If a tree falls down in a forest and nobody listens to it: has it really fallen? According to some, the fall of the tree was an objective fact that was not depending on nobody to perceive it, as it was possible to prove with law of physics that things, when they fall, produce certain sound. According to others, things to exist need someone who perceives, sees, listens, touches or looks them. The debate between objectivity and subjectivity was posed. One of the most interesting answers to this problem came from philosopher George Berkeley, who tried to unify the two positions of the debate, saying that the tree existed but it was because God saw everything.
This position leads to the question: is God an eye? If this was it, the world would be the perception or God’s sleep, and our objectivity would be his subjectivity. For this, God would have to be separated from the world to be able to see it, unless there exists something that can see itself.
In his book I am to Strange Loop, Douglas Hofstadter argues that the I is a system that, due to its complexity, is capable of referring to himself, look to himself and study himself. This is, the complexity of our brain has made possible that our mind is capable of speaking about other things as “the tree is green” as of himself, as “I think that killing is bad”. It is a camera that not only records the exterior world but that can record its own image projected on a TV, so it recurs infinitely. It is the phrase that says “this phrase is false” and, on having wondered if the phrase is true, it is not possible to know it because the phrase speaks about something external as about itself.
Might it be that God is an eye that looks at itself? If this is the case, it would be subjective and objective simultaneously, that is to say, none of them. The problem of any system that tries to decipher itself, is that there is always something that is missing. On having been a part of the system that it is trying now to understand, the analyzer ignores everything that is the outside of the analyzed, for which the understanding is never finished. That’s why the Borges terror to mirrors when he writes:
Metal mirrors, masked
mahogany mirror that in the mist
of its red twilight dispels
this face that looks and is looked,
I see them infinites, elementary
executors of an ancient agreement,
to multiply the world as the act
generative, sleepless and fatal.
The problem with this extreme subjectivity is the following: if God is a subjectivity, it means that there is something apart from God who is objective and, then, God would not be God, as it would not include everything. In turn, the only form God could be objectivity was if it didn’t influence the perceived object, so it would be separated from the world. As in objectivity there is separation, between the observer and the observed, in subjectivity there is duality, between something internal and external. Can God be separated from the world or not be totality? God can be neither objective nor subjective, it must BE. If God is an eye, it is one that is capable of disappearing, it is an eye not objective nor subjective that looks at the world as it is: an expression of himself. After all, vision is not the only parameter of existence.
If you’d like to know more about these topics, I recommend the work of Douglas Hofstadter and Jiddu Krishnamurti
Kinema Project products
–Pliable body (Get flexible fast!)
–The Dynamic Structure (Bulletproof your joints!)