Notes on Orientation
Note: This author’s notion of orientation appears to me to get very close to describing a reduction to what I am calling Routes, which I also call two orientations upon objects.
Yet, in my proposal, such Routes do not reconcile. But I am intrigued at this author’s effort Becuase it seems he or she is coming very close to grasping what I call the issue at hand.
So here is my comment on the linked post:
I like it. But then something bothers me about it. Also.
I’m not entirely sure what it is that strikes me as off —
– I think it is good as a sort of psychological sense. Like, if someone is looking for a pseudo-scientific-Philosophy to help them with “life’s meaning”. I’d say this is a good one.
Yet also, it appears to me you move through 3 stages in this theory: 1 and 2 . A pretty good bridging of phenomenality with the rational thinking subject. 3. Purpose.
My issue: 1 and 2: I’m am not sure that this distinction is not a conceptual device which functions from (3) instead of toward it; but together they make a nice bond, for sure.
Phenomenality, as I understand it, is the correlation of thought and world. The Phenomenon is existence; it is that the whole field is understood as existence, And yet within this field there appears something that does not seem to accord with the experience of the field; i.e. that there is something that appears to defy that everything is the known field. This situation is a phenomenon: the explanation is itself an effort to sort out a particular contradiction into non-contradictory states. This seems like what you have done, and then the last part is to fill the last gap that comes about in the contradiction of sorting out the non-contradictory aspects of the (first or primary) contradiction.