To
begin with, let us assume that all that “exists” in the most
radical sense of the term is experience. Borrowing a phrase from
William James, let us call this the view of “radical empiricism.”
Now, I’m not using this term in precisely the same way as James,
but we may say that the intent of using such a phrase is pretty much
in keeping with James’ project. Our discussions will attempt, at
every turn, to stick as close to experience as possible in our
treatment of the fundamental, i.e., human life as it is lived. We
have, in earlier entries, given at least perfunctory treatment to
this fundamental reality. Now, in this entry, we will be using the
term “radical empiricism” to point to some rather curious and
perhaps unsettling issues.
Let
us say for the moment that the ultimately real is experience, the
experience of each one of us. We must also take note of the fact that
there are approximately seven and a half billion people in the
world. However,
take the death of one of those people, say yourself. What exactly is
it that disappears from this world? Or, to lead us into a more
curious position, we may ask what is it that disappears from human
life or fundamental reality? See how the questions differ? It is
rather obvious, no? Yet, when we speak of the “disappearance” of
someone, namely ourselves, are we speaking of something happening to
us other than the loss of experience? (Let us say for argument’s
sake that death is presumably the loss of experience on the part of
the dead. In fact, there may be no loss or gain at all other than the
loss experienced during the dying process. So, as each of us
dies,
we lose the capacity for experience.) If
as we die we experience the dissolution of universe, world,
sensation, mind, self—in a word, “consciousness"--it is our
experience that comes to an end. What about the others who may
become, in one sense or another, witnesses to our death? What happens
to them? Well, we are compelled to say that their experience of us
changes. It must be the case what
changes
for them is their experience, that’s
all they ever had of us the dying.
This change may be all-encompassing if they were our friends or
enemies, or may be quite minimal if they were mere acquaintances.
Therefore,
from the point of view of radical empiricism, we, the dying,
experience a loss of experience and they the witnesses experience a
change of experience in relation to us. Has the
world
changed? What world?
If
we posit a world wherein
seven and a half billion human beings exist, then we may say there is
one less person inhabiting the
world.
However, this world is an abstract world, a world conceived, i.e., a
conceptual or imaginary*world.
From the perspective of inside/out thinking, the reality of the
inside, i.e., experience, is the most fundamental and
in our sense most “real” and
most lived dimension. It
is what can be said to truly “exist.”
When we move the initial step of taking account
of our experience, we have entered the imaginary* or theoretical
dimension. Some might refer to this as the phenomenal world as
opposed to the noumenal or “world-in-itself.” Our
project of radical empiricism demands that we stick to that which is
experienced. The content of this experience is not “to be gotten
hold of,” but to be lived. To get a hold of experience is to render
it theoretical. While the project of getting a hold of experience is
a purely cognitive one and valuable to many an explorer of living, by
the process of abstraction, we run the risk of losing sight of the
real and becoming seduced by the theoretical to remain in the
abstract.
This often takes the form of a forgetfulness of the real that
replaces the real with a theory that
is all too frequently a poor substitute for the living. We will be
addressing this issue further later in our work.
So,
to ask the question “How many people are there in the world?” is
to miss the nature of the living assumptions that frame the
question. As a critical move, we must ask of the questioner “What
world?” and proceed to elicit the foundations of such a question.
These foundations, or sedimented beliefs, are only revealed by an
appeal to experience itself. If
what may be said to truly exist is experience alone, then we are able
to understand that such a question presupposes a world that exists
independently of experience, a world that we enter upon birth and
depart upon death. This world is reduced by one member when we die,
and has a member added when we are born. Such a world is not a living
world, but a purely theoretical one that has little to do with direct
experience. The
world that we experience is experience.
The is no outside of this world. There is no separation of self,
mind, body, world, and universe in this world. This world that is
experience is fully alive. It is the source of satisfaction. (This
satisfaction is something that will concern us more later in the
project.)
So,
are there seven and a half billion human beings in the world? Or, are
there seven and a half billion worlds? What question would we choose
to answer to bring us closer to an understanding of the way things
really are?
__________________
*
We are using the term “imaginary” not in the restricted sense of
being inferior to the real, but of qualifying the nature of the
world produced by theorizing as conceptual.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment on the posts with a view toward the alleviation of the suffering of all sentient beings. If you are sincere in that wish, then your comments are welcome. Thank you.