20th April 1999 : Alan Carr
ROUGH THOUGHTS ON INDIVIDUALS & OBJECTS
Below is a rough synopsis of what I have been working on, and the more I think of it the rougher it gets !
I must begin (if there is such a thing) with an admission of failure, failure in that all I write is only an interpretation, a description of what I perceive to be reality and no more, no matter how pure its reflection of reality and for this I apologise.
My capacity to describe an object is limited by my ability to realise what that object is, for I am not the object, and my description or interpretation is not the object either. I cannot become the object, I can only interact with it, and this interaction is subjective and so the realisation of the object is beyond my capacity, it is objective. My description or interpretation can evolve each time I describe or interpret and this can differ from any and everybody else’s description or interpretation.
I can only describe or interpret myself as a human entity subjectively, although I, being an object, can only describe or interpret myself subjectively. This does mean that what I am is beyond my capacity to realise, but my interaction with reality, myself included, has the potential to build up my framework or scaffold of corresponding descriptions and interpretations of reality and the potential to evolve the realisation of what I as an object am.
Can the human entity be separated from: the ground it stands on, the air it breathes, the water it drinks, the space it occupies, the time it exists in, and whatever else ?
Is this separation possible ? Can there be a single or individual or individual object ?
Or
Is every thing / object connected in objective reality ?
There is a potential infinity of descriptions and interpretations of reality. If / when I look at an object(reality) I see a reflection of the object(reality). If / when I look into a mirror, into the yes of my reflection then am I looking at :-
Although there is a potential infinity of descriptions and interpretations, I must divide them into two groups relevant to the human entities interaction with reality :-
Corresponding :-
where all descriptions and interpretations correspond or do not contradict previous descriptions or interpretations of reality, this being limited by the human entities capacity for realisation.
Non-corresponding :-
where descriptions or interpretations contradict one another and no framework or scaffold, or structural interpretation of reality can be realised.
The expression of language is our most evolved form of description / interpretation, but the expression of language is subjective and therefore potentially impotent as a means of communication. Communication is possible between human entities because although the human entity experiences reality subjectively, they can share the experience of reality. The expression of language evolved with the human entity’s ability to describe shared experiences. This being the basis of communication is also a limitation of communication as those sharing the experience of reality will have difficulty relating or communicating with those not sharing the experience.
That there are potentially infinite descriptions or interpretations of reality, then opposing descriptions and interpretations of reality are possible, and while both opposing sets of descriptions and interpretations are potentially valid for us, they are not reality itself, only descriptions and interpretations of reality. The evolution of the framework or scaffold of description or interpretation of reality is through the asking of questions. A question has the potential to build up the framework or scaffold of corresponding descriptions or interpretations, creating a clearer picture of reality for the human entity or society which possesses the framework or scaffold, or rather the potential of the question being relative to the capacity of realisation of the human entity or society.
Theo understand that this an unpolished cut out of some of the work I am engaged in at the moment, but I would appreciate your opinion on the above passages.
Alan Carr
Alan : Thanks for these thoughts, and for the extended ones received a few weeks back. I’ll get round to them eventually, if others in the PDG readership don’t get there first.
Theo