The Metaphysics of ‘F’ (B) by Will Herberg, Martin Buber

Home Forums Spirituality & Philosophy The Metaphysics of ‘F’ (B) by Will Herberg, Martin Buber

  • Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    (This is a discussion dealing with Model 2 concepts)

    [ pre: In model 2, the letter F is called B (for biotic) — but I’ll use the two interchangeably for now. ]

    In my recent explanation of ‘F‘, I noted that it is an a priori. Just as with things like 3D space and time, there is in the human mind a capacity for ‘F’ (B) that is as old as our identification of objects. And for the thinking animal (humans), as with any a priori category of the mind, we invariably stumble upon it in our metaphysical discourse — since metaphysics is, in my view, an elucidation of the primary and irreducible axioms of consciousness.

    For the purpose of giving wider explanation to this a priori and the nature of B, I would therefore like to present a few theologians explicating their positions on the matter. The first of these is Will Herberg:

    Here Herberg describes “an immediate self-validating encounter” which transcends ordinary distinctions between subject and object. And that is the capacity to register another human being’s “thou” as opposed to their “it” — to affirm their subjective reality. This does not take a scientific methodology, and indeed science cannot approach this question because it’s fundamentally a philosophical point. He calls this the “I-Thou” encounter, a term coined by Martin Buber. I’d use quotes from Buber but I find Herberg a bit more accessible.

    Now, I am not particularly aiming to frame B in theological terms, but Herberg is specifically talking about B in the context of one’s conceptualization of God, as either a ‘cosmic force’ (an It) or a personal being (a Thou). Surely we all differ on theological matters, so if we place the theological matter aside, we may appreciate the argument being made more broadly about the conceptualizations we may develop towards ourselves (“are humans objects or beings?”) and the universe (“what about the Absolute object?”).

    ^ Here he talks about an “antipersonalistic bias” in the culture. Here he’s essentially contending against T, or A (for Abiotic). The T ontological registration has pervaded Jewish (and general) thought and lead to a “dehumanization” in our thinking, and a depreciation of the “subjective” (if by subjective we mean qualia-contingent knowledge). From this biased view “real reality, the reality presented to us by science, is impersonal.”

    Now, this truly is quite a philosophical crossroads to be in. And this is why I said in the redefining T article, that F is logical as well, but just operates on a different axiomatic set. So far I have found very few ways to address this philosophical deadlock which does not itself rely on its own peculiar set of implicit axioms or hinge commitments. In essence, the viewpoint of B is a wholly logical one, but one that addresses the ontological undeniability of a certain form of knowledge that other domains deny.

    The last screenshot from Herberg I wish to share is shorter, and relates more to an extroverted axiomatic orientation alongside this principle.

    This is a bit more prejudiced towards L+ (Fe) metaphysics, as opposed to just F, due to this emphasis on object-to-object contingency. In fact, I would say this statement above is a worldview that epitomizes L+ axioms. From this view, our being-ness (B) is an object-to-object contingency. It describes an “if a tree falls and nobody hears it” scenario. Just as language is meaningless without someone to hear it, our definition, our “reality” is moot unless we are responded to as ‘animate’ by someone who co-affirms our living-ness, as we do theirs. The I-Thou encounter requires an ‘other’ (a minimum of two objects), for the ontology to manifest between the two.

    I was so thrown aback by this paragraph, as it so elegantly depicts one rendition of L+ ontology. This is not the only position an L+ type may arrive at, nor one that the opposite type can’t manifest, since content is subject to the evolution of our own thoughts and ideas — and philosophy is by no means deterministically tied to type. However, it seems to me a magnificently clear framing of the matter, and I have heard many Fe-leads circle around similar thoughts, but never as boldly as here. I wish I could confirm Herberg and Buber’s types but they only have still photos and those are not reliable.

    ~ ~ ~

    What do you think of the above quotes and ideas?

    I’m hoping this can spark a discussion on B (F) and A (T), or any other topics touched upon here. I know we have some philosophy-savvy members here, so I’m quite excited to hear your thoughts on the matter.

    • This topic was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This topic was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    I owe my exposure to Will Herberg and Martin Buber to @bella . We came across Herberg during our studies on Jewish philosophy. However, I recently came across the same idea from @paroikos from the perspective of Christianity. Here are a few quotes to the same effect, by Vladimir Moss who, from this video, looks Vl- (NiFe) to me:

    and:

    ^ Inter-object-contingency for their mutual biotic ontology. Once again, I am not sure I could describe the typical emergent philosophies of L+ with any more precision than this.

    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    paroikos
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: l-l-
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    The selections from Vladimir Moss come from a larger book, The Theology of Eros. Eros in Eastern Christian thought has some fundamental differences from the western idea of eros or “erotic love.” Eros is more about strong desire, though that’s a heavy oversimplification. In the course of the book Dr. Moss discusses desire of various levels and sexuality and how it relates to our understand of loving God and loving others in the Eastern tradition.

    A wonderful intersection with the quotes from Herberg is the subject of “dehumanization.” In the Eastern Christian understanding of love, perversion of love is when love reorients back towards ourselves: actions that terminate in self-love are most always considered sinful. In this way, it also intersects with the discussion here in how healthily our mind differentiates between A and B (if that can be a proper understanding of the concepts, I am certainly not suggesting that people who don’t have conscious F functions dehumanize others).

    “At the root of all forms of perversion is self-love, the utilization of another, who (or which) is seen as no more than an instrument for one’s pleasure (or pain). . . all perversions involve a rejection of a fully mutual personal relationship of love in favour of an impersonal relationship of use (or rather: abuse). ” ~Moss

    Fe and Fi in other systems are often inconsistently defined, but at some root they usually fall into the concepts of Fe relating to others and groups or society and Fi relating to the self and perhaps one-on-one, intimate connections with others. There is usually some mish-mash of feelings, convictions, ability to empathize, etc. thrown in. In understanding F as B I think it’s helpful to identify that we engage with others in both A and B capacities (as was talked about in the new article on T). Simply engaging with others does not always primarily use F and personable people are not all F-dominant or F-conscious.

    The excerpts above do raise a lot of thoughts for me about the potential psychological impacts of living in a world with so much socialization done through an online medium that usually does not include face-to-face interaction, and how that impacts our ability to cognize the “biotic-ness” of others in our online communities. The rudeness that often comes through online anonymity could come from a number of factors, but it could potentially be that it is easier to dehumanize the target and treat them as an “object” and not a “subject.”

    Alexander the Less
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: llll
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I’m grappling with a way to interact with the posts here, as I want to participate; however, I have to admit, I’m struggling to find my footing with what’s presented here.

    Does this mean that the distinction between Biotic and Abiotic is a matter of ontology?

    I ask because my approach to “Biotic” and “Abiotic” matters are almost entirely phenomenological, likely an approach I picked up due to my mixed bag of absurdist, anti-realist, and post-structuralist beliefs.

    I really only have questions, but I’m not sure which questions are the ones to ask. As of now I leave the question on this being a matter of ontology and/or phenomenology along with a second question:

    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)

    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    (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 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 6 months, 1 week ago by Auburn.
    Starshade
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Historic Idealism, yes?

    How to put it…

    I can’t follow on the philosophy, that far, but I know where that theology comes from, why, and how to explain it. Will think on how to comment on the B vs A tomorrow.

    Starshade
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Fe and Fi in other systems are often inconsistently defined, but at some root they usually fall into the concepts of Fe relating to others and groups or society and Fi relating to the self and perhaps one-on-one, intimate connections with others. There is usually some mish-mash of feelings, convictions, ability to empathize, etc. thrown in

    Biotic and Abiotic ethics work, but what would one do with the Alexithymia people, which are unable to feel, all the way down to those who truly sense themselves as almost Vulcan? I’d say we need to dismiss personality disorders, even if its 5-10% of people.

    My thoughts on this F vs T:

    My ethics is “biotic”, what I FEEL in the moment, do not matter. My feelings, do not matter; what matter is those I care about. This is not attachment based, as, it do not rule decisions per-se, but certainly the ethics of decisions. The typical Jungian system either rate feelings on scales, where women rate higher than men due to what I perceive mostly as gender based emoting; I do not think it’s that much emotions, more, typically you have either an “internal” or “external” moral compass. I think this is only one way to frame the difference:

    You also can divide it in Biotic and Abiotic ethics, and external / internal. The advantage of types as “External, non-biotic based ethics” aka school of hard knocks, is you do not exclude 10% of the human population due to not “feel”, and do not force the hypothetical system to exclude 10% of humans.

    So, then we comes to the concept of “god”. The idea was doomed to failure when ethics, morale and self-understanding followed physics and metaphysics. When true understanding of within and without, what follows the failure of the Temple (the fall of Jerusalem and the Renaissance), is literally an restatement of the divinity to “move back” take back seat, here take the beggar cup, mr. puffy cloud, sit by the Tooth Fairy and Santa..

    This is the cases ppl still believe, true, hardcore belief, of ppl praying 5+ times a day, and go nowhere without Him. I live in a country where the average Churchgoer dont think there is any deity. In my case we reached ancient doomsday prophecies equal to The Fall of the Temple, again, where the Ni people think we reach doomday, just, there is barely any Ni who cares. Think they is busy Doomsday prepping if they look for The End. The american Millenialism and Pentecost teachings is another topic altogether, where The Jew is the true saviour, and a third to half of the theologies of the States truly believe HE got a plan for The Jew as True Inheritor, Christianity is not the Chosen Ones, it’s the ones denying HIM, and lolling off into Ni land and scary visions of glories of doomsday Grand Israel rising and retaking their Heritage..

    So, where did Mr. Puffy cloud, happy dude on cloud watching us? We could end up in the Theology of Small Gods by Terry Pratchett, in Discworld, where the speed of light is slower than the speed of sound, and the world is flat and balance on 4 elephants standing on a turtle. Where the deities vanish without anyone seeing it; the abstract, theoretical energy fields of creation, called God, is not biotic enough to deserve the term.

    Starshade
    Participant
    • Type: NeFi
    • Development: ll-l
    • Attitude: Seelie

    So: Anthropologically, this is the based in fundamentalist theology and what happens when a Fundamental theology meets a modern ethics; either it makes fences, and escape, or it grabs the power, and goes for conquest. Church failed, and everything moved aside, turning abstract. I’m trying to not overthink here, Jewish metaphysics is shaped out of their history, and most theologies, including the Doomsday ones, are firmly “modern” and harmless. I view this historically, though, and not philosophically. What I see, is trough historical views, this is escapism from theologies, refuges of thought, a last bastion where they can worship, free of Logic, Science or Metaphysics.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© Copyright 2012-2020 J.E. Sandoval
SEE HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER

The content on this site is not
intended for medical advice, diagnosis,
or treatment. Always seek the advice
of your physician or other qualified
health provider with questions you
may have regarding a medical condition.
For more information visit this link.

SHARE: FACEBOOK, SUPPORT: PATREON