the resting place

the point is here

the place of not-knowing - is a place of peace

and this is the natural resting place of consciousness

it is too - no diversion from reality - no manufacture
of other worlds -
or indeed no inauthentic move or act of bad faith

this is a place of truth

the problem of falsity - is the problem of knowledge
in the sense that - it is only the belief that I know -
that leads to metaphysical contortion - or indeed perversity

true - we cannot and do not live in a state of ignorant bliss

this is not the point

it is rather that - we move further from the natural state -
the natural metaphysical state - with each claim of knowledge

indeed to negotiate this world - we must know

assume knowledge -

assume it as a tool - a functioning necessity -

the difficulty arises when the means is confused with end

the torture of minds - the disarray and chaos of political
implementations is finally a result of 'belief in'

modern life - for that matter ancient - is the war of knowledge
- the epistemic war

we have no guarantees - no final solutions to being

being is not that which can be defined - let alone -
the next step - resolved

it is not a problem

it is just the space of the mind and its object (the world)

still we do have the capacity to step back

to shed our reasons - to begin again

this is the core of renewal - the possibility of change -
the chance of clarity

it is an option that presupposes a metaphysical humility

which is nothing more than recognizing

the truth of the absence of knowledge

it is the great business of un-learning -

and in so doing - knowing
you do not need to sit in a certain way - to breath evenly
and deeply - read sacred texts - make offerings - sacrifices
to gods - or live a good life
you just need to think

and to realize - all thinking is without foundation

all action without end

this is the resting place

relief

the fact of consciousness

consciousness is known as immediate - only on reflection

this is the base paradox of consciousness

immediacy is a product of reflection -

to understand this requires a higher order reflection -

reflection on consciousness as such
consciousness as the object of consciousness

here is found the self

this though is no solution to the dilemma of how the
immediate is not immediate - it is just a restatement
of it in terms of the self - the immediate self a
construct of reflection?

consciousness comes off here as essentially - irrational -

as it were the stuff - we begin with - before reason

analysis is the task set for - this 'urstoff' -

and here - the metaphysical origin of hope -

a belief that consciousness can resolve itself - of paradox -

this though is really the attempt - the belief -
to make consciousness - what it is not

we have as a consequence - the notion of science -
empirical science

the world as one dimensional - and out there

this is all very well - depending on how it is viewed

the physical world - the surface world - is indeed -
out there

the fact is though - it is only known - from the inside

and you cannot resolve the dilemma of consciousness -
by projection

projection and denial

consciousness into the surface - and denial of the internal

this does not work - at least on an intellectual level -
and for this reason -

it cannot even be sustained imaginatively -

you cannot be rid of consciousness

the question then is why?

why does such a matter arise -

does it?

well at the least it can - and much of human activity -
if not all can be regarded as a response the problem of
consciousness - reconciling itself - to what?

to itself -

the thing is we don't know what this would be - what it
could be - what it would look like

and every attempt at it is futile -

we cannot step outside - and see

so what is to be done?

I think there is only relief

no solution - no resolution

and relief - from the paradox of being - is not I think
necessarily good or bad

it is an option

a question of how to be -

explore the paradox - or seek relief

and of this relief?

my hunch is immersion -

and immersion in consciousness -

immersion in activity -

reflection will always be - to some extent -
a dimension of any act

the secret I think is to minimize reflective experience -
to as it were weight activity in favour of the non-reflective

the immersion of self in self

be clear this is not knowledge -

this is relief - metaphysical / psychological -

and I think the moment of delight

everyone should indulge

at least - to refresh - before going back to the fray

and the great secret of it all is there is no secret -

any pursuit can be - to varying degrees - non-reflective

it is - for children - as natural as the day

for adults - not as easy

mostly it requires some discipline - the learning of how
to enjoy

spontaneously - non-reflectively - non-critically

it is learning - how to un-learn -

so even here - a possible resolution - or what I call relief -

presupposes - paradox

no escaping - only moments of not-knowing

reasoning and doubt

reasoning is essentially a process of intellectual
embrace - and integration

its characteristics are elegance simplicity unity

it requires nothing but clear thought

and the clear operation of thought

this process does not require input from the world -
outside of mind

in fact successful thinking requires an internal -
not external focus

reasoning is the mind at work

at work with itself

experience?

shall we say the raw stuff of reasoning?

yes

that which is to be identified - categorized -
formalized - in short organized

if you wish the point of reasoning -

it is that which comes to us - presents as un-reasoned

one's conceptual world is defined by reason

the appearance of new experience - of phenomena

perhaps not new in kind - rather 'in res' - in the act -
is always a challenge to the given conceptual arrangement -

and the question is embrace or rejection

or a change in the conceptual view -

the world view

this may simply mean - something like a change of
priority in principle

or perhaps a change of principle

indeed possibly the introduction of a new way of seeing

and hence new status to dominant ideas - and their
relations

for always everything is presented - comes before the
court of conception -

and is decided upon one way or another -

if absorbed - it is absorbed - either as presented -
or as modified

a balance is always looked for
the stability of the system - always a presupposition
of reason

we might think that with a comprehensive enough conceptual
scheme

nothing is a threat to the order of knowledge

this is indeed the rational quest - to find such - an all
embracing - and final comprehensiveness

and to hold to it - in a rational security -

everyone from your bigot to your free thinker falls in here

the point is -

there are no guarantees -

and this is the true beauty of experience

that experience is essentially - undefined - quite anarchistic -

even in the face of reason and its constructions

constructions which by the way are as thin as air

platforms based on nothing designed to hold everything

(no wonder we don't have much luck)

this may be too harsh -

the basis is finally need - no matter how we dress it up

the complexity of need is the story of reason

(need it seems on first acquaintance to be quite discreet -
and definable - even eminently manageable - this however
is only the illusion of anguish

need is without origin or end

it is a desolate wind in a desolate place)

even so - the thing is - it is quite foolish to hold too
hard to one's epistemic framework

to one's deepest held beliefs

(you need a sense of humor here - it is a metaphysical
necessity - for survival in the face of collapse)

true - a core is the fact of it - in the day to day
dealings of motion and breadwinning

however it is a core based not on some extra-experiential
foundation -

it is a core based on function

we maintain whatever view we have - so long as it serves
what we regard as our most important concerns

(to do otherwise - to persist in a belief or belief system
in the face of its failure to address our central issues -
is to court disaster
run the risk of ruin - mental and physical

it is epistemologically speaking - in severe form -
the origin of madness)

always wise to regard doubt - doubt of self -
and of course the world -

as the first principle
(this is how you breathe)

here I suggest is true openness

as a guiding - thought

stepping out

I have suggested that the concept of concept cannot
be used in an unrestricted sense

the point is we cannot have a concept of everything

if so Spinoza's concept of substance cannot be
legitimately put -

the idea of everything does not discriminate

what else is there?

what else that is to distinguish everything from?

the problem with this is that it puts in doubt any
discussion of the totality - of the universal

I think we can say that - though we cannot conceive
everything

we can speak of everything in a negative sense

as that which cannot be conceived -

and what is this?

the conception - of - what cannot be conceived

is what -

not really a conception

it is rather the - negative of concept

can we entertain the negative of concept?

that which is outside of concept - is to recognize the
limits of conception

this is essential to the idea of a concept

that is on a meta level

what is in - what is out

I think this is OK -

it doesn't help Spinoza though

he wants substance as a positive conception

not as that which is outside of conception

so in my view - all such positive representations -
are misrepresentations

and another way to see it is to say a concept is always
within a domain

what of the domain

can we conceive domain?

yes - in a sense - domain is defined by the concept -
within it

a concept of x -

the domain of x?

-x?

yes

-x may be the subject of another concept - y

and the domain of y?

-y

so there is no logical limit to conception

the domain of a concept is just its negative

for Spinoza there is no not-substance

therefore the concept of substance is not within a domain

it has no domain

therefore it cannot be formed

Spinoza wants to argue that the concept of substance

is the foundation concept

good idea

except that the concept - that concept cannot be formed

is illogical

and the point is there is no foundation concept

of any kind

there cannot be

no ultimate concept

'ultimate' is stepping over the mark

stepping out of the game

the delusion of stepping out of reality and looking back

the God delusion

perhaps

the mistake of thinking

a negative asserts

concept

the point is whether a concept is something or nothing

just how to define concept -

is any thought a concept or does a concept have a formal
status -

so we can say what is - what is not -

what it does - what it does not do?

Spinoza says only that we know the mind in an active
and passive modes

a concept - or the formation of concept is an active
function of mind
(E.pt. II. def. III.)

beyond this Spinoza has I think nothing specific to say
on the logic of concept

my argument is that a concept at the very least defines -

if you like a class of entities

and that therefore you cannot have a concept that does
not discriminate -

and for this reason -

you cannot have a concept of everything

it's a false concept - regardless of how you define it
therefore the concept of substance cannot be formed

Spinoza would argue

Spinoza would argue that his concept of substance -
is not just a theory about the idea of concept

he might well agree that you cannot have a concept of
'no concept' - or a concept that denies concept -

he would say this is not what he is on about

his argument? - that the idea of substance is not an idea
about the logic of concept - but rather about the nature
of reality -

that the real question is about the object of the concept -

it is the object that is limitless - not the concept -

so perhaps here for Spinoza a distinction between the
concept of substance and substance
but how does Spinoza establish the existence of the object
of the concept -

how does Spinoza establish the existence of substance?

his argument is that substance is conceived through itself -
a conception that is not dependent on any other conception

so what is its basis - and how does it come about?

my point is - in terms of Spinoza's definition of substance -

there is no object of consciousness

that which is outside of it -

Spinoza states just this

so it is a conception conceived through itself

if this - I say it is a theory about concept

and then my argument of the previous post follows

but it is true Spinoza is not just - putting a theory
of concept here

in fact I think he thinks he is not doing this at all

in this he is mistaken

he thinks he is making a substantial claim

a claim of substance

that his concept - of substance - just does - correspond to
- a non-conceptual reality

that this concept - when understood - is understood to refer
to - what it refers to -

in fact Spinoza argues that the concept itself entails
existence

so if you have a concept of limitlessness and it is well
formed - logical

what it refers to - must as a 'fact of logic' - exist

so there is a confusion here - in Spinoza between logic
and existence

logical statements do not refer to what exists -

they are statements of the relations of ideas

Spinoza comes back here and says -

yes but ideas exist -

yes but do they exist as Spinoza would have it -

as extended things do - out there - objectively -

or are they rather just the way we think about -
what is out there - objectively?