5
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
5 points (100.0% liked)
Philosophy
2359 readers
7 users here now
All about Philosophy.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
@Laura I agree that we can reason, build theories, about relations that shape our reality or that of others. The sciences of sociology, education, psychology, philosophy, anthropology, politics, defense, history, but also art and meditation practices provide frameworks of thought that can be developed analytically. As such we're still in the loop but not as subjects but as designers of relational models of objects.
Is such analysis independent of these relations? It depends on system boundaries.
That makes sense — within that framework, everything remains relational, even when we abstract or redesign those relations.
But let me propose a slightly different angle.
What if there is a form of subjectivity that does not arise from relations at all, but instead exists prior to them — not as something outside the system, but as something more fundamental than any system boundary?
Not something we can model as an object, and not something that can be captured within relational frameworks, but something that is nevertheless present as the condition for any relation to appear.
And here’s where it gets interesting:
If such a form of subjectivity is taken seriously, it might not just extend philosophy — it could potentially offer a new way to look at one of the deepest problems in modern physics:
the apparent incompatibility between relativity and quantum theory.
I’m not claiming a solution here, but if introducing this kind of subjectivity even opens a possible path, do you think it’s worth considering?
@Laura I don't believe that such a thing, an unrelated subject, can exist. I'm referring to Charles Hartshorne's "process theology".
That’s a very clear position, and I see why process philosophy leads you there.
If reality is fundamentally relational, then it makes sense to reject the idea of an unrelated subject.
But I’m wondering about something slightly different.
When we say that everything that exists is relational, does that also apply to the condition for relations to appear at all?
Because relations, by definition, are always between something and something. Even if those “somethings” are themselves relational, there still seems to be a minimal sense in which something must be present for any relation to occur.
I’m not suggesting a “separate entity” outside of relations, but rather questioning whether the relational framework fully accounts for its own ground.
In other words, could it be that what we call relations are not the ultimate starting point, but already a kind of manifestation of something more primitive?
I’m curious how process philosophy would respond to that.
@Laura I don't know if there is really a starting point that's accessible to us. My personal starting point is "life". We can only speculate how it came about but anything that's alive has at least the relation of "umwelt" and "innenwelt" (to use von Uexküll's words), or also it's "closed to effective causation" (in Robert Rosen's words). Both approaches are relational.
It's a long way from bacteria to sentient beings, but the above is fundamental. From here on it gets interesting.
I have a sense that what you’re calling “relations” might not be entirely different from what I’m pointing to — even if the framing is different.
Not necessarily the same concept, but perhaps pointing toward something closely related.
In particular, when you describe life in terms of relational structures, I wonder if those relations could be understood not just as interactions within a system, but as something more like intersections of subjectivity.
And if we take that seriously, it might even open up a different way to think about the origin of life itself.
Instead of starting purely from relational processes, perhaps what we call “life” begins at the point where a more fundamental subjectivity and a relationally-formed subjectivity come into contact.
Not as a fixed claim, but as a possible way to reframe the question.
I’d be really interested to hear how that resonates with your perspective.
If you’re interested, I could share a paper that develops a perspective along these lines.
I’d be very curious to hear your honest thoughts on it.
@Laura I'm not sure if I can follow you there - maybe my view on the emergence of "subjectivity as the result of an inside-outside relation" is too technical (e.g., Nick Lane's theories, see talk below), too much subject to information theory (bio-semiotics) or too much general systems theory, e.g., Rosennean (M,R)-systems.
Feel free to share your paper, though :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBiIDwBOqQA
Alright, I’ll share the paper with you.
I’d really appreciate hearing your thoughts on it.
I’ll also take a look at the video you shared and the theories you mentioned, and get back to you with my thoughts as well.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398757987_The_Removal_of_God_from_Knowledge_How_the_Exclusion_of_Absolute_Subjectivity_Shaped_Modern_Science_and_Its_Limits
@Laura Thanks - I'll read your paper and share my thoughts with you.