Reply to comment

I wonder whether it could also be that a desire, unconscious or not, NOT to "work together more efficiently/be less disruptive of each other," but rather to control one another (or "understand" -- in the sense of "I get it and now it's done) leads people to establish particular givens as unitary and exclusive reference points for reality and legitimacy.  This too connects with problems of "justice."

When I think of these essential givens that people choose, I think of weights: what makes different individuals, groups, and traditions assign different reference points different weights?  Why do some sink down deeper?  What makes these more valuable?  Here again, the blur among values, aesthetics, and inquiry seems visible.

Sandra Harding (1988), in the essay "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective," argues that "we become accountable for what we learn how to see."  To me, what is exciting and hopeful about a "science of the subjective" is that it could allow for this kind of change, responsiveness, and responsibility -- keyed to learning, growth, things coming to mean anew.