The first-, second- and third-person perspectives on the world seem to be mutually irreducible, but also locked into a kind of battle for dominance. If that is the case then the third-person perspective would have to be the clear favourite, with the potential of mopping-up or absorbing both of its rivals, which it can barely distinguish from each other. Appearances may be deceptive, however. The third-person perspective, also known as the view from nowhere, is the consensus view, the view from the synergistic group mind, as it were, and so is arguably no view at all. In place of a subject it has an incoherent mob whose main virtue is power, the ability to shout down any opposition without actually being able to hear or respond to the points ventured against it. Its power is undoubtedly real, however, and demands respect, respect which can only be offered by the other two. Strictly held, the third-person perspective is incapable of respect - it deconstructs the "re". The second-person perspective, or personalism, is associated with certain religions, particularly Christianity, and is perhaps the quietest and least insistent of the three. It is actually the only one which can offer some sort of consistent theory of the other two, which appear as two different unbalanced reductions of it, but real possibilities latent within it. Compared to the others, the first-person perspective seems the least mature, the most emotional, seeming to have at its core a certain irreducible protest against reality. It might be equated with a kind of atheistic religiosity, or strand of humanism, but it is not systematically elaborated. It exists more as a pervasive tone in art and culture at all levels from high to low. It contains the tragic view of life and exacts inexplicit allegiance. As against all of these one might propose a fourth perspective, the zeroth-person perspective, corresponding to transcendental subjectivity in Husserl, or to no-mind in Buddhism. The main rival of this position is the second-person perspective, and the battle between these two subtle giants might be the most interesting of all to watch.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(348)
-
▼
July
(31)
- These enquiries are just expanded figures or...
- Emotions can be detached from the will, from...
- It is not so much that consciousness has dif...
- Meaning is when one structure represents ano...
- It's not about an "I" thought, as if it were...
- One version of who I am (what this is) is co...
- To say that consciousness does not exist i...
- Somehow, once things start to become a littl...
- You are scattered in time, there are parts o...
- The third-person world is essentially the wo...
- Purposive frames compete for priority of con...
- The "I" is the protagonist of purposeful act...
- There is something comical yet also quite sa...
- The notions of truth and of freedom may not ...
- The first-, second- and third-person perspe...
- Locating the essence of consciousness in the...
- No narration or representation can ever capt...
- It is strange that inner identity poses a pr...
- A past event retained in long-term memory ne...
- Say that an atom of experience contains, or ...
- Moods and states seem all too easy to expl...
- The consciousness in dreamless sleep is not ...
- It is exactly the same consciousness in...
- As to the question of whether an AI can have...
- To seek a revelation of your core self by fo...
- Primary narcissism is another name for that ...
- Desire is far more mysterious than first app...
- You should be able to say "I am", but not "I...
- The missing word was incarnation, this is no...
- If you regard identification as the pivot by...
-
▼
July
(31)
Sunday, 16 July 2017
The first-, second- and third-person perspectives on the world seem to be mutually irreducible, but also locked into a kind of battle for dominance. If that is the case then the third-person perspective would have to be the clear favourite, with the potential of mopping-up or absorbing both of its rivals, which it can barely distinguish from each other. Appearances may be deceptive, however. The third-person perspective, also known as the view from nowhere, is the consensus view, the view from the synergistic group mind, as it were, and so is arguably no view at all. In place of a subject it has an incoherent mob whose main virtue is power, the ability to shout down any opposition without actually being able to hear or respond to the points ventured against it. Its power is undoubtedly real, however, and demands respect, respect which can only be offered by the other two. Strictly held, the third-person perspective is incapable of respect - it deconstructs the "re". The second-person perspective, or personalism, is associated with certain religions, particularly Christianity, and is perhaps the quietest and least insistent of the three. It is actually the only one which can offer some sort of consistent theory of the other two, which appear as two different unbalanced reductions of it, but real possibilities latent within it. Compared to the others, the first-person perspective seems the least mature, the most emotional, seeming to have at its core a certain irreducible protest against reality. It might be equated with a kind of atheistic religiosity, or strand of humanism, but it is not systematically elaborated. It exists more as a pervasive tone in art and culture at all levels from high to low. It contains the tragic view of life and exacts inexplicit allegiance. As against all of these one might propose a fourth perspective, the zeroth-person perspective, corresponding to transcendental subjectivity in Husserl, or to no-mind in Buddhism. The main rival of this position is the second-person perspective, and the battle between these two subtle giants might be the most interesting of all to watch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.