I set up my telescope and
                pointed it at a bright light in the sky, not knowing in advance what
                it was. When I first saw it, it was immediately struck by it
                strangeness. I didn't recognize it. It looked like a flat circle
                with handles on either side. For a moment, I thought I was looking
                at an artificial object. I thought maybe it was a satellite or for a
                moment I thought it was UFO. Both of these seemed unlikely, so I
                wiped my eye and looked again. Then it hit me. It was Saturn and
                those handles on the sides were rings. With that realization, it
                went from looking like a flat, artificial object to a three
                dimensional object--a gaseous planet with rings. I think in this
                example I went from non-thetic to thetic consciousness of the
                phenomena without the phenomena itself changing in any way. A
                classic example is something coming toward you from a long distance,
                say through heat waves rising from the desert floor. It may take
                some time before you can form a thesis about what you are consciously
                experiencing. In this common example, the phenomena and the
                conditions under which it is observed changes as the object gets
                closer, providing more data about what it is.
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: decker150
                > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 8:10 PM
                > To: Sartre@y...
                > Subject: [Sartre] Re: Non-thetic Consciousness
                >
                > It strikes me that we cannot take a look at raw sense experience
                > because we focus to completely upon the objective world. We focus
                > upon seeing-with-added-associations-from-memory rather than just-
                > seeing-raw-uninterpreted-experience. We are always saturated with
                > judgement, belief and meaning unable to see what 'just is'.
                >
                > It seems we are dominated by our mental programming.
                >
                > Your comments help.
                >
                > Thanks - Joe
                >
                > as--- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
                > > I may be wrong, but I always read it as meaning something like a
                > bare phenomenon or percept. It is an awareness about which no
                > proposition or thesis has yet been asserted. In other words, you
                > have something laid before consciousness but you don't yet know
                what
                > it is and it has no meaning. I think we often experience this non-
                > thetic consciousness. Sometimes when we see something at a
                distance,
                > we can't tell what it is--we have yet to propose a proposition or
                > thesis for what this object in our consciousness it, but we know
                > something is there. When our understanding does ascribe meaning,
                > propose a thesis or assert a proposition about it, then we see it
                as
                > that thing. Then we are in the mode of thetic consciousness.
                Does
                > that help? Any one c are to comment or criticize?
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: decker150
                > > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:45 AM
                > > To: Sartre@y...
                > > Subject: [Sartre] Non-thetic Consciousness
                > >
                > > I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre's
                terminology,
                > > especially his term 'non-thetic'. Does anyone here have a grip
                on
                > > it's exact meaning? I will appreciate any ideas.
                > >
                > > Thanks - Joe
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Christopher Bobo
                Although departing somewhat from Sartre, take Wittgenstein s famous drawing to illustrate the point. When you first see this drawing, you might not know what
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 7, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Although departing somewhat from Sartre, take Wittgenstein's famous drawing to illustrate the point.







                  When you first see this drawing, you might not know what to make of it. In other words, your consciousness with respect to it might be non-thetic. Then, it might look like a squiggly line. Then you will either interpret it--lay down a thesis about it--as a duck or as a rabbit. Having seen it as one or the other, then having been told that it can be the other from what you thought it was, you may see it as that other. From then on, you can go back and forth, switching your thesis about it and seeing it either as a duck or as a rabbit. Interestingly enough, I don't think you can go back to seeing it as just a squiggly line, nor can you posit two conflicting thesis about it simultanesoulsy. You can't see it as both a duck and a rabbit at the same time; rather you can either see this as a duck or you can see it as a rabbit, but not both.

                  Your interpretation about this cannot be "wrong" per se. It is what you perceive it to be under the thesis you ascribe to it. We are free to ascribe the meaning we want to this drawing, or to see it as meaningless, if we can, although I believe it is very difficult to see it as meaningless. In this sense, I think that what Sartre is saying is that we are forced--by the condition of our consciousness--to ascribe meaning to the content of conciousness. There is no escaping the demand to choose.
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: decker150
                  Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 9:16 AM
                  To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [Sartre] Re: Non-thetic Consciousness

                  I am wondering still if Sartre was not referring to something other
                  than a wrong interpretation, away from any object oriented concern.
                  Am I wrong to think that the non-thetic consciousness is more about
                  pure sense perception in general and not so much about the object or
                  ensemble of objects being viewed?

                  When Sartre said "consciousness is always consciousness of something"
                  it seems this included objective considerations. However, when he
                  referred to "consciousness of consciousness" in the sense of the
                  cogitos, the objective ground was secondary.

                  So I am wondering is the non-thetic consciousness refers more to non-
                  objective grounds?

                  The impression that I keep picking up is that until we make this
                  break from being distracted all the time by 'what' we are seeing-with-
                  association, then we never see 'that' we are just seeing it. And
                  what this seems related to me is 'freedom'. I mean, how free is a
                  person who is enslaved to so much meaning and memory association?
                  Sure they have choices, but freedom is not so much about choosing
                  what you want like some y in the road, as it is effectively bringing
                  yourself to the point of awareness that you a free to decide in the
                  first place, enough so that you might not take either road, but cut
                  out across the raw and uncharted fields.

                  Thanks - Joe


                  Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
                  > I agree that this form of meaning saturated perception is common.
                  Nonetheless, from time to time, we experience something for which we
                  lack a thesis or meaning-attribute or proposition to explain. Just
                  to give an example from my own experience (that I hope doesn't cause
                  me too much embarrassment). One of my hobbies is astronomy. One
                  night without much planning or forethought I set up my telescope and
                  pointed it at a bright light in the sky, not knowing in advance what
                  it was. When I first saw it, it was immediately struck by it
                  strangeness. I didn't recognize it. It looked like a flat circle
                  with handles on either side. For a moment, I thought I was looking
                  at an artificial object. I thought maybe it was a satellite or for a
                  moment I thought it was UFO. Both of these seemed unlikely, so I
                  wiped my eye and looked again. Then it hit me. It was Saturn and
                  those handles on the sides were rings. With that realization, it
                  went from looking like a flat, artificial object to a three
                  dimensional object--a gaseous planet with rings. I think in this
                  example I went from non-thetic to thetic consciousness of the
                  phenomena without the phenomena itself changing in any way. A
                  classic example is something coming toward you from a long distance,
                  say through heat waves rising from the desert floor. It may take
                  some time before you can form a thesis about what you are consciously
                  experiencing. In this common example, the phenomena and the
                  conditions under which it is observed changes as the object gets
                  closer, providing more data about what it is.
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: decker150
                  > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 8:10 PM
                  > To: Sartre@y...
                  > Subject: [Sartre] Re: Non-thetic Consciousness
                  >
                  > It strikes me that we cannot take a look at raw sense experience
                  > because we focus to completely upon the objective world. We focus
                  > upon seeing-with-added-associations-from-memory rather than just-
                  > seeing-raw-uninterpreted-experience. We are always saturated with
                  > judgement, belief and meaning unable to see what 'just is'.
                  >
                  > It seems we are dominated by our mental programming.
                  >
                  > Your comments help.
                  >
                  > Thanks - Joe
                  >
                  > as--- In Sartre@y..., "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...> wrote:
                  > > I may be wrong, but I always read it as meaning something like a
                  > bare phenomenon or percept. It is an awareness about which no
                  > proposition or thesis has yet been asserted. In other words, you
                  > have something laid before consciousness but you don't yet know
                  what
                  > it is and it has no meaning. I think we often experience this non-
                  > thetic consciousness. Sometimes when we see something at a
                  distance,
                  > we can't tell what it is--we have yet to propose a proposition or
                  > thesis for what this object in our consciousness it, but we know
                  > something is there. When our understanding does ascribe meaning,
                  > propose a thesis or assert a proposition about it, then we see it
                  as
                  > that thing. Then we are in the mode of thetic consciousness.
                  Does
                  > that help? Any one c are to comment or criticize?
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: decker150
                  > > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:45 AM
                  > > To: Sartre@y...
                  > > Subject: [Sartre] Non-thetic Consciousness
                  > >
                  > > I have had difficulty understanding some of Sartre's
                  terminology,
                  > > especially his term 'non-thetic'. Does anyone here have a grip
                  on
                  > > it's exact meaning? I will appreciate any ideas.
                  > >
                  > > Thanks - Joe


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.