Woke up thinking about this stuff from days gone by, so consider these notes to myself.
The analogy would work with the notions of â€œLeftâ€ and â€œRightâ€….Â There is nothing that distinguishes them internally. The half-space that we named Left can be Right, and the half-space that we named Right can be also Left.
It is in this abstract symmetry where different notions become equal. (or more general produce a contradiction of some kind)
But for sure Left and Right as notions are not equal, they have different meaning. So, we are brought to a contradiction, they are different, but also they are equal.
This contradiction is resolved by externalities;
The resolution is based on really simple principle â€“ if the distinction between two universals is not in them taken alone, then their difference is somethingÂ outside of them.
Hence the role of an external “observer” to break theÂ symmetry.
On phenomenology from the Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) entry on Wikipedia.
Husserl made some key conceptual elaborations which led him to assert that in order to study the structure of consciousness, one would have to distinguish between the act of consciousness and the phenomena at which it is directed (the objects as intended). Knowledge ofÂ essencesÂ would only be possible by “bracketing” all assumptions about the existence of an external world. This procedure he calledÂ epoche.
And Stanford’s entry on Phenomenology continues
We are to practice phenomenology, Husserl proposed, by â€œbracketingâ€ the question of the existence of the natural world around us….
Consider my visual experience wherein I see a tree across the square. In phenomenological reflection, we need not concern ourselves with whether the tree exists: my experience is of a tree whether or not such a tree exists. However, we do need to concern ourselves withÂ howÂ the object is meant or intended. I see a Eucalyptus tree, not a Yucca tree; I see that object as a Eucalyptus, with a certain shape, with bark stripping off, etc. Thus, bracketing the tree itself, we turn our attention to my experience of the tree, and specifically to the content or meaning in my experience.
Which, in pop-culture, is probably best explained by The Matrix
Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That’s impossible. Instead… only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you’ll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.
It’s incredibly selfish if you think about it. If I imagine the spoon bending, it is bending because I am the external observer of said spoon. Or Eucalyptus tree if you wish.