where is the rub?

if the sceptic is right and we don't know

what would be the difference if we did?

or for that matter if the sceptic is wrong

and the epistemic right?

where is the rub?

the physical world is not altered either way

will people act differently?

well it might be suggested that they would or could -
but finally how to know?

is one understanding ultimately any different to
another?

you can change your view of a situation but what
is this to say -

knowledge or its absence is not a big player here

not even a player?

different coloured chips - on the roulette table?

it all has more to do with colour than content

with artistry - rather than substances

it's how we paint on the canvas

what we paint on it

how we approach it - the changes made -

and remade - the activity

its irresistibility - focus

the canvas comes already - processed - cut - in form

the work begins

does it alter the canvas?

yes - something is changed - something remains
unchanged

the idea of an original state is pure illusion

there never was one

(when does the begine begin?)

you cannot even imagine it (though some may
think they can)

logic suggests it

that is all

(and logic here is only a process - an activity
that is 'in canvas')

ultimately what is painted - created is a phantasm

we imagine it is the work - the canvas that is
the point

this is the driving observation

the fact is - it's the wall

but who cannot be surprised

disbelieving of this?

brain states

can we say it is a physiological process -
a brain state?

the point is why?

corresponding physiological processes - that
parallel states of consciousness - let's say
OK - for the minute

the world is physical - another OK

even given these concessions

the question - though at the heart of this is -

what is it to say?

it is to say - the world is physical - OK

we name it so -

and with this name - comes descriptions

this name / description - 'physical'

is a product of consciousness

we - for the sake of neatness - consistency -
homogeneity - say

consciousness is physical

we bring it into the tent -

(the tent it built)

we will say the light shines on itself

in my view consciousness - finally defies any
description

there is no view but consciousness

it is the seeing - not what is seen

but I have tried to suggest here

that we can see that logically speaking

there is an argument for saying that

the seeing of consciousness -
the states of awareness

may not be - all there is to it

that it is possible to see states of awareness
as a function of something deeper

that consciousness is not fully exhausted by
it states

and it could follow from this

that consciousness may exist in some sense in
the absence of awareness

that states of consciousness - presuppose an
unknown - dimension?

(should give the life after death - 'the mind
survives' theorists a fillip)

the dream

consider the dream

you awake and you see it - as it were from
the outside

the post-dream (woken awareness) is of -
is now (known to be of) a different kind to
the dream state

it is not the experience of dreaming -
(i.e. - the content of the dreaming) that
distinguishes itself from the non-dream
state - or visa versa

it is rather that the dream state has become -
the object of the non-dream state

this we might say is not so much a choice of
consciousness

more - an action of consciousness

consciousness distinguishes its states

and so a question

we speak of consciousness as an awareness

but there is functioning beneath this awareness

there must be for it's appearance - existence

and so consciousness

awareness - states of consciousness - so called -
functions of consciousness

and as to the nature of consciousness itself
rather than it's functions (states of awareness)

what can we say?

it is - behind the screen

(plenty of ground for the imagination)

but literally unknowable

contingency

contingency in the true pure sense

is strictly speaking empty

or perhaps

without bounds

without definition

(the concept of God really comes out of this idea

it is a reflection of it

a substitute

the positing of another realm

spiritual ideal

as if in the act of this positing

the actual contingent reality is improved

or

somehow - by such a reality - made - non-contingent

i.e. -

the concept of God - has all the characteristics
of the contingent realm

with the addition of spiritual posits

- order - knowledge - power

all finally - quite simply - emotional needs -
writ large)

reason - or focus - is not outside of - or a special
case of contingency

it is just the idea - formalized - of focus points

points of consciousness

(generalized)

reason has more to do with place - posit -

we order the world in thought - simply to defy it

there is an imperative here

without such decision

decision to limit - to engage - to control

there is no basis for action

- from the point of view of consciousness

there will be action regardless of consciousness -
or its existence

this ordering though

this positing of reason

is - outside of the accident of consciousness -
of no purpose

contingency - in itself - without what Satre calls
- 'the for itself'

is pure being

and this purity cannot - is not impinged upon -
altered - changed

at this level of understanding -

of consciousness - there is no focus

consciousness - metaphorically speaking - dissolves
itself

here we are in the realm of pure contemplation

strictly speaking - the union of mind - in being -
that is oneness -

beyond this - no description

no need