If intersubjective relationships begin before birth with the bond between mother and embryo, and if the embryo uses the mother as a source of nourishment, I would think that an inequality is implied from the standpoint of the embryo, a parasite, superior to the host on which it feeds. Now, as soon as the person is constituted in the fetus, which some scientists say takes place eight days after birth, the subject-to-subject relationship would probably imply equality. The phenomenologist Max Scheler speaks of the "We" (das Wir), which precedes the formation of ego (das Ich).

I agree with maria's assertion that minds are not isolated unitary entities that exist in a vacuum and that mind develops in interpersonal relationship. From a phenomelogical standpoint, the issue is how does intersubjectively developed mind influences observation of objective things that exist out there. Is there a room for commonality of outlooks and interpretation of external reality? If yes why do close friends have divergent interpretations of same object?

Yes, intersibjectivity implicits equality. Human mind always behind searching the equality and this is the base of IST.

Not necessarily - Intersubjectivity includes relations human - divine, or spirit. The relationships in that case cannot be equality, but rather hierarchical, in the parental mode. I.e., major gods and goddesses are addressed as father/mother; lesser ones may be called 'brother/sister'.

Not necessarily - Intersubjectivity includes relations human - divine, or spirit. The relationships in that case cannot be equality, but rather hierarchical, in the parental mode. I.e., major gods and goddesses are addressed as father/mother; lesser ones may be called 'brother/sister'.

Dr. Orringer, I have been wanting to read Max Scheler for some time now so I feel like my response will be rather inadequate in terms of relating to his postulations. But having some familiarity with Husserl I am wondering if Husserl and Scheler are compatible?

What I find fascinating about "We" preceding the "ego" would be that "We" is not, or could not be understood as "We", until we gain an understanding of "mineness" (I am leaning on Husserl's Cartesian Meditations for this). For example, is separation anxiety between parent-child really about reinstantiating "we" or what is deemed by both party as "mine". In meditating all that is "mine", "mineness" is extended only so far until I realize that the next order is "ours" ("associative" consciousness). I.e.: The sentence I wrote is mine, but this forum is "ours", and after I explore the extent of which is "ours" I come to another boundary, and this boundary is what is "yours". I have no idea what you will think of what I am writing because you are original to me, and your thoughts are "yours". Only by creating an alter-ego am I able to take what appears to be my ego and assume that you have an ego as well. Therefore like you said, "We" is created before the "ego". And it is only when two egos are developmentally conjoined in this frame that true intersubjectivity can occur. For example: in a jazz band, the improvised groove only happens when each member "listens" to the others and follows the flow and momentum. There is an agreement between each member on how and when to act.

Therefore, I believe that "equality" is necessarily a matter of intersubjectivity and not prior to it. That being said "equality" is more or less a concept-idealiter registering the upper limit of the objectivity of "agreement" between a set of egos who come together under this equality and in a sense expand our worlds of "mineness" giving us that almost euphoric feeling of truly connecting. What this means is that we create equality in order to facilitate arriving at some "agreement" (Kind of stealing from Habermas's theory of communicative action here), and perhaps reinstantiating that lost feeling of being connected to the womb.

Therefore to answer the question: Yes! Equality is implied in intersubjectivity.

Dear Mathew,

Scheler was fairly independent of Husserl since he hailed from the Munich school of phenomenology, but not too distant. Husserl´s "Cartesian Meditations" was written after Scheler´s "Ethics," so I could easily imagine Husserl dialoguing with Scheler there.

Now in the "Meditations" Husserl says that the Other appears to me because his body indicates an innerness that Is latent, but given in the form of compresence (as a city is compresent around every room). How can I have before me an innerness like my own? An ego not identical to mine, but at least similar? Through transposition or analogical projection. If my body is a body, flesh in which I am enveloped, in the body of the Other there should be an alter ego. So I would say that in Husserl there is mine-ness and you by analogy, with the body of the Other given along with mine. We and mine-ness seem simultaneous as I read Husserl. The answer to Ma. Soledad´s question would be yes if I read Husserl right (and I would say you read him the same way).

Philosophers such as Martin Buber and Gabriel Marcel have pointed to the double status of humans as "persons" and "individuals." If the term "intersubjectivity" refers to relationships between humans as "persons", then there'e equality because they are relating as "I to Thou" and any "I" is also a "Thou", any "Thou" being also an "I." However to the extent people relate to each other as "individuals" , they are taking up various functions or roles that may imply inequality in the sense of "difference".Ffor instance the the roles of parent and child imply inequality (difference) on the level of role behavior, but on the personal level of the I-Thou relationship there's equality, both parent and child having the dignity of being a "person." More information can be found in the attached paper.

Inter-subjectivity can be imagined like echoes. it is inherently equal but always there is a sound engineer (read power apparatus) who can manipulate one wave against another. That's why Delueze came up with intensity within Affect theory and Negri with the idea of Multitude in the Empire theory.