what is it to think about thinking?
on the face of it doesn't seem controversial
it is what happens isn't it?
and it's just what the mind is -
regardless of whatever ontological status we give it
it is - isn't it - in an essential sense - i.e.
regardless of whatever else mind does -
thought thinking itself?
or is this just a little too obscure -
can thought be the subject of thought -
and if so -
what does this tell us about the nature of thought?
it suggests - doesn't it - that our favourite
distinction between subject and object - at
this level - is not as clear cut - as it seems -
when for example speaking of the mind
(as subject) regarding (that outside itself )
the world (as object)
if thought can be the object of thought
are we here - collapsing the subject / object
distinction - altogether
or is it - hence - and thus - to be understood
differently?
if thought can be subject and object
what does this mean?
thought distinguishes itself into subject and object -
if so - thought per se or mind (and I know this is
anything but precise) is in itself neither subject
or object -
it is - in this sense - some kind of neutral -
(a blank unknown?)
that functions can function by positing these categories
yes -
in a sense
but isn't it just this that the mind does?
(i.e. it may be something beyond this - but so what -
how relevant is that?)
in any case - the thing is - the positing of subject
and object - is one thing - the point is
that the mind applies this to itself
it is - quite apart from the subject object issue -
the question of what self reference is -
how it can be - what it tells us - can it be explicated?
I thought the subject / object distinction might help here
it is just another way of stating or referring to self
reference
it is clear - I think - this is what the mind does
is this just the end of the matter - like it's the
unanalyzable essential characteristic of mind - ?
yes - it seems so
but I just can't be satisfied here
