'nothing given exists as it is given' - the argument
that the contents of consciousness - the inhabitants
of the mental world - players in the phenomenal parade -
are not as they appear - but in fact are illusions -
perhaps in the main benign - but their true nature
is something else - and to this Santayana argues a
physicalist analysis -
here the problem (of Santayana as I read him) might
be taking too seriously what he is arguing against -
the thing is - as conscious beings we cannot but
describe - and we are thrust into this 'entelechy'
of description before we know it - Santayana can argue
for a physicalist description - OK - but the object
of all this is not the material world or the spirit -
these are only descriptions - of what is not known
how do I capture event x - but by describing it as -
'what I felt' or 'what I saw' - or 'what I imagined' -
and provide supplementary - detailed descriptions of x -
some of them for all intents and purposes given - given -
within certain parameters of positing
further description or analysis - scientific - philosophic -
to the details of - or concepts of ontology and epistemology -
are options - just as the initial descriptions are
what exists - how it exists etc. - is a function of
description - and what has just been said here - must be
understood as a description describing - a description
beyond this statement there is no commitment
hang up your rock and roll shoes
