tango Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 (edited) S. Zizek, The Parallax View, MIT, 2006, p.239.http://books.google.ca/books?id=je702bo2Pl...4#PRA2-PA239,M1 What the neuroscientist misses in her account of my experience of eating is precisely the experience itself: the first-person phenomenal sensation of actually eating the cake. When it comes down to offering the "best" description of how the mind works I can either buy the objective map the neuroscientist presents me with or the subjective qualitative account that I immediately experience, but it seems impossible to assert the primacy of one without dismissing the other. That is, for Zizek there is no way for the two perspectives to meet in any fashion that still preserves what remains essential to both. In short, the parallax gap. Now my question is ... why would one want to "assert the primacy of one"? That's just a silly waste of information that could help to learn the truth! In fact, the neuroscientist would be quite interested in the subjective experience, to identify the particular sensations and emotions being displayed as electrical charges. This is a very juvenile, inaccurate and dismissive view of science. Every person is capable of both scientific thought and spiritual experience. One need not "assert the primacy" of one or the other, as that would be to deny part of oneself. Again, it's just those pesky dichotomizers trying to reduce everything to black and white lines when they should be seeing in shades of colour. Funny, usually it's scientists accused of seeing things in dichotomies, but here it is a philosopher. Nothing has been proven here. Edited April 13, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.