Subject 1 is asking whether Subject and Object derive their meaning through relationship, while our attempt to discuss it is itself creating a little laboratory of Subjects, Objects and relationships.
Which gives Observatology its first principle:
When two Subjects wish to understand one another, multiplying the Objects between them does not necessarily deepen the relationship.
An Observatological standoff has been generated.
The question remains unanswered and we have now have opened another portal and generated a new Object for both Subjects to observe.
Is there such a thing as a subject without an object?
If subject means that which experiences something, and through neti neti we remove everything that can possibly be experienced, in what sense does the word subject still have meaning?
Everything else in the world can be set on a table. You can hold it, weigh it, turn it over, take it apart, and give it a name. The name is never the thing — the word fire has never once been warm — but the name at least points at the thing, aims your eye toward it, and that aiming is what we call knowledge. All knowledge has this shape. There is a knower, a knowing, and a known: I see the tree. Subject, verb, object. Every fact ever established, every science ever built, every word ever spoken, stands on that three-legged grammar.
🤣
Subject A wants relationship with Subject B.
Subject B keeps introducing Objects.
Subject 1 is asking whether Subject and Object derive their meaning through relationship, while our attempt to discuss it is itself creating a little laboratory of Subjects, Objects and relationships.
Which gives Observatology its first principle:
When two Subjects wish to understand one another, multiplying the Objects between them does not necessarily deepen the relationship.
An Observatological standoff has been generated.
The question remains unanswered and we have now have opened another portal and generated a new Object for both Subjects to observe.
🤣
🤣
Hi Glenn,
I really enjoy your neti neti discussions.
They've left me wondering about something:
Is there such a thing as a subject without an object?
If subject means that which experiences something, and through neti neti we remove everything that can possibly be experienced, in what sense does the word subject still have meaning?
I'm genuinely curious how you see that.
YES
Everything else in the world can be set on a table. You can hold it, weigh it, turn it over, take it apart, and give it a name. The name is never the thing — the word fire has never once been warm — but the name at least points at the thing, aims your eye toward it, and that aiming is what we call knowledge. All knowledge has this shape. There is a knower, a knowing, and a known: I see the tree. Subject, verb, object. Every fact ever established, every science ever built, every word ever spoken, stands on that three-legged grammar.
https://glenroberts911399.substack.com/p/why?r=1pgr4n&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Your response actually makes me more curious about the relationship between subject and object.
You write: “There is a knower, a knowing, and a known: I see the tree. Subject, verb, object.”
That leaves me wondering:
Once you've removed the object, what entitles us to continue calling what remains a subject?
It seems that subject and object may describe positions within a relationship rather than things that exist independently of that relationship.
Perhaps something remains when that relationship disappears, or in the alternative, what is no longer needed?
Did you visit the link?
🤣
Observatology Field Report #1
Subject A asked Subject B a question.
Subject B produced an Object (link).
Subject A declined to observe the Object and attempted to observe Subject B directly.
Subject B observed that Subject A had failed to observe the Object.
Conclusion: Relationship confirmed.
😆