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

19282Re: [existlist] subjectivity

Expand Messages
  • yeoman
    Apr 21, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      > Subjectivity is only known by science OBJECTIVELY because
      that is the
      > methodology of science - objective methodology.
      Subjectivity can be known
      > SUBJECTIVELY by existentialism because that is the
      methodoloy of
      > existentialism - subjective methodology. Science could
      measure in a
      > subjective manner if it wanted to (i.e. it is abole to do
      so) but measuring
      > in a subjective manner is excluded from objective
      scientific methodology.
      > If science measured in a subjective manner it would no
      longer be science but something else - a pseudoscience.

      ---> But this ignores that science is presently studying
      the subjective. I have already pointed this out in the
      article in Scientific American. All of this is available in
      the present literature.

      > Example: Astronomy is objective science. Astrology is
      > pseudoscience (i.e. It purports to be run on objective
      scientific principles
      > but is really subjective in its interpretation and
      allocation of life
      > situations to the movement of planets and stars.)

      ---> I agree. But we are not talking about something like
      the difference between astronomy and astrology. We speaking
      about mental condition which science does study and I don't
      think that neuroscience is considered as a pseudoscience.
      But then if you do wish to hold onto the example, then
      perhaps I could say that your restriction of existentialism
      to only religion, produces a pseudophilosophy

      > Example: Science can film a person undergoing severe
      depression. It can
      > measure and record all the symptons and prescribe
      medication to work on
      > areas of the physical brain to relieve symptoms. This is
      all objective,
      > quantitative and impersonal. The patient is another
      client to work on.
      > Science cannot feel the same as the person who is
      undergoing depression for every person is unique and science
      cannot read the person's innermost being. Science cannot
      know the individual's non-physical mind as it has no method
      of measuring it. It cannot be measured objectively. It can
      only be
      > experienced by the person him/herself.

      ---> This is true. But science can delve into the
      subjective [as you have said] and that is what I am saying.

      But you do bring up an interesting point. If science cannot
      read the person's innermost being, then it follows that
      neither can religious existentialism. All that religious
      existentialism can do, is the same as science, in that it
      only provides a generalized statement. It cannot specify
      what "my" innermost being is. What is not valid for the
      goose is not valid for the gander.

      > Some areas of science may try to access the unmeasurable
      non-physical mind and subconscious through methodologies
      such as psycho-therapy (one of the few interdisciplinary
      areas of science). In truth the psycho-therapisit does not
      subjectively measure the patient. The patient progressively
      reveals him / her self to him / her self and finds his /her
      own unique individual answer. The psycho-therapist is a
      catalyst for the self
      > exploration and can only be partially subjective in his /
      her compassion and
      > empathy for the patient. The psycho-therapist cannot
      enter the patient's
      > non-physical mind. The patient does the subjective
      entering of his / her
      > own non-physical mind. The psycho-therapist probes so that
      the patient
      > answers themself.

      ---> Does religious existentialism enter the patient's
      unique mind?? Again, it is the mind of the patient and is
      unique to himself or herself. Such subjectiveness is also
      remote from religious existentialism. It is all

      > > There is a good article in this month's Scientific
      > This is all objective quantitative measurement of
      subjectivity not
      > subjective qualitatiuve measurement of subjecvtivity.
      They are not the
      > same.

      ---> You are simply making labels, as you see fit, and
      applying them without any proof.

      > Science can never reproduce the artist. Art is more than
      > technique. It is intensely subjective, personal and
      individualistic. It is
      > to do with both the conscious and non-conscious
      non-physical mind,
      > creativity, fantasy, the transcendent, metaphor,
      symbolism, etc etc etc.

      ---> I did not say that science can reproduce the artist.
      What i was saying was that the artist could be understood.
      That is an entirely different matter.

      > My introduction to this area was through Paul Tournier (a
      Christian) but by
      > far the best work is that by C G Jung in 'Memories,
      Dreams, Reflections'. In particular, his work on Mandalas
      and his house, Bollingen, are related to
      > art.

      ---> My introduction to this area was a book on brain
      science by Dr. Andrew Newberg, and recently one on
      neuropsychology by Michael A. Persinger. So you have read a
      book and I have read a book. Which proves nothing other
      than we have read books.

      > > My point being that this area of subjectivity is open to
      > > scientific study.
      > Yes it is! But only OBJECTIVELY and therefore only gives
      a partial answer
      > to the whole because it cannot study subjectivity in a
      SUBJECTIVE manner. That is the problem! Science only
      studies subjectivity in an OBJECTIVE way because objective
      methodology is the only methodology it uses.

      ---> Which brings us back to my original point. What then
      studies individual existence in any manner?? You have
      already said that individuality is unique. How is the
      unique and subjective viewpoint of "I love Doris" studied by
      religious existentialism??

    • Show all 6 messages in this topic