Journal Article•
Taking the Universal Viewpoint: A Descriptive Approach
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the possibility of "taking the universal viewpoint" and thus finding a way out of a situation of radical cultural disintegration without succumbing to one or the other mode of intellectual imperialism.
Abstract: Today, in an epoch of the proclamation of radical incommunicability between ethnic groups, between the sexes, and between individuals sunk in the privacy of their own gratifications, supported by a theoretical rejection of principles or universals of any sort, I want to explore the possibility of "taking the universal viewpoint" and thus finding a way out of a situation of radical cultural disintegration without succumbing to one or the other mode of intellectual imperialism, theological or otherwise I will attempt to do so by attending to what, I would claim, is the most obvious and showing what is implicit in recognizing that In focusing our attention, let us attempt to set aside for the time being everything we might think we know from other sources, science included: bracket temporarily all theories, all dogmas, all preferences, all commitments other than that of paying attention to what presents itself to careful attention here and now Nothing should intrude except the evidence present to us, since, I would claim, that evidence is presupposed in appealing to these other factors, including arguments for the "theory-ladenness" of evidence(1) Besides this more general framework of concern, however, we should keep in mind the direct presence of the written page both I and my readers have in each of our sensory fields, though differently located spatially and temporally Further, since it is most likely that each of us is reading a different reproduction of the same text -- I on the computer screen, the readers on paper -- we should keep in mind the differentiation between the sentences which are the same and their spatio-temporal sensory instantiations which are different in each case Further still, since I might also read the paper to an audience, keep in mind the differentiation between the sameness of the sentence in the difference of sensory medium, visual and audile We will return to that later I Let us begin within those two frames -- that of the general cultural situation today and that of the status of the vehicle of delivery of this essay -- and attend to the simple, trivial, and seemingly uncontroversial recognition that something is Of any entity we consider, the most obvious and yet the least articulated thing we can say about it is that "It is" "It is" can be said of an indeterminate number of instances of whatever sort, including the visible marks on this page or the sounds of my voice as I utter "It is" to myself or to my interlocutors "It is" is an eidos, a universal, a one-over-many, capable of being applied to an indeterminate number of instances Further, "It is" exhibits my recognition that whatever "it" might be, it stands outside of not-being-at-all Yet simultaneously we recognize that it is an object of awareness, so that there is an essential distinction between awareness and its objects "Being" can be said of whatever "it" we might consider, including oneself as considering it "Being" is an eidos or universal, object of reflective awareness; but it is also more than an eidos, including as it does all instances of being, eidetic and individual, and everything about them We quickly see then that there are at least six eide which show themselves as sharing in being and as involved in the most universal and indeterminate consideration which forms the framework for any consideration: the eide of being, of instance, of object of awareness, of awareness itself and, at another reflective level, of eidos itself and of individual They articulate what is implicit in our beginning with the simple "It is"; they articulate being An eidos, in addition to its distinction from and relation to its instances, involves a distinction between its universal mode and its content As eide all eide are the same in their universal mode but differ in content The instances of eide are either other eide -- as we have shown thus far -- or ultimate individuals, functioning spatio-temporal unities …
Citations
More filters
Dissertation•
25 Aug 2009
TL;DR: Sri Aurobindo as discussed by the authors argued that what does not so communicate is unknowable, and the unknowable is unknown; and so this universality defined by 'communication' can suffice.
Abstract: ion from the system of the universe, and that it is the business of speculative philosophy to exhibit this truth; this character is its coherence. Whitehead mentions the concept 'adequacy' of the scheme and says that what is required is that the texture of observed experience, in illustrating the philosophic scheme, is such that all related experience must exhibit the same texture. Thus the philosophic scheme should be 'necessary,' in the sense of bearing in itself its own warrant of universality throughout all experience, provided that we confine ourselves to that which communicates with immediate matter of fact. He says that what does not so communicate is unknowable, and the unknowable is unknown; and so this universality defined by 'communication' can suffice. This doctrine of necessity in universality means that there is an instance in the universe which forbids relationships beyond itself, as a violation of its rationality. Speculative philosophy seeks that essence. Now, we should try to understand what basic approach Sri Aurobindo follows. The two approaches that come to mind are reproduction and construction. By that I mean the routes outlined in Buddhism where the Buddha experienced reality and that is what he taught, and on the other hand the approach found in the Mahayana which tend to be more of a speculative nature such as one would expect in the work of Whitehead, albeit done with skilful means. Both the criterion and justification for the speculative approach rest on the test whether it is existentially useful. In the beautiful analogy of the burning house, where the father wanted his children to leave but they were too engrossed in playing, he told them a lesser truth namely that he would give them toys outside. The greater truth was his concern for their welfare but he had to utilise the lesser existentially useful truth, namely the toys (which in the event they did receive) to get them out of the burning house. In considering where to place Sri Aurobindo in the approaches above, I believe he fits within the first approach, namely that of the Buddha. He makes it abundantly clear that he taught what he experienced, and when he speculates about different alternatives when he writes, it is for the sole purpose of giving greater clarity to possibly obscure or contentious points, to not bluntly only present his truth but to intellectually investigate 144 Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York: The Free Press. 1969, p. 6. Chapter 2 – The Epistemology of Sri Aurobindo 74 the possible alternatives. I believe this differs from the approach of Whitehead which could be used as the example of a speculative philosopher. Whitehead's speculation is undeniably very disciplined; he stated, "The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aeroplane. Its starts from the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in the thin air of imaginative generalization; and it lands again for renewed observation rendered acute by a rational interpretation." The implication here is that in the main the observer remains on earth and whatever inspirations or insights he has or gets from the 'thin air of imagination', is viewed as speculation and is tested thoroughly and rationally. The context within which he arrived at his insights was through rational intellectual discovery. On the face of it these are the three steps that are also followed by Sri Aurobindo. However, there is one crucial difference and that is that Sri Aurobindo maintains that in his 'flight', the reality of the truth of the experiences that he observes is complete and absolute. After the completion of his 'flight' he is paradoxically still flying, still experiencing the truth that is only available during flight, and yet simultaneously he has landed and is dealing intellectually and analytically with the truth that he had observed. I would submit that the essential difference between Whitehead and Sri Aurobindo from their different pronouncements is that Whitehead gains the different partial insights which is dealt with rationally and intellectually after the occurrence thereof, whereas Sri Aurobindo's insights are complete and his rational and intellectual treatment thereof are concerned not so much with whether it is true, nor with the way in which this is to be presented in order to be understood by his audience. This interpretation is based on the fact that in the works and statements of Sri Aurobindo, he very clearly says that all his work is based on truth that he had actually experienced. His basic mode of gaining knowledge therefore is intuitive. According to him there is no speculation involved in his work at all. The effect of this statement is that an outside person cannot view his work as something that can be falsified, according to the approach of Popper. One could argue that there is no control over the veracity of his work, but I believe that this is only partially true. The reason for that is the fact that he states categorically that a person that develops his higher faculties or higher states of consciousness, will arrive at the same insights that he had arrived at. A parallel example comes to mind, namely that of Böhme. In his (Böhme's) mind there is no doubt as to what he had seen or experienced. Due to his lack of literary background 145 Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York: The Free Press. 1969, p. 7. Chapter 2 – The Epistemology of Sri Aurobindo 75 and skills, he found it very difficult to convey the profound visions that he was privy to. This made him very difficult to understand. This is in contrast to the method that Bruno used in which logic was used to explain subtleties in a skilful manner. A person can understand what Bruno explains due to this skill that he exhibited. But all this does not detract from the fact that Böhme experienced what he did. There is nothing deficient regarding his experience; it is his communication thereof that could be less than perfect. In the case of Sri Aurobindo, it is easy to understand his writing even though the concepts that he puts forth are radical and otherworldly. Therefore, the only real test of his veracity can be done by the reader himself by following the instruction of Aurobindo, namely to develop his higher states of consciousness. THE PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH OF SRI AUROBINDO I believe that it is necessary at this stage to attempt to formulate and define the parameters of the philosophical approach of Sri Aurobindo. He deals in the main with abstract matters. His main interest is the framework of creation/emanation. He deals extensively with the realm of consciousness, and makes his postulates and conclusions based on observations or perceptions during experiences of higher states of consciousness that he had. At this point it is important to again state that Sri Aurobindo said that in developing higher states of consciousness, not only can that become an everpresent reality even in the waking state of consciousness, but also that that perpetual state is what he had experienced. All his insights and experiences took place in his mind, and it is impossible to objectively verify his insights and experiences, therefore to prove him wrong or a fraud (or right, for that matter). He states that to understand the realms that he writes about, one has to experience it oneself. The normal acceptable logical scientific rules of observation and evaluation of facts cannot be applied there, as it, according to him, requires the possession or development of higher states of consciousness to be able to do the verification. One might then reasonably ask whether Sri Aurobindo can make any statement however unrealistic, and 'get away with it'. Are the pronouncements of Sri Aurobindo now to be accepted as is without any scrutiny or criticism? I believe that that is not the case. I believe that we should still view his philosophical scheme according to the criteria of Whitehead as to its coherence, logic, applicability and adequacy. Until we actually experience it ourselves, there are questions that we simply cannot answer such as whether these higher states of Chapter 2 – The Epistemology of Sri Aurobindo 76 consciousness actually exist, further, whether they are the same for all people, and more specifically, whether any higher state of consciousness that I experience will give me the same insights that Sri Aurobindo had. The motivation for this argument is, seeing that I know that my waking state is different to yours, will my higher states be different to yours too? Or is the one relative to the person experiencing it (waking) a relative reality, and the other (higher states of consciousness) Absolute in its being and therefore universal in its reality? He gives no assurances that will withstand logical scrutiny. His descriptions of the reality in these different realms are unique, and again according to him, still fall short of the reality that he is describing. If this is the case, the question should be asked: is his a realistic theory of knowledge? Or is he busy expounding a mytho-poetic epistemology? Words apparently are inadequate conceptualisations of the supra-logical perceived reality. Yet he is still using words to convey his message. Does he require his audience to accept on faith the revolutionary revelations he presents, knowing full well that they cannot independently verify his statements, as they are not operating in higher states of consciousness? Even though Phillips takes him on very convincingly and persuasively in his Aurobindo's philosophy of Brahman as discussed under 'The Reception of Sri Aurobindo' in my MA dissertation, I believe that that is not the case. The basic departure point of Phillips is that of a Western radical intellectual base. He embraces the scientific ideal, in using the objective tools of logic. For him, knowledge must be validated and empirical with the use of the intellect. Philips uses as a basis the constr
12 citations