'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'
