On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:23:37 GMT,
realistic@seanet.com (Richard F
Hall) in sci.philosophy.meta wrote:
The following was created with much assistance from Lester Zick.
I'm not sure he would want to take credit; but, with a litle luck, we
shall see...
Solipsism, the forgotten Art.
Solipsism has been defined as the theory that only the self exists.
In the words of Bertrand Russell, this idea is absurd. If this were
true one would be relegated to a world of one's own making; yet, there
are many occurrences, surprises, and mysteries in one's life. Since
the origin of these is not inside, it must be from outside us. The
only conclusion is that an outside is vibrant, existent, and ever
present.
However, everyone, whether one admits it or not, still bases one's
knowledge on one's experience as can be exemplified by the series of
statements that follow. If I were to say, "the universe is controlled
by many intelligent, unseen beings", that might be absurd. If I were
to say, "the universe was designed and created by one intelligent,
unseen being", that might be absurd. If I were to say, "the universe
and all laws of nature sprang from nothing", that might be absurd. If
I were to say, "water springs from nothing in an explosion", that
might be absurd. If I were to say, "all life needs water", that would
be less absurd. If I were to say, "to be alive, one must be
breathing", that would be most likely true. If I were to say, "when
one is smiling, one is happy", that's true. It is the veracity of
one's experience that is challenged whenever one questions from the
solipsist viewpoint.
The "solipsist viewpoint" is everyone's viewpoint. It is the
viewpoint of singular, unobstructed, direct experience in the broadest
sense of the word. It is an idiosyncratic, dynamic presentation of
consciousness representing one's existence itself. The idea that that
which is inside one's self, including all things inside that represent
things outside, can only be "proven" to one's self by one's self may
seem a tautology, but is exemplified by "I think, there fore I am".
All the rest of philosophy must start here, if one can reach this
space in one's mentality.
I want it to be clear that one reason that analysis in the solipsist
viewpoint is important is as a limiting extreme in opposition to
materialism, out there, where most people normally function. As an
intellectual doctrine, the way most people have come to understand it,
Solipsism doesn't really have much value except perhaps in historical
terms. However as an exposition of pure subjectivism, the entirety of
one's experience as seen totally from one's subjective point of view,
divorced from everything else, it has enormous analytical value to the
extent that materialism represents the exposition of pure objectivism.
In this presentation we will not erroneously conclude that the "only
reality that exists is the self", as has been historically noted. We
will recognize the objective, other things and people, but only to the
extent that the subjective perceives them.
In the case of solipsism all subjective and objective knowledge is
considered a manifestation of, and subject to, the analysis of the
cognitive individual. Conversely in the case of extreme materialism
all subjective and objective circumstances are considered
manifestations of objective circumstances apart the individual. In
other words, as a solipsist observation, all considerations only lie
within the cognitive individual - the one cognizant of the
circumstances. And it is only through processes of deductive
inference that one can discover the actual analysis of their precepts.
To start this process we can refer to a definition of what we perceive
as the objective as the "non-subjective". We do this because it's
certainly true that the origin of most non-subjective circumstances
lie outside us, but that's really only because the bulk of objectively
definable circumstances do, and not because the non-subjective (that
which has been perceived as objective) requires, or precludes, such a
thing out of necessity. The great barrier to this analytical attempt
is that all experience, including that which is labeled as
non-subjective, is contained and analyzed within our subjective
selves. So, we can't expect to totally vitiate the solipsist
viewpoint and emerge into an absolute realistic, non-subjective world;
even though, approaching this state of mind is ultimately the value of
the solipsist investigation.
In relation to solipsist viewpoint, all experience might be broken
down into that which is controlled (things one does) and that which is
not controlled (things that happen to one). Further, these categories
might be subdivided into that which is considered inside or
"subjective", and that which is considered outside or
"non-subjective". This results in four categories:
1) subjective-controlled, 2) subjective-not controlled,
3) non-subjective-controlled, and 4) non-subjective-not controlled.
It is interesting to bring forth concepts and ideas to try to sort
them in these categories.
Since the introduction of the scientific method with its observational
repeatability, reliability, and consistency, and its media of
interaction and sharing among mind/brains, one can be lulled into a
comfortable position of imagining that everything, with the exception
of just a few concepts, is already worked out. However, one will find
that where one draws the analytical line between these subjective and
the non-subjective categories is still another question. An important
aspect of the solipsist inquiry is the individual's assessment of the
nature and origin of their operating/behavioral precepts. These can
be broken down through deconstruction and skepticism of one's own
ideology.
The origin of these categories is often determined by
1) someone "out there" who has guided one's life, either on an
involuntary basis, due to their authority, or a voluntarily basis, due
to one's respect for their authority, or
2) one's own understanding and acceptance through some education of
what has been perceived to be true of both subjective and
non-subjective nature,
3) the determination and comparison of one's present precepts with
what one has accepted to be true in the past (In point of fact, in #3,
one often has no immediate way to decide where, exactly, the origins
can and do lie, how important they are to one, and what recourse does
one have if one deletes them. This effort described in #3 can be
exceedingly traumatic and life altering), or
4) one's own conclusions, either true or erroneous, based on direct
experience and the resulting logical inferences.
Unless one considers the solipsist viewpoint seriously, one may not
even comprehend that there is such a viewpoint. I realize this may
seem like a rather fine distinction. However it's important to grasp
that inter-human discrepancies regarding this viewpoint that have been
completely misunderstood throughout history and has led to all kinds
of pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations. As long as these
diverse analytical misunderstandings are apparently required for the
human condition, the pernicious conflicts and misinterpretations are,
unfortunately, bound to continue.
What I'm saying, here, is that those things which are perceived as
non-subjective do not have to be objective for that reason. It is
possible for something subjective to be misinterpreted as
non-subjective. When addressing things like dreams, hallucinations,
beliefs, etc. one might think that they are non-subjective things
because they have or can have objective perceptions according to their
circumstances. However, it is also true that they may not actually
represent what one might otherwise think. The issue of solipsist
analysis is whether they are what we think them to be.. or whether or
not they are something else.
Once precepts are determined as questionably absurd, it should be
noted, they need not be deleted, for one might find these ideas to be
a pillar of one's cognitive construction or a door to something later
to be determined as true. The first step is to merely identify and
label them for future consideration like a tree surgeon who is
planning a magnificent garden.
Richard F Hall
Realistic Idealism
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism.html
fertile soil for thought, a measure of truth.
Rich -
I'm not really sure I'd take credit for it but your treatment seems
pretty reasonable overall although I still take exception to your
characterization of certain apparent non subjective circumstances as
not having to be objective for that reason. I realize you qualify and
limit this observation to dreams, hallucinations, etc. at my
suggestiton. However anything not subjective has to be objective to
that extent in my estimation because that is what the objective means.
As you correctly point out there are a lot of ambivalent objective
circumstances. In fact every objective circumstance is ambivalent in
some respect. And it is up to us to make whatever we can out of
whatever we do know in non subjective objective terms. This is really
how we make sense out of objective reality and ultimately subjective
reality and the only way we can do it.
The article is obviously yours. I only recgonize a few analytical
observations of my own and you're welcome to them. Our styles of
compostition and writing are somewhat different but I don't see
anything inimical to what I've said on the subject.
I think what interests me more at the moment is exploration of the
idea I discovered in the context of my own analysis of solipsism, that
every subjective and objective circumstance really lies within the
cognizing individual. I don't think the implications of this are fully
appreciated at this point. In fact it may represent an original idea
in this context. At least I have never seen reference to it. However
this is fodder for another thread.
In point of fact I only got into the analysis of solipsism out of
frustration with other rather juvenile treatments of the subject. It's
an old issue and without the contrast with materialism it wouldn't
have held much interest one way or another.
Regards - Lester
