The Active in the Making

Again, I come before you not as a prepared mind, but as a jumble of mindless ramblings. As such, I beg your empathy and know you will call me brother. Enough of the purposeless allusions, let's get to the point:

Schopenhauer says in his first part of "The World as Will and Representation" that to consider the object as separate and prior to the subject is a false assumption. Indeed, the object comes simultaneously with the subject yet "presupposes" it.

So what the hell is he talking about? Basically this, the object is the representation of the subject, and yet exists as the very subject itself in its entirety. That is to say, the representation of a thing contains the thing in its fullness. Why? Because, according to the Schop, objects exist because of the active will of the subject; subjects exist as continuous emanations and participations in ACTIVE will.

In a painting (or some of my friends here might think of an icon), the image is said to represent something. Yet, Schopenhauer claims that that representation contains the fullness of the thing represented. Why? Because both the original subject and the representation of it both exist because of the same emanation of will. Because neither the subject nor object can exist without being active separately and active in their participation with each other (object drawing from the will of the subject and vice versa), the subject is pure action exertive and the object is pure action receptive.

Here is the problem: understanding. I have not yet read enough of the Schop to know what he thinks of when he says "understanding", but I do know that the knowledge of the existence of the subject fully within the object representing it presupposes an understanding of the subject itself. The issue here is that Schopenhauer clearly points out that all subjects are pure energia and no essence. Those in the Eastern side of the world would say that this cannot be, as one can never understand God outside of his energies, his actions. In other words, his fullness, his "being" as Schopenhauer calls it, cannot be known by man. While Schopenhauer gets a lot of points very close to the mark, I believe here is one where he goes a bit to the far side of his point. Yet, my problem is that I have not yet come up with a philosophical argument, though I know someone else already has and I just haven't read it, to counterpoint the argument for pure energy as being!

If I can figure out a simple way of explaining it, maybe I will apply it to my gradually forming definition of the "making" of words. What I have so far is this: in creation, everything is always in motion; the motion defined here is constant movement of the active will in supporting objects (or representations); words themselves are nothing but representations of the subjects (thoughts, physical things, images, etc.); language is made up of words; thus language is constantly subjected to the active supporting will of the subject. Conundrum: two opposing subjects actively projecting their individual wills upon the same phrase, thus creating opposing representations out of identical objects. The solution is not always that there is a faulty premise in one speaker's projection.

Well, I will leave it at that for today.