LS Re: Explain the subject-object metaphysics


Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Wed, 6 May 1998 06:58:02 +0100


Fri, 1 May 1998 18:05:08 -0400 (EDT)
Donald T Palmgren <lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
wrote:
 
> "If I'm not myself who am I?"
 
> Affected.
> Seriously, a better question might be: How is it that I am who I
> am? --In other words, what is a person?
(snip)
> We want to start out asking how is a person possible? What
> natural facts about the world make it inteligable that we should
> have the concept 'person?' (*We* presumably means "each and every
> one of us") Well, to "have" a concept means to use it. Wittgenstien
> stated that concepts are like tools -- we do things w/ words and
> meanings. That's the path that keeps looping back into SOM; the
> reason being that "we, each and every one of us."

Donny,
Thanks for bringing the person/identity theme into the "Explain
the SOM" thread. Of late a couple of messages have bothered me,
primarily Jason Gaedtke's nihilism accusation, but also Gunn Era's
about the soul concept, as if the MOQ has dire consequences for our
identity. I guess it is the level aspect which gives rise to such
reactions, i.e: a human being a "jungle" of different value patterns.

> .... persons are not "natural facts," but social facts!

writes Donny, and I agree up to this point. Really, I continue to
agree, but only if an adjustment is made. It is our old problem of
distinguishing between Q-society and Q-culture - the latter is a
manifestation of the Intellectual level.

> Persons
> arise in the self-conscious opposition of the natural facts -- the
> physical body w/ its creature urges. We get to be persons by
> training/controlling our bodies -- synching the natural rhythms to the
> social rythms.

Q-society is very basic and may go for a wolf-pack as well as
a human community, in both cases it is Biology being transgressed
by Society; the individual giving up biological value for the
common good, but personhood is not necessarily involved. THAT IS
INTELLECT which in turn transgresses Society and introduces
individual as the ultimate value. But Intellect grows out of
societies and modifies social conduct heavily (in the same way
as Society modifies Life).

What you have written Donny is fully compatible with (my) MOQ if you
accept the social-society/culture-society shift? Otherwise the social
term becomes too foggy. Remember Kevins struggles how "society" could
value various political isms: basically social value is one great ISM
in itself: us versus them. Only by Intellect is I versus them
introduced

You have some good examples:

> A child may talk to his Teddy
> bear, but an adult who seriously takes his Teddy to be a person will not
> long be allowed to manage his own affairs.

Yes, this is one splendid demonstration of (culture-) society's
enormous sway over our human reality, and how much the possession of
personhood means to our sense of self and identity. The human fear of
madness IS basically fear of loosing oneself; Phædrus says as much in
LILA.

Sincerely

Bo

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:14 CEST