Is Intersubjectivity Primary???

I am reading Christian De Quincey's book called Radical Knowing.  In this book he posits that Intersubjectivity is primary rather than the accepted postmodern paradigm which suggests that "subjectivity" is primary.  That is, subjectivity or the individual sense of I, the sense of being an independent entity, seperate from the external world, is not the primary reality...rather that intersubjectivity (relation) is primary and it is through relation that our sense of self, or I, is created.  This is a radical proposition by de Quincey, that resonates with the Radical  Impersonal Evolutionary Enlightement Teachings of Andrew Cohen.  Andrew intuited early on in his teaching career that through relatedness, consciousness is relating to consciousness and it is in the relatedness where the transformational potentialities lie.  He has created a new way of meeting in groups called "Enlightened Communication".  

 Andrew asks "What would it be like to engage with others in a place far beyond the boundaries of the personal self? What would it be like to communicate from a part of your own self that is absolutely free from self-consciousness, that is fearless, uncorrupted, and passionately interested in the truth?"  (Click here for more info on Enlightened Communication)

Here are a few quotes from de Quincey's book Radical Knowing; Understanding Consciousness through Relationship,  that jumped out at me.

"Consciousness is fundamentally relational (the nature of consciousness is, ultimately, communion) and nonlocated (unaffected by distances in space); and that to explore and understand consciousness we need to be open to radically different ways of knowing beyond reason and the senses." (pg 183 & 257)


In this "other paradigm" he suggests  where intersubjectivity (not subjectivity) is primary, "we don't form relationships, they form us.  We are constituted by webs of interconnection.  Relationship comes first, and we emerge as more or less distinct centers within the vast and complex networks that surround us.  In this new view, we are nodes in the complex web of life.  Each of us is a meeting point, a center of convergence, for countless threads of relationship.  We are moments in time and locations in space where the universe shows up-literally, as a phenomenon (from the Greek phainomenon, "to appear" or " to show up")."

  "In other words, in this "new story" we emerge as subjects from intricate networks of interrelatedness, from webs of intersubjectivity.  This paradigm of consciousness tells us that intersubjectivity is a transient pattern in a much vaster ocean of reality.  We are fleeting vortices, dancing whorls of consciousness and energy, in the Great Play of Being.  In a very literal sense: We are the world.  We are the way the world shows up, uniquely and meaningfully here and now, at this time and place where we experience ourselves to be.  That's why each and every one of us is precious.  The world could not be complete without us." (Pg 182)

"If intersubjective relations are primary, then so-called individual subjectivity would arise only through the dynamics of dialogic relations, and the study of inter-subjectiveity would inform us about consciousness as an ontological context where we would gain insight into the essential nature of consiousness itself." (pg 211)

"An epistemology of "presence," second-person intersubjectivity opens the way to a deep exploration of relationship in an approach that could take science beyond epistemology of objects, beyond metholodologies of objectivity, measurement, and quantification, and beyond a preoccupation with mechanisms.  As in first-person metholodolgies the emphasis in second-person science would be on engagement rather than measurement, meaning rather than mechanism."

Very cool stuff!!!