no background

how can what has happened - at another time -
be relevant to the present - unless a decision is made
that it should be so?

any such decision is a meta decision

it makes sense as a strategy for action

as a principle that gives psychological security -
a sense of substance to the next move
- a basis to the next act

there is no reason for this beyond its psychological
and pragmatic value

strictly speaking there is no connection between events -
only an association of ideas - and hence to the notion
of causation

we can question this association - look for a basis
in thought - as distinct from habit - or instinct

but what is it to examine such notions? -
they do not thereby change - or disappear - or
fall apart (the fact of such is not altered in anyway)

we learn - perhaps there are no necessary relations here

and contingency - is always - on whatever level -
a connecting of dots

for what reason

only necessity - a necessity of action

to see action in itself - is to see no background -
no reason - pure novelty is the best we can say -
a novelty that is by definition - unexplained

dreaming

I don't think we can capture the nature of reality
in thought

this is not to say we dispense with reality

(our existence is its sharpest manifestation)

we need though to understand the limits of description

if you have ever experienced lucid dreaming you will
have a metaphor -

you know you are in the dreaming - and you know there
is a waking -

waking is just a fact - the limit of the experience
of dreaming

so too objectivity -

a logical fact

- the limit of the world

a primitive undefined horizon

and in terms of the way we operate as human beings -

it is entirely indispensable

and completely unknowable

it is a reaching towards

or

an ever presence never grasped

natural

I speak of the natural world

one needs to characterize not out of truth but avoidance

the world as such is conceived in many ways

'natural' for me is something like - pre-cognition

this is only a starting point and of little help

to understand (and that is not an optional extra - rather a necessity for at least survival)- we must go beyond the presentation

and to the question of definition -

any idea of strict definition - 'essential' definition - for all its intensity and hope will only be a 'reflection on'

(a phantasm - if you will)

'ideas about' reality never quite stick never quite hold

why?

perhaps consciousness just can't get it right

some say - any idea from fundamental to superficial) contains its negation

so its the nature of the thing to never see straight

also -

it can be said - there is nothing straight to see

- but what is -

definition of this is strictly redundant

and any attempt must fail -

for a definition cannot include itself

(it is always a 'definition of ___'

for specific purposes we may need to draw some lines

any lines drawn can only be inside the world

to picture the world absolutely - objectively - one would need to be outside - a logical impossibility

(hence 'God' as so conceived is impossible - God is either in the picture or not at all - and no-one I think proposes the idea of God being limited 'in' the world - so if we are to retain the idea there is no choice - 'God' is the picture - or just another name for it - and they say what's in a name - everything - it would seem)

what we 'see' (know) we cannot definitively describe (you can't get your hands on it
all)

if it wasn't for necessity - who would try?

you just can't get past reality - or capture it - it is not an option

the illusion of explanation - of whatever kind - is a real fact of functioning human
beings

as real as any event in space-time

the point of such illusions is that they are enabling

their value is thus determined -

true or false

virtue and vice

just an idea here - when we speak of virtues and vices -
i.e. - courage and cowardice

there is no distinction between natural and non-natural
qualities

a courageous act is an act - and a good act

but this is not what we say

we don't say -

x is A and x is G

it is a 'courageous act'

the report of such an act makes no distinction

no distinction between fact and value

such an act is a moral act

it really seems beside the point to analyze into act -
plus courage

such virtue predicates as 'is courageous' are peculiarly human

on the other hand you have natural predicates - that apply
to all natural things including humans

so we have n-predicates (natural predicates) and h-predicates
(human predicates)

the h-predicates are a class of n-predicates

so there is no question of the naturalistic fallacy

and I would say - to understand - the concept of a h-predicate -
you need to observe (behaviour) and reflect (think) -

the same applies to n-predicates

there is no gulf - only specialty

should II

the conception of a possible state of affairs -
effectively a possible world - that is behind any 'should' -
is to conceive of a state of affairs - that is -
at the time of conception - unknown

it is only in the bringing about - the actualization
that such is known

and with that the 'should' of morality - disappears

what I should do - only exists as an unknown

to say - 'I should....' - 'you should....'

is to project an idea

of a particular state of affairs

which implies a world view

(the world is to be made different)

you may say - is imagined

it can only be known as an actual state of affairs

should

now if I say - 'I should do x'

how is this different from - 'I do x'?

one - there may in fact be no difference

i.e. - when what I do is what I should do

but in such a case - why the 'should statement'?

it is redundant

'should' it seems - refers to a possible -
but unrealized state of affairs

still the question - how does 'should' arise?

if I am a smoker - why would I think I should stop smoking?

to avoid health problems (let us say)

(as a possible though not realized state of affairs)

ultimately - this question comes down to how you see
yourself in the world

in the case of smoking perhaps a conflict between
hedonism and the claims of medical science

your views on smoking will be defined by which way you jump here

so - 'should' arises as an expression of conflict about possible -
unrealized but (realizable) realities

here realities are factual realities

the language of 'is' - is the language of actual reality

when we question - (actual) reality - with an 'ought'
we are talking about a possible state of affairs of the
given reality

we are not invoking non-natural phenomenon in so doing

it's about wanting a change to ourselves - our world -
or relation to the world -

it is to say e.g. - given what I know or think or hold
to be true etc. - I want a different state of affairs

'should' may appear to be intuitive - it is in fact an
expression of a world view - that has not come to be but
is desired on the basis of perceived or reasoned inadequacies -
or absences or failures - in the present

the imperative is a wish in the midst of metaphysical conflict

the statement of this:

'I should do x'

'you should do x'

is on the face of it virtually metaphysically illiterate

for it is non-explanatory

it appears to have no content

(and this is never the case)

it is as with all demands - a conclusion - without an argument

this form should not perplex us

J. J. C. Smart

'all it claims is that in so far as a sensations
statement is a report of something, that something
is in fact a brain process.'

'it is that, in so far as 'after image' or 'ache'
is a report of a process it is a report of a
process that happens to be a brain process'

'sensations are nothing over and above brain processes'

(1)

a scientific explanation - i.e. - identification of sensation
(consciousness perhaps) with a brain process - is neither here
nor there - it's a no brainer

it is simply placing an event - or understanding the place
of an event - in the place of events

it's like putting a snap in a photo album

or just locating a number in a sequence

it is just that this is not a straightforward issue

consciousness / sensation is a questionable matter

it's not clear that it's a snap at all -

or that it's a number

but - if it is assumed that it is

this or that - it has a place

as Smart represents it - it's a question of placement

and he makes it clear there is only one place

we have to make it fit

(2)

but the thing is - we will never know really if it does fit

even if a sensation - and identifiable

it will never look - as observed - scientifically -

a sensation - will only be seen from the inside

it will never look like a brain process

may well be

perhaps an argument against Descartes yes -

or maybe just an assertion against Descartes
in any case

where's the plus?

philosophical analysis

the point of philosophical analysis is to reach
the point of no deception

it is to see the final untenability of all conception
- all theory

this is a position of understanding

the world and everything in it - you included

nothing is changed

everything is as it is

but your place of knowing is empty

any view - is - becomes just that

a possibility

the real world per se is featureless

the world is full

but the understanding of it -

the prime position - is empty

possibilities - come and go

the world as unknown

the world (everything) is just simply what it is (appears)

there is no explanation

all our ideas - theory etc. - ways of proceeding in the face
of the unknown (just one

step back from the obvious)

knowing as two dimensional

our knowing is two dimensional -

we know the inside

we know the outside

all our knowledge is limited internal / external

our knowledge of ourselves our knowledge of the world

our vision in / out is always limited

my point is that consciousness always knows the inside
and outside

knowing is never just a matter of observing

never just a question of reflection

always the vision is two-dimensional

I know myself as I appear

I know myself as I do not appear

I know myself as non-appearance to the world

as an internality

as an experience - if you wish

(traditional empiricism conflates - attempts to reduce -
the outside to the inside and then to construct the external
- from the internal - it's a cat chasing its tail)

the point is we begin - we are - in the centre

consciousness is the centre

the meeting - the inside and the outside

the inside and the outside are real - they are not constructions

however the moment of knowing is never divided

thought - language - breaks down the unity of consciousness
the unity of experience (subjective / objective)

U.T. Place

OK consciousness as a brain process -

even so - need it be like other - all other processes of the brain?

perhaps it is unique

physical - but unique

unique in that it is a process

that creates internality

the sense of an inside

the point being physics is not just about the outside of things

the inside though is not known - as is the outside (by observation)

knowing - the inside is gained via reflection

we don't need to be dualistic in a Cartesian sense

the dualism is physical

the physical world is not one dimensional?