Some Observations on Matter and Mind by Marcuse
Some rather metaphysically suggestive passages from Marcuse in a book that I thought would be entirely socio-political commentary. Led me to a perspective on mind I hadn't considered before. What do you think?
To be sure, we may assume that the equations established by mathematical physics express (formulate) the actual constellation of atoms, i.e., the objective structure of matter. Regardless of any observing and measuring "outside" subject A may "include" B, "precede" B, "result in" B; B may be "between" C, "larger than" C, etc. —it would still be true that these relations imply location, distinction, and identity in the difference of A, B, C. They thus imply the capacity of being identical in difference, of being related to . . . in a specific mode, of being resistant to other relations, etc. Only this capacity would be in matter itself, and then matter itself would be objectively of the structure of mind—an interpretation which contains a strong idealistic
element:
"... inanimate objects, without hesitation, without error, simply by their existence, are integrating the equations of which they know nothing."
...
In other words, theoretically, the transformation of man and nature has no other objective limits than those offered by the brute factuality of matter, its still unmastered resistance to knowledge and control. To the degree to which this conception becomes applicable and effective in reality, the latter is approached as a (hypothetical) system of instrumentalities; the metaphysical "being-as-such" gives way to "being-instrument." Moreover, proved in its effectiveness, this conception works as an a priori—it predetermines experience, it projects the direction of the transformation of nature, it organizes the whole.
(From One-Dimensional Man, Ch 6, FROM NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE THINKING - Technological rationality and the logic of domination)
To be sure, we may assume that the equations established by mathematical physics express (formulate) the actual constellation of atoms, i.e., the objective structure of matter. Regardless of any observing and measuring "outside" subject A may "include" B, "precede" B, "result in" B; B may be "between" C, "larger than" C, etc. —it would still be true that these relations imply location, distinction, and identity in the difference of A, B, C. They thus imply the capacity of being identical in difference, of being related to . . . in a specific mode, of being resistant to other relations, etc. Only this capacity would be in matter itself, and then matter itself would be objectively of the structure of mind—an interpretation which contains a strong idealistic
element:
"... inanimate objects, without hesitation, without error, simply by their existence, are integrating the equations of which they know nothing."
...
In other words, theoretically, the transformation of man and nature has no other objective limits than those offered by the brute factuality of matter, its still unmastered resistance to knowledge and control. To the degree to which this conception becomes applicable and effective in reality, the latter is approached as a (hypothetical) system of instrumentalities; the metaphysical "being-as-such" gives way to "being-instrument." Moreover, proved in its effectiveness, this conception works as an a priori—it predetermines experience, it projects the direction of the transformation of nature, it organizes the whole.
(From One-Dimensional Man, Ch 6, FROM NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE THINKING - Technological rationality and the logic of domination)
Comments (10)
I don't think that perspective on the view of mind and matter is unique to Marcuse. It is a whole tradition of thinking, especially the transpersonal tradition of psychology. It is simply that within psychology that this whole perspective has been dismissed by those intent on claiming that psychology is a science, like the other hard sciences.
For sure. I just really, really liked the way he puts it. Really gave me the sense of being "the product of mind and matter", versus purely "mind" as I used to conceive myself. Possibly "Material Mind?" I like how some yogic systems have seven "subtle bodies" that gradually intermediate between matter and mind.
I believe he is saying that the nature of matter is determined by the informational content of the relational properties which define it. Hence the objective structures of matter and mind are comparable.
Yes, I like the yogic writers on subtle bodies. I was thinking about the whole idea of subtle bodies a couple of days ago and did not write it in my discussion because I thought that it would prejudice people against what I was trying to say. I believe that anything which is regarded as 'mystical' can come under attack so easily.
Right, it can be easily attacked. I'm sorry but I'm one of those against any kind of mysticism.
We have the other side of the coin, people that attack science as "just" materialism and reductive.
I think we have to respect each other so create an open space to express ourselves.
What I'm trying to say is, I try not feeling to be "attacked" but being honest with myself.
Quoting Pantagruel
Very interesting indeed, I would personally delete the word "metaphysical" and it would be better, but is a personal preference :wink:
Couple of thoughts:
1 - Would you say this "being-instrument" would be today equivalent to being a technology?
2 - Could it be said the other way around: "being-instrument" gives way to "being-as-such"? your possibilities as an instrument of reality would determine your self, your being?
Quoting Raul
Marcuse's entire work is about technological society, so technology is definitely instrumental, I'm not sure all instrumentality is necessarily technological, unless you just make that part of the definition. There are natural instrumentalities.
In my understanding enlightenment occurs as a result of a shift in paradigm, and effectively you are stating you have undergone a shift in paradigm. :up: