Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only


The Case of the Blind Brain and Other Strange Tales posted 05 July 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Case of the Blind Brain and Other Strange Tales by TakLoufer, Candidate

Nice reply, and this Whitehead you mention seems to have some interesting ideas. I still think your focusing too much on external objects though.

Eternal objects, not external.

I don't really agree that they are timeless nor irreducible, and that instead, they all interelate and come about due to the manifestation of something else. What this something is though is a tough question, and it is one that can really only be answered by each person by themselves.

Well, they are timeless in that they do not "age," nor do they change with "time" (which is an EO itself). They are, basically, "outside" our time and space coordinences (which are manifestations of EO themselves). Mountains rise and fall; the experience of "red" is eternal.

And they are irreducible in that we can't intelligibly reduce them. While it is possible there is something beyond EO, whatever that is is incomprehensible to us. If I understand Whitehead right, the EOs are a part of Whitehead's "god" (which is not like the anthropomorphic Christian god). Whitehead's view of reality can be broken up into three parts: The Realm of Eternal Objects (the "material"), The Creative Force (process, evolution), and "god" (That's who's really looking back at you in the mirror; the "nothing" behind all entities).

If you want to label the manifestation of eternal objects, "God" is as good a term as any. I prefer "The Infinite" as it's a less loaded term.

Just to pick up on something you said to Scott

You're right in that in we can't know (or know for certain, at least), but I feel safe in stating that the true metaphysic will be, in some form, one of these three "frames":

Physical World (w/ intrinsic "experience" (*) )->-(creates)->- Mental World = Panexperientalism

Physical World --(interaction)-- Mental World = Dualism

Physical World --(created by)-- Mental World = Idealism

Im not keen on any of those, so i'll give you another one to think about:

Physical World-<-("It" creates)->-Mental World

Not really sure what you would call that though.[/quote:9x656ag2]

It sounds like dualism to me. Presuming the "It" isn't the material world itself, then the "It" would have to be an outside agency that interacts with the physical to "create" the mental world.

[quote:9x656ag2]Aldarion wrote:
Okay, reading this and almost being able to follow some of the subcurrents that are implied has made me acutely aware that I need to read up more on this. So if you guys would please help me here, what are some of the texts that would explain "mental monism," among other things?

Don't worry you are not alone on that. Having really no background in philosophy, I often have no idea what they are talking about either when they use terms such as these either. Infact a lot of the time I have to read through what they are saying about five times before I get an idea of what they are trying to say. Sometimes its enough to make me suspect that philosphy student are actually given lessons in making things more complicated that they ever need to be <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->[/quote:9x656ag2]

You should read Whitehead; he is the epitome of philosophical jargonized frustration. He had the annoying tendency to make up his own terminology (as there were no pre-existing words for the concepts he described - ex. "Actual Entity," "Aggregated Society", etc) and then not explain what he meant by them. Or, if he did explain what they meant, he did so in an earlier work and assumed anyone who was reading his current work had read those previous ones. That's why it's best to read Whitehead only after you've read some descriptions of his terminology. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown