The Experience of Intersubjectivity

The full title of this thread is
The Subjective Experience of Intersubjectivity at Various Stages/Levels and in Various States

I am halfway through reading Steve McIntosh's Integral Consciousness, and it's dawning on me that the central and important term “intersubjective” or “intersubjectivity” is given short shrift on definitions, there and in all other writings I have read which mention it. Descriptions are IMO too brief, and seem to assume that we all just kinda know what is meant.

I think it's time to really explore this central idea of “integral philosophy” and I'd like to sketch out a framework, fill in a few blanks with my own ideas, and then have others in this group throw in their ideas.

There will be meta-discussion (discussion about the discussion, not about its subject,) and if you would add the word meta to your title of such a post, that would be great. And if you would add to the title, or early in your post, which stage and which state you are commenting on or discussing, that would be great too.

My interest is not in precise accuracy of the placement of all our descriptions. That's not possible anyway without research. This is a brainstorm, not a research paper!! All statements I make are meant to carry only a low-to-moderate level of certainty.

And if you can cite any source which DOES go into some detail about any of this subject (no pun intended) please toss that in!!!

I have no particular viewpoint or axe to grind in setting forth this project. I just see there's a gap, or at least an insufficiency, and want to bring the illustrious minds in this group to bear on remedying that. What will be done with what we do here, I have no plans and no investment in any particular outcome other than being useful to the global “integral”-oriented conversation. The “Flow” will take care of that.

OK, so here's the framework I propose, and my initial contributions/brainstorms:

Oh, and I am most comfortable with the Spiral Dynamic labels, not the current Wilberian ones nor the McIntosh or other folks's labels, so I'll set those out and anyone can tie their labels to these.

What I mean by the title of this thread is what “intersubjective” is experienced like by individuals, whose center of gravity is a particular level. For this project, I can't deal with lines or types, but if you have an insight about the individual experience of intersubjectivity at not only a stage and state, but within a line or type at that stage and in that state, go for it, post that description.

For “intersubjective” you can read “Lower Left” and for “individual” or “subjective” you can read “Upper Left.” I realize that the LL has been described as culture, shared values, shared meanings, but given the importance of the LL to projects like McIntosh's book and purposes, I think it's time for our descriptions to expand and go deeper.

If anyone wants to reference or copy some detailed descriptions of LL e.g. from Wilber, by all means toss those in. Right now I can't remember where his most extensive description of LL is.

I am also mindful that most descriptions of LL are 3rd person, not 1st person, and I am aiming for more of the interior view, here. Whether that aim is achieved, I dunno !!

BEIGE/ARCHAIC

Gross –

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual –

First item in Nondual category: There is the same phenomenon affecting individual consciousnesses in a group that enables fish and birds to move essentially simultaneously around in space without bunking into one another, but moving as a whole. I could put this in the gross level. I regard this as built-in, instinctive, part of the species' consciousness every individual comes in with. Humans have a version of it, too. I think it shows up in individual humans as at least an ongoing, constant sensory awareness of where other individuals are, and what sense of danger or safety, of contentment or pain, their sounds and movements are conveying. In the infant, this would show up as the “contagion” of parental upset manifesting as crying or physical stress. This all happens right away after birth, and doesn't require any experience or learning. It is in some sense pre-Beige, which is why I put it in the category of the manifestation of nondual awareness in the Beige stage.

Second item in Nondual category: This is probably related to the first, and might possibly belong in the Gross consciousness state of Beige but: the experience of “mob psychology.” Contagion of enthusiasm, intensity, motivation that for longer or shorter times suppresses the individual's conclusions, beliefs, judgments and takes over their actions. We usually think of this as a Blue-Amber phenomenon, but I think it is much prior to that. The individual subjective experience is completely submerged in the intersubjective consciousness-energy pattern.



PURPLE (MAGENTA)

Gross–

First item here: There is a certain sense in which it appears that there really isn't any distinct subjective experience in cultures at this state at this level; there is no individual identity as we ordinarily experience that, so the subjective experience is pretty much entirely intersubjectively experienced and determined. One IS one's role, to put it oversimply. Thus, from within the individual, there is also no “intersubjective” experience to be had, because it is collapsed with subjective and not distinguishable to the individual. We would only use the labels subjective and intersubjective as (later-stage) observers of the Purple person/culture.

Second item here: It's interesting to speculate, given the first item, that “intersubjective” could not expand to include anyone outside one's tribe with its own customs and mores, as recognizably human even, but in truth people from different tribes are not merely recognized as human, they are often sought by the tribe as desirable marriage partners, from the pre-conscious realization of the weakening effects of inbreeding. And animals and plants and even forces of nature are experienced as “spirits” and the “spirits” are extremely anthropomorphized, and thus available for intersubjective experience, by which I mean like a kind of empathy or fellow-feeling or “you are like me” sense.

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual –



RED

Gross –

First item: In psychology there has been described a phenomenon of “identification with the aggressor.” People who are subjected to physical or emotional violence/aggression often end up (for various psychological reasons not relevant to describe here) blurring the identity boundary between themselves and the aggressor-person. They start thinking, talking, moving, acting and even inner-experiencing (via empathy) like the aggressor-person. Thus, in a Red social environment, we might expect to see a certain amount of “intersubjectivity” occupied by this experience. It would be commonly observed by an observer, in other words.

Second item: Among the shared values of a Red culture is personal loyalty or feasance to whoever is in a position to demand or command that, via threat of force, and I would expect that the subjective experience of the intersubjective phenomena in a Red culture would be busy with lots of various loyalties that had to be kept balanced and sorted out and abided by.

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual –



BLUE (AMBER)

Gross –

First item: The first thing I can speculate about the subjective experience of intersubjectivity at this level in this state is that the intersubjective phenomena available for subjective experience expands, possibly for the first time, beyond other humans and beyond even particular groups of humans (aka tribes, feudal domains, church, etc.) to include “authorities” like a sacred scripture or a set of rules or a religion independent of any particular authority within that religion, or otherly-defined “group.” These are more abstract, which appears to me to be a leap forward, or should I say outward, expansively, in the intersubjective phenomena available for subjective experience. But perhaps all this is actually happening at Purple and even at Red (e.g. loyalty to a “country” – however defined – independent of its ruler??) I have to think more about this.

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual –



ORANGE

Gross –

First item: The circle of what constitutes the intersubjective “us” continues its expansion, in Orange. Thus, newly available for individual subjective experience of intersubjective phenomena, might be larger categories of people, or more abstractly-defined categories of people, e.g. “those who value the scientific approach” is at least somewhat more abstract, it seems to me, than “those who believe in the Bible and Jesus.” Certainly the ideas (and subjective experiences of sharing the intersubjective being of those roles) of “consumer” and “producer” are more abstract than most Blue-defined groups. And notions like “progress” or “evolution” usually encompass all of humanity, at least conceptually if not experientially.

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual –



GREEN

Gross –

First item: The intersubjective experiences available to the Green c-o-g individual have to include more empathy than previous levels are capable of, wouldn't you think? Not just individual-to-individual empathy, but empathic resonance on a larger scale, resulting from a “contagion” mechanism like in mob psychology.

Second item: Moving up from Purple and Blue, one would think that Green would be able to “intersubjective” with more than other humans even more easily than Purple or Blue does, but of course in a more differentiated fashion. One thinks of “Gaia-consciousness” and animal and plant inclusion in identity or empathy. And above what Blue does in being intersubjective with rules or canons or teachings, Green could be intersubjective with these kinds of phenomena in a wider and deeper way. I'm reaching here, not sure how to describe what I am sensing about this.

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual –



1st TIER vs 2nd TIER

Although both 1st and 2nd Tier level subjectivities (people's awareness) are tuned to look for similarities and differences between “me” and “other,” we could say the two Tiers do different things, subjectively, with what similarities and differences the person finds.

The subjective experience of intersubjective similarities for First Tier might be characterized as feelings of relative safety, of ability to communicate and be understood and to understand, of potential mutual benefit.

The subjective experience of intersubjective differences for First Tier might be characterized as feelings of relative danger, of difficulty communicating, of potential harm, and the tendency to objectify or regard as “alien,” the “other,” not just with respect to that difference but as a total entity. (That is, for example, the person is rejected, not just their “different” belief.) Different moral rules might be deemed appropriate for an objectified different “other.”

The subjective experience of intersubjective similarities for Second Tier might be characterized as interest and curiosity, as either actual or potential familiarity/empathy, as occasions for assessment of relative danger or safety, as occasions for assessment of potential benefit or harm, and as occasions for assessment of relatively open or possibly successful opportunities for communication, learning, and personal expansion. Also, similarities would be experienced as high potentialities for synergy on shared purposes.

The subjective experience of intersubjective differences for Second Tier might be characterized as pretty much the same as for similarities, except for heightened need for assessments of danger or safety, and reduced perception of potentially success ful communication, learning, and synergy. Or that these would at least present more of a challenge. Unlike the First Tier, Second Tier folks do see differences as opportunities and challenges, rather than threats, and do see the different folks as “like me but different” rather than as objects or aliens. (Of course, Green is well into the latter perspective, but not consistently.)


YELLOW (INTEGRAL, TEAL) (1st level of 2nd Tier)

Gross –

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

First item: There is at this level significant subjective UL experience of not just chunks of intersubjective phenomena (which Green has) but whole networks of those chunks, whole patterns of energy flowing among those phenomena. The flows of values and meanings among cultures, among levels of the spiral, among groups, become actually apprehended, felt emotionally and even kinesthetically, even perhaps conceptually. (Needless to say this is an awesome experience!!) This is even more vast and expanded and “abstract” at Turquoise.

Nondual –

First item: I would say that in the nondual state, a Yellow c-o-g person subjectively would experience some intersubjective phenomena as more than hunches or gut feelings, which is how Green would interpret them. For Yellow, these would be experienced as actual “knowing,” without knowing how one knows. A hunch feels more like a guess; a knowing feels like a certainty, but without evidence or proof, and yet not “on faith.” By “some intersubjective phenomena” I mean experience of such things as a group/business's subtle or overarching purpose or mission, or suddenly grasping the multi-person commonalities in a conflict situation and “knowing” how to communicate with each party in a way that enables them to transcend the conflicts.



TURQUOISE (2nd level of 2nd Tier)

Gross –

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

First item: To me, Turquoise differs significantly from Yellow in that this level is much more comfortable with, facile with, and commonly experiencing, the flows and patterns of intersubjective phenomena which occur on levels of energy above or more expanded than ordinary gross human awareness – above the vibrational energetic frequencies of thoughts, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, concepts. For Yellow, these are occasional experiences, as I described above. For Turquoise, they become more the norm. So people are always saying to the c-o-g Turquoise person “Yes, but how did you know that?”

Second item: So in addition to the apprehension of the flows of networks or patterns of shared meanings and values etc. in people's gross states of consciousness, which I mentioned in Item One under Yellow in the first item under P/S/C, the Turquoise has subjective experience of what's happening intersubjectively (and concurrently) in people's consciousness which is happening in their own higher states without their gross consciousness of those happenings.

Third item: I think it's at Turquoise that “intersubjective phenomena” experienced subjectively expands, comfortably and fairly often, to include non-human intersubjective phenomena. IOW the Turquoise is comfortable characterizing their some of their intersubjective experiences as “talking with the trees” or animals or the planet or extra-terrestrials or angels, etc. etc. This is because the Turquoise is seriously entertaining the possibility of not just intersubjectivity with such life-forms, but actual identity with them (which identity becomes a real and occasional experience, not just an entertained possibility, at Coral, and which identity becomes the ongoing reality at Teal.)

Nondual –




Note that I pretty much have my own descriptions of the following two 3rd Tier levels, which I can't elaborate here, so perhaps let's just hold all 3rd Tier speculations very lightly.


CORAL (1st level of 3rd Tier)

Gross –  


First item: Coral I see as a transitional blend of being more mature or expanded than Turquoise but not yet effortlessly living the reality of Teal. So everything I would say about Turquoise would be more natural and easy and expanded in scope at the Coral level, but the Coral subjective experiences of intersubjective phenomena would be in turn less natural and less expanded and more of a practice or effort, than Teal's experiences.

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual –



TEAL (2nd level of 3rd Tier)

Gross –

Psychic/Subtle/Causal –

Nondual – Since my description of this Teal is these folks are like Ascended Masters, abiding in nondual awareness in every moment in every aspect of life, their Gross and P/S/C states are subsumed in the nondual awareness, and while distinguishable, are not subjectively separate states of awareness. Thus, “intersubjective” takes on a whole new dimension of experience, because “identity” itself has many layers or levels (or concentric circles) from individual human to the Kosmos, with a few inbetween, including “human” and “sentient being” and even “planetary Being.” IOW, everything is intersubjective, at this level, and the “subjective” is an embedded or integrated aspect of that.

So the experience of “intersubjective” includes not just one culture, but all cultures (in all realms of creation) with a focus of awareness on the one the human identity is involved with. Not just shared meanings and values with humans, but also with many other material and non-material life-forms and kinds of identities/Beings. Not just identity with one species or life-form but with all of them and with all forms that exist in every realm of creation.

Fortunately, there is a focus or locus of awareness in the human identity, so life can be lived coherently, and one isn't going crazy having all cultures, all meanings, all values, all identities always in the forefront of one's awareness as a human embodiment!



Whew, that's it for now.


Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity - Meta

How odd, the title is fixed, I can't edit it. This is a meta-discussion post. I feel the need to clarify the topic:

I am wanting to focus not on the actual content of the culture or shared values or meanings of any stage/level, but on how the fact of having some shared values/meanings/culture is experienced. The phenomenon of intersubjectivity itself, not the content — how that phenomenon is experienced subjectively by individuals on each particular level.

Is that clearer?

Blessings, OM 

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity - Meta

OK, there ya go OM and I love the distinction you are inviting.
Cheers,
Doug

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity - Meta

Hi, Om, what a rich offering!  There's a lot here to discuss and to inspire further inquiry.

I think an important thing to include under Green would be the development of the notion of intersubjectivity, growing out of several concurrent movements.  Notions of “we,” of course, predate intersubjectivity; but intersubjectivity as a critique of monological perspectives and approaches emerges at this time.

Regarding Teal individuals having all cultures and meanings at the forefront of consciousness, I'm curious whether you can give me examples of any individuals who actually inhabit such an intersubjective space, or if it is more of a theoretical speculation.

There's much more to discuss – and I take it that you'd like to fill in the various state categories you left blank under each level? – but I need to give your post another read or two before I do so.

All the best,

B.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity - Meta

beautiful OM,

meta-discussing:

I tend to distinguish between (a.) the self's orientation to, relating with, others, (which includes processing experience in 2p perspectives) and (b.) the mutual co-enactments of intersubjectivity.

For moi, even when I find myself taking what seem to be flashes of another's 1p, I still consider those to be instances of 1p X 1p, wholely distinct from intersubjective experience.

I also aknowledge that my entire understanding of the intersubjective is a function or feature of intra-subjectivity.

Communication is inter-objective. Just as gross, subtle, and causal bodies are UR objective. Meanwhile, my appreciation of communication, however subtle, is formed by my subjective and intersubjective experience. The subjective I've come to define as aspects of individual and collective consciousness of which we remain largely un-aware. It's still, well, subjective.

These distinctions have become meaningful and valuable for me, I think, precisely because I've tended to be rather loose in the “aggregates” (i.e., my thoughts, my mind, my body, my experiences).

Non-locality, remote viewing, all possibilities of rapport and relation are, imo, 'experienced'  objectively  (again, however subtlly).  

Intersubjectivity may be more of an interior resonance cooperating with communication, not prior to communication but commensurate with it, co-arisen and in accord.

So, maybe the experience of intersubjectivity requires the full quad occasion, to be 'experienced'.

Yes?

K

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity - Meta

One question I'm beginning to ask re: collective development is…

Does the worldview (intersubjectivity) of one level(view) become the worldspace (interobjectivity) of the worldview of the next level(view)?

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity - Meta

Kerry, I am not as sophisticated a thinker as you (and many others) about these matters, especially using technical philosophical or Wilber-speak terms, so I am struggling to understand what you said. I think I am getting a glimmer of meaning for the next to last sentence and your definition of subjective; the others remain beyond me so far. 

But it appears to me you are making fine-grained differentiations and distinctions, which IMO are always excellent and worthwhile for clarity and for progress. Would you care to rephrase some of the thoughts so I might get them more easily?

And how does what you are saying mesh with what Bruce said. Are you aiming for an over-arching definition of “intersubjectivity” that would be useful across multiple levels?

It seems sensible to talk about what “subjective” might mean before talking about intersubjective. My take is somewhat different wording from yours, but perhaps they boil down to the same. To me, “subjective” means 1p, or interior per se. And perhaps more precisely, aspects or elements of experience which are “transparent” to us, which we are identified with/as, and which are not available to being thought about, perceived, not available to be focused on or be objects of consciousness. To the person, they are processes, events, activities of the self which have a “taken for granted as reality” quality.

But then again, “subjective” sometimes means “I don't care what others think; this is my opinion, my experience, and I don't care to compare or validate by comparing it to what others might have experienced that might be similar.”

Hmmm. I still haven't phrased what I mean accurately. 

So I particularly would like to know what you think is the difference between intersubjective and interobjective. I haven't encountered the latter concept before.

Blessings and thanks,
OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity - Meta

'ey OM,

I was so wrong when writing that communication is just a behavioral right quad thing. And I knew it but was overcompensating for emphasis, acting on my own felt need to clarify what seemed like a muscheling together of the social with the cultural, the objective with the subjective.

Yet that's, I think, what intersubjectivity does. If we recognize two main orders of information (play with me here), say, cultural and genetic (cultural being all the contextual situatedness of the intersubjective, genetic being what constitutes us in the upper right), we can even get a sense of what intersubjectivity is, experientially, by looking at what and how we are in upper right.

Take the gross for example (such a well named state). When we see or hear things, what are we seeing or hearing? We 'see' the firing of our own embodied optic nerves, 'hear' the beating of our own ear drums, relaying patterns and differences which we then interpret.

Mentally, imaginally we draw on these bodily enactments (which isn't the same as drawing on objects themselves) creating and recreating all manner of orientation, value and meaning.

So where's the intersubjective? In us, as us. It's part terrain, part navigation, and it's nobody's until it's also somebody else's.

The interobjective is that collective exterior of known and unknown universe(s), the worlds upon worlds We get to be in/at: all the nested systems bodies live in/at. It's all the 'things' we perspect through(and as) the lens/prism of our bodies, interpret through(and as) our individual and collective subject-ness.

One thing I love about the difference between intersubjectivity and interobjectivity is their general 'relations to' time, their speeds, if you will.

The objective is so damn slow! Light takes it's time getting from here to there. Sound lags at an even more leasurly pace. Neurons fire in serial relays that drag on for split seconds. Chemicals react in their own sweet time. Thought might approach being instantaneous, but remains only as quick as the medium conducting it allows.

The subjective is, apparently, immediate. Our processing of the subjective (in our somatic/genetic fields) is channeled in so many indirect routes of systemic loopage that, I think, it's the simultaineous presence of immediate subjectivity that provides stable identity. In the collective (inasmuch as the individuals are members of a We) intersubjectivity contributes to the stablization of identities, and does so with greater immediacy than the now-challenged characteristics of the objective side of things.

While we can't have one without the other, we also can't have it both ways.

No muscheling ;(

K 

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Hi Bruce, thank you and I look forward!! Inspiring others to contribute is more important to me than whatever I myself put in. I'm just priming the pump of collective wisdom!!!!

Do include that tidbit under Green, that's a good point. The experience is different for those who have the explicit concept (which of course most Green's don't have explicitly, but some do.)

Yes, that's what I'd like to do, have at least one entry under each of the 3 sections under each color.

Hmmm. I think my point was that at (my) Teal-labelled level, those would NOT be at the forefront of consciousness of the particular human beings. They'd go nuts. 

I can't point to any individual you could talk to, but I have heard some no-longer-available people I know say they live concurrent lives in other worlds which are (in their words) just as subjectively real to them as this one is. 

And I have heard some gurus mention their simultaneous awareness of many cultures/life-forms on many worlds. And there is some “channeled” material by Beings who talk about their ability to “be” in any “place” by intention. 

And Adi Da used to talk about “meditating thousands of people all at once” which he was semi-conscious sometimes of the particulars of, but of course being conscious would have been crazy-making. And I myself and some of my friends suspect we are doing something similar, as we have, when we do a certain relaxing of the consciousness, a parade of images of apparently real people, kinda random images. It is probably a very natural side-effect or characteristic of more maturity of stages of consciousness. Most people don't talk about it, because they think it's too weird or they take it for granted as just an idiosyncratic mental quirk. But when I have asked some folks, they say “Oh yes, I have that, too.”

So, I guess one could say it's more of a logical deduction from the descriptions of “Kosmic consciousness.” 

Oh, but also one can personally experience and talk with many others probably in your life now who are getting more and more sensitive to/apprehending more of/perceiving more of/empathetically responding concurrently (not via media news) to, events happening in other parts of the earth than the one the embodiment is located in. The very simplest example is people who “feel” earthquakes happening elsewhere on the planet.

So you can know/hear about the TREND toward what I was describing, which begins with expanding consciousness, doesn't that make sense?

And again, if my description is not fully accurate, there is something related which would be accurate. Just brainstorming here.

Blessings, OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Hi, OM, I'm sorry about misreading your post.  It's clear you meant that the locus of human identity helps preserve coherence and prevent all of the various meaning-worlds from being at the forefront of a Teal individual's consciousness.  When I returned to re-read your post before responding, I think I skimmed your final section too quickly.

One of the points of “intersubjectivity” – speaking here of the postmodern / postmetaphysical notion – is that perception and understanding are mediated, relational, never “pure” or wholly objective/representative.  So, one of the questions that was arising for me in relation to your description of Teal, was whether you were essentially describing a trans-inter/subjective position (if such is even possible).  Because if the individual can slip at will into any meaning space and know the intersubjective 'reality' of any of those (human and non-human) positions, this would suggest that the perceiver herself was not situated or mediated and had unlimited, unhindered, 'objective' access to all of these 'worlds' in themselves.  And this possibility is, I believe, something most 'intersubjectivists' would reject.

In fact, the inquiry proposed in this thread could be read as a similar exercise:  an attempt to directly 'see' and describe these various intersubjective worldspaces from a privileged, objective, non-situated perspective.  I personally don't think the exercise is an invalid one; I think it is useful.  But in doing it, I think we should at least acknowledge – if we presume to describe all levels, up to the highest known level of third tier – just what perspective we believe we occupy when we are creating such a catalogue of experiential worlds.

What do you think?

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Reply to post:

You bet, Bruce. I definitely believe in giving addresses. I don't remember the schema KW uses, in its complexity but my address is (in my schema) Turquoise moving into Coral, or Coral just leaving Turquoise. IMO.

And perhaps my previous description of my sources of info helps elucidate what perspective I am occupying, and the description just below in this post. I read others, I hear others, I evaluate where I think and sense they are talking from. I compare what they say to each other. I compare it all to my own experiences. I come up with descriptions. As I said, I am more interested in getting people thinking and talking about this stuff than in claiming my descriptions are precisely accurate and aperspectival. 

The problem with the critiques you mentioned is they don't take into account the changing nature of identity as levels go up, most particularly the radical shift in the nature of identity at Teal or Kosmic Consciousness, or nondual realization by a human embodiment. “Situated,” “mediated” and “subject-object” are concepts within gross consciousness mostly at Green and Yellow levels. That whole ball of wax begins to melt as consciousness and identity expand further up the levels. This is what I conclude from reading first-hand accounts from many different sources, from talking to a variety of people, and from my own inner experiences.

So those matters can't be addressed because they are not relevant descriptors at the later, more mature stages. They just don't apply at all.

That's how I see it. Do you think I should reconsider my view about this? What would you say?

Blessings, OM 

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Hi, OM,

If this particular discussion is too far afield from your intent, please let me know; I don't want to derail your thread.  Like I said, I think it is a very interesting inquiry, and I too am interested in the ways that our perspectives and experiences change as we develop (I started a thread on this here a couple years ago).

I think we may have a different understanding of some of the terms we're using, so hopefully that will become clearer as we proceed. 

You wrote:  “Situated,” “mediated” and “subject-object” are concepts within gross consciousness mostly at Green and Yellow levels. That whole ball of wax begins to melt as consciousness and identity expand further up the levels. This is what I conclude from reading first-hand accounts from many different sources, from talking to a variety of people, and from my own inner experiences.

So those matters can't be addressed because they are not relevant descriptors at the later, more mature stages. They just don't apply at all.

I don't think Wilber sees it this way; otherwise he wouldn't argue so strongly for the need to incorporate the insights of the intersubjectivists in Integral Spirituality, or frame his spiritual model in “post-metaphysical” terms, since post-metaphysics grows out of those insights.  His perspectival calculus and “Kosmic address” system are based on, and inspired by, post-modern Zone 2 and Zone 4 perspectives and research, among other things. 

But to get more to the point:  I do agree that the sense (and experience) of identity shifts and changes as we develop, and I further agree that the concerns of one level may either get reframed or even dropped altogether at another level.  But in this case, I suspect you might be using the terms, “situated,” and “mediated,” in a different sense than I am, if you say that such terms are irrelevant beyond Yellow – particularly if you concurrently believe in and find value in “giving addresses,” framing things in terms of developmental stages, etc.  Because having an “address” is “being situated,” even if that address gives you a vastly expanded scope of conscious awareness or range of perspectives available.

You wrote:  … also one can personally experience and talk with many others probably in your life now who are getting more and more sensitive to/apprehending more of/perceiving more of/empathetically responding concurrently (not via media news) to, events happening in other parts of the earth than the one the embodiment is located in. The very simplest example is people who “feel” earthquakes happening elsewhere on the planet.

Yes, I know people who say they can feel remote earthquakes and such things – mostly in the Sedona New Age / channeling community.  With some of them, I believe they might be feeling something (I've had “remote viewing” experiences myself); with others (the majority), I sense something more neurotic going on. 

But the reason I highlighted this passage is because, while it gives an example of the manifestation of “nonlocal,” empathic access to information, it doesn't really have much to do with what the intersubjectivists mean by situatedness – where situatedness points more to the historically and developmentally situated interpretive frames through which we understand experiences and events, no matter whether they are perceived via ordinary senses or extraordinary ones.

If you're interested, would you perhaps say more about your understanding of the nature of Turquoise and post-Turquoise development that would render intersubjectivist concerns and critiques obsolete? 

Best wishes,

B.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

This is fantastic, OM.  Thanks for putting this together!  I don't have anything to add right now, but I like this angle – intersubjectivity – vis a vis the levels, and I think you've given us some really good food for thought.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Bruce, it's probably not that off-topic, and I should be able to respond with something intelligible. Let's see. 

You are always so patient and polite with my maverick thinking, I really appreciate it.

I will be away from the computer for most of the day and evening, so will be thinking. Meanwhile, hope others jump in.

Blessings, OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Well, OK, a brief response. 

More precisely, I don't mean irrelevant beyond YELLOW, and I probably don't mean totally irrelevant, I mean that when identity goes so far beyond the human embodiment, it's hard to say what the IT is that would be called “situated.” Which identity would one be referring to, as there are layers within the Being. Where is the identity “situated” which has among its sub-identities an entire solar system's planets and sun, including all the inhabitants some of whom are at different levels from others? So at the least, the concepts being applied would need to be radically redefined, which is why research on humans becomes not very relevant.

I agree that empathic or direct access to information doesn't directly have to do with situatedness, as it can happen at various addresses for humans. But when that is a constant function of the identity of the Being, it is one of many indications that human terms and researches need to be radically altered, to be applicable.

So that's the best I can do while rushing to get out the door. Post-Turq development wouldn't render intersubjectivist terms and concerns irrelevant, but they would have to be so radically reconceptualized as to be almost inaccessible to the human mind. IMO. (But not to expanded experience and consciousness.) 

I guess ultimately we'll have to find some of these embodiments who are at that level, and sit them down and make them do their best to translate these terms and concerns into something that Yellow and Turq. and Coral can also understand. But it would be “pointing,” for sure. If the ontology or experiential Being of the higher states cannot be fully described in terms comprehensible to more contracted states, isn't it just logical to assume that the kinds of interactions and intra-actions among vaster or higher IDENTITIES/Beings/entities would also be only accessible to less developed entities (aka humans at Yellow and below, or Coral and below) by pointing?????

There are some descriptions of communicating and relating of these vast identities which I have read, in words, which have given me a feel for what I'm talking about, but in practice such goings-on, being outside of space and time constraints, are that pesky nonverbal dreamlike stuff that language just can't capture, nor can our perspectives encompass.

Does any of that make any sense?

On reflection I think I am doing in this thread what I often do in these posts to integral-type folks: trying to break us all through the glass ceiling of anthropocentric thinking, trying to give a flavor of what lies further along the developmental road, and how different it might be — to the extent that I am able to convey what little I have apprehended about it. You and others are also doing the same, sometimes much more skillfully than I, and with more than words!!

Blessings for this day,
OM  

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

OM: I guess ultimately we'll have to find some of these embodiments …


OM, how could you possibly find them if they're not there?  Don't people disappear after green?

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Aha, perhaps a clearer way of expressing my viewpoint: It isn't at all clear to me that any first second or 3rd person research or definitions or descriptions of “intersubjectivity” and related ideas which pertains to human beings whose worldviews/identities include dualistic ontological separateness, would be relevant to human beings whose worldviews/identities include ontological oneness-with-individuality. Doesn't it seem logically obvious that “intersubjective” then becomes a whole new ballgame?? [Important edit in this sentence from what went out in Notifications:] The very grounds of the experience, phenomenon, concept are, to the human dualistic mind, opposite and mutually exclusive. The basis for the conversation/research/discussion has changed in essence, in fundamentals. The axioms and assumptions enabling a mutual understanding of the concept have changed. 

Blessings, OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

I too am interested in the ways that our perspectives and experiences change as we develop (I started a thread on this here a couple years ago).


Would love the link, please! :)


OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Hi, it took me a bit, but I managed to hunt down that old thread.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

No, Tom, the little green people become little yellow people. You've never seen one?

LOL
OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Meta-discussion

Thanks for taking the time, Bruce. I'll take a look.

Kerry, thanks for responding. I will have to focus later today, but I hasten to add re this whole thread that I am a learner in this area. I have a lot more questions than opinions. 

I've just finished McIntosh's Integral Consciousness, and am about to start writing an extensive “dialogue” (one-sided, at this point) with him, my aim being to raise questions and expand the discussion, rather than be in a right-wrong mode. The idea of intersubjectivity is central, and here and there I personally would like to explore it in a lot more detail.

So will study these posts, and the old thread, and get back here as soon as I can. 

But until my person arrives at the door, here's a thought-experiment on the meta level here.

Suppose a “life-form” which is not really alive in the sense of bodies that can “die” but individuals are composed of balls of energy which are conscious and each of which is a self-aware “I” or identity. However, not only are they all completely and constantly what we might call “telepathic,” but their “bodies” can at will merge completely, like clouds, and the individual interior awarenesses also merge completely too, but then can separate (not in the dualistic sense but in the sense of individuated “I's” again. Like a “Vulcan mind meld.”

So, if we brought to them the concept of “intersubjectivity” as we understand it given our bodies and identities, what do you think they would say about it as it might pertain to them??

Blessings,
OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

OM, your thought experiment makes me think that there's a point as the self-sense expands where you can no longer cleanly distinguish subjectivity from intersubjectivity.  They're intertwined and overlapping, and the “boundaries” might be fractal in nature.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Hi Tely, IMO subjectivity necessarily implies the intersubjective; the two always appear together.  I personally think the two are closer than intertwined.  As an individual, I am also species; a species can only exist in individuals, thus but for the species, no individual, and vice versa.  My individuality therefore always walks and talks the species, even in my 'unique individual aspects.'  

The quippy saying 'two sides of the same coin' is still too separative to convey the one-thingness of such duals as subjective and intersubjective.  My 2¢.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Meta-discussion

Oooh, I love the insights emerging. Tely, bringing in the idea of fractals always makes my mind rise up and applaud!! Holograms and fractals seem to smack of “truth” in so many realms of inquiry. The idea also adds a bit of form/structure to what Tom was saying about intertwinedness. 

Taking off from some of the insights here, and what I (unfortunately not consciously) recall from McIntosh, who as I (unfortunately not clearly) recall didn't go into definitions at all, the following is what I woke up thinking this morning. I think much of what we have all been trying to say falls out of the exploration of this definition. I'd love to hear comments of any sort.

Intersubjectivity

is an inference, usually subconscious, and operating constantly and automatically, drawn by an individual human, about other humans. The inference does not appear to be innate or inevitable; it does require certain kinds of almost universally available experiences in order to emerge and operate in the (sub)consciousness of an individual. Thus, it is based ultimately on sensory input, and thus it does emerge almost universally without anyone's conscious effort to create it. Certain humans appear not to develop this inference, such as those we label as “severely autistic,” “psychopathic,” and “sociopathic.” 


The “almost universally available experiences” probably include being interacted with humans who themselves are operating on the inference and including the individual in it. (The human environment of many psychopaths appears to include humans who are NOT making that inference wrt the particular child and others.Thus the child does not draw the inference of “likeness” or does not “contage” the inference, or however we would describe the process.)

This inference could be worded as follows: “Other humans have the same or similar inner thoughts, feelings, experiences, meanings, values, as I do, and they are also making the same inference about me and about other humans.” This latter part is that the individual makes the inference that others are making the same inference!! I believe a definition would be incomplete without this additional layer.

It is clear from this definition that the second word, “humans” could sometimes to some extents be replaced by nouns referring to other sentient life-forms or other Earth species. “To some extents” means that the experience of intersubjectivity would have its limits, based on the person's experiences of the kind and degree of shared thoughts, feelings, experiences, meanings, values.

It is also clear from this definition that intersubjectivity has no ontological status of its own (except a certain kind of independent existence related to it, perceptible only by Turquoise-stages and above.) At earlier stages, it is a relational concept, emergent only in consciousness, and residing only as a subconscious inference/assumption/axiom in an individual mind BUT ALSO in other individual minds at the same time in the same shared interactive space.

How can an outside observer say that an individual or collection of individuals are making the inference of intersubjectivity? I'm not sure, but I suspect only if that observer shares that assumption to a certain degree.

It is also clear from this definition that the concept could be adapted to be a 3p/observer conclusion about a different species, to the extent there is any plausible inference of shared experience. Thus humans could speak about a kind or degree of intersubjectivity shared among fish or birds, etc. but only , IMO, to the degree and kind of intersubjectivity inferred between that human and one or more of those species.

It is also clear from this definition that, in the case of other species, our pets are somewhere between other humans and ordinary animals. Most pet owners are inferring quite a bit of shared intersubjectivity with their pets.

It is also clear what human experiences lie downstream from the assumption or inference of intersubjectivity: just about all human interactions in which the other is treated not as a deaf-dumb-blind and unconscious object. Empathy, culture, mutual benefit, shared languages, etc. etc. A great deal of what most people think makes us uniquely human.

Note that this definition does NOT require that the actual ontological status of the intersubjective interactions or the “other” be in the Gross sensory realm!! If I am having experiences that I interpret as telepathic and mostly nonverbal “communication” with something I perceive as an identity/entity “other” than me, I am going to infer, and operate on the inference, that intersubjectivity exists with that Being.

By this definition, especially the second part, the term “shared intersubjectivity” means that an outside observer can see/infer/conclude/surmise that apparently, more than one person is making the inference. I can only infer that others appear to be making the same inference about me and others that I am making. An outside multiple-person observer might be able to see more accurately what is going on among us all. But then again, maybe not. Perhaps my internal evidence, based on my experience with others, is a more accurate barometer of whether they have inferred intersubjectivity with me.

I'm wondering whether to speak of “intersubjectivity” as a noun is a dangerous reification, and whether we should restrict ourselves to the adjective, and if so, what nouns should we apply the adjective to. Intersubjective awareness? Intersubjective Behavior? The intersubjective Conclusion/inference?



Does this viewpoint take into account or imply most of what others here think about the topic/concept? At some point I'll go back and comb through McIntosh and see what he says explicitly about this. Perhaps I absorbed it so well I am simply regurgitating it and thinking this is more than what he said (or what he said others said….)


Excitedly,
OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Meta-discussion, and edited from the first version I posted:

Sorry, should make something more explicit, as I re-read what Tom said. I'm saying the inference of intersubjectivity is itself a subjective experience/phenomenon of consciousness, “located” in an individual interior, but its emergence and operation seem to require interactions with others who are making that inference, each individually subjectively, and including both the particular individual, and others, in their inference. 

Thus, intersubjectivity is itself fundamentally subjective, and subjective interiors  “catch” the inference from others, thus, the presence of the intersubjectivity inference in the childhood human-interactive environment is totally essential to its emergence in any individual. (Well, OK, the kid raised by wolves would have it to some extent. An interesting thought-experiment……) 

That's what Tom and Tely just said, I think, just in more specific words. I bet some of you can tell me what I said better than I understand it, haha. Especially the “enactive” nature of it all.

I have yet to fully comprehend what Bruce and Kerry have sed. I'm wukkin' on it. 

:)
OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Hi Om, I don't have a clear definition of intersubjective in my mind, but the way I read these dualities is this: the one implies the other, not as the flipside of a coin, which implies distance between, but in its very being, if you will.  Thus even to conceive of 'subject' implies other-than-subject.  The two—subject and intersubject—are born in the very same act and are identical.*  Even the word subject is intersubjective insofar as every word carries a communicative aspect.  Note that our own subjects are, in a real sense to me, interiorly intersubjective.  My saying 'subject,' to extend the notion of communicative aspect, is a communication between parts-inside, the interaction of those parts—an interior intersubjectivity comprising my 'subject.'  Turtles all the way down.

So, yes to what you're saying, and more.

* Thanks to Bruce, I was introduced to the Japanese philosopher Nishida.  In his later work, he propounded an idea of “absolute contradictory identity,” which in my mind resonates with what I'm expressing above.  Duals inhabit each other—in the very same space and with absolutely no remove.  They are identically extended, to speak spatially.  One is the other contradictorily, and absolutely (ie, never not anywhere however).

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Meta discussion

Turtles it is, Tom. I love what you said.

And I like the idea of Nishida's you described. And yet, and yet, “absolutely no remove” has to take into account that the human mind perceives a difference, a distinction, an individuation, which might not be there ultimately ontologically in whatever is being perceived, but as it co-arises for us, the identity is somehow intermingled with a difference, or we couldn't even perceive the referents of the words, or language it, or even have it in our consciousness which works off differences, at most levels. Doesn't it seem that way?

So it's paradox-as-usual time, re this as everything else. As I see it.

Thanks for the exciting ideas, everyone here.

Blessings, OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Continued meta discussion (cuz meta is betta)

A number of modern developmental psychologists suggest that the sense of being an individual subject arises out of intersubjective / interrelational communication and exchange; and further, that the subject, as a structure, is intersubjectively constituted (object relations, language, culture, etc).  In other words, from this perspective, the relationship in some sense precedes the relata.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

BLUE (AMBER)


Gross

Second item:  This might actually start as far back as Purple (Magenta) or Red. There have been millions of humans, in thousands of groups, who have regarded the humans in certain other (tribal, ethnic, color) groups as sub-human, even as “animals.” These sub-humans or animals were often in the role of slaves. They were regarded as not having the same cognitive and emotional capacities as “full humans.” They were not given rights or respect or empathy, and they were often “talked down to” as if they were as stupid as animals (I know, I know, animals are not so stupid!)

And to the extent that these people identified in their categorization, they probably treated one another as sub-human too, being rude and disrespectful and very unempathetic.

This obviously sets a severe limit on intersubjectivity between the people in the groups. More in the one direction than the other, probably.

This limited intersubjectivity would thus include (most) slave-owners of any culture, a lot of the Nazis, ….who else? This limited intersubjectivity is not as radical as autism or psycho-/sociopaths, but it's similar to their limitation, how they regard other humans, IMO.

If this is so, then we might say that one characteristic of moving up the spiral of maturing/evolving/developing consciousness/worldviews is increasing the scope/span of kinds of Beings included not only in one's identity, as has been described by KW and SD and others, but therefore also by necessity, included and available for intersubjectivity or, in my terms, included in the intersubjective inference an individual makes.

That's this morning's inspiration upon arising,
Blessings,
OM Bastet 

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Caught me online. Fo shua, meta is betta. I always end up meta to everything….  :)

That all sounds very sensible to me, and is? another expression of the viewpoint we've been exploring, is that right? Could it be rephrased as that an individual human baby will not develop a sense of identity and make an intersubjective inference, if it is not raised by other humans?

The experience of subjectivity as a structure (not sure precisely how that is defined) might ARISE intersubjectively, and be partly constituted that way, but also, doesn't it require the experienced reality of having a physical body to be part of the subjective experience or experience of subjectivity??? So not ENTIRELY “constituted” by or consisting of, object relations, etc. ????

The best book on this subject I have run across is one about which I say “No one is truly an educated person until this is included in the books they have read – and grokked.” British psychologist R.D. Laing, The Politics of Experience. An old book but never IMO surpassed on its topic. It's an almost chilling description of how our psyche, our core subjective framework for experiencing, is shaped by our human environment, or in Wilber jargon, how the foundational internal categories of experience of the UL are formed/constrained by the LL.

Thanks for the yummy breakfast ideas!
OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

The body is a plurality.  One might therefore say the experience of 'subject' arises as the effect of the intersubjectivity—the intersubjective interaction—of one's bodily constituents.  No cells-in-interaction, no awareness whatever.

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

That all sounds very sensible to me, and is? another expression of the viewpoint we've been exploring, is that right?

In a previous post, it seemed you had been emphasizing the primacy of subjectivity and describing intersubjectivity as a secondary inference (that may potentially occur within the pre-existing subject).  So that's why I chimed in with that other perspective, since it takes an opposite view:  that the subject emerges out of an intersubjective field.  But as I see it, this difference has to do, in part, with how we are defining subjectivity and intersubjectivity…

Although I have a few qualms about them, Christian de Quincey has made some distinctions that might be useful to bring in here:

~*~

“Subjectivity has at least two critical meanings:

o Subjectivity-1: “experienced interiority”;

o Subjectivity-2: “private, independent, isolated experience.”

Subjectivity-1: In the first case, subjectivity means, essentially, a capacity for feeling that is intrinsic, or interior, to the entity under consideration–a what-it-feels-like-from-within. The key notion here is “experienced interiority” as distinct from vacuous (i.e. without experience) external relations. A subject is constituted by internal relations, and these are felt or experienced. Without experience there could be no subjectivity (and vice versa; in fact, the two words are virtually synonymous); and experience is always internal or intrinsic to the subject-that is to say, experience doesn't “happen to” a subject, it is constitutive of the subject.

Subjectivity has a point of view. It “takes account of,” or feels, its own being. Its being is validated, felt, or known from within itself-hence it is first-person–not just from without. It cannot be fully accounted for by external, mechanical relations. A subject lives or endures through time, feeling its own continuity.

Subjectivity-2: In another, related through restricted, sense, subjectivity means an isolated, independent, self-sufficient locus of experience. Classically, this is the Cartesian ego, wholly private, and independent of all reality external to it. In the first case, subjectivity-1, experienced interiority is not automatically self-contained within its own private domain–it is interior, but not necessarily independent or isolated. The question of whether it is self-contained or interdependent is left open: It is possible for subjectivity-1 to be either interior and shared, or interior and private. In this second, Cartesian, case, the subject is not only interior, it is self-contained and private. Such independent egos, or subjects–Leibniz called them “monads”–can communicate only via mediating signals, whereas subjectivity-1 can communicate by participating in shared presence. With subjectivity-1, interiority or feeling can be “intersubjective” and precede individual subjects; in subjectivity-2, interiority is always private, and intersubjectivity, if it occurs, is always secondary. I will be using both forms of “subjectivity” in this paper, but will be careful to indicate, where it is not obvious from the context, which variety I am referring to.

Which brings us to the core question raised by this paper: Which comes first, subjectivity or intersubjectivity? I will return to this in a moment, but first I should clarify what I mean by “intersubjective.”
Intersubjectivity


Again, we should make an important distinction between two basic meanings-standard and experiential-with a further sub-distinction of the experiential meaning:


o Intersubjectivity-1 (standard meaning): “consensual validation between independent subjects via exchange of signals.” Standard intersubjectivity relies on exchange of physical signals;

o Intersubjectivity-2a (weak-experiential meaning): “mutual engagement and participation between independent subjects, which conditions their respective experience.” It is psychological. Weak or psychological intersubjectivity relies on nonphysical presence, and affects the contents of pre-existing subjects;

o Intersubjectivity-2b (strong-experiential meaning): “mutual co-arising and engagement of interdependent subjects, or intersubjects, which creates their respective experience.” It is ontological. Strong or ontological intersubjectivity relies on co-creative nonphysical presence, and brings distinct subjects into being out of a prior matrix of relationships.

The basic difference to note here is between intersubjective agreement (1), where my language about the world conforms to yours, through exchange of conceptual and linguistic tokens, and intersubjective participation (2a), or intersubjective co-creativity (2b), where my experience of myself shows up qualitatively differently when I engage with you as a reciprocating center of experience. The first kind, the standard meaning of intersubjectivity, is used to describe what otherwise goes by the name of “objectivity” in science (Velmans, 1992, 1993), and is not what I am concerned with in this paper. I am trying to get at something deeper, something with potentially profound implications for philosophy of mind and consciousness studies in general.

In the second (and third) sense, intersubjectivity happens through participation and mutuality, and we don't even have to agree. In fact, the vitality of this form of intersubjectivity is that it is often heightened by authentic disagreement and exploration of differences.

Let's look more closely at these distinctions:

Intersubjectivity-1: This standard meaning derives from Cartesian subjectivity (isolated, independent subjects). Here, individual subjectivity ontologically precedes intersubjectivity. Individual, isolated subjects come first, and then through communication of signals arrive at consensual agreement. Here, the “inter” in intersubjectivity refers to agreement “between” subjects about so-called objective facts–and the subjects don't even have to interact (their agreement could be validated by a third party, as indeed is often the case in science).

Intersubjectivity-2a: Here, the sense of individual subjects remains, but now intersubjectivity refers to how the experience or consciousness of participating subjects is influenced and conditioned by their mutual interaction and engagement. The emphasis here is on the “experienced interiority” of the subjects as they interact, not on their “objective” agreement about some item of knowledge. Although this is a significant shift of emphasis from the standard meaning of intersubjectivity, nevertheless it is “weak” compared with the “strong” shift we will look at below. It is “weak,” not because the participation and engagement involved is weak–indeed it could be intense–but because it refers to changes that happen to the form of consciousness of the participating subjects, not to the fact of such consciousness. It is “weak” insofar as it refers to the contents, not the context, of consciousness. It is a “weak” meaning of intersubjectivity because it addresses psychological rather than philosophical issues; it is “weak” because it still posits subjectivity as ontologically prior to intersubjectivity. Here, the “inter” in intersubjectivity refers to the mutual “structural coupling” of already existing experiencing subjects, where the interiorities of the participating subjects are interdependently shaped by their interaction.

Intersubjectivity-2b: This is the most radical meaning, and one that offers the most promise to transpersonal psychology. According to this “stronger” meaning, intersubjectivity is truly a process of co-creativity, where relationship is ontologically primary. All individuated subjects co-emerge, or co-arise, as a result of a holistic “field” of relationships. The being of any one subject is thoroughly dependent on the being of all other subjects, with which it is in relationship. Here, intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity (in the second, Cartesian, sense, but subjectivity in the first sense, of experienced interiority, is implicit throughout). The fact, not just the form, of subjectivity (second, Cartesian sense) is a consequence of intersubjectivity. Here, the “inter” in intersubjectivity refers to an “interpenetrating” co-creation of loci of subjectivity–a thoroughly holistic and organismic mutuality.
The Big Question: Which Came First: Subjectivity or Intersubjectivity?

Given these distinct meanings of intersubjectivity, we are faced with five questions for philosophy of mind and consciousness studies: (1) Is the basic distinction between the standard meaning of intersubjectivity as “consensual agreement” and the other two experiential forms identified here legitimate? (2) If the distinction is valid, do interacting subjects actively shape the form and content of each other's experience? and (3) if so, can one subject have direct access (not mediated by signals) to knowledge of how the other experiences this change? And (4) through this knowledge of how “I” show up in “your” experience, can I come to know something about my own consciousness? Finally, (5) does intersubjectivity actually create individual subjectivities, is it ontologically primary, or does intersubjectivity presuppose already existing centers of subjectivity?

In answer to (1), if we accept the first meaning of subjectivity (“experienced interiority”)–and what else could subjectivity mean if we excluded this?–I believe that we need a way to account for phenomenological data, such as experiences of rapport, empathy, and love between interacting subjects, which prima facie cannot be wholly explained in terms of exchange of linguistic or other signals. Phenomenologically and logically, therefore, the distinction is valid: Intersubjectivity cannot be restricted to the standard meaning of “consensual validation” of observations via exchange of physical signals.

In answer to (2), “Do interacting subjects actively shape the form and content of each other's experience?” volumes of data from social psychology, communications theory, psychoanalysis, anthropology, not to mention much commonsense folk psychology–plus the answer to (1) above–hardly leave us any doubt: Interacting people do influence and condition each other's experience and contents of consciousness (how else could communication occur?). If this were the full extent of the expanded meaning of intersubjectivity, the point would be trivial. It is questions (3), (4), and (5) that raise controversial epistemological and ontological issues for philosophy of mind and consciousness studies.

For if we can answer yes to (3)–“Can one subject have direct access (not mediated by signals) to knowledge of how the other experiences this change?”–then the epistemological tradition we have inherited from Kant and the Enlightenment would be radically undermined. The hoary problem of other minds would finally have a solution. If both this and (4)–“Through knowledge of how 'I' show up in 'your' experience, I can come to know something about my own consciousness”–are true, the implications for a second-person methodology in consciousness studies would be far-reaching.

But if (5)–“Intersubjectivity actually creates individual subjectivities, and is ontologically primary” should turn out to be true, then pretty much the entire edifice of conventional philosophy and science, based on an ontology of substance (both of matter and mind) would be seriously challenged. For how could there be intersubjectivity without there being always-already existing subjects? How could there be relations without pre-existing relata? Commonsense, and even logic, seem to demand that for there to be relationship there have to be things to relate in the first place. Given an ontology of substance (whether of physical energy or of Cartesian minds), the primacy of relata seems compelling. However, we have examples of alternative ontologies from, for instance, Alfred North Whitehead (1979) and Buddhism (Macy, 1991), where process is ontologically fundamental. These ontologies present coherent accounts where relationships are primary, where relata are constituted by their relationships. In such cosmologies, intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity (Cartesian sense). Of course, even in these alternative ontologies, intersubjectivity presupposes subjectivity in the sense of “experienced interiority.”

Whereas the fact of experienced interiority is a precondition for intersubjectivity, the forms of individual subjectivities (how that interiority is shaped and experienced in individual subjects) need not–and in the cases of Whitehead and Buddhism do not–require pre-existent Cartesian subjects. Such “forms,” co-created as perishable centers of experience in the interplay and flux of intersubjective fact, are the individual subjects.

Whether we go all out, and try to make a case for this strong version of intersubjectivity (with its profound philosophical implications) or keep our sights on a closer horizon by focusing on the “weaker” sense of intersubjectivity (with its implications for psychology and studies of the contents of consciousness) we still need to make a break from the conventional dichotomy of studying the mind from either a third-person or first-person perspective. We need to introduce a second-person perspective into our studies of consciousness…” (Read full essay here.)

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

AMEN!!!!!!!!

OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Well that just goes to show the difference between an amateur and a professional…..

Wow. He really dives deeply into it!!

I can locate most of what I was thinking about (and what I think we were all talking about) within his distinctions. Very very useful.

A random dip in:

I am beginning to smell that the whole question of which is ontologically prior, inter-s. or s., is another version of the question of which is ontologically prior, Emptiness or Form. IOW, an unanswerable question, as phrased. What do you think??

Do his questions 3 and 4 amount to: Is nonlocal influence real among humans? Or: Do the psychic and subtle states contain interaction, communication, mutual influence? (If so, to me the answer is obviously DUH, but of course many would disagree.) Are those approximations of what he is asking?

I did a double-take at the little word “presupposes” in the second sentence of this:

In such cosmologies, intersubjectivity precedes subjectivity (Cartesian sense). Of course, even in these alternative ontologies, intersubjectivity presupposes subjectivity in the sense of “experienced interiority.”


That sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it, too, or am I missing something???? And this paragraph doesn't help:

Whereas the fact of experienced interiority is a precondition for intersubjectivity, the forms of individual subjectivities (how that interiority is shaped and experienced in individual subjects) need not–and in the cases of Whitehead and Buddhism do not–require pre-existent Cartesian subjects. Such “forms,” co-created as perishable centers of experience in the interplay and flux of intersubjective fact, are the individual subjects.

I kinda have to try to translate that. Like: Whereas the fact of consciousness is necessary for different clumps of consciousness to experience relating as “other,” the actual interior experience of relating, by each clump within itself, does not necessitate that we posit that the clumps are ontologically prior to the fact of consciousness or the field of it in which these are clumps. Forms that partake of interior experience of awareness come and go, created by the field of consciousness/intersubjectivity.

Am I in the ballpark with that translation? If so, then I can relate what he says to lots of spiritual writings, of course.

I like what he does, I like where he's going, I like that he's trying to reach a particular audience by rephrasing things in a way they can relate to. 

WRT whether I was making subject prior to intersubjective, since both perspectives seem true, probably I would label the very question as erroneously phrased, probably simply another version of the old mind-body duality. We are individual, and we are clumps in a field composed of the same stuff, energetically and materially. It needs an individual identity to experience “inter” and in both its initial formation (childhood) and the way “inter” takes place, the “one” is a co-arising with other clumps of “oneness.” (Lower-case “o”.)

Isn't it interesting how so many philosophical questions and psychological questions, when you dive ever more deeply into them, seem to dissolve into more fundamental questions?

Thanks for taking me further than I knew there was to go, Bruce, with your questions and input and observtions and resources, and ditto everyone else here. It's the group-mind I most enjoy, not the feeble flappings of my own.

Blessings, OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

Ever more in the meta discussion:

P.S. If we make “intersubjective” ontologically PRIOR, then it's a logically inappropriate word, isn't it? “Intersubjective” presupposes distinct individuations of consciousness interacting/relating. That's what “inter” presupposes, doesn't it? So if we go where de Quincey would lead us, we'd need a different word, one with more unity to it. “Field” is good; I can relate to “field.” 

OM

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity

TURQUOISE (second stage, Second Tier)

Gross

First item: At Turquoise, rather than being an occasional experience,
certain kinds of intersubjective phenomena start to show up more
often. These include for example, people in a group having the same
thoughts at the same time, starting to speak the same thoughts at the
same time, having simultaneously the same emotional experiences or
memories, composing a post and then finding someone else has already
posted essentially the same thing, etc. At Turquoise, these are
occasions for special remark, and more interestingly, people tend to
be unaware that this is about to happen or, in the case of unexpressed
experiences, that it is happening. IOW they don't know that they know.

At CORAL (first stage, Third Tier) these occasions are so routine they
are no longer cause for special remark, and the people are usually
aware of when they are participating in this kind of mutuality, as
there is a felt-sense to the shared thoughts and feelings which is now
detectable to the individuals involved. This kind of synchronicity of
mutual understanding and experience is assumed and counted on for many
kinds of interpersonal activities.

At TEAL (second stage, Third Tier) of course, there are no moments of
life exempt from complete understandings and simultaneities and
synchronicities, which are mutual with anyone at this level and any
lower level who is capable of this particular kind of consciousness.
There is some effort required by consciousness to maintain
individuation of experiences and distinctness of human identity.

———————————————-

Certain kinds of group activities, such as those in Holacracy, in
which everyone is encouraged to “tune into” an overarching shared
group purpose, can generate more frequent such experiences much
earlier developmentally, so that folks even in mid-to-late YELLOW
(Teal, Integral)  would have these experiences more often, at least in
the setting in which they are part of the expected functioning of the
group, although like a muscle exercised, the ability would probably be
more available to group members as individuals and would pop up for
them in other settings, too.


Remember this all is brainstorming, just a proposal based on best knowledge to date. 


Blessings, OM Bastet

Re: The Experience of Intersubjectivity -- Meta discussion

It struck me that Sandra Jensen's recent blog Language is Holy is relevant to this thread, and also to a lot we talk about here in the Integral Pod.

Blessings, OM