LS Re: PROGRAM Explain the subject object metaphysics

Donald T Palmgren (
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:02:45 +0100

Martin, Magnus, Squad:
        How does the following exerpt stike you? This is from Jean
Hyppolite's comentary on Hegel:

        "We cannot begin abruptly w/ absolute knowledge, rejecting
different positions and declairing that we wish to know nothing about
them. It is therefor necessary to adopt the point of view of object
consciousness [the s-o thinker], as Kant and Fichte had, to study the
knowledge perculier to the consciousness which assumes the distinction
between [knowing]subject and [known]object. Absolute knowledge is not
abandoned; it will be the end point of a development... In Hegel's
philosophy, the absolute is no longer only *substance*; it is *subject*
as well... Then the absolute will not be beyond all knowledge; it will
be self-knowledge in the knowledge of consciousness."

                        * * *

        I didn't really make any metaphysical assertions in the last
post, I just said: Look, P talks about a dichotomy between s and o. When
he uses these terms, how does he use them? What do they refer to? Full
Stop! (As someone says.) That's what I responded to.
        Now I do think it's mildly problematic if you refer to S vs. O.
And say S=M,s and K. and O=B,o and n, but M, s and K arn't equivolent.
And B, o and n arn't equivolent. Your not talking about *a* dichotomy
(S-O) but multiple dichotomys.

        Now I realize that there is supposed to be an underlying
assumption here, but before you can get there you have to start w/
"here." NOW we can set about trying to figure out what the assumption

                        * * *

        Martin, I don't buy the one vs. manny.
        In Platonism, what really exist are Ideas, and "bodys" are just
like shadows on the wall. But the Ideas arn't different for every
individual self. The Ideas are absolute -- objective, as you say. The
Idea (or Form) of Good or Justice is universal; people who dissagree
over them, just don't know them -- they are ignorent of The Truth.
        Or another one: In Hegel's Idealism, knowledge is communal. It's
crutched in the moral discourse, the dialectic, the dialogue. As he puts
it: "Knowledge is a group movement, not an individual being at rest."
So, here again we have an "Idealism" in which there is not a different
apple for everybody who walks by (so to speak).
        Taoism is an Idealism -- All is one. But there you have it:
One... a unity. Not countless, individual realities.

        I think the underlying assumption is what Hegel called "Object
consciousness" -- 'I vs. the other,' I-this. But I can't
force-fit that into all those dichotomys w/o bending it horrably,
horably out of shape. But it's THAT dichotomy which classic Buddhism
and Zen work at closing off. (The result however is typically classified
as "Idealism" -- for whatever such a broad catagory is worth. We'd
probably do better w/o any of these -ism's, but that's the nature of the
knife -- the
intelectual game.)

                                        TTFN (ta-ta for now)


post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST