Letters in Philosophy (3.0)

My dear @ty-ty,

I may have been hasty and not quite so clear as I should in my "Beethoven and Ligeti" post. I fear to also have overstepped my reach, by over simplifying a very vast and complex subject, which has probably prompted some misunderstanding of what I set out to do. Having understood this, I will take a step back and, firstly, try to address your concerns, and, when we get to the appropriate point in our discussion, I'll get back into the subject of semiotics.

On your previous comment, which I found rather hasty and not well tought out, I will offer just a few brief notes. As you have understood by now, it's better to take our time and try to form a clear notion of what the other was really saying, than to follow the current worldly tendency to stab first and mend the wounds later.

Philosophy is a heavy, challenging and complex system of knowledge. Probably one the of the most complex of all. It's a moving field where concepts and ideas constantly change meanings, and where the understanding of a single word, even in a mutually understandable language, can cause the greatest of conflicts.

(Image: One of Immanuel Kant's letters from the Pembroke Collection, Oxford)

Regarding your comment: As you probably can see, if you consider the globality of what I exposed, the fact that I appealed to the reader's interest refutes nothing, as this is a work in progress and, intentionally a debate. We are very far to putting the touchstone into this work. As the following affirmations you made, which were both true, if you are talking of communication, and false, if you are adressing the matter of the interpretation of symbols, which I was, we'll leave them be, for now, until we reach the wider debate of Conscience.

I'm sure you will come back with the same arguments, and the next time, you will apply them to the propper subject in my speech. After reading my first paragraph, you tragiversed from the specific issue of the interpretation of symbols to the wider field of epistemology, and that, for me, has created an unnaprocheable problem in dialectics: I cannot confront the part with the whole. For this, your comment will remain, for now, both accepted and unaccepted by me and it's solution shot into a future approach of the wider subject.

I too, fell victim to misunderstanding, when confronted with the meaning of the word "interprets", in this mutually understandable language we are writing on. If we fall victims to such misunderstandings when communicating with speakers of our own native languages, the damage made by the misunderstanding of an intermediate language may be fatal to the understanding of the other.

I now assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that when you said that the object you observe "interprets" you, that you were meaning that you are changed by the observation of such object. Whereas, I previously understood that you were meaning that your observation of the object produced change in the object itself, which, for me, would create an infinite feedback loop from which you could never escape and would be quite impossible in the case of a finished work.

I never denied (and never will) that the observation or contact with an object, (be it art, a landscape or a piece of furniture, take your pick...), changes you. I have also never denied that there is intention in creation. When the author creates he most probably has an intention, an audience an and effect in mind. The fact I support is that the result of that is totally dependent on the audience and their prejudices (to pre-judge, to apply previous models of understanding, hence, to see the object thought their own filters, which are not static).

I strongly agree with the notion that "man, is man and the circumstances", as Ortega y Gasset so elegantly put it. I also feel that each one of us is responsable for their actions, whatever the circumstances. This makes me a proposer of the absolute responsability each one of us has over his own reaction to those circumstances, as no one is responsable for our decisions but ourselves. This, secondo me, implies that we, and we alone, are responsable for the changes that observing an object will produce in us, as we can, either consciously or unconscioulsy deny them. Still: no one does it for us. If we talk about the consequences of those decisions, then, it becomes an entirely different matter. And,obviously, everything is connected and we can not divorce ourselves from the Universe.

Thinking back to my assertion that "I don't believe the author's intentions to be consequential", I also think I need to step back and further explain the meaning of what I was offering there, expanding upon it: - Whatever the intention or message the author produced as he finished the work, his creation is always going to be target of interpretation by others, and I don't want to be solipsistic here, as I have been accused of, still, I assert that the reader (I prefer that expression to interpreter), will always take his own conclusions and be influenced by them, by way of transporting whatever the author achieved to convey, through his own filter of prejudice, into his reasoning, good or bad. This, obviously changes from subject to subject and throughout time. There is no unanimity of opinion over absolutely anything.

As a conclusion to today's letter, I just want to leave you with the assurance that no issue will be left behind and that I have neither forgotten any of your comments, nor the need to explain what does Sheldrake prove about Jung, nor the wider considerations and consequences that a debate on what constitutes Nature; Reason; Universe; World; Truth; Man; Author; Reader; Belief; Knowledge; Action and Reaction outside exact sciences, and other important definitions; may bring. For now, I still feel myself stuck to understanding what does "to interpret" mean and if that does or does not imply conscience of observation by the observed object.

Now... Don't hurry. Take all the time you need and you know I will patiently await the return of the postman. Important things need time, and, in my mind, I can't find a more important issue than Philosophy. As it has been discussed ever since our Human Species first began to reason and we are still at it today, I figure that there is absolutely no need to hastily debit what springs to mind in the instant. If we die before being answered, I am sure others will come and continue our dialogue.

Yours truly,

Pedro Chora

Barreiro, 23.02.2025

The whole series can be found here.