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

60018Re: The circularity of consciousness

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Jul 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      > We started out with you saying that there were two different consciousnesses
      > ... to the degree that one consciousness can use the other consciousness.
      > That is what I objected to.

      I have stated Sartre maintains that consciousness is being In-itself and For-itself. Being In-itself is plenitude; it just is. Being For-itself is an emptiness; they depend upon and work together. Consciousness includes regions,modes, kinds, types, parts, aspects,levels, operations, or any other hair you wish to split.

      > It is the self which is applying its consciousness to do this or that
      > operation. I purposely think of this or that. I think of something now in
      > time and then something else later in time. However, there are no "parts"
      > of conscousness. In such case you are back to different consciousnesses
      > again, except you are now saying there are different parts ... amounts to
      > the same thing.

      You say that the self determines intentional consciousness. If the self is doing the application, the self would have to be external to consciousness or at the very least a different part of it. How can a self be consciousness if it is outside consciousness? Are you arguing that self is or is not a consciousness? I've never argued for two discrete consciousnesses, only different functions which depend upon one another as a totality. You yourself seem to be saying that the self is separate from consciousness in order that it may apply consciousness to something. What then is the boundary between self and consciousness; how is it maintained?

      > If there are specific "parts" of consciousness, how are the parts
      > maintained?? What are the boundaries which are particular to some part
      > which operates only for one specialized aspect of thinking. Sartre speaks
      > of "modes" of consciousness. I don't believe he speaks in terms of
      > identifiable "parts". I take it he means "modes" in the sense of
      > "application".

      Again I refer you to the In-itself and the For-itself as boundaries of one another which maintain one another. You've gotten entirely carried away with you connotation of *parts.* These different applications or functions are described as In-itself and For-itself. Sartre uses several different words to explain the relationship, but you persist in arguing that I am arguing for something for which I'm not arguing. I won't continue this particular thread unless you wish to discuss the relationship of the operations instead of the fact that Sartre proposes there are two of them.

      > eduard
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 12:24 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: The circularity of consciousness
      > Neither I nor Sartre posit two separate consciousnesses. Different parts of
      > consciousness perform different operations, yes, but who or what is applying
      > them? If you say consciousness is applying consciousness in different ways,
      > you are affirming the circularity of consciousness.
      > Mary
    • Show all 171 messages in this topic