By way of analogy, consider that there are infinitely many real numbers between 1 and 10, and yet this set of numbers still has edges, boundaries, limits.
Similarly, our physical embodiment constrains the potential variety of human perspectives. We are not observers separate from the world, who happen to have vehicles called bodies to walk around in. Our bodies and our thinking are not separate and autonomous. We can only think in certain ways, which bear the indelible stamp of immanence and physicality.
In that sense, the post-modern deconstruction of all meaning through endless re-contextualization is as much a fool's errand as the endless search for objective truth -- which is to say, half-way.
Sure, we can re-contextualize something as many times as we want, but we can only recontextualize it in certain ways.
Posts
In what ways are we limited in recontextualizing? Are you refering to a limitation by way of communication (words, sounds we can physcially make, etc.)? Is there a connection between how people are physically limited in observing or experiencing meaning and the ability to achieve a type of enlightment in understanding? More importanting, is overcoming, or at least understanding, this limitation important in order to grow and progress?
ReplyDeleteI think understanding our limitations is important, but I think a fair number cannot be overcome.
ReplyDeleteIn short, the argument is that our physical form (arms, legs, symmetrical body, ability to see certain colors, etc.) has an impact on the way we do abstract thinking. As we grow and interact with the world in new ways, we learn to associate certain physical experiences with certain abstract concepts. For example, "more is up" makes intuitive sense, because we all learned as children that when you pour more liquid in a glass, the surface goes up. The list of similar metaphorical associations is nearly endless. As a result, the way we think abstractly is largely based on our physical form, which we can't really change.
So, while there are probably an infinite/indefinite/arbitrary number of ways we can think about things, there are a similar number of ways we can't think about things. I can't think about things the same way a fish would, for example, since I don't have a fish body and therefore don't have the same physical experiences, metaphorical associations, or conceptual structures. Thus, I can't recontextualize things the way a fish might.
As a result, while the permutations of human thought are many, they tend to have some underlying similarities. In terms of concepts, there are certain structures that get used over and over again, including identity, boundaries, qualities, opposites/polarity, kinds/categories, spectra, contexts, and perspectives.