PARENTS:
 REASON WORKSHOP 
 WORKSHOPS 
 ARCHIVE 

FUNDAMENTAL DICHOTOMY SUBJECT / OBJECT AND PRINCIPLE OF ALTERNATE ORIENTATION.
===============================================================================
Let us suppose that I examine a piece of sugar. It is entirely determined by 
its attributes: shape, position, texture, colour, taste.  Each attribute is 
reducible to my subjective sensations. 

I let it dissolve. It is no more a distinct, discrete piece, but a fluid. 
However it still exists as the piece-origin of the liquid component. 
It exists as a term of relation and as an image. 

It may be crystallized out of the liquid. It exists as potentiality of a new 
piece. 

Whatever form its existence may take, it is reducible to subjective sensations, 
images, relations, potentialities: 

A.WHEN CONCENTRATED UPON, OBJECT VANISHES AND TRANSFORMS ITSELF INTO SUBJECT.

Now, let us suppose that I examine introspectively my own subjectivity. 
I experience tactile sensations of hard and cold. My consciousness attributes 
them on one hand to the 'hard and cold stone' and, on the other hand, to 
'my finger' touching the stone. At the first glance a conform mapping of the 
dichotomy subject / object. We are tempted to consider on the one hand the object 
'stone' objectively 'hard' and 'cold' and, on the other hand, the finger, part 
of subject's structure, experiencing subjective sensations 'hard' and 'cold'.

However, after closer examination 'finger' ceases to be subjective and becomes 
part of a particular object 'my body'. Indeed, 'subject', the conscious mind, 
the seat of consciousness, although strongly related to the body, should not be 
confused with it. In order to illustrate their distinction let us imagine the 
finger being separated from the hand. It does not give any more the impression 
of being 'a part of me', it becomes an object like any other one. The conscious 
mind perceives of a discomfort, of a restriction in its possibilities of action, 
but it is in no way diminished, it did not loose a part of itself.

Let now imagine an adroit operation succeeding in re-attaching the finger to 
the hand. Again, it gives the impression of belonging to 'me'. Nevertheless, 
the finger did not undergo any essential modification during the procedure of 
separation and re-attaching. As such it certainly did not regret the separation, 
nor was rejoiced to see the reunification. Integrated, or not, it clearly stays 
an object, perhaps an exceptionally important object, but an object all the same.

Let us resume: the sensations 'hard' and 'cold' provoke the consciousness of 
'finger touching stone'. The sensations as such vanish: there is no 'empty' 
sensation 'hard' existing on its own independently of some part of my body 
touching something hard. Shortly: when concentrated upon, sensation vanishes and 
transforms itself into object's attribute.

Now, what about other subjective phenomena, such as images and emotions? 
They can exist only upon the background of consciousness. I am conscious of 
an image, of an emotion. In other terms image, or emotion are objects of 
consciousness and the subject is the consciousness itself. But there is no empty 
consciousness, consciousness of nothing is no consciousness at all. So, finally 
what we have said about sensations holds for other subjective phenomena and we 
may generalize:

B.SUBJECT WHEN CONCENTRATED UPON, VANISHES AND TRANSFORMS ITSELF INTO OBJECT.

A. and B. define the principle of ALTERNATE ORIENTATION by virtue of which a 
Pole concentrated upon becomes 'transparent' and delivers its counterpart.

But I never entirely, exclusively concentrate upon any pole. The elementary 
phenomenon that I can experience is the situation, i.e.  the dipole comprising 
simultaneously both poles. A very vague analogy: I experience my situation as 
if I were looking at a picture representing myself-subject in a context-object.

===============================================================================
This 'me-awareness' of 'me-subject' opposed to 'notme-object' may resemble
at the first glance the Hegelian triad respectively synthesis, thesis, antithesis.

Nothing more misleading that this superficial apparent similarity.  
Hegel was convinced that logic is the deepest foundation of all reality. 
Reality was for him necessary and logical. Consequently he considered statements 
as directly logically determinate, i.e. absolutely true or false. He based his 
famous dialectics on the following entirely speculative argument: 

"Whatever we assert about the Absolute, our assertion will not be adequate and 
will call for negation. When we say that Absolute is a Pure Being we do not 
attribute anything to it, our statement is equivalent with saying that 
Absolute is Nothingness." 

Thesis "Absolute is Being" leads to antithesis "Absolute is Nothingness" and 
to synthesis that Absolute is some composition of the two. 

Andree Breton, or Salvadore Dali would probably say that Absolute is a very 
small bird. 

Hegel's genius assisted by subconscious knowledge inferred from this apparently 
pure speculation impressing History of Philosophy and Philosophy of History. 

Less genial Engels transposed it to idiotic (let's call cats cats) Materialistic 
Dialectics which dehumanizes and unjustly discredits Marx's Historical 
Materialism and which became the fundamental ideology of Gulag's inquisition.

===============================================================================
To resume: 

1.Subject is not object. 
2.Subject is confused, i.e. identical with object.
3.Being identical with object, subject is not identical with itself.

2. and 3. mean respectively: identity of oppositions and non-identity with itself. 
Logic applied at this level would conclude that human situation is a series of 
contradictions, a paradox. By extension it would decree that whole human universe 
of discourse is paradoxical and, consequently, does not exist. 

It would not be the first time that a deductive aprioristic theory disagrees 
with reality and nature. Who is right in such cases, the theory, or the nature? 

Hegel, informed that astronomical observations contradict his aprioristic model, 
that nature disagrees with his views answered: "So much the worse for the nature". 

Should we likewise say "So much the worse for human reality"?

We would have to, if, instead of RD, we considered traditional logic as the 
founding discipline of cognition. Indeed in a Universe of Discourse UL founded 
upon logic there is no place for human reality, nor, indeed for the human being 
at all. 

Theories and ideologies claiming to be founded in UL lead invariably to sterile, 
stubborn dogmatism in science (eg. Theory of Ether) and to inhuman, cruel 
discrimination in social practice (Inquisition, Nazism, Gulag, etc.).
===============================================================================

PARENTS:
 REASON WORKSHOP 
 WORKSHOPS 
 ARCHIVE