focus II

or another way of putting it is to say

the essence of consciousness is focus - i.e. -
there is no focus in the non-conscious

the absence of focus defines the non-conscious

the object of consciousness is in the first place
the non-conscious (non-focus)

and secondarily - focus - or a focus
and thus thirdly - focus itself -

the point of focus - is that it focuses

on what is

and - that is - non-focus and focus

focus is a view - in a metaphysical sense

consciousness is this view

the world is viewed - through consciousness

or more correctly - the world sees itself in
consciousness

so - the appearance of focus - is another
description of the appearance of consciousness

and this appearance is not just another
manifestation of phenomena

or again - more correctly - not just the generation
of event or thing (on the non-conscious level)

yes - the point being that the emergence or -
the happening of consciousness is a change in
the nature of the world

it is the appearance of a dimension of reality

(for the argument's sake it doesn't matter if
consciousness is an emergent property as
they say - or was always there - or here)

it is - as some have thought the emergence
of the self

how do we account for this?

what is self?

at the most basic level - recognition

recognition of -

- objectivity?

yes - strangely -

and in such - is the reality of subjectivity

it is to say - that subjectivity and objectivity
are essentially one moment

the one moment split

so -

if we can speak of 'pre-self' -

we are speaking of a world - without object -
without subject -

what is such a world?

the unknown -

pure and simple

and is not the world - as we know it -

just this -

the unknown - revealing itself

in consciousness

in focus

this - we must think of - as a cosmological development

and if so

it is - one without reason

for reason - only comes with consciousness

the world itself is without reason

how different is such a statement to

the world is its own reason

the difference between everything and nothing?

focus

consciousness is a focus

(it knows what it sees)

and knows that it is a focus

that is - that it is not limitless - all seeing -
all knowing

so consciousness knows it is defined - that it
operates within limitations

and the limitation is not just the specificity
of focus

but also

the nature of the ground -

its ground

the ground of focus

- i.e. - its reason -

however - here too there is knowledge - knowledge
that a ground exists -

not one though that consciousness - sees

description of what is seen

the domain of focus

is a secondary function - of consciousness

consciousness - sees - but on reflection how
to describe?

so what is seen is presented - but not known

reflection demands description

description is not given in presentation

it is post-presentation -

and how does it come about?

here - consciousness - creates out of nothing -

the nothing that is presentation

here is the mystery of consciousness -

the act of creation

- of thought

- primal thought -

what is presented -

and even - what is beyond -

and beneath

what is presented

it is here we have our conceptions of the world

our descriptions
our explanations

we may be able to explain such - causally -
as it were

- one idea led to another - and - this came out
of such and such a need -

- OK - this though in reflection on the conception
created -

it does not account for - nor can it - account for -

the act of creation

which is thus

the fundamental unknown

that is the foundation of consciousness

relations again

I think we come out of nothing and define

the world presents as it is

but as it is - is a relation

a relation between presentation and mind

so what we know

is this relation

and its definition is the business of our action

- our activity - this relation - this knowledge -
is metaphysically speaking a creation

much is in fact given - in the relation

the presentation is stable

here the knowledge has a base

however the relation is never fixed

it is within its base - fluid

this is the origin of creativity

the constant possibility of interpretation

to the extent that the familiar

may - in certain endeavours - contexts - be replaced

hence - art
hence - science

the weaving is endless

the activity - makes for a reality

however behind this activity - of making knowledge -

is nothing -

the world is featureless

the mind an emptiness

in reality we never see this

we can only achieve this understanding -

in reflection on reflection

this is metaphysics

mind and activity

on such a view as I am putting forward

the activity of the mind defines

mind is defined in its activity -

we might call such an activity - conception -

if so

mind defines itself as conception

- conception - here is a description of what
it does

and this too - conception - is - or can be defined -
further elaborated

for - various purposes

so - simply and briefly I say - 'mind' is just
a name - a description - if you will for - a
certain kind of activity

note - here I am leaving 'the certain kind of
activity' - purposely blank - or as blank as it
can be - in description

to emphasize and point to the fact that we begin
as it were with nothing - nothing in the sense of
definition - of knowledge

we reflect - or this is what I call it - to give
the activity - as with any other activity - definition -
and so on

what I want to say here -

the picture I have is of beginning with nothing -
and reflecting on the activity that - follows -
and from this - knowledge -

the base - the base of humanity - is nothing -
here is the purity of - the foundation of -
what we do -

knowledge - is - I call it reflection

the making of something of nothing -

in the beginning - was not the word

in the beginning is nothing -

the word is the making of - something -

this is not magical -

it is just - pragmatic

action - existence requires in conscious entities -
definition - (reflection) -

language is the given - and necessary - medium

out of this comes the world - we make

this is of course an ideal - theoretical picture

we are born into the action of the world -
and its language -

there is no nothing in reality - only in logic -
in conception - or the logic of conception

still I want to say epistemologically speaking

the ground is pure

or perhaps - ideal

with no presumption - no content -

it is nothing -

here - if you like I am speaking of the soul of man

no escape

the mind holding itself as object?

what does this mean?

how is it to be explicated

the subject transferring itself to object -
while maintaining subjectivity?

we understand the relation subject to object

where the two are ontologically distinct

i.e. - the object is outside of the subject

but what to make of the notion of an object
within subjectivity?

subjectivity as object?

what I have argued to date is that the defining
characteristic of the mind is reflectivity

reflection - is what the mind does - and thus -
for all intents and purposes - what it is

so what does this mean?

we begin with reflectivity

and by definition - reflectivity is a relational
operation

which at the first means - whatever the content
of reflectivity - we are always speaking of a
'relation between'

that which reflects - that which reflected on

'subject' and 'object' will do here

these are the 'relata' - of reflectivity

the posits -

OK to have posits

doesn't this suggest - something does the positing?

is this - separate to the positing?

i.e. - is reflectivity - mind - as I suggested?

or is reflectivity - the operation - the function
of mind?

is a distinction necessary?

on logical grounds - it seems so

unless we want to say - the mind posits itself
(as reflectivity)

the mind posits itself?

or is it that - yes - there is mind

and all we know is what it does?

if the former view - mind is essentially an unknown

out of which issues forth - reflectivity

the relational operation

if the latter -

if mind is just its operation -

we are left with nothing more to say - than

the mind - is what it does

i.e. - if you would like to know something more
fundamental -

there is nothing that can be said

there is nothing behind the appearance - i.e. -
the action of mind

beyond this action - mind does not know itself -

i.e. - there is nothing to know -

OK

back to the mind holding itself as object -

perhaps all awareness - just is self awareness

that there is no real sense to consciousness that
is not self-consciousness

and in that case there are just different kinds
of object

the object - outside

the object - inside -

or the inside as object

if so - then objectification - of the inside -
the outside -

mind or matter - is what mind does

and - of course to do this it must be able to reflect

so reflection is the fundamental here -

what it is - apart from its operation -

we cannot say

we can only reflect - on it

no escape

inner and outer

I argued in the last piece that we have two kinds
of knowledge corresponding to two kinds of experience -
the experience of the inner world (mind) and the
experience of the outer world (matter)

clearly we can and do speak of the world -
as a singularity - a unity - as one

this is just to make a logical statement

it is to recognize that the dimensions inner and outer
are dimensions of a unity -

that which has an inner and outer

for even if you want to limit the inner to conscious
entities - still we are speaking of the nature of the
world - of the totality -

and we do not need to go much further than this

i.e. - Spinoza defines the totality - as one -
eternal and infinite

this - or such an argument is not germane to my
argument -

the point is - for the notion of dimension to
make sense

it follows that dimensions - are dimensions of a unity -
whatever its characteristics

now I think it is best to leave it just there

as a logical argument - not a substantial - ontological -
position

it is knowledge - that -

not knowledge of what

as such it is contentless -

a neutral monism in James' and Russell's senses

but a neutral stripped bare

a ground that indeed - need not be known

its assertion is as far as you need go

(and what kind of logical assertion is this?

it is to acknowledge the groundlessness of being

as the ground of being - and to state this in most
economical way

and if the statement cannot be made 'without content'

silence

still - there is nothing wrong with a bit of noise

even if it signifies nothing)

I doubt therefore I am

in general my position is a comprehensive scepticism

the question of mind - of the mind-body relationship

is a question we cannot know the answer to

and I mean this in a constructive sense

so far I have argued that the question of mind -
the problem of the nature of mind - cannot be settled
empirically

mind has no objectivity

so to regard it - from - a physicalist - materialist
point of view

is just not possible

it is not that it is wrong

it just cannot be done

the mind does not exist as an observable entity -

and to the question of its relationship to the body -

this is not a question at all

it cannot strictly speaking be raised

it is not that - there is not such and such a relationship

my view is that it is wrong headed to ask the question

for any answer to the question

presupposes a relationship between what is observable
with what is not

we can't say there is not such and such a relationship

it is that we can never know

- therefore the question is ill conceived

this is my first point

the next thing to say is that the reason the question -
the issue arises - and appears sensible

is just because

someone thinks they know something

my point is that knowledge of the outside world -
and knowledge of the inner world

are strictly speaking limited to their domains

there is no cross over

so how to deal with this?

the answer I think is this

and it's a kind of Spinozistic argument

it is that the inner and outer realms are dimensions
or expressions

of a more fundamental reality

or perhaps - description

what is known is the inner - is the outer -
mind - matter

I see these dimensions (and their 'stuff')
as expressions of a singularity - that is
(except in terms of their expressions) -
literally and obviously - unknown

it is if you like - a logical ground

that is without character

it is the description necessary - if the two kinds
of 'experience' (inner /outer) are to be unified -

it is what cannot be said

cannot be known

the 'open description'

it is what I think Spinoza - meant - or should
have meant by 'substance'

looking into the brain

one attraction of the mind-brain identity thesis
is that it quite specifically locates mind
- in the brain - and is clear about its ontological
status - brain process

perhaps we can ask - why the brain - and not elsewhere -
the argument here is supposedly - scientific?

if true - this view puts pay to pan-psychism -

mind as a physical process - not an entity -
or substance

with only the small problem - how you could ever know -
on the basis of observation - that any of this is true

as a conception - an idea of mind - about mind -
a reflection - yes -

on this level as valid as any other

it strikes me that this question cannot be settled
empirically

and that it may be a mistake - to in anyway speak -
or think of the mind - empirically

the point being - that if mind - as I put it earlier
is the inside of the world - it is not accessible to
empirical review -

for it is only the outside - the surface - that can
be so accessed

the nature of the mind is not an empirical issue

I like this - but it raises the question - how then
do we deal with - speak about - understand the mind?

my stab here will be to say - in its own terms -
ideally

and what can we expect from such?

because we tend naturally to think of knowledge in
empirical terms - our natural model for knowledge
is science

and inductively - the gradual build up of detail
to generality

knowledge of the mind - if such is possible -
will not be like this

how does the mind work?

we can begin I think with reflection

I argue this is the basic operation of the mind

in fact it is mind for all intents and purposes

the outside - the observable physical world -
does not reflect

it presents

mind reflects

(so - at least this - the connection is tight)

and reflection -

is?

the capacity to generate thought -

the activity of mind - what it does -

(which is not to say much)

perhaps art - as an analogy - helps here

I have said before that the language of mind
is poetry

that the business of mind is metaphor

that the mind creates - generates - metaphor -
and metaphor for metaphor

I don't think the deductive model is the model

clearly the mind can work in such a way

and does for very real purposes

but this model is only - one - metaphor - for?

for what -

for the way the world is

to cut directly to the chase - the world presents -
it is naked - and silent

the mind reflects - it clothes and gives voice

what I was getting to - is that the reflective
nature of the mind - in my view does not follow
any single model - i.e. deductive - inductive -

true these are models - metaphors used

but the mind can reflect - chaotically as it were -
without rhyme or reason

this is really the essence of creative power

- the fact that the activity of the mind is
essentially anarchistic

apprehending minds

even if we could establish a plausible case -
for how the mind apprehends other minds
- non-inferentially

we are not necessarily any closer to a Spinozistic -
pan-mentalism

for all we can thus argue is that a mind can recognize
another mind

and yes there are characteristics that are common -
difficult as it might be to specify what they are -

and yes - such characteristics would - could form
the basis of a theory of mind

still mind is only recognized in certain manifestations
of nature

it is not universally recognized

mind has only particular appearances - in any recognizable
sense

mind it seems is a characteristic of certain beings -
but not all existents - or existence

to say this is in a way an argument for epiphenomenalism -
a slight argument

if mind recognizes itself - in other forms and -
mind is everywhere

why only the partial recognition?

could that just be - that mind in it's human form is
limited in it's range?

yes - you could go down this track - but why -
how intuitively plausible is such a direction?

by the by I don't see how Spinoza could really avoid
such a track

and the limitation argument comes to what?

well not much - as there really isn't any argument
for saying - mind could be - more than it is

evolution - yes - but that is just the never never -
reaching beyond itself

not out of the question - but a bit flaky in this context

anyway the idea - would have to be that mind exists
in other contexts - (in all contexts)

but we can only know it - in the forms of sentient
creatures

so - what I am getting at here - is that - such a
pan-psychism - (is that the right term?) - as Spinoza's -
actually depends on scepticism to have any intellectual
basis at all

knowledge of the mind

as regards knowledge of mind and its place
in the world -

I know my mind - directly

there is no inference

in fact for all intents and purposes I am - my mind
- for it is only through my mind - I know my body -

yes

my mind -

is this all that can be said -

can we speak - strictly speaking - of mind -

unpossessed - as it were -

a reservoir of - spirit - out there - that we and
other species dip into in varying degrees?

this is the question - in a way

is mind as with extension - a force to be reckoned with -

or rather just an anomaly - almost a mistake of nature?

- scattered points in matter - no substratum?

so does my mind's knowledge of itself

(and I am assuming this for the moment)

go beyond itself - recognize - mind in other forms?

not directly - this is clear

indirectly - well yes

and if not - well some kind of solipsism -

I may not be the only one that exists - but the only
one with a mind and knowledge

clearly not on

the mind recognizes itself in other physical forms?

is this just analogical inference -

or is there a more direct knowledge here?

i.e. mind recognizing mind

if so - how?

if this is on - it's not so much a question of
perception as in sensual perception

though clearly perception plays an instrumental role

rather it is recognition of -

it is in some sense a cognitive action

it is an apprehension

the mechanics of this I don't know and have no idea
to put forward at the moment

but I will stick with this notion and try and think
it out

does every outside have an inside?

mind as inner space

the ghost in the machine?

well no - on Spinoza's scheme

extension and mind -

as I read him

are attributes - of substance

not substance itself - or substances in themselves

perceived essences - is also how he puts it

expressions is how I have come to think of it

expressions - that is of - substance

and this substance - in my view - is unknown

unknown - in itself

we can understand its manifestations

extension - and mind

but beyond this there is no penetration

except in a logical sense

so

on such an interpretation -

mind is an internal representation of substance

the physical world - substance - seen from the outside

we might get away with arguing this as a metaphysics
of human beings

almost in a Kantian sense -

but how far can you take it?

can it sensibly be extended

to cover all of nature

perhaps God is not equivalent to nature

perhaps God is just an aspect of nature

(and nature just a expression of substance)

again

how far to extend mind?

I guess the question is - does every outside have
an inside?

i.e. - we might argue the human being is in this
sense two dimensional

but what of the rock

I would think not

and this makes room for what?

occassionalism

evolutionism

epiphenomenalism

either these options

or

parallelism?

and is this Spinoza's view?

parallelism -

my previous argument on this issue -

an attempt to save the day for a parallelism
was to put that mind - only knows itself as
mind

the point being we could argue that - yes mind
is everywhere - as a matter of logic

but it only identifies (knows) itself in particular

not universally

this is a way

inside the inside

in the last couple of posts I have been trying to
make sense of Spinoza's argument that mind is an
attribute of substance - one of the two (of an
infinite number) revealed to us

and at the same time trying to make some sense of
my own idea that the mind is the inside of the world

the intuition for this idea - the inside of the world -
is just that the mind - as we know it - it would seem
is inside the body -

and then to see how far you can take this notion -

can it be extensively applied?

i.e. - if we regard extension as outside - logically
you might argue - all extension - all outside has an
inside - therefore mind is everywhere

one difficulty though is - that it is usually argued -
mind is not extensive - i.e. not spatial

on the other hand - such a view doesn't make sense

if something exists - it exists in space

so are we talking about a different kind of space -
or a different kind of entity inhabiting space?

the mind - awareness - recognizes space - and itself -
in space

the 'in space' here - though - is a different kind to
the existence of the physical object in space -

it still seems to me that it is intuitively clear that
mind is in space in the sense of inside it

and physical objects - the material world?

in space - as in the 'surface of space'

this view is to argue that 'space' has two dimensions -
two metaphysical dimensions

inner space - outer space?

inner space

so - the mind as the inside of the world

the inside of space
the inside of matter

perhaps mind here is still an attribute - but clearly
I am suggesting that we see it as a dimension

again - if an inside - it is not an inside that
is there to be observed

it is qualitatively different to - the outside

and just how much of the outside - has this inside?

not much it seems

but then I did argue - it's not as if it is a question
of look and see - of observation

the mind - is aware of itself

this is the source - of knowing - about the mind

(not what I would choose as an answer to this problem -
but where else to go - really?)

the mind reveals itself in awareness

the mind is awareness

so

the question is then one of awareness

is the world aware?

or are there only mind-points - in the world

then the outside is clear cut

the inside as I am putting it can only be known -
by itself

therefore - it will not be possible - to know it -
as other

it cannot be regarded - objectively

it is pure subjectivity

therefore -

it is a category mistake - to argue the issue -
one way or another - empirically -

it has no empirical dimension

it is - ideal

which - for all intents and purposes - as far as
I can see - is to say - nothing

or to say - nothing can be said

or

if there is any language available here it is
only metaphorical - poetic

attributes

extension and mind

given Spinoza's presuppositions we have to assume
mind as co-extensive with
extension

or as Spinoza put it - the mind as the idea
of the body

the obvious difficulty is that most of nature does
not display mental properties

from Spinoza's point of view - as a matter of logic
mind is infinite and everywhere

now one way around this is to accept the metaphysical
argument - mind - as infinite and everywhere

but to argue that as such it is not obvious - apparent

and there is plausibility here

- as such we do not observe mind - (as we do extension)
in ourselves and others

so why should it be any different - with other
manifestations - modes of substance?

another way of putting it is to say we do not observe
knowing

so - how do we - know?

how do we know that we know?

how do we know mind?

the only answer here I think is that mind is its own
explanation

and you could say here - well this is no explanation

perhaps so -

and if mind is without explanation

this is not too far from Spinoza

if we were to say - well what is extension? - it's
own explanation -

what answer is this?

this is not to paint Spinoza as a sceptic -

just to say that from his point of view

what is - is

and extension - is - what it is

it is not reducible - or explainable -

for Spinoza the thing is to understand it correctly -

to operate within its logic

to think and act in terms of its logic

my own view is that for Spinoza substance is the
backdrop for what is

the concept a necessary given - what is - what exists

Spinoza comes at it from the top down -

but this is just an argument about what is necessary
for unity - for homogeneity -

and of course any metaphysics must get this right

diversity it would seem - must be an outcome -
a manifestation of unity

the question always is how?

at base Spinoza's answer is - that there is no diversity
- just manifestation -

pretty straightforward really -

but for mind -

unless you argue mind is a fundamental - manifestation
(attribute)

perhaps -

mind is - just not observable

- it is - as we know it - the inside of the world -

reflection and objectivity

the reality is that the only objectivity in
relation to reflectivity is reflection - another
reflection - a higher order reflection -

we do not think non-reflectively

finally it is just the activity - the machinery
of mind

and it is - quite value free - there is no limit
to reflection - either the number of or the
quality of -

strictly speaking - there is no quality here -
per se

and the limit is only in the action of it

death and disease - natural limits

so - the mind does this -

reflects on what is given to it and on these
reflections given

it is as if the process is there to make something
of the presentation

and indeed a reflection is the making of -

and what is made is expressed in action

there is in all of this the illusion of meaning

or

the reflection is the creation of meaning

the process if we can call it that is consciousness

and it is clearly a logical process

in one sense it is the making of object to subject

the transforming

i.e. - a presentation of the mind - is object -
reflection resolves it into subjectivity

what is clear is that these objects are fluid

they are instances of the reflection

to say this is of course to reflect on reflection

we can only know the mind - in - this activity -

its activity

we never leave the process -

only continue it

and to its nature there is no -

non-reflective argument

it is entirely pointless and it is everything we know

neutral reflectivity

so still a question

how to state - reflectivity in an epistemologically
and ontologically neutral way?

(or is this just not on?)

it is to say - or want to say - more than just that
'the mind is'

it is to say how it functions

which is?

xRx

or

x'Rx

therefore

x is contained in x'

therefore

x'

xR

x reflected

is what?

a statement

of a reflection

the fact of reflection

it is crucial to understand -

we cannot elucidate R

the reason -

for any elucidation - definition

is a reflection

in this sense

reflection

is primitive

I think this is true

also that it does not satisfy

but so be it -

the lack of satisfaction is no great surprise here

it is clearly - a characterization of reflection

perhaps

its reason

but my point here

is that reflection is not known

it - maybe the source of knowledge

but it cannot be known

(in the sense of explicated)

it is the ground of unknowing

p.s

we could perhaps take a happy approach to all this

and say

well reflecting is what we do

we know it in terms of its manifestations

which is our mental life and its creations

its activity

behaviourists might take this bait

the fact of reflection

the fact of mind is the fact of reflection

and we can regard it - this meta fact

in a number of possible ways -

we can i.e. - adopt a purely subjective view
(Descartes / Berkeley)

or - an objective view - objective idealism -
re Hegel

such reflections -

on the meta fact of reflection

are not however fundamental -

they are derivative

derivative of the fact

and so - what can be said of this meta fact?

the point is to refrain from characterization
such as subjective and objective descriptions
(as above)

such are definitive

choices of definition

and therefore - secondary - reflective

the point of stating - the meta fact

is to state it - non-reflectively

it is - reflectivity - but we do not need to
reflect on this (meta fact) in stating it

but how then is it to be characterized - stated?

as a primitive - I think

that is without characterization

it is - as I am putting it

meta neutral

in a sense if you like an empty fact or an open fact

the reflexivity of consciousness II

the reflectivity of consciousness

and what is this?

it is when we think -

and this is to make a thought the object of thought

it is to focus on what is present to the mind

(thought thinking thought -

is this just what consciousness is?)

to explain this we can only

reflect on it

we do not leave the domain of reflection

we can only really state that it happens

not what it is

for thought cannot step out side of thought

consciousness cannot be regarded from - an outside

consciousness really only recognizes its own activity

it cannot say what it is

for ontology - what exists is a product of consciousness

consciousness knows - it reflects

but it cannot reflect on itself

explicate its own nature

beyond stating this characteristic

which is just reflection on reflection

(you never leave the farm)

what does this tell us?

(Descartes thought -

therefore I am

it doesn't actually lead to anything

reflection

states that - what?

thinking happens

- that thinking - exists?

yes

the location of it's happening - the where

is simply assumed

the 'I' is a reflection

and as a reflection exists

i.e. we name this reflection 'I'

and this is really all Descartes does)

can we say - reflection

the existence of it

tells us something about the world?

yes - that such an activity - process

occurs

happens in the world

this - we know

it is the fact of knowing

there is knowing in the world

where to from here?

the unknown

much depends on how you characterize the unknown
like what sort of ontological status you give it -

and then whatever you say - it can be fairly asked -
well how do you know the unknown is such and such?

isn't the point of it that it is - unknown?

so what are we talking about here - can't be
characterized?

Kant's answer was interesting

he argued what we face is to be characterized as
the phenomenal - that which is presented

to ask what is behind it

is to ask to know - that which is not presented
to consciousness

and that for Kant is what the unknown is

he went further though

and really saw it as a reality - a dimension

and this unknown dimension - the noumenon -
became for him the source of freedom and God

now I wouldn't quite go down that track

though I think his answer to the question -
what is the unknown - as - that which is not
given in experience - is eminently sensible

but still you could ask - why the unknown at
all whatever status you give it?

now my thought here is that the unknown only
comes into the picture because of the nature
of consciousness

and a quick answer here is to say the fundamental
characteristic of consciousness is reflection

and to say this doesn't prejudge the standard
mind-body problem

for whatever theory you have of mind - you recognize
that consciousness reflects on the world and on its
own contents

now one of the things that happens when we reflect
is we look for an account of what is presented to us

we look for explanation or foundation to what we
experience

such is not presented - it is not there -

hence theoretical thinking - and all the theoretical
entities that come with it (i.e. - substance - electrons
- the unconscious - historical process - God)

now all I am really trying to say here is that in the
first instance reflection reveals the unknown - i.e.-
there is something I don't know

and that understanding only comes about because I
reflect on what is presented to consciousness

as pointed out Kant gave the unknown - an ontological
status - for Kant it is a real dimension of reality

I prefer a much less elaborate account

and really a more straight out logical account -

the unknown as - what - is not known

this leaves the question of what - as undecided -
(unlike Kant who did define it)

and it strikes me that in a metaphysical sense -
this is quite appropriate

(otherwise you would have to claim you know it)

in general - though I'm just saying as conscious
beings

we are in a sense - conscious - not just of what
is before us but what is not

and I think as soon as we reflect - we are in
the realm of the unknown

we reflect - we conceive - theorize - speculate -
in order to transform what we don't know -
to knowledge -

and this knowledge is always an attempt to explain
what is before us

the world we live in

now in my view these conceptions - be they philosophical
- (like what I'm doing here) scientific - religious -
imaginative - artistic

are without any foundation -

we may chose to believe i.e. - the story of science -
the philosophy of Spinoza - the teachings of the Buddha -
as fundamental

as the foundation

but when any of these systems are put to test

finally

they end up at some end point of faith in - the empirical
method - the geometrical method or revelation - or whatever

there is nothing wrong with faith - but be clear what it is -

just a decision to stop

either that -

or keep an open mind

in general - my scepticism is primarily in relation to
theoretical knowledge

which is just any account or underpinning of the world as
presented to consciousness

for any theory about the world or any aspect of it is a
free creation of consciousness

this is not in any way to devalue any such endeavour
rather to just understand its epistemological and
ontological status

and also - it is important to understand the necessity
of such

we must theorize on many levels just simply to enable
our survival -

seen this way there is no choice about it

I think that how one conceives the world - that is how
you think about yourself and the world determines how
you will feel - and how you feel will determine how you act

so it is the most crucial of human activities

I don't think we ever come to the end of such a quest
or endeavour

I know for some that is regarded as a source of
insecurity but as I have put forward earlier -
I see it as the source of our freedom -

and in a very real way why we have survived

it is the reason for adaptability - and most
importantly creativity

human consciousness is essentially a searchlight
in the darkness -

and while it might rest here - or there -
there is never one view that encapsulates
everything

OK - so why one theoretical explanation rather
than another?

why i.e. - does it strike me that Spinoza's
metaphysics is has more truth in it than say
Hegel's?

well it's a big question

and I'm not avoiding it in saying that to some
extent that is a question I deal with in
the study of Spinoza

to be quite honest I don't have an easy answer

when I first read Spinoza I was struck by his
intellectual power - the simple beauty of his
conception and its breath taking comprehensiveness

later when I understood it better and in the context
of metaphysical debate - I was impressed by his
solutions to some fundamental problems

i.e. - the cosmological problem - the mind-body
problem

so for me Spinoza's has been a source of true
intellectual joy

the need or desire for such I'm sure must be part of
the motivation

and just on motivation - I see the question of one's
motivation to be no different to the
metaphysical problem of the nature of it all

that is it cannot be isolated as some kind of cause
outside of the main game

to understand the world (in a Spinozistic sense)
is to understand yourself

in our day and age - largely due to the self-centered
metaphysics of Descartes and Berkeley - the prevailing
sentiment is - if you understand yourself - you
understand the world

or - you understand yourself - but the world doesn't
understand you

(Socrates might well have had something to do with
all this)

also

in this connection - usually truth rears its ugly head

i.e. - why do I believe what I believe? - because I
think it's the truth

the simple fact is - the truth is not there - out there -
to be discovered

as some kind of touch stone for theory

one's conception of the world - one's metaphysics is
one's theory of truth

the point being truth is a function of theory -
not independent of it

e.g. - an empiricist concept of truth - i.e. a statement
is true if it is verifiable - is true if true - not because
verifiability is observable - but rather because it is a
theorem based on empiricist presuppositions concerning the
epistemological status of observation statements

one's concept of truth is embedded in one's view of the world

Spinoza's system of thought could well be regarded as the
best example of such a view

however it is true - Spinoza did not regard truth in this way

(he did not regard his own system as one possible account
of the world - he believed and argued - that he'd nailed it -

and being a sceptic - even about my scepticism - I take his
argument very seriously)

what's to know?

for Spinoza my identity is my existence - pure and
simple - beyond this existential fact - primitive fact -
definition or characterization is a question of
knowledge - and our knowledge of ourselves - not just
the world - is limited - so the question is always
a live one

but perhaps it's not as gut-wrenching as say some
existentialists might have it -

hey - what's to know? - these are my thoughts -
this is what I do -

therefore - this - as in my activity - is what
I am

I know myself in terms of what I do - as in -
what I think - my thinking - and my action -
in space-time - so I know myself - in terms
of my expression(s)

as an existential entity - I am this activity

the idea of the self as some kind of substance

for Spinoza yes - he regards individual 'selfs'
as real existing entities

but as modifications of the greater picture -
which of course makes sense

my sense is that his view is that - existence -
in whatever form it takes - is what happens -
just - what happens

and it happens for no reason - that is there
is no reason for existence but existence -

and yes existing implies activity - but pure
activity

(which is just substance - being - existing)

so - the blade of grass exists for what -
well who is going to say - for no reason?

we are likely to propose some explanation in
terms of how everything is connected in nature

and to say the blade of grass has a purpose
of function in the whole of nature - i.e. to
feed cattle

and more generally to speak of evolution

Spinoza thought existence (substance) is not
going anywhere

it may be useful for us to adopt such a view -
some kind of evolutionism - in that - this
may enhance our capacity to exist and maintain
our existence - the point of science?

the eternal truth - is here

it's everywhere about - it's always been here

it always will be

it is just the revelation of - existence

where is consciousness?

consciousness

is the inside (of the body)

this is intuitively OK - at least initially

where is your mind?

it's not out there -

it's inside

now what can we say of this inside?

firstly can we know it

can we know what it is

what mind is?

it depends - here - on your theory of knowledge -

what I mean is -

if you think knowledge is what is observed

i.e. - what is out there

the answer is no

you cannot observe mind

so yes - consciousness exists

but we cannot know it

end of story

on such a view consciousness is the observer -

not that which is observed

it is the knower
not the known

conscious reflection

consciousness reflecting on itself

just is awareness

awareness of the act of knowing

awareness of awareness

and this is consciousness

so yes we can describe - consciousness as -

awareness

and awareness - as awareness of awareness

but it's just what knowing is

therefore consciousness is not

on this view

an object of knowledge

NB

what this suggests

this reflection of consciousness

the fact of reflection

is that consciousness is its action

or - the act of consciousness is consciousness

(I say suggests this - because - I have so far argued -
consciousness cannot be known)

the point here is that if consciousness is its event -

and this is fully understood

then - the end of substance

and its shadow

and its ghost

consciousness on this view is a kind of action

and this I say metaphorically

or analogically

that is - as if we were talking about an external event

therefore

all such statements about consciousness
characterizations of consciousness

statements from the inside

are best understood as metaphors

- poetic

and thus poetry is the language of consciousness

of the inside

the idea of the body

Spinoza is saying mind and body are knowable
expressions of substance

substance is one - it is not divided - but it
can be known through these expressions

so mind and body are really alternative accounts
of the one substance

the mind is the idea of the body - in the sense that -
it is like a reflection in a mirror

in such a case - there is the body - and -
the mirror image

and if we could adopt an outsider's view -
sub specie aeternitatis

we would say - there are not two things - rather one
in two dimensions

and what that 'one' is - can only be explained as an
extended thing (the body) or its image (idea)

beyond these descriptions - mind and body - nothing
can be said of substance - but that it exists -
and is unrestricted - and this we know from logic

human beings are expressions - modes of substance -
exhibiting the attributes of mind and extension

we are these expressions - and we know that we are
these expressions

so what I am saying is that the human being -
can only see what is expressed - mind and body

as to an essence over and above this -

Spinoza I think would say - there is nothing more to say

another way to put it - might be to say -

that the human being - beyond what we see - what is
expressed is like substance itself - unknown - a mystery -

however I don't think Spinoza would take this path -
as it might be seen as a concession to scepticism

on the question of 'ideas of ideas' -

this ability that we have - to have ideas and ideas
of our ideas - endlessly

is really just a reflection of - the attribute of
extension - the physical world

its essential characteristic being - its inexhaustibility

I know my body through its ideas

and I know my ideas (my ideas have content) through
my body (my body is what is known)

philosophers have characteristically seen two questions
here - one of knowledge - one of existence - what we know
and what is

for Spinoza the two questions are versions of each other -
to answer one is to answer the other

we must always deal with both - together - for what exists
is what is known and what is known is what exists

Spinoza has no doubt

testability

empirical content is a question of testability

what can be tested?

testability a question of the nature of observation

what is observed is a question

never a fact

a fact is a conclusion of the question of observation

a decision

we observe

what it is we observe is a matter of reflection - i.e.
the body of scientific thought

the point is

the object of observation - the existent

is without content

we assume its existence - as a base line - that it is -

this is OK - necessary

but such is just the fact of its presentation

such is undefined

(like a logical constant)

it's characterization

is a question of reflection

this does no damage to 'the fact of the fact'

it simply makes the point that its revelation is a
conceptual issue

and it is fluid

subject to possible interpretation

the immediate object of perception

is - apart from its conceptual realizations -

unknown

p.s.

observation stripped down - minus any metaphysics

conceptualization

is an event within events

the problem of knowledge in not the problem of existence

existence is given

how to understand existence is not

is not a given

the question of understanding is the mind reflecting

it is reflection on what is given

what is given is not known

reflection is the knowing

knowledge is characterization of the given -

of the given unknown

how do we characterize what this is -

the characterization of the unknown?

epistemology - is reflection on -

the reflection that is knowing - that is knowledge

there is a necessity about it

it is not as if we choose to know

we must know

knowing is our fundamental activity as human beings

we cannot - do not operate without it

still to characterize the unknown is to what?

it is the question of how best to describe what is
presented

again - the presentation is for all intents and
purposes - necessary

the world we see as human beings -

in its basics is presented

to know it is to conceive it

(conception here is natural - it is what we do)

however the mind does not come to the presentation -
fixed

the basis of conception is uncertainty

presentation is clear

but reflection uncertain

reflection is the process of uncertainty

it is grounded in uncertainty

the mind is essentially - uncertainty

any conception that is ventured

is by its nature uncertain

this is the ground of theory - any theory -
any conception

the basis of this uncertainty - is possibility

the mind brings possibility to the world

knowledge is the expression of this possibility

and the world without mind - without knowledge

what can we say?

I say we don't know

however the fact of the world -

as a primitive

unknown - but primitive

suggests a view

that the world is without possibility

without mind that is

no questions in nature

only if mind

so - overall?

mind in the world -

an indeterminacy

as a fact of

nature

a contingency

and if so -

(and so it seems)

a necessary fact?

well as necessary as any fact

any event or class thereof

before we get ahead of ourselves

good to remember that 'contingency' and 'necessity'
are conceptions

conceptions

of

the unknown

it is always tempting to get above your status and
to speak from the pulpit - sub specie aeternitatis -
as it were

and to imagine you can conceive the totality and
its status

however this is bad logic - or fantasy

beyond what we know - and this is uncertain -
is the unknown

and here you - necessarily - come to an end of
characterization

or if you like the reason for it