yes
the concept of concept
what are the logical characteristics of a concept -
when is a concept not a concept?
following on somewhat from Spinoza
a concept as an act of mind
and action of rather than an affect on
what is it to conceive?
I think of it as defining -
marking out
what?
a state of affairs -
my question is - can we conceive of marking out -
in thought - everything?
what about the idea of everything?
we seem to have it
the concept of God - substance - everything
what is it to conceive that which has no limit?
what I have in mind is that to define is to set limits
to mark out - to classify
so
conception is to set limits
so what of the concept that negates limits
is this truly a conception?
or is it rather to appear to conceive - but really to
deny conception?
is it the conception that denies conception?
I tend to think so
and if so -
it is a self-denying concept -
this is a little closer to what I was trying to get
at in the last post
that Spinoza's concept of substance - or for that matter
any such 'concept' - is false
it is the denial of the concept of conception
so on my analysis it is a meta argument
posing as a non-meta argument - let's say philosophical
argument
it is fundamentally wrong
logically impossible
to have a concept that denies the concept of concept
nothing is asserted
4.7.06
3.7.06
the infinity of attributes
where is the plus in arguing for the infinity
of attributes?
according to Spinoza substance expresses itself as
extension and mind
extension and mind are all we can know - all we do know
why argue there are an infinite number of attributes -
we do not cannot know?
how do we know that - even if we cannot know what -
they are
substance - is infinite - unlimited
so to argue that it is exhausted by two attributes -
suggests limitations - the limitation of two
OK -
so let's say attributes are a question of knowledge -
intellectual perception
as Spinoza does
what we perceive is what is - extension and mind
on what basis is it to be argued that we know -
of substance - beyond this?
it's the argument of infinity
infinite substance
we know substance as infinite
OK - this is a conceptual argument
about the concept
surely it can be argued that the attributes of
consciousness and extension
define the limit of our perception
and that beyond this what we cannot know -
we can only know what we know
the world beyond this is not known
and for that reason irrelevant -
effectively - non-existent
the conception of substance
substance
is really an exercise in definition
definition of infinity
the definition of that which is not limited
a definition of limitlessness
infinity for Spinoza
is the concept that is logically unbounded
the unbound concept
whether such a concept can be applied to anything -
is another question
a logical exercise is just -
it is not a statement about what exists
it is a statement of concept - not existence
and it is a question whether logically such a notion -
such a concept - 'the unbound concept' makes any sense
the notion of concept seems to entail limits
Spinoza proposes I think - a concept that is not limited
on the face of it - this is a contradiction
statements about attributes - the attributes of mind
and extension - however fall into the existential category -
in the sense they are statements about what exists
or descriptions of what exists
Spinoza wants to argue that mind and extension are
expressions of a single unity
is his theory of substance the only option here?
mind and extension expressions of what?
how to describe the unity?
the concept of this unity is what?
where does it come from?
it is really just a proposal - a bald metaphysical proposal
- to explain this apparent diversity
what underlies
can I suggest that what underlies - whether you describe
this in terms of Spinoza's attributes or not - is not known
therefore the relation mind and extension is not known
we simply don't know
it could well be argued that this issue is the sharp focus
of the unknown
speculative metaphysical theories abound in response to
this matter
why?
perhaps wonder is the answer
and clearly they play a central role in human thinking
it can be argued they have great heuristic value
materialism - one response to the mind-body problem -
has as one of its outcomes
modern science
idealism - it can be said has played a major role in the
spiritual life of human beings
all such proposals speak of human beings - of human need
they are not statements of what is -
Spinoza's conception of substance is elegant and logical -
quite beautiful in its simplicity -
but nevertheless - not what he thinks it is -
it is not an account of how the world is - not that is
objective - and objective in his sense is finally sub specie
aeternitatis -
it is rather how he imagined - beyond what is known
how to correctly describe reality -
any reflection - idea of - if you like - is true
but true in what sense?
the problem is we don't know what a correct description is
the problem is theory of description
this is metaphysics
what view to take?
there is no answer here
there is only the answer of circumstance (if that)
and at best the detailing - the description of circumstance
concerns - needs - expectations - prejudices etc. -
ultimately all we describe it seems to me is description
what makes for a good view of the world? - perhaps concepts
- like elegance - consistency - order - essentially logico
/ mathematical ideas
perhaps
anyway the great diversity of answers - perhaps here is
the true infinite - the great beauty of human being
we live always in our conceptions
there is no release
no non-conceptual point of view
no non-conceptual place
no substance - in Spinoza's sense
the desire for such
is the desire for freedom
but it is not a rational hope
the trap of concept is where we live
it defines our existence
freedom on such a view is what we don't and can't have
it is what we don't know
and to understand this is what?
to know that you don't know
yes
is this freedom?
it is freedom from illusion -
perhaps
p.s.
you might argue that Spinoza's concept of substance
is really an anti-concept
it is the concept of the denial of concept
it is a destruction of concept
and what follows
its reconstruction
such is the 'Ethics'
the concept of the absence of concept?
the definition of that which is undefined -
has no definition
as the basis of all definition
?
of attributes?
according to Spinoza substance expresses itself as
extension and mind
extension and mind are all we can know - all we do know
why argue there are an infinite number of attributes -
we do not cannot know?
how do we know that - even if we cannot know what -
they are
substance - is infinite - unlimited
so to argue that it is exhausted by two attributes -
suggests limitations - the limitation of two
OK -
so let's say attributes are a question of knowledge -
intellectual perception
as Spinoza does
what we perceive is what is - extension and mind
on what basis is it to be argued that we know -
of substance - beyond this?
it's the argument of infinity
infinite substance
we know substance as infinite
OK - this is a conceptual argument
about the concept
surely it can be argued that the attributes of
consciousness and extension
define the limit of our perception
and that beyond this what we cannot know -
we can only know what we know
the world beyond this is not known
and for that reason irrelevant -
effectively - non-existent
the conception of substance
substance
is really an exercise in definition
definition of infinity
the definition of that which is not limited
a definition of limitlessness
infinity for Spinoza
is the concept that is logically unbounded
the unbound concept
whether such a concept can be applied to anything -
is another question
a logical exercise is just -
it is not a statement about what exists
it is a statement of concept - not existence
and it is a question whether logically such a notion -
such a concept - 'the unbound concept' makes any sense
the notion of concept seems to entail limits
Spinoza proposes I think - a concept that is not limited
on the face of it - this is a contradiction
statements about attributes - the attributes of mind
and extension - however fall into the existential category -
in the sense they are statements about what exists
or descriptions of what exists
Spinoza wants to argue that mind and extension are
expressions of a single unity
is his theory of substance the only option here?
mind and extension expressions of what?
how to describe the unity?
the concept of this unity is what?
where does it come from?
it is really just a proposal - a bald metaphysical proposal
- to explain this apparent diversity
what underlies
can I suggest that what underlies - whether you describe
this in terms of Spinoza's attributes or not - is not known
therefore the relation mind and extension is not known
we simply don't know
it could well be argued that this issue is the sharp focus
of the unknown
speculative metaphysical theories abound in response to
this matter
why?
perhaps wonder is the answer
and clearly they play a central role in human thinking
it can be argued they have great heuristic value
materialism - one response to the mind-body problem -
has as one of its outcomes
modern science
idealism - it can be said has played a major role in the
spiritual life of human beings
all such proposals speak of human beings - of human need
they are not statements of what is -
Spinoza's conception of substance is elegant and logical -
quite beautiful in its simplicity -
but nevertheless - not what he thinks it is -
it is not an account of how the world is - not that is
objective - and objective in his sense is finally sub specie
aeternitatis -
it is rather how he imagined - beyond what is known
how to correctly describe reality -
any reflection - idea of - if you like - is true
but true in what sense?
the problem is we don't know what a correct description is
the problem is theory of description
this is metaphysics
what view to take?
there is no answer here
there is only the answer of circumstance (if that)
and at best the detailing - the description of circumstance
concerns - needs - expectations - prejudices etc. -
ultimately all we describe it seems to me is description
what makes for a good view of the world? - perhaps concepts
- like elegance - consistency - order - essentially logico
/ mathematical ideas
perhaps
anyway the great diversity of answers - perhaps here is
the true infinite - the great beauty of human being
we live always in our conceptions
there is no release
no non-conceptual point of view
no non-conceptual place
no substance - in Spinoza's sense
the desire for such
is the desire for freedom
but it is not a rational hope
the trap of concept is where we live
it defines our existence
freedom on such a view is what we don't and can't have
it is what we don't know
and to understand this is what?
to know that you don't know
yes
is this freedom?
it is freedom from illusion -
perhaps
p.s.
you might argue that Spinoza's concept of substance
is really an anti-concept
it is the concept of the denial of concept
it is a destruction of concept
and what follows
its reconstruction
such is the 'Ethics'
the concept of the absence of concept?
the definition of that which is undefined -
has no definition
as the basis of all definition
?
2.7.06
other worlds
we see out
we see in
but not behind
or beyond
all knowing is reflective
knowledge of the inside
being conscious of consciousness - is reflective
outside knowledge - surface knowledge can be rational
and structured or impressionistic
science is reasoned organized reflection
reflection per se - inside or outside is simply an
operation
and as such it can be performed repeatedly -
meta reflection -
reflection on reflection is the logical end of reflection
it is the reflection that reveals reflection as its
own basis
the reflection that reveals reflection as the essence
of reflection
the idea that you can reflect beyond this - outside
of reflection
is a logical error
a logical error that leads to the conception of
other worlds
non-reflective realities
it is believed that such conceptions provide foundation
to the mind - to the world
such notions lead astray
they lead astray if understood as metaphysical
if understood for what they are - illogical
they can be the source of pleasure
they can be the source of inspiration
illogical thinking is imaginative thinking
the imagination creates
the imagination creates other worlds
creativity begins where reality ends
we see in
but not behind
or beyond
all knowing is reflective
knowledge of the inside
being conscious of consciousness - is reflective
outside knowledge - surface knowledge can be rational
and structured or impressionistic
science is reasoned organized reflection
reflection per se - inside or outside is simply an
operation
and as such it can be performed repeatedly -
meta reflection -
reflection on reflection is the logical end of reflection
it is the reflection that reveals reflection as its
own basis
the reflection that reveals reflection as the essence
of reflection
the idea that you can reflect beyond this - outside
of reflection
is a logical error
a logical error that leads to the conception of
other worlds
non-reflective realities
it is believed that such conceptions provide foundation
to the mind - to the world
such notions lead astray
they lead astray if understood as metaphysical
if understood for what they are - illogical
they can be the source of pleasure
they can be the source of inspiration
illogical thinking is imaginative thinking
the imagination creates
the imagination creates other worlds
creativity begins where reality ends
1.7.06
the view from logical space
thought is reflection
the reality of mind is thought
mind is reflection
the idea of the idea - in Spinoza's terms - is mind -
is consciousness
therefore mind is a fact of nature -
it is nature-knowing - nature
or just the fact of knowing - to be strict
what is known - the object of knowledge - is a reflective
issue
the world is neither mind nor matter per se
the world is unknown
mind and matter are constructions -
reflective constructions
it is not 'I think therefore I am'
it is 'I reflect therefore I reflect'
thus it is a statement - not of substance
it is in fact a statement of no - substance
it is a presupposition
a ground statement
that is the assertion of mind
not that mind is this or that
but the fact of it in a logical sense
existence - the concept is not from this point of view -
fundamental -
it follows on
it is a deduction
an unnecessary deduction
existential statements of the form
'x exists' -
are statement where the pure existential statement is
given before its assertion
it is a statement of the obvious
existence is presupposed
in every statement
every statement in so far as it asserts
existence is assertion
existence is therefore not in question
what is in question is knowledge -
can we know -
or is what exists is unknown?
so
existence
is the logical space of reflection
the ground reflection covers
it is the domain
in a logical sense
it is logical space
actual existence is a theory of logical space
a characterization of it
we assert
'what' is asserted is a substantial representation -
of the assertion
and this is important - a picture - not of what is
asserted - but of the assertion
it is to 'object' - ify the reflection
the act of mind
this is what any ontological statement is
a giving of form to reflection
it is the realization of reflection
the presentation of it
an idea of it - as object
that is outside -
reflection proposes itself - outside of itself
or proposes - its proposals - as outside
it posits - it reflects-out
p.s.
and this is all Anselem's ontological argument is
the objectification of reflection
'nothing greater' -
if you want to say 'that which nothing greater can
be thought'
the conclusion of the argument
denies the premises
'nothing greater' is a relational notion
'that which nothing greater can be thought'
only makes sense as an assertion of the limit -
that there is a limit to thought -
beyond what can be thought - known - is what?
the unknown
the unknown as God
you do not find existence on the other side of knowledge
what you find is the unknown
and unlike Anselem's God - or Spinoza's - it has no power
- no substance - no attributes - no modes
it is a logical state
that which is not known
the object of knowledge
the focus of mind
the ground of reflection
the reality of mind is thought
mind is reflection
the idea of the idea - in Spinoza's terms - is mind -
is consciousness
therefore mind is a fact of nature -
it is nature-knowing - nature
or just the fact of knowing - to be strict
what is known - the object of knowledge - is a reflective
issue
the world is neither mind nor matter per se
the world is unknown
mind and matter are constructions -
reflective constructions
it is not 'I think therefore I am'
it is 'I reflect therefore I reflect'
thus it is a statement - not of substance
it is in fact a statement of no - substance
it is a presupposition
a ground statement
that is the assertion of mind
not that mind is this or that
but the fact of it in a logical sense
existence - the concept is not from this point of view -
fundamental -
it follows on
it is a deduction
an unnecessary deduction
existential statements of the form
'x exists' -
are statement where the pure existential statement is
given before its assertion
it is a statement of the obvious
existence is presupposed
in every statement
every statement in so far as it asserts
existence is assertion
existence is therefore not in question
what is in question is knowledge -
can we know -
or is what exists is unknown?
so
existence
is the logical space of reflection
the ground reflection covers
it is the domain
in a logical sense
it is logical space
actual existence is a theory of logical space
a characterization of it
we assert
'what' is asserted is a substantial representation -
of the assertion
and this is important - a picture - not of what is
asserted - but of the assertion
it is to 'object' - ify the reflection
the act of mind
this is what any ontological statement is
a giving of form to reflection
it is the realization of reflection
the presentation of it
an idea of it - as object
that is outside -
reflection proposes itself - outside of itself
or proposes - its proposals - as outside
it posits - it reflects-out
p.s.
and this is all Anselem's ontological argument is
the objectification of reflection
'nothing greater' -
if you want to say 'that which nothing greater can
be thought'
the conclusion of the argument
denies the premises
'nothing greater' is a relational notion
'that which nothing greater can be thought'
only makes sense as an assertion of the limit -
that there is a limit to thought -
beyond what can be thought - known - is what?
the unknown
the unknown as God
you do not find existence on the other side of knowledge
what you find is the unknown
and unlike Anselem's God - or Spinoza's - it has no power
- no substance - no attributes - no modes
it is a logical state
that which is not known
the object of knowledge
the focus of mind
the ground of reflection
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)