Santayana V

'But the belief in change, as I found just now,
asserts that before this intuition of change arose
the first term of that change had occurred separately.
This no intuition can prove.'

the argument here is that - the fact precedes
the intuition of it - but the intuition of it -
is the knowledge of it - and the intuition can
only know what it is of - not what it was
of - therefore there can be no knowledge of change

or experience can only know what is before it -
so how can you have an experience of
change - based on the intuition (of experience)

so - experience is no basis for belief here -
if there is to be a belief in change - intuition -
or experience - (as Santayana understands it here) -
will not provide that basis -

yes

what we have here is an argument against the view
that experience provides us with knowledge of the world -
in particular - here of the world as change -
or change in the world -

the idea of experience here is both weak and strong

strong in that it suggests that one's intuition -
immediate experience - gives us knowledge -
this idea of immediate experience is powerful -
it packs a lot into it - everything in fact

it's a weak notion of experience in that it is so primitive -
it suggests experience is justdata - points hitting the screen

my own view is that we need to step back from such naive
empiricism

and understand - at the start - that what we call experience
and its relation to the question of knowledge is not like
waiting for the pizza guy to deliver the pizza

this seems to be the traditional empiricist view

but we need to understand here - the question of the nature -
and epistemological status of experience - to begin with -
is an open question

I think the empiricist view is helpful as a start
to the argument - what is experience - what is knowledge?

now it's only when you ask this question - that you have
doubts about the pizza

problems of time and space - existence and non-existence -
only emerge on reflection

my sense of time - of change

is not the same deal as any reflection on that sense

and here - really - it's not time or change that's at issue -
the question for Santayana is knowledge

and we might say - well - if you are going to go with
a naive empiricism - there are consequences - it is a
theory that doesn't account for our lived experience

at least this

know thyself

the self is an ideal category - a necessary construction

it is the ground of identity

on which is based - conceptions - which are not necessary
- purely contingent

the concept of self - the pure transcendental concept -
is thus - not of any self - per se (but of all selves) -

in this sense we can regard the self as an objective reality -
certainly psychology takes this view

my conceptions of myself - can only be understood -
in terms of my experience and history - I can make this
known to others - but it is not their experience

and these contingent conceptions - will not deliver
definitive knowledge - of the self - only of the experience
of the self

the self - here mentioned is - on this view without content -
and in that sense not
known

or rather we know 'that' - but not 'what'

and I take it from this that the concept of the self is -
the ground of possibility - possible experience - possible
knowledge

and so it seems the way to regard oneself finally is not
as the end of actuality - but as the ground of possibility -

beyond this the self is a pure emptiness

p.s.

the self a necessary construction?

I think it's like this -

we can speak of - as it were begin with - non-reflective
consciousness - simply 'looking out'

on reflection - the self is determined -
found in consciousness

and with this - the understanding of its necessity -
it was always there - it could not be otherwise

so there is no actual construction - more like an initial
revelation

we speak of - perhaps think of the self as an object

really it is consciousness aware of itself - the fact of itself

in the world and inside the world

clear vision

there is no pure position to reach - to operate from

there is only 'here' - this never changes -
you can't get out of it

we manufacture - create - conceptions

to organize from - to think from -
to assist in clear vision

(a position we never or always achieve -
it's just a matter of convention)

we have things to do and we need ways to do them -
lines of direction

there is no choice here - it is necessary

every action is a thought or thinking made public

we cannot understand action outside of thought

and we create conceptual schemes for our activity
be they tribal myths or the cutting edge theories
of modern science - or for that matter any other scheme -
on any other
day

and philosophy is just this - conceiving

it is conceptual activity and it springs from -
the haunting of - and the gut feeling of -
scepticism - of not-knowing

if we were certain we would have no reason to think -
or for the matter of that - anything to think about

we can go two ways here

defy this intuition or run with it

the history of western philosophy has really been -
the attempt at the former -

and a joyous celebration of madness it is too

radical scepticism

the idea of what is -

we begin with what we observe

that which is object - to our subject

it is clear isn't it that subjectivity is thus
a reflection - back from or out of the objective

this reflection reveals mind - consciousness -
the internal

(and could you say - reveals mind as self-conscious?)

this revelation is in a sense - the objectivity of
consciousness - of subjectivity

consciousness is not observable

(is it any less objective?)

anyway -

it is clear that the objective is but one dimension
of the understanding -

of what is

and beyond this?

the unknown

what is - as undefined

so objective / subjective ways of approaching the unknown

this is not arbitrary - at this level -
categories have a hard significance to them

we begin - and we do well to begin with these notions

what becomes of such understandings is an open question

it's a matter of hitting the boards - so to speak

and so

mind and matter - posits of the understanding

and the understanding in itself - a logical space -

a pure emptiness

no ontology - no epistemology

a place with no permanent residents

some long term renters

and the odd transient

personal identity IV

the way to regard oneself conceptually and in practice -
is as a logical space

a place for possible ontologies

epistemology - is a matter of decision - within an
ontological context

in the 'initial state' - there is no knowledge

existence precedes knowing

we begin in a world already furnished - but not known
('touched')

knowledge begins with movement

(it is only ever this

action - its expression in the world

knowing made public)

there is no reason beyond all reasons

reason is necessity before its action

be still

personal identity III

now just a word on Socrates and the ideal of
'know thyself' -

yes - the point is clear - so long as you understand
that such a quest does not find gold

the fact of an individual entails multiplicity -

multiplicity of selves

or to be more precise - conceptions of self

it is not hard to understand why movement in
space / time - from birth to death covers
a lot of ground -

there is no stopping

and with this a myriad of experience

definition is a constant constraint

but never fool proof

what I am - how I conceive - one day -
is not what I am another

the attempt to deny the multiplicity is
perfectly natural

but never successful

and if this fact is not appreciated

can lead to insanity

just as the absence of definition - or the throwing
away of constraint - or more likely - the actual inability
to make constraint - definition - has the same result

so -

go with the flow
some will say

yes

the point is though that such a conception -
of the self - while it might appear to
accord with the meta reality - of fluidity -
is but one of an infinite number of possible
conceptions of the self - normative conceptions -
which are subject to the flux of
consciousness - the flux of reality

my point is - in general -

Socrates was a methodological sceptic - and primarily -
his scepticism was negative - he offered no positive
position

I am here suggesting an alternative to this

scepticism as primarily a substantive position -
that is a positive position

in this connection my argument is we don't know the self -
in any definitive sense

we can speak of conceptions of the self - attempts -
if you like to give - the self - content - but this is all
that is possible

the self if you like is the place of conception

the self - in itself - a logical space -

content is what we give it

(tertiary conceptions of self)

not what it gives us

finally the self is in an absolute sense free (of content)

it comes as an emptiness (an empty category) to the world

and so remains

despite all the thrashing about

rest in this emptiness

personal identity II

let's get straight to it

the 'self' is best seen as a construct of
consciousness

it is, if you like, - 'objectively speaking'
(of the point of view of a taxonomist) - necessary -
for the basic function of consciousness

it is a parameter

that on the one hand defines the world - 'not self'

also - it posits 'place' - in the space of consciousness

the 'self' is a place

a place of focus

- of and for consciousness

the self - is a necessary point

can we imagine consciousness without this posit -
perhaps -

it would be by definition - undefined

(it would not know itself - or the world -
there could be no relation between the two

it would simply be another feature of the world -
of the landscape -

I can't see in what sense it would be 'observable'

the idea seems nonsensical

and is thus

and argument by default to the view that -
all consciousness - must be self conscious -

if so then

the positing of self - is but the fact of consciousness

anyway

the 'self' as I am presenting it - is - a logical space

the characteristic of its 'content' I will suggest is -
fluidity

we are talking here of conceptions -

conceptions - descriptions - of who I am

this is finally a very particular matter

particular - though -within certain contingent -
'universal' states of being

here is where the whole weight of science bears down

I cannot be anything - have concepts - descriptions
that are not of my nature

my nature - though not fixed - in any sense -
is defined by 'given' regularities - regularities that
may not persist - in any necessary sense - but have a
contingent stability

so this if you like - the second level of self

the next level - I call personal

conceptions of myself that have sense only given the
history of myself -

they may have logical characteristics similar to others -
(must have) - but are particular to my existence is
space / time - a unique 'event'

but even at this level - there is no 'fixity'

the characteristic - yet again is fluidity

personal identity

personal identity

is the fact of self-consciousness

we can say 'I am here'

and 'here' - the space of me - me in space

is a given

a given - overwritten by time

so space provides us with a sense of place

and we are always 'in place'

time

is the denial of place

a denial we do not sense

one though - we know on reflection

(we are always on reflection - 'out of time')

hence

at the centre of consciousness
the paradox

I am / I am not

any description I make of myself will entail this paradox

it is the paradox of space and time

space is negated by time

'here' - is gone in the moment of it's acknowledgment -
from the point of view of time we are left with the illusion
of space (place)

time negated by space

my sense of place overrides the passing of time -
place is eternal - hence time the illusion

consciousness - awareness

transcends this paradox

my awareness of myself

my sense of self

is an ideal posit

of consciousness

a function if you like that - stands apart from its
reflections and analyses - in this case - a meta
reflection and analysis - of space and time

philosophical investigation

philosophical investigation is but another form
of objectification

anything created requires a number of skills
a range of artisans

philosophy can be useful in what role?

perhaps this

if you are concerned to have an idea - a concept
explicated

the philosopher will be of use

and also - how does such a concept fit in the
great puzzle?

philosophers are (needed?) of use here

not to say that a physicist or historian couldn't
step up to the plate

so what is the distinction in the philosophical
perspective?

philosophy is essentially a conceptual study

the philosopher is of most interest when he/she provides
conceptual options

different ways of understanding - something - anything -
the world -

the detailed working out of one perspective is a good thing
to do - but such is a 'closed system' approach

generally based on the idea that there is but one true view
of reality

look, let's not get too upset here - it can be a fun activity
and perhaps you need to think you are on the right track to
engage in such

but understanding different uses of concepts - different ways of
seeing - is the philosopher' expertise and gift

I am not convinced though that it is a peculiar gift - the best
science does just this - and too - in the world of art

what is distinctive regarding the philosopher's perspective

the kind of analysis?

the fact that it is conceptual

finally - about ways of understanding knowledge

o.k

but if so

what is its 'own' knowledge?

is there such a thing?

yes

again - e.g. - Plato's theory of Forms

the point is

such concepts
such perspectives

are really logically no different to the concepts and
perspectives of any inquiry

just - different ways and contexts of thinking

perhaps it is just that philosophy is an esoteric game

the object of the game - 'a unitary theory of understanding'

this of course - is never achieved - the players knows this
at the start - but the playing - on this premise - can be
very productive - very creative

perspectives

problems surface -
in whatever area -

we bring perspectives to these issues

these perspectives - have a history of use
and application

they fulfill certain needs

in general the logic I think is this

think of reality - as an undefined objectivity

consciousness sees it this way

and in the process of knowing

within this primary - if you like - objectivity

secondary objectivities are created

new foci if you like

such would be when i.e. - someone asks a scientific-
causal question - and in doing creates a perspective
- i.e. - a class of entities is separated out (in his
perspective) and regarded as the focus of thought -
the object of the perspective

such is an object of thought - and within these
secondary objects - questions - further questions
can be - are raised

new objects are created

an object here is just a matter of logic - it is
logical focus - the separating out - conceptually of x -
from it's context its domain

the question of ontology

the status of the object - is both a before and after issue

sure we begin with ontologies - but reflection and the
need for further objectification suspends the issue

philosophical theories

yes

how to view philosophical theories - their status

their relationship to the theories that become their
subjects

there is the idea beginning with Plato - that such theories
- that philosophy is the queen of the sciences

i.e. - more fundamental theory - or level of theory

putting aside - for the moment - the question of the logic
of this - what it means for one theory to gobble up another -

we can begin by asking e.g. - Plato's theory of forms -
why should we - why do we regard such a conception as more
fundamental - than say biology - or zoology?

what I have in mind in general here - is the status of
philosophical theory

is philosophical language - just another peculiar language
or set of languages -

outgrowths of ordinary language?

so what are philosophers doing when they elucidate
a concept?

clearly - it's a sharp focus - and the revelation of
'space' - in an area of discourse that presents as 'closed'

but the doing of this is just another form of reflecting

I want to suggest here the philosopher is just another
worker in the vineyard - he is not the wine maker

(there is no wine maker?

perhaps this has implications for theology?

no God - rather creation a work in progress -
never began - always beginning

and the idea that all facets of reality are involved
in its realization

at whatever time and place

no central point of origin

everything is the origin

but to understand this you would have to give up the
idea of nothing or non-existence

- well you can't have everything - or is it quite
the opposite?)

a theory of language

it must be understood any theory of language

comes from within

it is language within language about language

what is this?

how can it be that - a theory of language is about language?

to be blunt

it's makes no sense to suggest language can define itself

language - is space

you can use regions to identify regions

you can create a perspective to look at a particular domain -
and this domain you have to first define - separate out -

one way of looking at it is to say we operate with many
languages -

what is the relationship between these languages?

is there an hierarchical relationship from natural to
abstract - different levels - different languages?

or perhaps

simply language -

different regions different populations?

or indeed

language - forever being made (remade)

with no overriding logic

but that which we imagine from the inside

language as - indefinable -

but this needs to be looked at

reflection never leaves language

never looks at - from the outside

it posits the object - (in this case) language -

from the inside -

imagines if you like - looking from the outside -

this is - though - strictly speaking - pretending
the impossible

except for this -

we do it

we must understand it as a fact of consciousness

consciousness - quite simply creates - objectivity -
within itself

this is all objectivity is

- the fact of reflection

realities follow

and yes - you say - on what do you base this on?

reflection?

indeed

beyond reflection?
outside reflection -

nothing to be known

end of discourse

go back

you begin at the beginning at the absence of -
the suspension of - thought

the world begins
with the next thought

always we are between the world and its absence

thought is our continuous creation

J. L. Austin

Austin -
thoughts around 'A plea for excuses'

excuses?

a reason given when asked for - called for -
demanded by the context

is there any definitive description of any action?

and if so what is the logic of this?

language may appear from some perspective to be
its standard - but this is to objectify it -
to make it so

it is to separate it out as an object of study

we could ask - why does this happen?

in short it happens because language is no fixed
set of meanings

what I mean when I say - X is a - you may question -
and argue for different understanding of - X

meaning here is a focus -

strictly speaking - meaning - is an empty form -
language moves through

it is circumstance that halts the flow

stops - on the journey

so here meaning is an ideal - language approximates -
reaches for -

language is the worker

meaning is unreachable in any necessary sense

this is not a failure

this is the reality

the strength

this view of language is a consequence of objectifying
language - and further objectifying meaning

we don't need to regard this as anything other than
what it is - reflection on phenomena

certain questions can lead to this kind of inquiry

this is not ordinary language

this is reflection on - analysis of - issues that ordinary
language has no interest in

what we are dealing with is extraordinary language

it is that dimension of thought and language that is
particular to an extraordinary discourse

what I am suggesting is both a meta and normative
analysis here

ordinary language is just what it is

if you start questioning meaning and this leads to
the objectification of language - and to the concept
of meaning - what I say you are doing is looking for
a meta language
for ordinary language

and normatively - what I mean is - the concept of
meaning is an ideal - empty of content -

here we can go in a number of ways: -

- we can say there is no meaning as such

- everything is meaningful (no meaninglessness)

- the issue has nothing to do with (the actual)
meaning of language usage

so the questions of the nature of language and meaning

are not to do with what goes on - what happens

it's about placing language in a theoretical context

it's about creating a background picture - a backdrop -
for the play of language

philosophical theatre?

the great value of an ordinary language view - at least
this is the idea - is the beauty of - the clarity of -
action and reaction in empty space -

describing

what we are aware of in an initial sense - we learn soon can be -
must be variously
described

the language - N - we develop - only has content - in terms
of a meta language the language we use to define it - let us call it N1

N1 is the meta language - and it too requires definition -
hence a meta-meta language - N2

in principle - there is no end to this

a language is defined - has meaning - only in terms of -
a meta language

so you might say - it is an infinite explosion of language -
a vortex of languages

and what is it all based on - where is the meaning?

the thing is - it is based on nothing -

but consciousness reflecting - and reflecting on its reflections -
any one of these reflections can issue forth a complete ontology

a complete statement of what is - and how it is -
even how it is known

we begin with language and reflect upon it

your choice of language - is not like - will I have another cup
of coffee or not?

you come into a ready made world -

wherever you are

i.e. - in a primitive aboriginal tribe -

or middle class Australia

you have something to work with

there was always something to work with

your decisions about what you believe

and how you think

are questions of ontology - definition - meta language

and it's not as if you are sucked into an infinite regress or digress -

we make decisions - about when and where to stop -
and what to stop with

these decisions are not fanciful - or for that matter intellectual -
they came as hard won imperatives of action - of the market place

they have dirt in them

they are made in necessity - the necessity of contingency

(and these decisions can have reasons - reasons as complex
as any metaphysical system if you want to track 'em down)

logicians - abstract and quarantine

we humans work - operate as scavengers in a tip

natural language is no one consistent - clear ontology

if you want that - you could look to mathematics

natural language is a mongrel - a hybrid

consistency is generally not the issue -

need - is more to point - and need - usually in an immediate sense

you have to go to an event - you are in a hurry - you need to
dress and you don't have time to think - you grab this article
of clothing - that article - in short throw yourself together -
of course it's not perfect and you have second thoughts as you
walk out the door - but the main thing is you are on your way

the beginning

I said before 'we begin with what is'

we need to be clear here -

there is no knowledge - before knowledge

knowledge - or some basic platform of it and for it -
is the beginning

so the statement 'we begin with what is'

is fair enough but not strictly accurate

it comes - it is made or can be made -
only after the fact - on reflection

it is to say we can only make such a statement -
post awareness

and such a statement is existential

which is to say - pretty crudely - awareness -
consciousness - precedes any existential statement

you might ask here - are you saying awareness -
precedes existence?

it's a question of what you can know

the knowing - as it were sheds light on existence

we can then reflect - a double tracking - a reflexing -
to a view that existence precedes consciousness

but it is only in the moment of consciousness
that existence - can be stated

consciousness - is we discover (again on reflection) -
always - of -

and this 'of' - is existence -

self-consciousness is essential here for it gives
place to consciousness per se

so I am - conscious of (existence) - and I am aware
of the bound nature of this consciousness - what is
beyond is (relative to consciousness - my consciousness) -
boundless

and this is to say - 'I may well exist' -
but my knowing this - is premised on - and
entails - greater existence - of which I am
apart of - and a light to

if you were to try to explain to someone -
what all this means - this knowing - and the fact that
existence is both a function of knowing - and then -
it's ground - that there is no contradiction here -
that it has to be this way -

you would be best to set them the task of building
a house from the inside

the action of building - is what makes the house -
once made - you can step outside and see it for what
it is - and you can see that the action of building
is not the house - but what revealed the house -
and the house stands as a testament to the act of
building

where we begin

we begin

with what is

this may appear (on reflection) to be something or
everything but it is to say nothing

we start that is in the unknown (as an unknown)

knowledge

is what happens at the beginning

we know because we see

and we see that we see

hence we know that we know

anything beyond this basis is construction - description -
analysis -

this basis has no foundation -

and doubt of this basis

has no foundation

there is no foundation

you find yourself somewhere and you go from there

Santayana IV (ix)

Santayana in doubts about self-consciousness

Santayana sees self-consciousness as 'animal experience'
- 'the product of two factors...body and environment....
These two natural conditions normally come together like
flint and steel, before the spark of experience will fly'

he then argues against transcendentalism - the view that
'the spark itself is my point of departure'

he goes on

'But the delusion becomes troublesome to the serious critic
of knowledge when it perhaps inclines him to imagine that,
in asserting that experience is a product and has two terms,
he is describing the inner nature of experience, and not
merely its externalconditions as natural history reports them'

just another point here -

external - objective conditions - relations between body
and environment will - have - existed - with or without a
conscious observer

now you might also want to call knowledge an objective
feature of the world

but knowledge requires a knower -

and between the knower and the known

is a relation

knowledge is only known - because of a knower

a knower is - only because - knowledge is known

the relationship is reflexive

hence - consciousness

and to understand this you do not have to posit
a transcendental ego

(no great drama if you do though)

Santayana IV (viii)

'One thing is the feeling that something is happening,
an intuition which finds what it finds and cannot be made
to find anything else. Another thing is the belief that
what is found is a report or description of events that
have happened already, in such a manner that the earlier
phases of the flux I am aware of existed first, before
the later phases and without them; whereas in my intuition
now the earlier phases are merely the first part of the
given whole, exist only together with the later phases,
and are earlier only in a perspective, not in a flux of
successive events.'

we may have an intuition that something is happening
and an intuition that something has happened

Santayana's point is that - this - or these intuitions -
do not tell us - the nature of substance - or - the reality
of change - of time

one's sense of things - is no guide to the actuality
of things or events

'actual change if it is to be known at all, must be known
by belief and not by intuition'

belief - here - based on observation - of the objective
reality

OK

let us accept that to know objective reality - one must
look out - not in

observation presents a different picture to reflection

the same object known differently -

as a thing outside of consciousness

as an image - in consciousness -

different ways of seeing -

Santayana really sees transcendentalists as prisoners
of transcendentalism I mean once in - how to get out -
or does he just like imprisoning them - to show they
can't get out
?

anyway he says 'doubt is always possible regarding
the existence of actual change'

but his own work shows one can doubt - in fact one must
doubt one's intuitions - certainly if one wishes to operate
on the street

the thing is we can think beyond what we see out there -
what we know inside - we can as it were step outside of
the subject and the object

('and where are we' you ask? - 'the unknown' I say)

we can always step back

this is the essential feature of consciousness

it is not bound

my point is doubt is never out of the question

doubt is without condition

p.s.

I said above 'as an image - in consciousness'

the thing is 'image' here is but a description of what?

I think it's an example of an attempt to identify an
unknown with a name

and the name - is really a metaphor - a metaphor
for object

I think it's a translation of an observed entity -
to a reflected entity

or the attempt to give the reflection - an object
like meaning

and if you say well this is all a bit 'how's ya mother'

I would say yes - it is

and it's the way of it -

to understand the language of the inner life you need
to appreciate poetry

it's the language of poetry - metaphor

and yes - in this sense it is all very - non-objective

language is public

but we need to bring it home

welcome it inside

at the close of day

Santayana IV (vii)

'One thing is the feeling that something is happening,
an intuition which finds what it finds and cannot be made
to find anything else'

the idea here is that in such an intuition - the view is
from the inside - (if there is a view) - i.e. - it sees
what it sees

look we can understand this -

but it's not a terminal position -

we are not just captives of our intuitions

consciousness is not exhausted by it's experience

far from it - beyond this basic level of conscious
behaviour - is the higher - or at least -
post-immediate level of - reflection

so what we experience may be one thing

how we regard this - what kind of place we give
it in our understanding - quite another

and this is the key to understanding scepticism -

the capacity to step back and look

and to step back again -

your back is never against the wall

now when Santayana says - 'it finds what it finds'

this is on the money

what it finds in a pure sense - is just so -
undefined - unknown

we of course always bring to experience all our
knowledge

but what we find is - for our purposes -
dependent on what we know

and so - is only as stable - clear or sure -
as our state of knowing

scepticism is - the conscious process of reflection -
without restraint

what consciousness finds - depends on - when it looks

Santayana IV (vi)

'Anything given in intuition is, by definition, an
appearance and nothing but an appearance. Of course
if I am a thorough sceptic, I may discredit the
existence of anything else, so that the appearance
will stand in my philosophy as the only reality. But
then I must not enlarge nor interpret nor hypostatise
it: I must keep it as the mere picture it is, and
revert to solipsism of the present moment.'

the thing is there is scepticism and there is scepticism

there is the sceptical method employed by all critical
philosophers

and there is the sceptical stance - a much more radical
view of it all

the idea that we should suspend belief - per se

and this is not to say that such a sceptic cannot act -
or act with beliefs - it is rather to make the point that
any final commitment - epistemological or ontological is
not to be countenanced

it is a position of no final commitment

now it may be objected - is not such a view itself - a final
commitment?

and therefore self-contradictory -

leaving the windows open is not the same as shutting them

your choice here

is a choice of action regarding windows

the equivalence is at the level of choice

not at the level of action -

and

the extraordinary thing is just this -

the view is the same

Santayana IV (v)

'Experience has no conditions for a critic of knowledge who
proceeds transcendentally, that is from the vantage of point
of experience itself.'

to argue this is of course ridiculous - experience is conditional -
just as that which is experienced is conditional - and that which
does the experiencing is conditional

I think the point is rather that we begin with experience -
and to know it - understand it - we at least place it in some
kind of ideational context

'To urge, therefore, that a self or ego is presupposed in
experience or even must have created experience by
absolute fiat, is curiously to fail in critical thinking, and to
renounce the transcendental method.........this backsliding
of transcendentalism...might have no serious consequences,
if transcendentalism were clearly recognized to be simply
a romantic episode in reflection, a sort of poetic madness
and no necessary step in the life of reason.....'

indeed a self or an ego - such terms are poetic - the inner
dimension of experience by definition is not susceptible to
objective - scientific account - the categories which come
with such analyses - are not applicable - and so we need
different categories - a different language to describe such
experience - and so - art - aesthetics is the language - the
'science' of the inner experience

consciousness stands dead centre (another poetic image)
- it can look out - it can look in - there is no one language
- there is the outer language and the inner language

this is not to say anything extraordinary

but it does point to the origin - the reason for art

and once this is appreciated - the lopsided view of the
objectivists (that there is only objective reality) is seen
for what it is - the product of stunted if not deformed growth
- and very sad

'But the delusion seems troublesome to the serious critic
of knowledge when it perhaps inclines him to imagine that,
in asserting that experience is a product, and has two terms,
he is describing the inner nature of experience and not
merely its external conditions, as natural history reports them.
He may then be tempted to assign a metaphysical status
and logical necessity to a merely material fact.'

It is not necessary to go off the edge here - it need not follow
because one recognizes an inner experience one is committed
to a metaphysical status and logical necessity

the inner experience - is contingent

this is what confuses the objectivists - they think - yes because -
it is in a state of flux it must - like the outside world be subject
to - objective analysis

the thing is - though not outside - yes it has some characteristics
of what is observable

how do you define a box?

is it - the external conditions - let us say it's wooden structure -
that defines it or is it 'the space inside'?

you see it all depends where - where - you are

you can't have one without the other

but you can mistake one for the other

it's a question - here of metaphysical geography

'Instead of the body, which is the true "subject" in experience,
he may think he finds an absolute ego, and instead of the natural
environment of the body, which is the true "object", he may think
he finds an illimitable reality; and to make things singular, he may
proceed to declare that these two are one: but this is a myth'

yes - we can forget about the absolute ego

and the body as subject - OK - so long as you understand -
the body - is not one dimensional - yes it is observable -
but it is also known from the inside -

the 'body' if you wish to use that term - and why not -
is philosophically speaking - two dimensional

scientifically speaking - only one dimensional

(and here - if anyone needed to know is the difference between
philosophy and science

science - is the useful with one task

philosophy - understands and surveys - looks at possible
responses to any one issue)

the natural environment - the true object?

the body - here - too is part of the natural environment

a human being is both subject and object

to speak of what this unity - amounts to

is indeed to get metaphysical

it is to go beyond - the realities of subjectivity and objectivity

you must go beyond these categories - if you are to explain them

and really this is where mysticism enters the story

and mysticism is I think just - poetry - thinking above its station

but nevertheless quite harmless in itself

it answers some need

my own response at this level - is to say beyond the subject and
object - we have no knowledge

you can reify - or romance this into 'the unknown'

as some mystics have

Santayana IV (iv)

Santayana goes on:

'But there is a biological truth, discovered much latter,
under this alleged analytic necessity: the truth that animal
experience is a product of two factors, antecedent to the
experience and not parts of it, namely organ and stimulus,
body and environment, person and situation. These two natural
conditions normally come together, like flint and steel,
before the spark of experience will fly.'

Santayana is here arguing for a non-subjective account of
experience

science uncovers the relation - physical - objective - which
is subjectivity (if understood properly)

this in short is a physicalist analysis - explanation of the
appearance that is consciousness

an 'experience' we mistakenly believe to be subjective

OK - first off - 'the truth that animal experience is a
product of two factors....'

this is an account of behaviour - based on - observation
and theory regarding the place - the significance of such
observation -

we are not presented with this truth

it is made - and within the edifice of science -
the science of the day

in general this is what science does - account for - explain -
the object - objective reality

and why does this ever occur - what is the reason?

you see - what is - presented - what is the object -
is not as is - known

most of what we are presented with - in the world -
we can place - already within some scheme of understanding -
hence at the most basic - almost intuitive level - we
know what we are dealing with

but if you were to strip away all this background knowledge -
the observer would come upon something - yes - but it would
be simply unknown

in this sense - the object of knowledge is - the unknown -

perhaps one of the first ways we learn to identify what is
before us - is in making the distinction between subject
and object - a fundamental ontological distinction - which
is validated by the world - and necessary for our understanding

the next point I want to make - more to the point of the
above quote - is that Santayana's idea of these two 'natural
conditions' accounting for consciousness is at best a hypothesis
based on the assumption - the metaphysical assumption of
materialism

on that assumption - of course it makes sense

but what can it explain?

a relation between two physical dimensions - i.e. - stimulus
and organ - body and environment - yes

that there is a relation - yes - under certain conditions -
results - behaviour - as a result of the interaction -
is observed -

so far so good

and the further hypothesis that - that what?

that such behaviour is - consciousness -

is an expression - of it

and it is here another physical state - i.e. - brain process
- perhaps

from an objective point of view - all this is fine

but the thing is that all this - all the above is premised
on the existence of a subject - or if you like an observer

and perhaps it is too much to expect that an observer can
explain his observing - as distinct from what is observed

still this is where we are at - it's what we are talking about

what you have here is a simple mistake

it is confusing the observed - with the observer

it is assuming we can deal with the act of observing
in the same way as any other physical event -
that is to be observed - i.e. - that it is out there

well it's clearly not - so though you may make some
lovely co-relations that appear to be in the vicinity -
i.e. - organ stimulus - body - environment - they do not -
cannot address the issue of consciousness

simply because consciousness - is not out there
to be observed -

this is just to say - on this kind of matter -
the best science can come up with is an analogy

and while I understand philosophical thinking can turn
you inside out - you may in search of truth become something
you did not expect -

it suggests a severe lack of character at least -
to actually argue that what your experience is observable -
and then - to pretend to hold to - such a blatant lie

who would you like to convince?

Santayana IV (iii)

Santayana regards the subject / object distinction -
a fiction of grammar

still he has no qualms arguing against solipsism -
a subject - only view of reality

I think - just as ridiculous and dangerous -
a purely objective argument

true the world is one - 'objective' if you wish

but within this object (the world) is consciousness

consciousness is not just another fact of the world

it is a quality - a dimension

the internal dimension of the object

the relation here - internal / external is not universal -

not all things have an internal dimension - some do -

and this you can call objective if you wish

but the thing is we need not look at this only in an
objective manner

consciousness gives us choice - the choice of an inside view

and it should not be forgotten - an surface view

(without consciousness there is no view - whatsoever)

in fact the two run together

it is only analysis that divides

but apart from all this

we need to see a purely objective view - one that denies
the reality of the subject - as false and dangerous

in the wrong hands - such a view has been the first premise -
(the logical) cause of much human suffering

it is also the argument of science

dispassionate - observation of the world - with no regard
for the subject - only for its category - class

OK

but you need to watch it

science should always be subjected to the human test
of morality

let's not forget what we are

who we are

Santayana IV (2)

'Analysis can never find in the object what, by hypothesis,
is not there; and the object by definition, is all that is
found'.

first point - Santayana while he is attempting to debunk
the notion of subject as a grammatical fantasy - still speaks
of what 'analysis can never find'

what is this analysis - might it just so happen to be what
a subject does - (and is aware of doing)?

I grant you from God's point of view - here thinking of God
as some mega subject apart from the world - all else -
including the consciousness of people would be regarded as
object - objective

and indeed you don't have to be God - to understand this -
or think this way -

we can adopt such a stance - choose to regard - everything
from the outside to see the world as surface

the point here is - if you choose such a perspective -
begin with it - of course 'the object by definition,
is all that is found'

you may be able to isolate certain brain process and say
that's it - that's what happens in the brain when someone
experiences the colour red - that read-out - that picture -
'is the experience of the experience'

good -

we could accept such - but who is going to go 'wow'

an artist's creation on canvas might be more interesting -
or a poet's portrayal in verse

and the thing is how would you ever know that the brain
picture was a picture of the experience?

all this assumes that what is observed of the surface of
things corresponds to the inside - that the inside and
the outside are two aspects of the one thing

a fair enough assumption I guess

but as the angel said to Mary - 'assumption is all we have'

Santayana IV

doubts about self-consciousness

'It might seem for a moment as if this pressing actuality
of experience implies a relation between subject and object,
so that an indescribable being called the ego or self was
given with and involved in any actual event. The analysis,
however is merely grammatical, and if pressed issues in
mythical notions'

'this pressing actuality of experience'

- or the simple fact of it - can imply a relation between
subject and object - can imply

this is just to say a subject /object distinction - can be
used to account for experience

as an explanation of it - if such is called for

and yes - you can characterize 'subject' further - and this
maybe just poetic - but that's not important

but the whole business is to step out from the experience -
and give it a logical characterization - hence - subject and
object - the experience is seen as the product of the relation
between the knower and the object of the knowing

some description - of experience - per se is demanded -
by what?

this is where the subject /object distinction suggests itself -
quite naturally

and it is clearly not the object - the world that demands -
requires - asks for description of itself

we come to the idea of subject - not just because -
it is quite naturally suggested - but - it is needed to
account for the question of experience

we see - experience - the world

what is this - what does this experiencing of the object?

surely it makes sense to speak of something - the world
itself (as object) - does not issue forth experience -

(short of consciousness the world is unknown -
that is its final status

the world is known - knows itself - however imperfectly -
given - only given
consciousness)

experience is a possibility - an actuality -
only given a subject -

so to come to this idea - the subject / object distinction

how does this occur?

it's the stepping out here that's crucial

I think - such a process is to begin with nothing -
the unknown - in this case experience - is without
definition - explanation

(this is an intellectual choice - to do this -
to regard x in such a way

does it matter how we make this move - what it is -
how to describe it?

not particularly I think - there's any number of ways
to do this - to describe what's going on here -
the fact of it - is what is important

I think it's consciousness reaching for understanding
whatever this means)

the thing is we can do this - suspend judgement -
ontological and epistemological and look for answers -
for questions - create pictures

pictures - that give a sense of fundamental co-ordinates

epoche

the suspension of belief -

what role does belief play in action?

is there any necessity here?

are there some acts that you must perform with attendant
beliefs for the act to be performed?

is belief - a mere optional extra - perhaps a luxury?

I just wonder - how different anything would be if we lived
in a world without belief

no beliefs

what would be different?

perhaps a more manageable question might be

what acts are belief dependent?

what acts could not would not be performed without a certain
set of beliefs?

can we distinguish act and belief as I appear to be suggesting?

is there an act that has not belief?

(in the human scale of things)

perhaps belief is just another dimension of act?

when we are talking about the acts of human beings

and how are we to characterize acts in this sense?

clearly we observe acts - the acts of others -

our own acts?

yes - but this is not so straightforward - for here one
is the author as well as the observer -

we can say - can't we that a belief can be a cause of act

but the act may well have been caused without that belief

and perhaps without a belief at all

so

belief - a sufficient but not necessary condition for - act?

what would constitute a necessary condition for action?

existence - perhaps - but not belief

belief - I suggest is an inherently suspendable commodity

is it necessary to have some belief to act?

here you would need to have a view on what counts as belief

as i.e. - distinct from idea - parallel mental event

a belief is generally a well formed thought - not a stray

and I know this is not the most detailed analysis -

but even - at this level with this definition -
it's clear I think

not every mental event that accompanies action is a belief

a belief in short is an interpretation of the world or a
part thereof

one may have some belief going in - with whatever one does -
(if one reflects on the matter) -

but perhaps - logically speaking - this is just a matter of
habit or coincidence

I suspect most of what human beings do (logically speaking)
is - suspension of belief

to act definitively - on the basis of a belief - is perhaps
the exception rather than the rule

and indeed the same act I suggest could have been performed -
without belief - or - with any number of other beliefs

it's a wardrobe issue

Janus

we speak of the relationship between consciousness
and the world or if you like the mental and the physical

on a fundamental level you can say the result -
the outcome of this relation - the formation - is language
in language we have a mirror to the mind

a mirror to the world

a mirror that looks both ways

the Janus mirror

language is the point of contact of the mind and the world

it is if you like the 'third reality' -

and when you reach this platform - the categories of subject
and object might be regarded as superseded -

(I have some doubt here - but acknowledge the point -
there is much wisdom in non-reductionist philosophy -
the thing is perhaps just to observe)

language is (the focus)

consciousness / (in) the world (no reduction)

where to from here?

is there anywhere to go?

is there any reason to?

language is the world without doubt

just as it is

in all its dynamic vitality

language

so

I said earlier consciousness is the bringing of language
to the world

so what is this - that language is brought to?

is it some kind of blank the human mind writes on?

no -

we have no evidence for this - no experience of it

we may imagine a blank world pre-language - but - it's
just that - fancy

so

what does this mean?

a description (language) - already there in some form -
a fundamental language - perhaps - we build on?

this does not stack up -

you either bring language to the world or you don't -
I think

so

it's not already there and the world is not blank

if this is so -

have we asked the right question?

and the question was - an initial state question -

what is the original set up -

before it all gets going?

a nice metaphysical inquiry -

but the situation the actuality -

is not like this

we describe the world as we live in it

there is no beginning or end to this

it's a kind of spontaneous creation - reality

it's always been here

consciousness and the world -

a perfect fit -

what else could we say -

consciousness brings language to the world

and all we know is the world described by consciousness

beyond this - the unknown -

and I think here Santayana is on the right track -
we only - always start - in the middle - in the midst
of it all

origins and endings

are not what we know

what we know is what is here

and what is here is the mind describing this world

and the world described

logicians like to undress the world -

strip it back to bare necessities

can be useful - and indeed a fun thing to do

but - where do you stop?

how do you identify the fundamental?

it's not necessarily at the end of the inquiry -

as the inquiry can go on as long as you wish -

it's not as if it's got a name tag -

'philosopher's stone'

and instructions

'stop here'

the idea of a fundamental - is all we are talking of here

it's the idea that needs to be looked at

what's the reason for such a pursuit - endeavour -

look - I think it's just the perception of causation
gone mad

or more charitably

we need to organize ourselves - to establish a focus -

some principle of unity

and some people seek out the source of things -

but if so - that's the only point of it -

dealing with an issue of practice - of proceeding -

so description?

we describe what is there -

what is there is identifiable - therefore some
recognition is in place

take for example my black wooden bookcase

black - wooden - bookcase -

appearance - substance - function

you might say - three fundamentals of description

I didn't come into the world equipped with these notions

I had to learn colour - substance - use

but this is about establishing veridical perception

for all practical purposes - 'black wooden bookcase'
- does the job -

it's a natural description

and even if I go astray and get seduced by quantum physics
- or cubist art - or L.S.D -

the point is - 'black wooden bookcase' holds its ground

is there a more fundamental description?

no -

should III

when I think of what I should do - the 'should' here

is a projection of a state of affairs

it is to outline a reality

it is to describe how things can be - will be - if certain
actions are taken

it is to imagine an outcome

and indeed a heavily qualified - state of affairs

one that presumes - in short - the world will allow such
an outcome -

and the reason for this projection?

in the straightest of terms it is to wish - to want such
to come to fruition

the 'want' here - is a moral want

I wonder though if in fact it is in principle any different
from any other want but for the fact that it is more complex

I have in mind here - I want a cup of coffee - no great drama
- few variables to control

I want a better world for everyone - simple idea you may say
- yes - but you look into it - the issues are very complex -
the possibilities for action are many and varied - the
reasonings necessary to make a difference - to bring about
the result or a result (already issues are defined) - not
straightforward - much to think upon much to depend upon

and why does anyone want this or similar outcomes - frankly
it doesn't matter - the fact is they do

it's a battle of outcomes

and in the event of success - we say 'that's good' -

but - even in saying this - we know it is never finished -
never fixed

what was desired at one time - may not be at another -

one's conception of a better life - a better world -
however you want to put it - is rarely stable

that we think in such a way - is not a matter of choice -
is not an option -

it is just a fact of human beings

description

what is it to describe?

it is to identify

and to characterize

but what is this?

we can speak in general here and say it is to bring
language to the world

putting it this way though suggests a distinction between
language and the world

and there is some sense in this

language is not the kind of thing that is out there -
like a physical feature - given in nature

it comes with consciousness

its bearers are human beings

(nevertheless it can be said to be a feature of the world
in as much as anything that exists - is - and any distinction
must be in house)

so language is a fact - a feature - a characteristic
of a certain class of existents - us

and language - what is it?

a mark - a sign - that has meaning?

the mark - be it the syntax of writing - the 'syntax'
of painting - 'the syntax' of music - etc. -

is out there - it becomes a feature - a fact of the
physical world

its significance - its meaning?

what do we say here?

is it a private matter - or like the physical marking -
a public fact?

the meaning is public - it can't be otherwise

meaning is a fact of human beings in the world

it is publicly identifiable - it is the significance
of the sign

the sign and its significance - are not two different things

a sign - in this sense

just is meaning in the world

people can have meaning in a private sense language
is its publication

and let's cut to the chase here -

consciousness recognizes consciousness

there is no analogy going on here

it is direct recognition

conscious entities recognize conscious entities
(as conscious entities)

and recognize their expression - language -
recognize the fact of it - the meaning of it -
or at least that it has meaning

how does this happen?

I don't know

however I will try and suggest a picture which might
give the idea some credence

beware though

it's quite a fantastic conception

imagine

consciousness has that all persuasiveness this materialist
age gives to matter - or - nature

think of bodies as we now think of minds - as separate
somewhat alien parts of a greater reality - in this case
mind or consciousness

in such a scheme bodies simply divide up the all pervasive
consciousness - get in the way of the conscious unity

but as we think now of physical forces as transcending -
overriding mental - anomalies - think the opposite case

consciousness - as the totality that overrides
the obstacles of physics

I am not a pan-psychist here - though it wouldn't matter
really for my purposes of illustration - or perhaps -
frustration -

the thing is - such a conception - a metaphysics -
if you dare - would - if we had a science to go with it -
account for the direct knowledge of one consciousness to
another

by the way - you wouldn't have to necessarily throw out
physics here

just think in terms of different expressions of matter

your physical object - might be a crude - rather dull
kind of physics as contrasted with thought - far more
refined - sublime even - manifestation or development

in fact personally - it doesn't bother me to drop physics
altogether I can do it without a second thought

and I don't think you must then resign yourself to the
mumbo jumbo of its competitor (not to suggest there isn't
any mumbo jumbo in physics - they are both as bad as the
other - in this respect - but spiritualism lags in popularity
because it can't deliver toasters or garden utensils)

the thing is either

physics or spiritualism - is finally a description

I am jumping way ahead of myself here -

but I believe we can climb Wittgenstein's ladder -
or for the matter of that - go down Dante's - and then dispense
with our journey - the journey of description

OK - on this I have still a way to go

I have here - jumped a few rungs

Santayana III

wayward scepticism

here Santayana is concerned to point out that
a sceptical analysis of dogma or accepted belief -
can lead to a solipsism - that is effectively a dogma -
a compensatory dogma - and this he suggests misses
the point of real or proper scepticism

i.e. -

'The postulates on which empirical science and inductive
science are based - namely that there has been a past,
that it was such that it is now thought to be, that there
will be a future and that it must for some inconceivable
reason, resemble the past and obey the same laws - these
are all gratuitous dogmas. The sceptic in his honest retreat
knows nothing of a future, and has no need of such an
unwarrantable idea. He may perhaps have images before him
of scenes somehow not in the foreground, with a sense of
before and after running through the texture of them; and
he may call this background of his sentiency the past; but
the relative obscurity and evanescence of these phantoms will
not prompt him to suppose that they have retreated to
obscurity from the light of day. They will be to him what he
experiences them as being, denizens of the twilight'

and

'The solipsist thus becomes an incredulous spectator of his
own romance, thinks his own adventures fictions, and accepts
a solipsism of the present moment'

he goes on

'Scepticism is not concerned to abolish ideas; it can relish
the variety and order of a pictured world, or any number of
them in succession, without any of the qualms and exclusions
proper to dogmatism. Its case is simply not to credit these
ideas, not to posit any of these fancied worlds, nor this
ghostly mind imagined as viewing them'

and on ideas -

'Ideas become beliefs when by precipitating tendencies to
action they persuade me they are signs of things; and these
things are not those ideas hypostatized, but are believed to
be compacted of many parts, and full of ambushed powers,
entirely absent from the ideas. The belief is imposed on me
surreptitiously by a latent mechanical reaction of my body
on the object producing the idea; it is by no means implied
by any qualities obvious in that idea. Such a latent reaction,
being mechanical, can hardly be avoided, but it may be discounted
in reflection........'

and back to solipsism - Santayana says -

'The difficulties I find in maintaining it come from the social
and laborious character of human life'

and latter -

'But identity....implies two moments, two instances, or two
intuitions, between which it obtains. Similarly, a "present
moment" suggests other moments, and an adventitious limitation
either in duration or in scope; but the solipsist and his world
(which are not distinguishable) have by hypothesis no environment
whatsoever, and nothing limits them save the fact that there is
nothing more.'

I think Santayana is right here - solipsism is really a result
of a quest for certainty - and one that is not logically sustainable
- the self is only a self relative to non-self and if we were to
drop the idea of non-self - it would be no solution for the solipsist
- for the result would be - on paper - as it were - that the self
has disappeared into the totality - it actually no longer exists -
the totality is self - and this makes no sense for the whole point
of self is its definition - its distinction - and there is no
distinction in everything

so this kind of a quest for certainty - really results in denial
of the subject - and leads to an ontology - a world view where no
thing per se exists - let alone a peculiar thing
like the self -

and we ask what is the point of such a quest - even if we don't
end up in the paradox of solipsism - why certainty?

where does the idea come from - what is its use?

my gut feeling is that it is a retreat from the world - a desire
for an alternative reality one that is unchanging - Plato knew
this and was up front about it -

and who has not been thwarted by the vicissitudes of life - yes

nevertheless it is still a retreat - a denial

but I suppose a denial with hope - the hope for something better?

even so - whatever one comes up with as a better reality - is no
more than a fancy defeated in every moment

perhaps at the very least it is safer to acknowledge the
uncertainty of life - of existing

at the best the idea is to see uncertainty as the very basis -
the ground of possibility -
and hence the source of all human freedom and creativity

this is not a natural reaction - and not a common one -
let alone an easy one - I think it only comes from deep experience
and /or deep thought -

it is a position you can arrive at via a healthy and positive
critical approach to life - it is a position that is hard to
maintain - and requires courage in life and thought

the sceptic does not need to deny the existence of anything -
let alone the world - the question is how to regard beliefs -
ideas - about the world?

what are they and what is the point of them?

are they not simply companions of action?
and the substance - the qualities - the ground -
of the inner life -

a ground never sure - but ever bright

Santayana II

doubt and dogma

Santayana in this chapter takes the view that nature
is in some sense the true reality

dogma he regards as accepted opinion - really a fantasy
of explanation

'what kills spontaneous fictions... is the angry voice
of some contrary fancy'

'Nature, silently making fools of us all our lives,
never would bring us to our senses; but the maddest
assertions of the mind may do so, when they challenge
one another'

scepticism is a suspicion of error about facts

because a sceptic's assertions may be well grounded -
scepticism is a form of belief

dogma cannot be abandoned only revised

hence all scepticism rests on some dogmatic presupposition

intelligence is veridical

the need to believe something does not justify any
particular belief

given all the above -

how does 'nature' as Santayana describes reality - or what
is fundamental - speak to human beings?

it's all well and good to say it is there - but how is it
knowable on this view?

the impression I have is that Santayana takes the view -
what we have in knowledge is just dogma and it's conflict -
the possibility - inevitability of a conflict of fantasies

over what - nature? - we may as well say - x - i.e. -
whatever it is -

scepticism he says is a suspicion of error regarding facts -
but what is the origin of this suspicion - there seems at
this stage no reason to think it has anything to do with truth
- isn't it just different dogmas clashing?

you may presume a truth at the bottom of all this - but so
far no particular reason to do so

what is a fact on this view but a reigning dogma?

and the sceptic is just one who has an opinion that is not
the same as the one he challenges

Santayana says a sceptic's opinions may be well grounded -
how could this be possible - well grounded on what?

is not scepticism on this view just the conflict of difference
- conflicting dogmas - opinions?

we will need to wait for further elucidations of his thought
before jumping to any firm conclusions

so far I wonder if Santayana is just proposing a kind of
Hobbesian reality of a war of dogma against dogma - with
a detached sovereign - who may be watching - but has no
impact on events

this is not a criticism

(it may be just the true picture)

but is it an argument really for anything?

we begin as it were with conflict - can it be resolved and
does scepticism have a positive role here?

and is a fact something different from dogma - if so how do
we know it?

and he speaks of nature - as the touchstone but here again -
can we understand it outside of what he calls dogma?

I tend to think that outside of opinion what we have -
the only objective description of what is beyond description -
is the unknown

now the question - what is this - an objective reality -
or a subjective reality?

my answer is that at this point - we have gone beyond
such categories

and the answer is - fair and square - without any tricks -
unknown

we'll see

scepticism

scepticism is an understanding of relationship of
subject and object

the subject is contained within the object

this is a given

how we explain it is another thing

it is a given -

because - to speak of a subject - the category

presupposes a definitiveness

the subject is 'a something'

what?

well at the very least we can place it within the object

we must - for it is the object - the world - that defines the
subject

the subject is within

the question is - can the subject - define the world

its context

the domain beyond its boundaries

the answer is yes and no

the subject can describe what it 'sees' - what it knows -

this knowledge though - by definition is strictly limited

the subject can never transcend the object

(if it did so - it would by definition cease to be what
it is - at the very least - 'within')

it is the subject's awareness - consciousness of its
definition -

that leads it to the quest for definition of the totality

it is the assumption that - as the totality - the object
defines (and this is to speak metaphorically) - so it too
can be defined

this is not so

for definition requires containment

to be defined - x must be within - that is its definition -
or the ground of its definition

anything specific you say on top of this - what we normally
call definition is prefaced
on this ontological fact

the world - is not - cannot be within

it is by its nature - not within - hence - its status
as object

the world cannot be defined

the illusion that it can be - is an illusion - or a mistake
of the subject - a wish - if you like - that the object -
is not an object - but in truth - a subject

God as you can see slots in well here

our knowledge - our descriptions - of the world itself -
i.e. science - other metaphysical descriptions - are but
imaginative constructions

deep fantasies of the subject

subjectivizations of the object

in saying this though I am not devaluing such projections

it is clear

they are necessary for the human being

it is the nature of consciousness to project itself
onto the world

to imprint the object with subjectivity - to thus identify
it - know it if you like

for what reason?

the reason is - the emptiness of the object

here again

the object - the totality is without definition

the primary function of consciousness is to give definition
to that which is not defined

the relationship is perfect

the object defines the subject

the subject gives definition to the object

knowledge is just this

as it were - the rush of being to nothingness

the act is futile and necessary

it is without reason

it is just what happens -

and no different to any other happening in the world

you need to understand the world as mindless to see
its purity

Santayana

scepticism and animal faith
there is no first principle of criticism

some thoughts -

Santayana clearly takes the view that the function
of philosophy is critical

that is what is left of facts - the facts of empirical
science once you strip away the presuppositions -
the uncritical assumptions - and he sees Kantian
Transcendalists as those who have used sceptical methods
to foist unskeptical presuppositions on to or
under the facts

if we begin as he says - we can only do so -
'in the middle' - there are no first principles to begin
with or from - for they are logically of the same status
as any other sticks of metaphysical furniture - what can
we do - where to go - what is the task?

it's a good question - and yes he is right here we do only
begin where we begin ('begin the begine'?) - yes

well we describe what we see - where we are - we describe -
map out the territory -
and yes - inevitably - we paint a picture

as to other pictures - i.e. - the old masters -
of empiricism and transcendental idealism

what can we do?

what do we do?

yes question - investigate - look for what you might
call first principles - check for consistency

but just pictures in a gallery actual and possible

a possible infinity of first principles - if that is how
you want to go

the sceptic points to the arbitrariness of any description

sees between the frames - to the wall - the blank
on which it all hangs -

to the unknown

to what purpose?

I think the purpose is the result of such an inquiry

it shows the freedom of interpretation beyond the obvious

which we must describe - to begin with

(so we define the world - to begin the question of
definition)

anyway

what this points to - leads to - is the unknown
'in medias res'

the scepticism I argue for here is not just
methodological - Socratic

it is God forbid - substantial

and this the source of freedom -

the nature of consciousness

moral thinking

the focus of moral thinking is the indeterminacy
of human behaviour

you could say 'action' here - but I want to speak
specifically about that class of action that is
interpersonal - between people - in relation to others
- this is what I mean here by behaviour

also action - is something of a stripped down version -
of a more complex picture

behaviour here - not only entails action -
but it presupposes thought - and also
patterns of action which we would term - unconscious -
or just habitual - in short - the thought and act of
individuals - and I would say socially understood patterns of
action and thought -

I'm looking for a broad understanding here -

how to act in relation to the other?

what line of thought to take - what series of moves?

the thing is we need a way of focusing these issues -
otherwise - the questions yield no definitive answers -
or - we give up looking at variables - and just make the
decision to 'act for this reason and in this way' -

this kind of pragmatic resolution is either - ignorant -
or highly sophisticated -

but in either case it is not people's first choice of
understanding

what we do is ask the question - 'what is the right thing
to do?' - or some such variant -

the point of such a question is to resolve the issue
of procedure - to create a focus - that can accommodate
all variables

look - if it was just a simple case of understanding cause
and effect - no question

what we need to understand in such matters is the total
picture

now strictly speaking this can never happen

however contingency - actually demands it

'I don't know what to do here - what am I going to do?'

this translates to - what is the right thing to do?

the question - presupposes - the end of indeterminacy -
and this is the secret

it proposes an alternative to the reality of indeterminacy

now - religious people have explained this by positing
an alternative reality

we don't need to do this

we just need to know this about ourselves as functioning
conscious entities - we are set up to demand - require
definition

in interpersonal relations - such is the function of
moral thinking

the fact that no definition holds is reality's eternal
assertion -

in your face - so to speak

hey - keeps us on our toes

p.s.

therefore no great surprise that the language of morality
is not naturalistic - in the sense of physical science -
how could it be? - the whole point - of it is to defy - to
super-impose on the natural state of affairs

and if what I suggest is so - there is no question of
deducing an 'ought' from an 'is' this is not the game -
not what it's about

rather - it has more to do with establishing a model -
a framework in which to define the 'is'

an 'imposture' if you wish

one that goes beyond the simple - observation of the
external (science)

one that puts internal realities into the mix

and demands resolution - definitiveness

no simple matter - but one that has all the force of
necessity

consciousness and indeterminacy

consciousness brings indeterminacy to the world

this has great implications for the bearers of consciousness
- nothing for the world

consciousness is - if this is so - a secondary feature
of reality - it is not fundamental

whatever your view of the nature of consciousness -
it is 'brought to' reality

if you like you can think of it as imposed upon -
non-conscious reality

a secondary quality

you may wish to see it as specific to a class of existents

what I want to say is morality is consciousness'
response to itself

morality - the realm of morality - if you like -
is consciousness' response to its indeterminacy

'what I should do' only arises because of indeterminacy
(because of consciousness)

putting it crudely - consciousness brings choice to the world

morality - the theory - the practice - is the mind's
response to this - to this fact of itself

it is as it were - the mind's attempt to resolve itself -
or even to defy itself - deny - you could say -
(depending on which side of the bed you up wake on)

what we know though is that the point of this
indeterminacy (from consciousness' point of view)
is resolution

I suspect consciousness understands itself as an indeterminate
state in a determinate world - the natural instinct here is to
resolve into the determinate totality

this though - is never possible -

hence we have an unresolvable tension - between consciousness
and the world

it is this that is the dynamic of conscious life

the moral life

the human characteristic - of moral behaviour -
(and I don't mean this in a behaviouristic sense)
can be looked at from two points of view - from the inside -
the activity - mental - of the moral agent - or objectively -
in the sense of - description - of what people do -
and psychology goes a little way to this end -
but to get the real picture you need - moral philosophy -
for here you have the maps and pictures of
moral states

this is what I think happens in moral philosophy -

from the inside - the moral philosopher is just the moral
agent (writ large as it were)

and the kinds of questions asked - are peculiarly
moral questions

what is good - what is right -

these are questions that have a particular form -
logical form -

firstly - any answer given to such a question -
is what I will call open - it is not closed
- in the way that we say an empirical question is -

secondly - any such answer has the character of necessity

if I think x is the good - 'y' the right thing to do -
in general - these conclusions demand assent

they are not optional -

so we have a curious state of affairs -

the answer demands but the question stays open

therefore

morality

what this means is that we live in - as moral agents -
an open necessity

and it is this that accounts for the fact that moral agents
operate with an indeterminate definitiveness

what I mean is this -

we have to address ethical issues in a definite manner -
but the questions (moral) are never closed off

and this I think goes some way to accounting for the fact
that a typical moral agent will in the course of a moral
life move through a series of necessities - a number of
moral views -

and not regard himself as - contradictory - or afflicted
with paradox

such is the key characteristic of the moral life -
to be free (not closed off) and definitive

just to return for a minute to what philosophers do

like moral agents they carry on - as if they are solving
problems -

this is an archetypal form of moral behavior

in fact I think what philosophers do here - is elucidate
and describe - decisions made

this is what the whole of moral theory - meta and normative -
is to the service of

and what we in fact get - in moral theory - is possible
accounts of decision

- maps if you like - one territory - many maps

mind and relations

can we speak of mind in terms of relations?

I mean drop - or perhaps better - suspend - the issue of
substance - mind as matter - mind as spirit

the idea would be to develop an account of mind - that could
apply to whatever - metaphysics - a theory of mind - that
would fit the materialist metaphysics - or the idealist

just a thought here -

Spinoza's account -

substance (God or nature) expresses itself as extension
and mind

on this view - mind and matter are attributes of substance

is it too big a step to go from this to - relations of
substance?

in Spinoza's term these relations would be internal

different from my proposal - where mind is the internal relation
- matter - external

but it's an externality - relative to mind

and we could still speak of a totality

being or existence - that contains mind and matter

(I would think of such - not as substance - but as the
unknown - and frankly I would argue Spinoza's substance -
is just this - the unknown)

anyway

I think the real question here is - can we avoid
ontological commitment - suspend it -

and still have something interesting to say?

and move the issue on -

it's quite a bizarre notion - to speak of mind -
and leave the question of its substantial
nature - open

but you only see it is as odd if you assume -
that mind is substantial -

perhaps 'it' is not

perhaps mind is not thing - or indeed process -
but rather - relation

a relation that holds regardless of ontological commitment

when I speak of mind as internal

and the physical as external

my focus is not on the stuff - of internality -
of externality -

rather that such ontological categories exist -

in fact are necessary

the outer and the inner - and relations - between and within

mind as relation

continuing on with the idea of mind as relation -

consciousness - relates - to the world -
the external world - and to itself

that is the relation is 'di-mensional'(?)

an external relation
an internal relation

on this view consciousness - we can say is the focal point

that is consciousness in itself is the centre point

the pure point

which is explicated in its relations (?) external / internal

so the reflexivity of consciousness

is this a defining characteristic - the defining
characteristic - or an attribute of consciousness - of mind?

Janus - the looking - the seeing both ways - two faces

reflexivity - really a characterization of -
self-consciousness

it is the internal relation?

the thing as internally defined?

so do we have - self-consciousness - and consciousness of -
the other - the non-self - the world

the two dimensions of consciousness

consciousness in this sense - the centre - in a mathematical
sense - as the 'substanceless point' of the world -

perhaps the ideal point

it is clear

that - outside of this - there is no knowledge

and this is virtually analytically true

consciousness is knowledge

- beyond knowledge - the unknown -

and the great difficulty for epistemologists is

what can you say further on these matters?

we have self-consciousness

- consciousness of consciousness

consciousness of - the non-conscious - i.e. - the world -

and still we want to ask - what is it?

- we know it - experience it

- can distinguish it from the non-consciousness

beyond this?

we want to say it is something -

because it is -

but what?

it is just as if you can only say here

it is what it is -

and at the moment I find this line of inquiry -
the substantial theory of mind - tiresome

the idea of thinking of mind as relation -
(though I haven't quite got a handle on it yet)
has just the hint of liberation