Is synthesis of subjective idealism and dialectical materialism feasible?

[atanu]

Ideologies (including religious ones) clash and annihilate each other. In this, the awareness stands still, engendering the ideologies, sustaining them and eventually absorbing them as memories.

Same happens with sensual-physical objects. In general, space-time-objects are sustained by consciousness wherein they appear and disappear.

Science is based on study of sensually perceivable empirical objects only, while philosophy endeavours to also model the intangible. Hegel's dialectics is one such attempt to conceptualise, as a general principle, a process of thesis and antithesis interacting and ever giving rise to synthesis, as a general principle that governs all true things. While Hegel dealt with matters of the soul, Marx employed Hegel's dialectics to understand the interactions of humans with their material environments.

However, in my opinion, Marxist philosophy is not complete. At the root of awareness of space-time-objects, there exists an awareness of I, the 'Seer' that is aware of the 'Seen' (space-time-objects). Philosophers have spoken of this as ‘The thing in itself’ (Kant), ‘Eternal forms’ (Plato) or ‘’Will to life’ (Schopenhauer). Marx deals primarily with the phenomenal world of the 'Seen' and leaves out the subject, the self, the seer.

Admittedly, Marxism is deficient on the subject of the self. Probably that does not mean that in the phenomenal realm the thesis of Hegel and Marx do not hold up at all. Historical materialism is still the most cogent way to understand the evolution of human societies. But how will Marxism change, if it admitted a concept of ‘Thing in itself’?

What form will a philosophy take that synthesised the view of Schopenhauer’s ‘Will and its representation’ and Marx’s ‘Dialectical Materialism’? Marxism eventually is about synthesis, so why such a synthesis as envisaged above is scarcely or never talked about?

Is such a synthesis possible? Or will Marxist theoretician always label such attempts as revisionary? Has any philosopher outside of Marxist camp ever broached the subject?

…

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think you are touching on the reason why, in philosophy, as in science, there can never be a coherent “theory of everything”. Certainly not without accounting for relations between consciousness and objective reality. Given that objective consciousness is oxymoronic, it’s difficult to see how this can ever be achieved, or even meaningfully attempted.

In any case, theories will always be both subjective and incomplete, because “due to non-local features of quantum theory, a consistent description of any system must finally include a description of the whole universe” - Georg Kristof Joos

 

[wellwisher]

Ideologies (including religious ones) clash and annihilate each other. In this, the awareness stands still, engendering the ideologies, sustaining them and eventually absorbing them as memories.

Same happens with sensual-physical objects. In general, space-time-objects are sustained by consciousness wherein they appear and disappear.

Science is based on study of sensually perceivable empirical objects only, while philosophy endeavours to also model the intangible. Hegel's dialectics is one such attempt to conceptualise, as a general principle, a process of thesis and antithesis interacting and ever giving rise to synthesis, as a general principle that governs all true things. While Hegel dealt with matters of the soul, Marx employed Hegel's dialectics to understand the interactions of humans with their material environments.

However, in my opinion, Marxist philosophy is not complete. At the root of awareness of space-time-objects, there exists an awareness of I, the 'Seer' that is aware of the 'Seen' (space-time-objects). Philosophers have spoken of this as ‘The thing in itself’ (Kant), ‘Eternal forms’ (Plato) or ‘’Will to life’ (Schopenhauer). Marx deals primarily with the phenomenal world of the 'Seen' and leaves out the subject, the self, the seer.

Admittedly, Marxism is deficient on the subject of the self. Probably that does not mean that in the phenomenal realm the thesis of Hegel and Marx do not hold up at all. Historical materialism is still the most cogent way to understand the evolution of human societies. But how will Marxism change, if it admitted a concept of ‘Thing in itself’?

What form will a philosophy take that synthesised the view of Schopenhauer’s ‘Will and its representation’ and Marx’s ‘Dialectical Materialism’? Marxism eventually is about synthesis, so why such a synthesis as envisaged above is scarcely or never talked about?

Is such a synthesis possible? Or will Marxist theoretician will always label such attempts as revisionary? Has any philosopher outside of Marxist camp ever broached the subject?

…

The human brain has two centers of consciousness; ego and inner self. The inner self is much older. It is genetic based and is shared by humans and animals. It is the center of the natural operating system of the human brain and defines our human nature; collective human propensities.

The second center is the ego. This is much newer on the evolutionary scale and is connected to our conscious mind. The secondary center is unique to human. The ego is more connected to our individuality, but it is also a function of collective learning; super ego of culture. The ego is what gives us will and choice apart from the inner self or the cultural superego.

The two centers can work as a team or be in opposition to each other. The inner self is much less conscious to most people. However, it uses the main frame parts of the brain and can synthesize the input of the ego with its stronger computing power into 3-D concepts. However, being less conscious, this output is not easy to translate and often seen with suspicion.

The ego cannot create full synthesis, since that needs the spatial or 3-D perception of the inner self. The ego is more 2-D; based cause and affect and opposites, so opposites tend to be its expectation. If the ego attempts to synthesize, without the inner self, it can only get as far as 2.5-D, which I call a spatial illusion.

A spatial illusion is built upon a rational plane of cause and affect, that uses shadows and highlights, to create the illusion of a 3-D; synthesis. Below is an image that appears to be collection of 3-D objects, to the naked eyes. But if you use the sense of touch; touch the screen, they are really flat or 2.5-D; an illusion of 3-D than may fool the eyes.

This is a terminal problem for the ego, and why synthesis is not stressed. The shadows are denial of truth in other systems, while the highlights are your good points. This uses emotional valance to give depth. The impact is to add emotional valance, to the logic, to give it a pseudo z-axis. But full synthesis needs to be 3-D, which needs the inner self since it uses a 3-D logic. But this is denied to exist by those who have never experienced the inner self. Most are stuck at 2.5-D, which is not a full synthesis. There will be many 2.5-D models, since many will be needed to fill in a true 3-D theory; get rid of the shadows.

 

[atanu]

I think you are touching on the reason why, in philosophy, as in science, there can never be a coherent “theory of everything”. Certainly not without accounting for relations between consciousness and objective reality. Given that objective consciousness is oxymoronic, it’s difficult to see how this can ever be achieved, or even meaningfully attempted.

In any case, theories will always be both subjective and incomplete, because “due to non-local features of quantum theory, a consistent description of any system must finally include a description of the whole universe” - Georg Kristof Joos

Very precise. A beautiful response, in my opinion.

 

[atanu]

The human brain has two centers of consciousness; ego and inner self. The inner self is much older. It is genetic based and is shared by humans and animals. It is the center of the natural operating system of the human brain and defines our human nature; collective human propensities.

The second center is the ego. This is much newer on the evolutionary scale and is connected to our conscious mind. The secondary center is unique to human. The ego is more connected to our individuality, but it is also a function of collective learning; super ego of culture. The ego is what gives us will and choice apart from the inner self or the cultural superego.

The two centers can work as a team or be in opposition to each other. The inner self is much less conscious to most people. However, it uses the main frame parts of the brain and can synthesize the input of the ego with its stronger computing power into 3-D concepts. However, being less conscious, this output is not easy to translate and often seen with suspicion.

The ego cannot create full synthesis, since that needs the spatial or 3-D perception of the inner self. The ego is more 2-D; based cause and affect and opposites, so opposites tend to be its expectation. If the ego attempts to synthesize, without the inner self, it can only get as far as 2.5-D, which I call a spatial illusion.

A spatial illusion is built upon a rational plane of cause and affect, that uses shadows and highlights, to create the illusion of a 3-D; synthesis. Below is an image that appears to be collection of 3-D objects, to the naked eyes. But if you use the sense of touch; touch the screen, they are really flat or 2.5-D; an illusion of 3-D than may fool the eyes.

This is a terminal problem for the ego, and why synthesis is not stressed. The shadows are denial of truth in other systems, while the highlights are your good points. This uses emotional valance to give depth. The impact is to add emotional valance, to the logic, to give it a pseudo z-axis. But full synthesis needs to be 3-D, which needs the inner self since it uses a 3-D logic. But this is denied to exist by those who have never experienced the inner self. Most are stuck at 2.5-D, which is not a full synthesis. There will be many 2.5-D models, since many will be needed to fill in a true 3-D theory; get rid of the shadows.

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. You have said ‘The human brain has two centers of consciousness; ego and inner self.’

Is this objectively observed?

 

[Ostronomos]

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. You have said ‘The human brain has two centers of consciousness; ego and inner self.’

Is this objectively observed?

If not only are we products of evolution, but of something more deeply ingrained, then yes. This leads me to ask a question I once asked when I was high: are we products of a generalized intelligence?

 

[atanu]

If not only are we products of evolution, but of something more deeply ingrained, then yes. This leads me to ask a question I once asked when I was high: are we products of a generalized intelligence?

What is meant by generalised intelligence?

 

[Yerda]

A synthesis between an idealist and materialist philosophy seems to be inherently contradictory.

 

[wellwisher]

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. You have said ‘The human brain has two centers of consciousness; ego and inner self.’

Is this objectively observed?

The ego is easy enough to see since it is close to our conscious surface. Most of the image of celebrities, is based on the ego. The inner self takes much more work to see, since it is deeper in the unconscious psyche, under many layers of collective human functionality.

The ego has a mask we call the persona. This is the image we show the world based on pretense, style and fashion. The inner self has it own masks, which are analogous to personalty firmware.

The masks of the inner self have to be gotten past, before you can experience the inner self. The same is similar to the mask of the ego. One has to get beyond the mask of their ego, to see the real person behinds the mask; ego. It may be hard to see the real ego, until we peel back the mask and get close.

The inner self is the natural conscious center of the animal brain. All animals have an inner self but no ego. If you assume evolution, as animals evolve, so did the inner self. In humans, our inner self defines us as a species; human nature and natural instinct, which is eons older than will and choice; ego. Our human DNA has a record of how we evolved, with the DNA of the evolving inner self conserved. The ego is much newer and appeared about 6-10k year ago; conscious mind. The caveman had an inner self, only.

When we look at reality, the inner animal; inner self, and the cultural animal; ego, can either agree or go in opposite ways. It all depends.

There is a simple home experiment you can do to experience at least a lower mask of the inner self. Have a friend agree to scare you when you are not aware, so you can be caught off guard. He/she should wait and buy their time so it is most effective.

What should happen is when he/she jumps out at you, you will jump, react and and maybe even scream, before the ego can react. You all be able to see the tiny delay between the two reactions. This can be embarrassing for some if they are not able to censor the scream, so the ego can pretend to be in charge. What has happened is another deeper part of you, beats your ego to the draw, and may embarrass the ego, to get your attention.

As far as the topic of this discussion, if you are conscious of the inner self, this synthesis can occur, since th inner self has been here for eons and knows nature. The ego is not up to the task because it is often contaminated with the cultural superego and the lowest layers of the psyche that are between it and the inner self; personal unconscious and shadow. One still need to get past natural instinct, firmware of relations and firmware of meaning to see the inner self.