Really great discussion. I have previously thought about the ufo phenomenon via the framework of phenomenology, so I’m delighted that a professional philosopher has already made this connection.
This was a thoughtful, careful discussion of a challenging issue: well done to both discussants. That said, I wondered if the distinction between 'umwelt' and 'uber-umwelt' was not always handled with the utmost rigour through the course of the conversation--which is to say that sometimes the concepts appeared to bleed into each other. As I understand them, 'umwelt' and 'uber-umwelt' are non-intersecting, incommensurable spheres: the 'umwelt' is that combination of active and passive synthesis by which a meaningful 'world' (or 'environment') is construed by an organism, as the (sensory) manifold is organized according to its unique categories, schemata, &c. The 'uber-umwelt,' by contrast, is in the family of Kant's 'noumenal' sphere: it can be formally posited or transcendentally deduced--but of its determinate content, one must pass over in silence. As Spinoza said, even before Kant: "If they say that there are infinitely many things which we cannot perceive, I reply that we cannot reach them by any thought" (Ethics, ed. Curley, IIP49S). Hence the example of the tick: its 'umwelt' is construed (on this model) on the threefold sensory-perceptual bases of surface tension, heat, and butyric acid. All other sensory-perceptual elements fall under into 'uber-umwelt'--to which it is, by definition, agnostic: a tick is blind to colour, and cannot even conceive of it. A 'hyperobject' is what one might call a 'dual-citizenship entity': for any given organism, part of the object is phenomenal to the 'umwelt,' while other part(s) of the object are concealed in its 'uber-umwelt.' (The usage is obviously from that coined by Timothy Morton, but there are obvious points of contact). Here the question is how many objects are hyperobjects (presumably all), what proportion of their residence is in the field of an organism's 'umwelt' (disclosure) and what proportion in its 'uber-umwelt' (concealment), and how one would know. But these questions too, it appears, are consigned to skepticism or agnosticism. This feature is a double-edged sword: the 'uber-umwelt' (and the UUTH) cannot be falsified (unlike the ETH, as noted), but nor can it be verified. I therefore query those parts of the discussion that seemed to suggest that certain domains of manifold, or their phenomena, cross from 'uber-umwelt' into 'umwelt.' To these, I wish to say: the 'uber-umwelt' is excluded, by definition. If it is possible for certain phenomena (appearances) to exist in a liminal or marginal space in an organism's 'umwelt,' this fact might indeed account for UAPs and other paranormal experiences--but this would then be an occurrence as old as consciousness itself, and does not explain the relatively new UFO/UAP scenario, unless one invokes human techno-scientific provocations in the ether &/or the extensions of the human sensory apparatus by way of advances in instrumental science, as discussed--as well as various anthropological, psychological, and sociological factors. These latter considerations obviously allow for the same hyperobject to appear in different ways over time, as also discussed--now as a religious saint, now as a satyr, now as an alien or UFO. It seems to me that the relative uniqueness and rarity of these sensory-perceptual events might make better neuropsychological sense of their paranormal character, than their ostensibly liminal 'umwelt'/'uber-umwelt' status--i.e., experiences for which the human mind (whether individually or collectively) lacks a coherent perceptual-conceptual framework. Unfortunately, this explanation would also render them forever difficult to study rigorously--unless there are subjective or objective factors which might make them more frequent, more perspicuous, or of a clearer or different phenomenal character (open possibilities, in my opinion). I'd be interested to hear your comments. Thank you-- Cameron
Really great discussion. I have previously thought about the ufo phenomenon via the framework of phenomenology, so I’m delighted that a professional philosopher has already made this connection.
Dr. Madden does it again!! Amazing discussion!!
It’s a great interview, go on with your work. Thank you.
Fantastic discussion !
This was a thoughtful, careful discussion of a challenging issue: well done to both discussants.
That said, I wondered if the distinction between 'umwelt' and 'uber-umwelt' was not always handled with the utmost rigour through the course of the conversation--which is to say that sometimes the concepts appeared to bleed into each other. As I understand them, 'umwelt' and 'uber-umwelt' are non-intersecting, incommensurable spheres: the 'umwelt' is that combination of active and passive synthesis by which a meaningful 'world' (or 'environment') is construed by an organism, as the (sensory) manifold is organized according to its unique categories, schemata, &c. The 'uber-umwelt,' by contrast, is in the family of Kant's 'noumenal' sphere: it can be formally posited or transcendentally deduced--but of its determinate content, one must pass over in silence. As Spinoza said, even before Kant: "If they say that there are infinitely many things which we cannot perceive, I reply that we cannot reach them by any thought" (Ethics, ed. Curley, IIP49S).
Hence the example of the tick: its 'umwelt' is construed (on this model) on the threefold sensory-perceptual bases of surface tension, heat, and butyric acid. All other sensory-perceptual elements fall under into 'uber-umwelt'--to which it is, by definition, agnostic: a tick is blind to colour, and cannot even conceive of it.
A 'hyperobject' is what one might call a 'dual-citizenship entity': for any given organism, part of the object is phenomenal to the 'umwelt,' while other part(s) of the object are concealed in its 'uber-umwelt.' (The usage is obviously from that coined by Timothy Morton, but there are obvious points of contact). Here the question is how many objects are hyperobjects (presumably all), what proportion of their residence is in the field of an organism's 'umwelt' (disclosure) and what proportion in its 'uber-umwelt' (concealment), and how one would know. But these questions too, it appears, are consigned to skepticism or agnosticism. This feature is a double-edged sword: the 'uber-umwelt' (and the UUTH) cannot be falsified (unlike the ETH, as noted), but nor can it be verified.
I therefore query those parts of the discussion that seemed to suggest that certain domains of manifold, or their phenomena, cross from 'uber-umwelt' into 'umwelt.' To these, I wish to say: the 'uber-umwelt' is excluded, by definition. If it is possible for certain phenomena (appearances) to exist in a liminal or marginal space in an organism's 'umwelt,' this fact might indeed account for UAPs and other paranormal experiences--but this would then be an occurrence as old as consciousness itself, and does not explain the relatively new UFO/UAP scenario, unless one invokes human techno-scientific provocations in the ether &/or the extensions of the human sensory apparatus by way of advances in instrumental science, as discussed--as well as various anthropological, psychological, and sociological factors. These latter considerations obviously allow for the same hyperobject to appear in different ways over time, as also discussed--now as a religious saint, now as a satyr, now as an alien or UFO.
It seems to me that the relative uniqueness and rarity of these sensory-perceptual events might make better neuropsychological sense of their paranormal character, than their ostensibly liminal 'umwelt'/'uber-umwelt' status--i.e., experiences for which the human mind (whether individually or collectively) lacks a coherent perceptual-conceptual framework. Unfortunately, this explanation would also render them forever difficult to study rigorously--unless there are subjective or objective factors which might make them more frequent, more perspicuous, or of a clearer or different phenomenal character (open possibilities, in my opinion).
I'd be interested to hear your comments.
Thank you--
Cameron
Oh yea I saw an episode of Seinfeld about this last week on ESPN 2 while I was getting my neck tattoo touched up behind the Arby's in Burbank. 👍
As much as you broadcast, you should invest in some good sound equipment. I'd listen to you more if your voice were transmitted with better quality.
Kind of looks like a buffer shaved headed Dave Rubin. And that's not a bad thing.