If it is not our talents that make us special but rather how those talents enable us to play a unique role in the larger human effort, then what role does subjectivity play?
There are a number of responses. One is that like anger, jealousy, and our knack for storing body fat, subjectivity is a remnant of our evolutionary past; a learning mechanism.
Alternatively, subjectivity still plays an integral role in enabling the individual to contribute to the whole. It is simply a matter of reevaluating what makes subjectivity a constructive force.
Perhaps we can begin by juxtaposing the traditional view of subjectivity with, what we will term, the progressive view.
The traditional view is that subjectivity is part and parcel of what makes humans different, our ability to interpret one experience in many ways. For example, all humans are born and die, yet there are a plethora of subjective explanations for both of these experiences. Furthermore, these subjective explanations lead us to conduct ourselves in different ways. For example birth and death ceremonies. Most importantly our subjective interpretations of why and how these events take place lead humans to offer and construct different explanations for life and its meaning. This in turn affects how we choose to live our lives and what we value; the here and now the “after-life” etc.
The traditional view explains why independent-Westerners perceive a fish, separated from the school of fish, as the leader of the group , whereas the collectivist-Easterner perceives that same fish as lost!
According to the traditional view subjectivity is the "big why" for everything not empirical. It is not something foreign that we acquire, utilize, and control. It is innate, we are born with it just as we are born with fingers. Unlike fingers however, its source is the brain and mind, thus it only becomes apparent as we progress through common life experiences, but because we are inherently subjective we perceive and, thus, act differently. What this means is that human will always be different, just as we will always have fingers (as far as the philosophy behind the traditional view of subjectivity please see part 1 of this series).
The progressive view, is that subjectivity is not the cause of difference but rather a mislabeled emotion. In other words it is not a finger but rather a deep-rooted human characteristic, which we learn to indulge in from experience and example. However, like language, it is so pervasive, historically and currently, that it is perceived as innate (for a more comprehensive discussion of this analogy, see literature on children and language acquisition).
The difference between the perception of innate subjectivity and innate subjectivity, is in how we understand, and thus utilize, subjectivity.
If we simply accept subjectivity as part of the human, like the finger is part of the human, then unless we remove the finger, or in this case the brain, we will always be inclined to difference and even war.
However, if subjectivity is really a deep-rooted and learned human characteristic, than we can focus it, like passion. Moreover, like passion it has extraordinary utility.
Passion can result in Shakespeare or more commonly enables humanity to flourish. Imagine life without passion in the bedroom or otherwise!
Imagine if we were unable to recognize our unique abilities, recognition that emerges with life experiences. These experiences are challenged by others and questioned by ourselves. In other words, it is subjectivity in the face of common life that allows us to recognize our strengths and weaknesses. This is the first step in recognizing, specifically, how we can contribute (strengths), and just as importantly, how we can only achieve with others (weaknesses).
One can even argue that what we see as individual limitations is in fact a flawed name akin to labeling our hands, that can’t run, a limitation!
This is one way to reconcile the seeming contradiction between human connectedness/unity and human subjectivity; the assertion that we can only be special if we recognize we have a role in a global effort.
Does there need to be an entity orchestrating this? Or from an evolutionary perspective, are we moving cyclically back to our origins, returning to the big bang era, by recognizing the reality of our unity? Is it simply a matter of recognizing the unifying factor?
There are a number of responses. One is that like anger, jealousy, and our knack for storing body fat, subjectivity is a remnant of our evolutionary past; a learning mechanism.
Alternatively, subjectivity still plays an integral role in enabling the individual to contribute to the whole. It is simply a matter of reevaluating what makes subjectivity a constructive force.
Perhaps we can begin by juxtaposing the traditional view of subjectivity with, what we will term, the progressive view.
The traditional view is that subjectivity is part and parcel of what makes humans different, our ability to interpret one experience in many ways. For example, all humans are born and die, yet there are a plethora of subjective explanations for both of these experiences. Furthermore, these subjective explanations lead us to conduct ourselves in different ways. For example birth and death ceremonies. Most importantly our subjective interpretations of why and how these events take place lead humans to offer and construct different explanations for life and its meaning. This in turn affects how we choose to live our lives and what we value; the here and now the “after-life” etc.
The traditional view explains why independent-Westerners perceive a fish, separated from the school of fish, as the leader of the group , whereas the collectivist-Easterner perceives that same fish as lost!
According to the traditional view subjectivity is the "big why" for everything not empirical. It is not something foreign that we acquire, utilize, and control. It is innate, we are born with it just as we are born with fingers. Unlike fingers however, its source is the brain and mind, thus it only becomes apparent as we progress through common life experiences, but because we are inherently subjective we perceive and, thus, act differently. What this means is that human will always be different, just as we will always have fingers (as far as the philosophy behind the traditional view of subjectivity please see part 1 of this series).
The progressive view, is that subjectivity is not the cause of difference but rather a mislabeled emotion. In other words it is not a finger but rather a deep-rooted human characteristic, which we learn to indulge in from experience and example. However, like language, it is so pervasive, historically and currently, that it is perceived as innate (for a more comprehensive discussion of this analogy, see literature on children and language acquisition).
The difference between the perception of innate subjectivity and innate subjectivity, is in how we understand, and thus utilize, subjectivity.
If we simply accept subjectivity as part of the human, like the finger is part of the human, then unless we remove the finger, or in this case the brain, we will always be inclined to difference and even war.
However, if subjectivity is really a deep-rooted and learned human characteristic, than we can focus it, like passion. Moreover, like passion it has extraordinary utility.
Passion can result in Shakespeare or more commonly enables humanity to flourish. Imagine life without passion in the bedroom or otherwise!
Imagine if we were unable to recognize our unique abilities, recognition that emerges with life experiences. These experiences are challenged by others and questioned by ourselves. In other words, it is subjectivity in the face of common life that allows us to recognize our strengths and weaknesses. This is the first step in recognizing, specifically, how we can contribute (strengths), and just as importantly, how we can only achieve with others (weaknesses).
One can even argue that what we see as individual limitations is in fact a flawed name akin to labeling our hands, that can’t run, a limitation!
This is one way to reconcile the seeming contradiction between human connectedness/unity and human subjectivity; the assertion that we can only be special if we recognize we have a role in a global effort.
Does there need to be an entity orchestrating this? Or from an evolutionary perspective, are we moving cyclically back to our origins, returning to the big bang era, by recognizing the reality of our unity? Is it simply a matter of recognizing the unifying factor?
No comments:
Post a Comment