The subjective will is what drives a person to objectively understand and then to change the world. The world in which a person lives influences his subjective will… which determines what changes he will make to the world… and so on, around and around.
At times a person understands the world as something in which he dwells. At other times a person understands the world as something he has experienced and interpreted, and that nothing stands outside his conceptualizations except negative concepts, unknowns, possibilities, mysteries.
At every point in this process, we’ve finally figured it all out.
… how often do you test these theories?
I actually do test some of my ideas in the context of my professional life. They’re not formal, scientific tests, but I do note the effectiveness of my ideas in practical applications.
Some of the other ideas, such as the one in this post are based on my own experience, and also on the testimony of other thinkers who have had similar experiences. This was actually based on some ideas I’ve been reading lately in Yeats.
Why do you ask? Did this seem reckless or off?
It’s difficult to put into words (which is *not* irony!) but I’m unable to accept that there’s even one or two default world-symbol-objects in the human mind; in fact, I think the world is the self, first and foremost, and only on very rare occasions does anyone bother to remember that the self and the world are not the same “thing”.
Enh that’s probably not coming out correctly.
I don’t know about ‘off’ – maybe reckless, yeah: is this an observation of something axiomatic? I don’t find myself nodding ‘yes’ to that question. It’s hitting me more like ‘hypothesis’
For me, as a description of a process it’s not a hypothesis. It’s what I’ve gone through, and its what many philosophers seem to have gone through as well. To be honest, though, a way of conceiving existence that stands outside this process is inconceivable to me, which certainly doesn’t mean it’s impossible — I just haven’t found that understanding, yet, so it sure seems axiomatic. (As far as simply inhabiting the world apart from understanding it, I’m not even trying to account for those modes… I’m only talking about attempts at explicit understanding.)
The way things are with me, I don’t say anything that isn’t attempting to be more than provisional, that isn’t attempting universality, but you know how I was raised. It’s always provisional, true universality is futile, and I always make sure I remember that, especially when an idea feels inevitably, inescapably true. I am not into this stuff because I think I’m going to have the truth.
I’ll never shake off the UU.