[ Forum Central | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Kyle Arnold
Date: 1/2/99
For me, the intersubjective view of empathic knowing has been a bit of a source of confusion. Although I feel that I resonate with the IS view, I can't help but think that there is a certain tension in the idea of "intersubjectivity" itself, as Stolorow, Atwood, etc. use the term. They suggest that the subjectivity of the other is knowable, though not absolutely so. That in this way the intersubjective field is knowable implies that there is a kind of "absolute reality" of "what is actually going on" in the intersubjective system. Because of the limitations of one's own subjectivity, one can only get approximate knowledge of this "intersubjective reality." What confuses me is that the IS field itself is composed of precisely those limiting perspectives that structure our own knowing. I can only know the other through the analogs of my own subjectivity. Therefore, my knowledge of the other- though it may indeed be accurate- is still contained within my own subjective world. If this is so, doesn't the very idea of an intersubjective field (as opposed to a subjective experience of intersubjectivity like in Stern)presuppose a God's-eye view able to see the "realities" of both subjectivities at once? How could there ever be an "intersubjective perspective"? Doesn't a "binocular" view of a relationship presuppose the ability to somehow look through both lenses simultaneously? -and another lens looking through the lenses etc.? Perhaps this paradox is more apparent than real, but after a couple of years of reading IS stuff over and over I still can't seem to get past it. Is there anybody out there who can clear up my confusion?
[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]