The metaphysical model of subjective conception
Conventional metaphysics distinguishes three levels of subjective
conception. If we include the subjective, that makes four.
subjective - perceptual - communicative - objective
The subject, who is alive, generates perceptual and communicative concepts
of an objective reality, of which there can be no proof.
The perceptual is also called the naive. In philosophy, the communicative is
also called the intersubjective. In science, communicative concepts are also
called models.
Wittgenstein introduced the notion that each concept of reality is in fact a
copy of an original, which of necessity involves an abstraction, as are all
copies of all originals.
This introduces a hierarchy in conceptions, as the communicative is an
either verbal or non-verbal copy of the perceptual, and the objective is a
copy of the communicative, while we assume the perceptual to be a copy of
the objective again, which is, at least metaphysically, circular and
therefore fallacious.
In the above we may already see a picture of the subject who is explaining
the process of perception in a model that is circular as to cause and
effect, which is revolving around a compulsive discussion of the issue of
existence.
That the objective is in fact a copy of the communicative may be hard to
fathom at first, but its status may become clearer when you realise that the
objective has the least possible information (left) of all conceptual
levels, as it is, an sich und für sich, that is, regardless of the beholder,
the final and ultimate abstraction of what the subject experiences.
The concept of the objective seems to spring from the communicative, i.e.
from scientific and philosophical consensus, rather than from any individual
perceptions. Basicly the objective is an exclusively communicative concept
with a special metaphysical purpose: it is the concept that is, by
definition, the farthest away from the perceptual or naive, i.e. from the
subject. It is the abstract of all abstracts.
Since metaphysics cannot establish the objective as the original, it defines
the subject as the original. So by metaphysical definition the original is
the subject, or the perceptual, since they may be considered identical, and
the objective is the last of all conceptual copies, whose only property is
that it does exist. But only by definition, we cannot prove it.
Therefore the objective would be a copy of the communicative rather than of
the actually perceptual.
Although there would be a hierarchy in the process of copying, as to
existence all conceptual levels share the same status, they are mere models
or abstracts of something that we cannot establish to metaphysically exist.
The only difference lies in the depth of the information contained.
For instance the objective is shure enough to exist as a concept, that is as
an idea, but then again so are all subjective conceptions, whatever they are
copies of, the physical as well as the artistic, and metaphysically there
can be no difference in status as to their actual, objective existence.
However there is a difference in status between conceptual levels, that are
metaphysically distinct and do not overlap, and concepts within a level,
that are only verbally distinct, going by the received notions of words,
which do overlap, like f.i. the verbal, the artistic and the physical within
the communicative.
To make the model of conceptual copies more tangible, we may understand
conceptual levels, and even the concepts within them, as copy universes
containing copy objects. On the perceptual level these objects would be
comprised of sensuary "data" or properties around a concept of existence,
which is our understanding of the object as a unit.
On the communicative level these objects would be words or other man-made
representations of perceptual objects and their properties. And finally on
the objective level these objects would be existent only, i.e. without name,
size, weight, composition or even relation, since there is no such thing as
an objective property.
Down the chain of conceptual copies, abstraction occurs by removing
subjectivity, i.e. by omission of properties, and by adding objectivity, i.e
by substituting properties with names, and eventually names with existence.
On the perceptional level everything is property, even existence, and
therefore the object, for which existence is essential, does not yet exist.
On the communicative level these properties are increasingly bundled in
packages called names, that gradually abstract our perceptions and prepare
the object, until on the objective level all names are eventually
substituted by a package called existence to establish the object.
I must say that as a means of communication the objective does not strike me
as very useful. It's more concise than anything else. The only property of
its objects is existence and the only property of the objective is a number:
the total of objects.
To understand existence as a property within the perceptual you should
realise that existence comes in two flavours, one of which is only relevant:
perceptual, physical or contingental existence versus religious,
metaphysical or non-contingental existence.
Perceptual or naive existence applies to individual objects, whereas
religious existence applies to all objects, or specific groups of objects,
such as "those we do not see". Since we can all imagine vinyl records
although they do not currently exist, on the perceptual level actual
existence is just another contingent property.
On the communicative level different models of reality may be constructed,
and the "universe containing objects" model is a popular variant. Physics is
based on one of these. And although many people would like to identify the
physical with the objective, this is by metaphysical definition made
impossible, eventhough they would have no idea what the objective is.
As a result the physical is just another blend of the communicative, and
since it doesn't exist by metaphysical definition, it doesn't exist by any
definition. Whatever the depth of the information contained, it could never
be more than just a model, of the communicative rather than the perceptual,
consensually approved for the purpose of acquisition by a masonic club of
scientists.
In metaphysics, not just mathematical concepts but all subjective concepts
of reality are considered to be mere ideas, that could by no means interact
with an objective reality. In physics, both the perceptual and communicative
are material phenomena, that at the very least interact with physical
reality.
Even regardless of which is the preferred model, issues like "are things
perceptually happening in space" are basicly word games, that gain their
momentum from the received meaning that words have outside of such models,
which in case of the perceptual tends towards the metaphysical. Physically
they are. Metaphysically not. And in the street apparently neither.
Though it is true that the physical process of perception is part of
physical reality, and does indeed interact with it, metaphysically it will
precede the subjective conception of it. Therefore it is impossible for the
metaphysical subject to interact with reality in any other way than by just
absorbing it, even if the physical processes of perception wouldn't have the
slightest bearing on the physical effects they are alleged to have.
Interpreting the fact that I know a particle to be here and not there as the
cause of its position would be plausible in very naive universal
conceptions, or in very advanced, but in all other conceptions would command
religious belief.
It would also help to have a clear understanding of the material. In its
received meaning it would indicate something like perceptual existence. On
the atomic level however Rutherford either punched a million holes in it or
it wasn't actually there. And on the quantum level it is just another empty
force field maintaining a state of 3-dimensional identity.
So the material has different interpretations as a naive and as an advanced
concept. Though as a naive concept you could well identify it with
existence, as an advanced concept matter and existence are fundamentally
different things.
Material and physical existence are observations of a normal conceptual
level. Existence itself or objective existence are observations of an
abnormal conceptual level.
Objective existence is a copy of the communicative rather than of the
perceptual that, by systematically contradicting the perceptual, that is,
every possible received notion of de word, can only be understood as
bidirectionally communicating submissive obediance in sectarian relations,
also known as the procedure of exchanging religious dogma.
Therefore the objective should actually be called the religious.
In the conventional metaphysical model, it is plausible to consider the
subject and the perceptual as identical. And as long as there is no proof of
the objective, it can only be classified with the communicative. Which would
leave us with the following model
perceptual - communicative
Moreover, the terms subject and object would indicate perception to be an
active process, in which the subject is the actor of which reality is the
object. Absorbing the immediate relevance of this, the following model would
be more appropriate.
reality - perceptual - communicative
In this model the objective or religious would be just a special form of the
communicative, and the subject (who is alive) would still be identical with
the perceptual. However, it would describe the process of conceptual copying
in a non-circular model, and as such it would not be an expression of the
issue of religious existence anymore. It would be dealing with observations
of a normal conceptual level only. Reality being basicly the same as
objective reality, only without objective.
Note that while we of necessity are dealing with a process of continuous
conceptual abstraction, in telepathic communities we would be dealing with
an array of monitors, that by way of passive resonance would only be adding
information to the original perception. It would be an ideal setting for
hysteria, or panic as it is called with social animals, and who is to say
that we aren't in fact subconsciously telepathic already?
It would account for a number of things. F.i. how we learn to speak. Not
least the way I usually feel. Furthermore in telepathic communities the
above model would merge to one level, as on one hand the perceptual would
become identical with the communicative, and on the other, by way of copying
itself, would be interacting with reality, which is at least a primitive
form of telekinesis, by which things would be perceptually happening in the
universe.
So, are things perceptually happening in space? Absolutely not.