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

Re: [existlist] Re: Consciousness is two modes of being

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Jim, the subject of a conscious experience is not part of that conscious experience. To an extent, I would disagree. I would agree that the subject is the
    Message 1 of 171 , Jul 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim,

      "the subject of a conscious experience is not part of that conscious
      experience."

      To an extent, I would disagree. I would agree that the subject is the
      person as an object. The person may be thinking something [the
      consciousness] but if I look at that person, I can separate him/her from
      their thinking. There is Jane over there and she is thinking about an apple
      in the blue bowl.

      I would disagree, for reason that we are talking about being conscious of
      our consciousness. The subject of this phrase is the act of being
      conscious. That is, the act of Jane of being conscious of her
      consciousness.

      Since Jane's act of being conscious is inherently an aspect of her
      consciousness, she can never be conscious of the totality of her
      consciousness. Each time she tries to be conscious of her consciousness,
      she has to use part of it to be aware of it.

      Yes, the film crew is a material reality. But I am using it as an example
      for my argument. Each time we ask the question, "who is filming this"
      another crew is revealed. The end result is an infinity of film crews ...
      and I would here accept Sartre's conclusion of an absurdity. Each time Jane
      says she will be conscious of being conscious of her consciousness, she also
      regresses to an absurdity.

      But then I could be wrong.

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jim
      Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:47 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Consciousness is two modes of being

      Eduard,

      You write:

      "Each time you seek to be aware of your consciousness in total, you have to
      use part of it to be conscious of it."

      I don't agree with what you say here.

      You seem to be assuming the subject of consciousness is part of the
      conscious experience, but I don't think it is.

      So the analogy with the film crew breaks down. The film crew is part of the
      material reality, but the subject of a conscious experience is not part of
      that conscious experience.

      Jim



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > I appreciate your thankyou, Jim.
      >
      > My point was that in order to be conscious of your consciousness [in this
      > I am using “consciousness” in totality], the only tool that you have
      > is consciousness. Each time you seek to be aware of your consciousness in
      > total, you have to use part of it to be conscious of it. If one proposes
      > a further consciousness of being conscious of consciousness, the same tool
      > is being used. Ultimately you end up with an infinite regression of
      > consciousnesses in order to be conscious of consciousness. It does lead
      > to an absurdity, although I prefer to say it is an impossibility, because
      > it is impossible to exit from yourself. The extension of the jungle skit
      > would be an infinite number film crews, unless you can [as Sartre seems
      > to] somehow identify the nth film crew as the last. I don’t think there
      > is a “last” as long as the question is asked ... who is filming this?
      >
      > eduard
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • daveylee40
      It seems to me that we are limited to the qualities and capacities of humanness as supplied by the natural state of being human. Other than that, I personally
      Message 171 of 171 , Aug 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        It seems to me that we are limited to the qualities and capacities of humanness as supplied by the natural state of being human. Other than that, I personally cannot conceive of a fixed nature or essence.

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > No congratulations from Sartre unless I understand how I am being in-itself and being for-itself. Since I'm sufficiently satisfied with my grasp of Sartre's Bad Faith, I'm now going to spend some time with how Sartre explains what he considers the 'correct' view of in-itself for being human. What for Sartre is fixed as human essence other than existence, nothing, and freedom?
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        >
        > > Sartre could encounter the waiter whilst serving the table and ask "what are
        > > you??"
        > >
        > > "I'm a waiter"
        > >
        > > "Aha ... and obvious case of mauvais foi". "But, what are you besides a
        > > waiter??"
        > >
        > > "I'm a father of a family"
        > >
        > > "Still mauvais foi ... a sad case". "I mean, underneath, besides these
        > > particular roles??"
        > >
        > > "Of course, I am a human being".
        > >
        > > "Congratulations".
        > >
        > > eduard
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Mary
        > > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:28 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Fixed nature
        > >
        > > We reject labels which identify us as essentially one particular thing. I am
        > > not my job, so whichever occupation I choose or find myself in and
        > > regardless of the education and training it requires, I am still not that
        > > position/role/job in-itself. It is this idea of having a fixed nature, a
        > > something in-itself, which Sartre opposes. We are being for-itself and
        > > either struggle or recoil at the thought of having the freedom of not having
        > > an identity (an in-itself) so we find ourselves in the 'project' or
        > > condition of bad faith. Sartre thinks our nature is to desire a fixed
        > > nature. But this is further complicated by the fact that others tend to
        > > label us as having a fixed nature.
        > >
        > > If I say you, eduard, are essentially a positivist or a reductionist or
        > > whatever, you reject this because you feel you are not that. If I say you
        > > are an electrical engineer, you're more likely to say this is true, but are
        > > you really only or strictly what your job entails? Aren't you first eduard,
        > > a human being who thinks and does many things besides his job? Aren't your
        > > ideas and ways of being constantly changing? To say that you perform your
        > > job/role as an electrical engineer means you are not strictly that block of
        > > identity. Even if you were to change careers, you wouldn't strictly be that
        > > new identity either. You would be free to be more than just that. Sartre
        > > means that all jobs are equal only in the sense that we still would not be
        > > identified strictly with what we do.
        > >
        > > To say I am not *that* means I am not merely a being in-itself. But it's
        > > more complicated, because if there weren't some facticity about being human,
        > > we wouldn't be able to negate it and be a being for-itself. We would merely
        > > be this block of identity. This is really what Sartre uses bad faith to
        > > explainâ€"the relationship between being in-itself and for-itself.
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Mary,
        > > >
        > > > I think that part of the difficulty may be that we are dealing with
        > > > 1930’s thought. The way I see it, Sartre is describing psychology as to
        > > > mental functioning and associated behaviour. But in the 1930’s there
        > > > was very little in the way of realising that we actually used our brains
        > > > to think, so Sartre and others had to resort to labels and phraseology
        > > > which might suffice.
        > > >
        > > > But since such phraseology is disconnected from reality, it easily leads
        > > > to convoluted statements such as, "If I am a cafe waiter, this can be only
        > > > in the mode of *not being* one." That statement makes no sense, and I
        > > > can well appreciate the need for 800 pages of reading to obtain some kind
        > > > of understanding. I don’t believe that such a statement would be made
        > > > by anyone today in the 21st century.
        > > >
        > > > I read the paragraph at least 4 times now and still cannot make any sense
        > > > of it. For example, â€Å"This is the result of the fact that while I must
        > > > *play at being* a cafe waiter in order to be one, still it would be in
        > > > vain for me to play at being a diplomat or a sailor, for I would not be
        > > > one”. I think that what Sartre is saying is that a â€Å"diplomat” is a
        > > > position that requires substantial training and something to which you are
        > > > assigned. You can’t just walk into the Ministry of State building and
        > > > start acting like a diplomat as one might act as a waiter when walking
        > > > into a restaurant. But if that is the case, then Sartre weakens his
        > > > argument for mauvais foi, since the diplomat could equally confuse himself
        > > > with his role.
        > > >
        > > > I agree with your understanding of bad faith. I asked at the office, what
        > > > was the meaning of â€Å"mauvais foi”. It comes down to misrepresenting
        > > > yourself to others, as for example to have a hidden agenda. Sartre seems
        > > > to be using the term as misrepresenting yourself to yourself. In regard
        > > > to the question of whether it is possible to misrepresent yourself to
        > > > yourself, I should think that it is entirely possible. There is nothing
        > > > in the rule book of brain thinking that one has to be entirely logical and
        > > > transparent.
        > > >
        > > > I think the example of the waiter is put in the wrong sense which
        > > > compounds the difficulty. The waiter is said to be too precise and
        > > > therefore he/she has mauvais foi. But it really should be expressed the
        > > > other way around, as waiters who have mauvais foi tend to act in too
        > > > precise a manner. Not all waiters who act precisely have mauvais foi.
        > > > Neither do all beau parleurs.
        > > >
        > > > eduard
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.