RE: social complexity

Dear Koichiro,

>Kantian objective "anthropological" viewpoint precipitates the Transcendental Ego or
the speaking subject in the present tense and dynamics in time to the
latter. Time relative to the speaking subject is seen in the tense the
subject employs, while time intrinsic to the subject as a guarantee of
Kantian objectivity remains absolute. On the other hand, Kantian
"physiological" viewpoint seems to imply intersubjectivity and dynamics of
time in time in the latter. Time unique to one speaking subject becomes
relative to another one unique to another subject as demonstrated in the
aspect of a verb as in the progressive mode.<

Kant solves this problem, as you know, by making time (and space) a _pure form_ of
human perception (_Anschauung_). The _transcendental ego_ is the
guarantee for giving past, present and future a _unity_ (otherwise we
could be able to see what comes after as what comes before, changing
the relation between causes and effects). Kants works, of course,
under the premise that everything (and every thing) in the natural
world is part of a _necessary_ connection (determinism), although we
are never (!) able to get complete knowledge on this (because of our
finitude). This is also the reason why he is sceptic about the
scientific analysis of the brain (because of the extreme complexity
of the subject) and he prefers a _pragmatic_ point of view (also
because he is not sure about what we would be able to do (!) with
this kind of knowledge about ourselves... this was written two
hundred years ago..)

>> At this point enters Jerry's concern

>The historical record laid down in the past (the present
>perfect) is open and readable to all who attempt to repeat the
> experiments - . . . , it is "objective".

>>If some or any part of the present progressive mode is frozen in the record,
empirical scientists could find in it a form of objectivity. This
resurrection of objectivity is from dynamics of time in time, instead of
dynamics in time in the latter of which Kantian objectivity seems
invincible. How about that?<<

I do not see (under a Kantian viewpoint) a contradiction in this,
since frozen time is again part of the _arrow_ of time, i.e.
belonging to the past. This is not the case when we consider human
actions as far as what we have done is not only (as Freud clearly
saw) part of our present living (i.e. of our present progressive
tense in Koichiro's terminology) but also something that opens (or
closes) our future as far as it defines possibilities of action. Our
future comes (or does not) from our past. In other words, we are able
to reinterpret (and re-construct) constatly our lives (as individuals
and as societies).

>> Of course, there is a legitimate attempt for approaching the present
progressive or action on the spot via statements made in the present tense.
Bob Artigiani's Value, Ethics and Moral is certainly one. What concerns me
is how to make a Kantian physiology or an objectification via
intersubjectivity out of this. (I am not thinking of "selfish" genes that
could remain legitimate exclusively in the perfect mode).<<

Ethics is a attempt to look at morality under an _objective_ point of
view. Morality is the viewpoint of ourselves under the present
progressive tense. This is the reason why ethics (as Aristotle said)
always remains abstract (!) up to a certain degree, just because the
concrete situation and the corresponding attitude (in the presente
progressive tense) cannot be (deterministic) foreseen. There is a
_chiasm_ . This chiasm (or _abyss_) is at the center of human
condition, i.e. of what nature has made of us. It is not very
pleasant to live without knowing what we _should_ do. As far as I
understood the discussion in this list, I see that life operates (up
to a certain degree) also with this kind of non-deterministic (or
_informational laws_: this term is a kind of _embarrassment_ or
_Verlegenheitsausdruck_) processes, where the chiasm between the present
tense and the present progressive tense can be _bridged_ only from the
standpoint of an _observer_ (in Luhmann's sense). _Bridge_ is a
metaphore. A bridge can be crossed in both directions. There is also
another metaphor, namely _leap_, which is a more dynamic metaphore.
Metaphore means (in Greek) to bring (phorein) something from one part
to another (meta). Probably is science a _meta-phoric_ activity.
Sayonara
Rafael
Received on Wed Nov 25 16:07:56 1998