(Heya! So, I’m far less initiated into philosophy than you, so pardon if this is incoherent. Part of what I hope to do is get feedback on how to frame these ideas properly if they are not framed right.)

I’m not sure if this is the right way to answer your question, but I see “biotic” and “abiotic” as phenomenological experiences, like all aspects of consciousness. However, I think some people are predisposed to treat them as ontological categories or absolutes. Whether they’re seen as the former or the latter depends on the level of projection of psychic content that a person is doing. A psyche that is not projecting will understand the category phenomenologically, but a psyche who does not see their projection will experience the category as synonymous with reality itself.

However, in taking this position, I realize I am also picking a side, and asserting quite boldly that these are all phenomenological. I believe the absolute reality (noumenon) is neither biotic or abiotic, as it transcends our experiences of it.

Could this supply a foothold maybe?

How does this relate to the construction of the Self that takes place through the encounter of/with the Other? (thinking it terms of Husserl and company)

You’ve given me homework. ;p I’ll get back to you on that.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 4 weeks ago by Auburn.
• This reply was modified 4 months, 4 weeks ago by Auburn.
• This reply was modified 4 months, 4 weeks ago by Auburn.