chinup said:
though there is one axiom that i'm pretty sure is universally held by logicians. x=x, i think its a kind of special case.
Since I don't believe in self-evidence, I consider this consensus (one that would be silly to reject for nearly all situations, to be sure). Sure, holding the converse allows derivations of contradictions, but we also have to take on a certain assumption of truth value as binary, and of entities as atomically unitary at some level. Again, these assumptions prove nearly ubiquitously useful as we engage/transform the world, but we can't take ourselves out of this picture of the world.
all i have is an inability to see what the alternative to a divide between subject/objective (and how would we experience the fact that what we experience is only that way to us?)
The way I think of it is that the interaction between organism and environment itself holds logical primacy, not the entities interacting. Instead, organism and environment emerge as aspects of this interaction. From another angle, processes give rise to participants within them, rather than discrete entities interacting to form processes. With (at the very least) humans, the subjectivity of the organism and objects of its perception and practices emerge in the root interaction.
However, our 'common sense' experience of subject and object emerging in interaction is of our experience as subjects, cultivating a view beginning from a point where subject and object present themselves already 'analyzed out', as discrete things.
i work with a certain type of them daily and it seems certain properties are fairly ubiquitous in sufficiently interesting systems. though its arrogant i can't see how such abstract things can appear to have such a profound reality without us having hit on some key concepts concerning reality.
Well, as various emergent organism/environment interactions arise from similar contexts, similar properties will appear to hold across subjects investigating and objects of investigation. Insofar as certain types of contexts are most crucial for the possibility of organism/environment interactions arising, these contexts will appear as universal properties of objects involved.
sorry if this is explained poorly...kinda near the limits of my thought.
finally.... i am quite interested in what your saying and did a couple of searches and found nothing useful. can you recommend any good reading material?
I'm profoundly influenced by the ontological work of John Dewey and Karl Marx. I don't consider my view some unique insight, but I think that these two converged in their takes.
Or, one could approach this take as serious engagement with the view that experience begins with the universe coming to look and act upon itself.
ebola