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'
