Putting you into the same category as Kant was just my way of poking some gentle fun at my worthy correspondent. :^) I meant "no harm," and so I'm truly sorry if I've offended you.
Notwithstanding, we definitely seem to be pretty much agreed on one point, dear LogicWings: For I gather you, like me, generally have little use for German Idealist philosophers (e.g., Kant), and perhaps even less use for German Transcendental Idealist philosophers (e.g., Hegel). It seems to me they are "system-builders," not "system-describers." And generally, I deplore that sort of thing....
But that is not to say that these men did not have profound insights about the relations between mind and world of inestimable value and influence on the evolution of human thought. For instance, Kant's radical distinction of phenomenon and noumenon.
In a nutshell, the phenomenon is basically a "reduction" of a perceived object into human-readable form via the inputs of sense perception. But Kant insisted that sense perception could never disclose the thing-in-itself in its fullness. All we see of it is what the senses (as technologically aided if need be, given means provided) can report. This unknown and in principle unknowable thing-in-itself is the noumenon.
Perhaps it's only in my imagination; but it seems to me William James [in The Principles of Psychology] was imbibing something from Kant's insight in saying:
There are two kinds of knowledge broadly and practically distinguishable: we may call them respectively knowledge of acquaintance and knowledge about. Most languages express the distinction; ... I am acquainted with many people and things, which I know very little about, except their presence in the places where I met them. I know the color blue when I see it, and the flavor of a pear when I taste it; I know an inch when I move my finger through it; a second of time, when I feel it pass; an effort of attention when I make it; a difference between two things when I notice it; but about the inner nature of these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all. I cannot impart acquaintance with them to anyone who has not already made [the acquaintance] himself.Which — to me — is just more evidence for the truth of Alfred Korzybski's observation: “The map is not the territory.”
Anyhoot, I brought James up again because if we are to find any common ground between us, he seems to be the best "mediator" I can find.
Especially on your question: "Do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?"
James was not an Idealist — to put it mildly. William James above all was a philosophical "Pragmatist," an attitude characterized by George A. Miller (the writer of the Introduction to my current volume of Principles of Psychology) as "the characteristically American version of [British] empiricist philosophy."
On the faculty at Harvard, William James taught at various times the academic disciplines of physiology, psychology, and philosophy. The truly tremendous feat he accomplished in his lifetime of arduous work was to take psychology out of the provenance of philosophy entirely, especially out of metaphysics, in order to ground it in empirical (scientific — for surely James was a man of his Age, an Age inspired by Newtonian Optimism, and Darwinian Fitness) methods of investigation.
On the question, "do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?" I'd have to answer: Not much of one. To me at the most basic level they are effectively synonymous.
But at this level of discourse, the problem that James raised — the problem of Soul — does not typically arise in science.
And yet, James worked this very problem through a pragmatist, empiricist, skeptical-bordering-on-Positivist (with a good deal of Stoicism added in for good measure) viewpoint, thereby exemplifying at once his unique genius as a thinker and man of his time. I give him the "public podium" here:
My final conclusion, then, about the substantial Soul is that it explains nothing and guarantees nothing. Its successive thoughts are the only intelligible and verifiable things about it, and definitely to ascertain the correlations of these with brain-processes is as much as physiology can empirically do. From the metaphysical point of view, it is true that one may claim that the correlations have a rational ground; and if the word Soul could be taken to mean merely such problematical ground, it would be unobjectionable. But the trouble is that it progresses to give the ground in positive terms of a very dubiously creditable sort. I therefore feel entirely free to discard the word Soul.... If I ever use it, it will be in the vaguest and most popular way. The reader who finds any comfort in the idea of the Soul, is, however, perfectly free to continue to believe in it; for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul, they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes.Thank you, dear William James! :^) I shall continue to have converse with "entities" that you yourself seemingly confess cannot be "obviated" by scientific/empirical methods....
As James said: "Through feelings we become acquainted with things, but only by our thoughts do we know about them."
Which insight seems to suggest a possible resolution of any "dispute" between you and me, dear LogicWings, regarding "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself — the fullness of the latter of which is as incomprehensible to me as it is to you. (I suspect.)
Must close pretty quickly now, having run on so long. But I absolutely have to say one thing more about Albert Einstein, following-up our last — in which I proposed that he was an "intuition-led" scientist.
My first attempt to describe the situation of Einstein's "intuition-led science" having seemingly failed, please allow me to have recourse to the same thing, by way of analogy, as stated by William James, in a footnote:
Mozart describes ... this manner of composing: First bits and crumbs of the piece come and gradually join together in his mind; then the soul getting warmed to the work, the thing grows more and more, "and I spread it out broader and clearer, and at last it gets almost finished in my head, even when it is a long piece, so that I can see the whole of it at a single glance in my mind, as if it were a beautiful painting or a handsome human being; in which way I do not hear it in my imagination at all as a succession — the way it must come later — but all at once at it were. It is a rare feast! All the inventing and making goes on in me as in a beautiful strong dream. But the best of all is the hearing of it all at once.I daresay, that way was the very "way" that motivated Einstein....
But bidding adieu to William James for now, just let me say — in eternal tribute to him — that he recognized: "My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."
Speaking personally, I just gotta love a guy like that....
I'll just leave it there for now. And wait for you "on the flip side!"
Dear LogicWings, thank you so very much for your fine correspondence in these matters!
No offense taken. I don't think you could offend me if you tried. You don't have it in you.
Notwithstanding, we definitely seem to be pretty much agreed on one point, dear LogicWings: For I gather you, like me, generally have little use for German Idealist philosophers (e.g., Kant), and perhaps even less use for German Transcendental Idealist philosophers (e.g., Hegel). It seems to me they are "system-builders," not "system-describers." And generally, I deplore that sort of thing....
Won't get any argument from me there.
But that is not to say that these men did not have profound insights about the relations between mind and world of inestimable value and influence on the evolution of human thought. For instance, Kant's radical distinction of phenomenon and noumenon.
Well, that is a matter of opinion. Since, by Kant's definition noumenon is that it is 'unknowable' then it is a concept without any function or use to human beings. It is the first piece of Kantian sophistry I reject, followed by a priori. Thus I will skip your following exposition, not because there is anything wrong with it, rather because the whole line of thinking is fallacious.
Your James quote:
but about the inner nature of these facts or what makes them what they are, I can say nothing at all.
Pardon me, but yet again, this Begs the Question that there is an inner nature. I read and respond to these posts in the order in which they come, and rarely read ahead, so I found your next comment apropos since I had already referred to it.
Which — to me — is just more evidence for the truth of Alfred Korzybski's observation: “The map is not the territory.”
That kind of is, exactly my point, what I have trying to say. I read most of James' work many years ago. I should probably revisit him but where do I find the time?
My favorite James quote is:
There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.
But that might have been the nitrous oxide talking.
On the question, "do you make a distinction between psyche and consciousness?" I'd have to answer: Not much of one. To me at the most basic level they are effectively synonymous.
See, I do make a distinction. I see consciousness as the vessel and psyche as the mechanism, for lack of a better metaphor. A person has one psyche at his or her disposal but there varying states and/or modes of consciousness. How the psyche views and interprets its surroundings is predicated upon the current state of consciousness.
for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul, they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes.
. . .you yourself seemingly confess cannot be "obviated" by scientific/empirical methods....
We had these discussions before. What, I'm supposed to make a hypocrite out of myself and attempt to Prove a Negative? There is a difference between “There is no evidence for . . .” and “Asserting positively the non-existence of something."
As James said: "Through feelings we become acquainted with things, but only by our thoughts do we know about them."
Well, I disagree with him on this point, but this is a quote taken out of full context. As this quote stands we don't become acquainted with things through feelings but through perception. We evaluate their meaning to us through feelings.
Which insight seems to suggest a possible resolution of any "dispute" between you and me, dear LogicWings, regarding "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself — the fullness of the latter of which is as incomprehensible to me as it is to you. (I suspect.)
Yes, I agree. I think we have ironed out the differences between "abstractions from Reality" and Reality Itself. The Korzybski quote means basically we are on the same page in that regard. The Universe is ultimately still mostly mystery no matter what we do think we know about it.
I must say that my experience with the human mind and what I know about it is that it is as mysterious as the Universe and we don't know near as much about it as we think we do. It has capabilities that far exceed our capacity to imagine. But life is in the discovering, traveling, exploring, investigating and seeking to understand.
"My first act of free will shall be to believe in free will."
Interesting, he exercised it before be believed in it.
Thanks for the wonderful conversations. I always learn something conversing with you two.
Until next time. . .