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
