the object of knowledge

the knower faced with the unknown conceives

this relation of knower to unknown is fundamental and primitive

we can argue about what conception is

my point here is that conceiving is a primitive essential response of the knower

it is what the mind does

it is of its nature

and to conceive is the making of knowledge

again what this amounts to - is a question of knowledge

but I say whatever it is to make knowledge -

this is the natural act of mind

the world as given - in a primal state is the unknown

the object of knowledge of the mind - is the unknown

knowledge is the natural response of the knower

it is what we do

the knower is a space that is open to the world

the world reflects in this space

the knower reflects on this reflection

the world of knowledge

Popper's idea of the third world is relevant here

it is in short the world of knowledge

we come into this world as knowers facing the unknown

this relation never alters

however we do not come to an empty slate

the world is full of knowledge

in fact we can speak of the world of knowledge

as the epistemological reality we inherit and which we begin with

any attempt to explain

any act that is of reflection

begins with what is epistemologically given to the knower

this - whatever it is - is what the knower works with

acceptance or rejection

partial or total

the fact remains we begin with epistemological pictures

these pictures are in themselves never fixed or stable

any stability is a matter of decision and convention

what I am trying to get at here is that reflection is never content free

the operation of reflection

is an operation with content

content that exists because it in some sense is given

the mind is always full

the question of what view to take on what issue is a question of which picture to see
the world through

the fact of different metaphysical pictures - points to the unknown - and raises
questions

questions for the reflective mind

what to do?

develop a concept of truth - and regard certain conceptions as false

go for some kind of commitment

or be open to the use of different conceptions

and keep an open mind

the world is the possibility of thought

the world is the possibility of thought

the notion of thinking outside of the world may on the face of it strike one as a
reasonable thought

some philosophers - Plato for one - made a career of it

nevertheless it is clear on reflection to be impossible

but what such a notion leads us to is the question

if you cannot get outside of it to define

how then do you define?

how that is do you define the world?

my argument is we can only work from the inside

for all intents and purposes - and in a strictly logical sense - there is no outside

we cannot - to get right to it - define the world

we can only define what is in it

the world is our domain of definition

outside of the world there is no such question

no definition -

thought I have argued is reflection

and reflection is to make - to have pictures

ideal pictures

pictures - only of what is

we cannot conceive what does not exist

still the question - what is it that exists?

the fact of this question tells us

the answer - any answer is a question of possibility

there are that is possible answers to this question

possible pictures

these pictures - conceptions

can only be what is

what is - from an epistemological point of view is a matter of uncertainty

it is the question of knowledge

how and what it is we know

granted the world is

the issue is characterization

and the issue cannot be settled in the way we might wish

that is - objectively

for we have no way of assessing metaphysical characterizations

and by this I mean total views

what test is available?

granted we establish internal criterion in the form of logic

but logic only really decides sensibility

different world views can be offered

and if they are sensible from a logical point of view

then they are possible accounts

from an epistemological point of view

the world is possibility

how to decide between possible accounts of the actual

what possible epistemological world can rightly be given the status of actual?

as I put it above

there is no objective test here

objectivity is a notion that can only function in house

there is no view from the outside

of course - what happens is we make the outside

that is we decide what is in and what is out of the world

for instance - Plato excluded the sensible world from his version of the real

the situation is - at this level

we are best to regard the enterprise as interesting and useful

but not in fact resolvable

the answer is

we do not know

we have possible accounts

and these are all worthy

their actual value is a question of their utility

and this of course is finally a meta decision

what counts as useful

convention

based on necessity or its perception is the best we can do

the content of our possible accounts of the world or of parts or regions of the world

is simply a question of invention

and skillful use of what is epistemologically available

the point being

our conceptions are made out of what is given

perhaps ideas from one context adapted to another

or even the generation of new languages and hence concepts

to describe what we are presented with

invention

what is possible in thought

is only what is given in the world

what this amounts to is

what we can make

in ideal terms

of the non-ideal reality

the reality that is unknown

yet always and only

the object of knowledge

reflection as an operation

reflection as operation

it is I suggested above to create a picture

this in a sense is what thought per se is

the creating of a picture - an ideal picture

yes - a picture in thought

and if we reflect on this - what?

we can only think

we cannot get an objective vantage point

what we can do is come at it from different directions

different directions?

what is this?

what I am interested in is what is reflection on reflection?

do we make another image - another picture - of the picture given?

yes - I think so

but you might ask - in what sense is it fundamentally different?

and where does it come from - the new picture?

what is its basis?

to reflect is to look at

to create an object of -

of?

of view

this is the operation of mind

that it can step back from itself - and hold itself in view

this suggests what?

that

mind is subject and object

that it can become

either

that its position is not fixed

beyond this

what can we say of it?

we do not know -

the mind outside of its functions

(and these are quite mysterious anyway)

is fundamentally unknown

here I suggest is the door to possibility

some have taken it to open to another realm

eternal life

but really it is simply - and in all purity

the unknown

uncertainty

the thing in itself

is like - I have argued regarding substance - a singular conception

a decision to regard a feature of the world

be it mind - or the world itself in isolation

so it is no surprise really

that out of such a deliberation might come concepts like timeless - spaceless -
eternity

they are simply concepts of negation

not time - not space

and because we can come to these concepts

we imagine we are conceiving positively

that there is in fact a timelessness - or no space

or no time - eternity

how to regard this?

if you are prone to run with the ontological argument -

well anything you conceive will have a positive reality

existence

this though depends on the assumption that whatever we think is real - is true

it is indeed a very optimistic view of the mind

perhaps based on the fear - that if the mind is not reliable on any one matter -
perhaps it has no bone fides at all

and this just another version of the idea that the self does not deceive - the self

it is fear of error

which is all very well - but there can as a result be a problem of population - and
population control

Oakum's razor was one sensible methodological attempt to bring some order to the
situation

what I say is that reflection - which is what mind does - what consciousness does - is
an operation

if you like a logical operation -

the action of consciousness -

understood this way - you can see that the performing of an operation does not in itself
create anything

it may transform what is already there - but nothing is brought into the world - by the
operation - the operation of consciousness

so thinking is an operation

the performing of an operation

and the operation is reflection

reflection is just a picture of what is already there

the fact of different pictures tells us mind is never sure

cannot be sure

mind is - reflection is - and is only possible given - uncertainty

here it is clear mind is best described as indeterminate

I have been rather quick here

the thing is - you can't really ever properly speak of consciousness or the mind - in
itself

it is always in relation to

there just are no absolutes

metaphysically speaking it is all relative

so to understand the operation that is mind

you must speak of mind in relation to its object

the object of knowledge

is the unknown

therefore

uncertainty

time and space

consciousness

is in time and in space

consciousness in itself - reflecting on itself - is timeless and spaceless?

consciousness - the mind - locates itself in space and time - in reflecting outside itself

that is in identifying that it is in itself - but here most significantly - in the world -

this is an ontological primitive - and an epistemological unknown -

consciousness sees in (itself - the inside) and out - (the world - the outside)

so space and time are - on this view characteristics of the outside of consciousness

of the world -

consciousness is in

perhaps I have overstated the case here

in relation to space

time I think is straightforward -

consciousness regards itself as timeless - in itself

but spaceless?

surely we only have a sense of consciousness

as being in

in - not just the world

but in a body - my body

this it would seem is no secondary reflection

this is primary

so space - is externality

is what consciousness is in

we don't have a sense of consciousness as spaceless

in the same way as we have a sense of consciousness as timeless

space is externality

what is time?

time as internality?

yes

primarily

the succession of conscious states

and also - an externality?

the world - the outside is a succession of states
so there is a correspondence

yes

and of space?

is space internal?

I don't think so

in the sense that

consciousness does not have - or see itself as having internal space

the space of consciousness is what it is in

unless we wish to speak in an idealist or religious manner

spiritual space

the space of the spirit

- an internal space

I don't think so

I come back to the intuition that space is what consciousness is in - therefore in
relation to consciousness - the outside

time as an internality
space the externality

inner space

the inside

the inside of the body - is in my view - consciousness

this is what the inside is -

an inside to the inside I don't get

so can we nevertheless speak of consciousness

as the inside space?

poetically yes

but ontologically I don't think it stacks up

OK

space as the external dimension

therefore consciousness in itself - if it makes any sense to speak of this - is spaceless

now time

the idea of the timeless

does the same apply?

consciousness in itself - timeless

OK we have a sense of this

but the reality of consciousness in the world

is that consciousness is in time

spacelessness and timelessness - abstractions

what follows from this for the question of the nature of space and time?

space is the externality

mind the internality

time as a characteristic of space - of the externality

time as a characteristic of consciousness

consciousness and the world

the inside and the outside

have time as a common attribute

do we still want to say that space is just an external dimension?

inner space is what?
mind

O.K.

outer space - no mind - what I've been calling the world

therefore space and time

characteristics of mind and matter

inner and outer seem to be the main categories here

inner / outer - space / time

space and time common characteristics

therefore essential characteristics

of reality

of the inner - of the outer

this is not to say much

I haven't got too far here

we begin thinking

we begin thinking in thought

the world outside of thought is non-thought - it is not thought

it is the object of thought

that which thought is primarily directed at

it is the first instance in that thought recognizes what it is not

thought or mind sees itself as situated in non-thought

this is the primary presentation

thought inside a world of non-thought

consciousness in a non-conscious world

in fact we never go beyond this reality

the primary function of thought is to characterize the unknown (that which is not
thought) in thought

it is to transform

to translate the unknown to thought

to knowledge

to appropriate the unknown

in one sense this is all thought does

at the heart of this activity - the essence of it is - uncertainty

thought is uncertain

all that is certain paradoxically is the unknown

but the unknown does not speak

we can only attempt to grasp and characterize it in thought
any such characterization - description

is finally based on description

and whatever is to count as an initial description is finally a matter of decision - and in
general convention

we inherit certain conventions

and we make new ones

they are platforms

on the unknown

masks for the unknown

like the human face

we begin

we begin with the world as given

we may not be able to accurately describe what it is we face

(what constitutes and accurate description?)

but we are in the midst of a given reality

that is we are not confronted with possibility - a possible world

the world is

possibility is an after thought

possibility is not ontological

possibility is epistemological

possibility is knowing

the possibility of knowing
what it is - that we are - and are in

the given (the world) is given - as undefined
we are given - a working model - in perception

but how to describe this is the question of humanity

descriptions are necessary

necessary for the act of living

to use a metaphor -

our descriptions are tools

different tools required for different jobs

no universal

without tools we don't operate

we don't describe

there is no prototype we can refer to

we can only respond to our biology -

to its imperatives

(and this too a description)

and how we describe this - conceive this - is an indeterminate matter

such is the history of science -

of thought

thought is the basis of action

there is no basis to thought but thought

illusion

the argument for illusion is what?

that reality is not all its cracked up to be -

may or may not be - real?

heaven forbid

or is it rather that the perceiver may not perceive - correctly?

so again

reality (here I include the perceiver) is not all it's cracked up to be - but the problem
can be isolated to the perceiver -

still though - it is however you work it -

that reality - and I am speaking sub species aeternitatis here - is not - what?

stable?

it can be real
it can be illusory

at this point real looses its universality

real - if real is to mean anything must include - veridical perception and illusory
perception -

and then the question

what are we to say of real?

one answer is - we don't know

so illusion is what?

perceptually -

reason to question the deliverances of the senses

the key to the sceptical door

epistemologically?

the argument of difference

without a clear uncontraversial theory of what is real - what is reality

(and this is not possible)

there is no argument for illusion

there is no illusion - only difference

the sceptical response to difference is to acknowledge it - accept it - embrace it

it is to understand there is no uncontraversial view of reality

that in fact there is no uncontraversial reality

metaphysical

epistemological

political

ethical

the argument of positive skepticism is diversity and tolerance

the logic of consciousness - assertion and denial

the first moment of consciousness is awareness

(whatever this is)

and awareness of awareness

which is exactly what it is

reflectivity

consciousness knows itself as itself

this is the fact - the presentation

I frankly don't see how this can be further explicated

any supposed explication is just that - or a statement of that which is to be explicated -

it is that is a reflection of and on consciousness

so - here the explication is actually a statement of that which is to be explicated

and of this

there is no explication

the second moment of consciousness is awareness of what it is not - the world - the
outside of consciousness - the object

so consciousness asserts itself and what it is not -
x and ~x

this is the proposition of consciousness

x and ~x

the x's here are not just short hand

they are the unknown realities

the assertion of x (consciousness) is an unknown

the negative of x is an unknown

some have taken this to mean that consciousness brings nothingness to the world -

this is primarily Jean Paul Satre's argument

his argument confuses the negative and non-existence

the negative of consciousness is not nothingness - it is non-consciousness

existence here is not at issue

(existence is not in fact a problem

existence is a question of classification )

what consciousness brings to the world is assertion and its denial

it is the ground of assertion - and denial

consciousness asserts itself positively and defines itself negatively

the definition is really nothing more or less than this

consciousness is not that which is non-conscious

awareness is only definable given the contrast with that which is not aware

in a world with only consciousness - there would be no definition

and hence nothing to speak of

such a world is literally indefinable

for mind to have any functional reality - any reality - it must exist in contrast to the
non-consciousness

and so too the non-conscious

a conscious monism or a non-conscious monism is illiterate

the fundamental operation of consciousness -

everything else is derivative

awareness is assertion and denial

awareness / consciousness is x and ~x

such is the nature of consciousness

and this is not a substantial definition - rather a formal definition

it leaves issues of substance open

there is no ontological commitment in consciousness

the conscious world - or the world of consciousness is -

logical space

the space of x and ~x

this is to say - or another way to say it is that in a world where x and ~x could not be
asserted

there is no consciousness

is it not true that ~x is contained in x?

how else could it be?

x is only defined given ~x

~x only defined given x

consciousness comes into being when reality asserts itself

this is really all that can be said

and in this assertion is contained its denial

we can perhaps say assertion is thus the essential characteristic of consciousness

the non-conscious does not assert

it is non-assertive

and assertion is only possible - only makes any sense - against that which is not
asserted

only - that is given its negative

therefore

the world

the point of consciousness

what I have argued is that we begin in the midst of reality

(and for that matter stay there and end there)

our awareness - we understand as awareness of

we are aware of the world - the world outside our consciousness

and we are aware of this awareness -

we are this - awareness of awareness

self - if the term is to mean anything is that which is aware

what that is - is another question

it is at the centre of - awareness of the outside world - and aware of awareness - the
inner world

so that - at the centre - is what we might call self

that - is a logical point

that is as much as we can say - about that

that it is - OK

what about what it is?

this question of what

is what sort of a question?

it is a question of substance

and what is this?

what does substance come down to

composition

to ask what x is composed of is to ask a substantial question

so what is consciousness - made of -

what is the self?

we can only really answer this negatively

consciousness is made of that which is not non-conscious

OK this doesn't take us too far

but it is not frivolous to make the point

that consciousness can only describe itself as what it is not

and the same is finally true of the non-conscious world

what is the world outside of consciousness made of?

that which is not conscious
so we have only logic here

only that which is - and that which is not

no substance

in a final metaphysical sense

any substantial theory of the inside or of the outside

is finally a fiction of consciousness

consciousness' answer to the unknown

or ways of dealing with the absence of substance

of grounding

for itself and for what it sees - the world outside itself

of that which exists we can only say that it exists

this is not to give it any content

content is a construction

the necessary after-thought

metaphysical theories / logical space and metaphysical junk

metaphysical theories - i.e. - materialism and idealism - are attempts to account for the
unknown

to provide a foundation in knowledge - for our actions

what is fundamental is the unknown

these metaphysical theories are covers for the unknown

masks for the unknown

they provide platforms for action

they are in fact substitutes for knowledge -

for foundation

the need for foundation is what is really at issue here

I argue - it is a feature of consciousness - a characteristic of mind - to seek a basis

the point is - if there was foundation

the mind could not know - for it would of necessity be outside of mind - and for that
matter outside of the world

I do not think it makes any sense to speak of such

to go down this track is to mistake metaphysical need for reality

in reality there is no foundation to knowledge

if there was - the question would not arise

idealism begins with mind and argues that the world outside of mind can be shown to
in fact be mind

materialism that the outside reality can be shown to be in fact applicable to the inside

both are attempts to provide a singular account of the nature of reality

if successful both destroy the basis on which they are proposed

in the case of idealism - mind - the inside is extended to cover the outside - and as a
result the distinction is destroyed - there is no outside

if no outside - no inside

on what is idealism based?

and you can put the question - if mind cannot be distinguished from non-mind - does
it in fact have any definition?

what is it - where is it?

in the case of materialism - matter - the outside is extended to cover the inside - and
as a result the distinction is destroyed - there is no inside

if no inside - no outside

on what is materialism based?

again - if matter is all there is - how can it be defined - determined?

to say matter is everywhere - is not necessarily to make a substantial claim - without
metaphysical distinction (which a successful comprehensive theory defeats) it can be
argued there is no content to the materialist thesis

so there is a serious issue of definition if either idealism or materialism is taken to be a
complete account of the nature of reality

can I suggest that idealism is a useful theory of mind - what I would call a prime
position - a place to start - an initial response to the question - what is mind?

and materialism a useful theory of the world outside of mind - again we need to begin
with something in order to deal with what it is (the unknown) we are faced with

either put forward as a comprehensive metaphysics I suggest falls on its own sword

they are best seen natural characterizations - and useful tools

idealism has proven its worth e.g. as a platform for religious aesthetic and ethical
thinking

materialism as a successful impetus for scientific / empirical pursuits

both are best seen as constructs on the unknown

in practice - decisions are made about foundation - positions adopted - platforms used
this is the reality of practice

the theoretical attempt to furnish the world with one all embracing account is more in
the line of a parlor game - an exercise

which nevertheless may - and in fact does yield not just pleasure but new ideas - new
ways of looking at the world

nevertheless most of us operate in a universe of metaphysical junk -

a whole range of ideas systems and concepts

and use determined by need and circumstance

and nothing is guaranteed - you can and do always go back to the junkyard for new
bits and pieces to assemble or attach - or to start foraging again

the metaphysician functions primarily in this space - as an inventor of new ideas - new
ways of seeing - he makes the junk we all need - (and may even have a hand in
managing the yard)

the yard is logical space - the junk - the theories and concepts we need and / or use to
live in the unknown

beyond mind and matter

I don't think we can say what mind is

just that it posits itself - and recognizes itself - as inside

the world - you might say -

but however you characterize the outside -

that which mind is inside of - the point is -

mind is the inside -

so I argue here a radical thesis of skepticism

which just is that we do not know

we don't know what mind is - or what it is mind is in

I say this to make the point that we can go beyond the idealist / materialist debate -

debate that is about - what

what mind is (what the inside is)

what is outside of mind (what the outside is)

what I am pointing to is the ground of this debate in its purity

the logic of it if you will -

materialism and idealism are attempts to show - to say - we do know - what is

I think we can go beyond these last ditch attempts at knowledge

and point to the absence of knowledge

epistemologically speaking we begin in the midst of it all

and look for foundations

this looking for foundation and all it entails is our living

the act of living - of searching - gives content - to our lives

(content to the contentless I would argue)

foundations are not to be found in either mind or matter

mind and / or matter may function for us - as foundations - in practice

but they are essentially only covers for the unknown

we don't know but we must act

we define - define and create

mind and matter are two such definitions

two such creations

what is behind these creations - these posits

what it is that is behind mind and matter

we cannot know

we cannot say

we begin in the midst of it all

we remain in the midst of it all

we end up in the midst of it all

beyond this (however you characterize it)

we do not know - cannot know

cannot say

existence

existence - conscious existence -

is without foundation

the question of foundation only arises in consciousness

the mind - thinking a basis for itself

Descartes was true to this instinct and followed it to the letter

existence he thought was foundation

but he missed it

for existence - conscious existence - is what seeks foundation

take consciousness out of the equation - and so goes the problem of foundation

the seeking for foundation

could well be said to be the point of consciousness

its essence - what it does - what distinguishes it from the non-conscious

a search for reason

for reason is at the back of consciousness and yet any reason there is is only a product
of consciousness

hence you could say

consciousness makes its own foundation

this is what it does - must do - to be what it is

as a tree seeks nourishment from the ground - in being a tree

we never reach rock bottom here

because any proposal for foundation

is soon recognized for what it is - a fraud

in that it is a product of consciousness - and not what it is based upon

very difficult though to stop looking

even when you know there is nothing to find

nothing that can be found

out of this truly futile endeavour comes the best that we have

all our knowledge - our dreams

mind cannot be conceived

that which is in itself

and is conceived

through itself

it seems for Spinoza

substance exists separate from
any conception of it

any conception of it occurs in it

and any such conception is of it

so how can a conception be in and of?

in and of one in the same thing

surely it is impossible to conceive of something
that is not separate from the conceiving -

from that which does the conceiving?

if we argue mind is subjectivity

it's object is that which is outside of subjectivity

that which is objective

we may choose to think of mind as an object

but perhaps this is just a fact of language

of grammar - of the structure of grammar

once realized - we need to drop the concept of mind
as object

I prefer reflectivity as it is not object-like

but rather operative - an operation - an action
so a conception is a subjective - focus

which is defined by what it includes - and what it excludes
a subjective definition pure and simple

for this reason substance as that which has no negative - no outside

on my view cannot be conceived

cannot be conceived - and cannot be conceived through itself

any conception must be outside of that which is conceived

if it is not outside - it simply cannot be conceived

on this view mind can never be regarded as co-extensive with the external world

it is always within - it cannot be otherwise

the world is outside of mind

mind is in the world

and so

mind cannot be conceived

for it is not outside of itself

yes

where logic ends

I took Spinoza's definition of substance - that which is conceived through itself - and
argued that this definition is a definition of mind

this was a spin-off of the Spinoza discussion

mind conceives itself

mind - that which conceives - conceives that which conceives

and argued that this view - while true - cannot be explicated

as it stands it is to define the source as its product - or action

and so the definition collapses on itself

mind is greater than its conceptions

therefore if mind conceives itself

the conception (of mind) is lesser than mind

which is to say x is lesser than x

alright

the question is how do we get into this mess?

what all the above points to is that mind reflects

that reflectivity is the essential characteristic of mind

and so to the next and obvious question

what is it?

what is reflectivity?

now I have argued we cannot say

for to answer this question - we have to use concepts of mind

like subject / object for example

to explicate mind

it is again to attempt to use the product of mind to account for mind

and further

behind this idea - the belief - or hope that in some way we may be able to step out of
mind - to see mind - to explain mind

that an extra-mind objectivity is possible

now it is clear at this point that such is absurd

but the thing is absurd yes - but at the same time - it seems like the natural route to
take

why is this?

I think it is because of reflectivity

that is - we reflect on mind

or at least think we can
we can't - we can only reflect within -

but it is reflectivity that suggests that we can

and what are we to say here?

that the fundamental process of mind leads us astray -

that there is - or should be some limit or boundary to reflection -

that we discover - you guessed it - on reflection?

reflectivity - just seems to me to be a process - an action if you like

it is what mind does - just what it does

and like any other natural process - it is just what happens

just what happens in this world

our decisions about it - reflections - on reflectivity - are arguments of reflection

essentially no different from any other reflection - on the world or on mind

we make decisions - for reasons - in this case - for reasons of metaphysics

we never actually get out of it

the fact that we might want to - or think we can

is just another reflection

which from the point of view of logic

makes no sense

this is no great problem so long as it is realized that at such a point we are not actually
doing anything logical

imagination begins were logic ends

mind out of mind

we cannot step outside of mind to see it - to regard it as an object - in the way we i.e.
see a physical object

this is quite obvious - to suggest otherwise is ridiculous

mind is that which explains

it must therefore be regarded as unexplainable in itself

in this sense the mind cannot be known

what can be known is mind as it is - as it appears

that is awareness

awareness is all there is to it

we cannot objectify awareness and place it within awareness

what I mean here is i.e. - Jack Smart and other mind-brain identity theorists argue the
mind is a brain state

what we have here is a theory of mind - physicalism - which it is thought can then be
made applicable to the act of mind - to awareness

so that the idea of physicalism - a conception of mind

is said to explain mind

no such idea - physicalism or another - is a theory of awareness (there is no such
thing) it is a product of awareness
what is produced is not that which produces

or a concept that comes out of mind

is not mind

mind is not an idea

mind is the source of the idea

to apply the idea - as an explanation of mind is to presume a realm of knowledge -
outside of mind

it is to assume there is a place we can see mind from

this is of course ridiculous - unless you think you can argue for an ideal transcendent
realm - in e.g. the way Plato did - or spiritualists and religious people do

such concepts are just posits of mind out of mind

that which concieves itself

that which conceives itself is mind

this might be a good preliminary characterization

but how can this characterization be explicated?

what is involved here?

clearly that which conceives itself is that which reflects

OK

but again what is it to reflect?

the thing that reflects is that which can see itself

have an idea of itself

and here we are talking about that which has ideas

and

has an idea of itself

as that which has ideas

the having of the idea of the self

is here an idea of an idea

what does this tell us about ideas

that they can be of that which they are not (the world)

and that which they are

that the idea is not defined by its object

its object can be itself or outside of itself

the object is not what determines the idea

the idea is an idea regardless of whether it holds an idea as its object

or a non-idea as object

OK

but isn't it the case that mind is defined by this capacity

this capacity to

reflect on itself and on the world

reflection is two dimensional
yes

but to reflect on itself

to hold itself as object?

you could say well what we are dealing with is two ideas

idea x and the idea of idea x

just two ideas -

no great mystery

the thing is though

how do you separate out the two ideas?

mind and its idea

are there two?

isn't it just mind -

and that mind can and does

it is the nature of the thing to see itself

mind does not step outside of mind to do this

mind conceives itself

this is what it does

is this a primitive position -

that is there is no further explanation?

is this just what awareness is?

and again there is no outside position or perspective possible

the only perspective is mind

that it conceives itself is just what it does

that is what mind is

for the life of me I don't see how this is possible

and by that I mean I don't get what is going on here

mind

holding itself as object

is mind

which is to say

the idea of mind (held by mind) is mind

how can anything be itself

and be that which sees itself?

are not there two entities here?

(I know this is clumsy - but what can I say?)

or perhaps

a function?

does this make it easier?

the function of reflection

OK

still no explication

just a re-statement in terms of function rather than things

mind is this function?

reflectivity - seems more than function - more like essence

the nature of the thing

perhaps we can say - reflectivity - awareness happens
we call this happening - this action - mind

and we try and explain it in terms of subject and object

but really these categories are categories of the mind in action

they cannot be then turned on the mind to explain its action

if you try and do this - you end up with trying to say

x is subject and x is object

and the whole point of the subject / object distinction

is that the subject and object are not one in the same

they are separate - different and apart

so to say the mind conceives itself

is to say the subject is object

this shows clearly I think that such an analysis does not work

does not get us anywhere at all

so perhaps

awareness - mind

is just simply a primitive - unanalyzable

it analyzes - but it cannot be analyzed

we cannot get behind it

there just is no objective position here

objective / subjective again -

categories of mind -

that cannot be used to account for mind

we recognize the feature - but we cannot say anything else

any attempt to do so - is trying to go outside of knowledge to explain it

we are best to face the fact that here we know that mind is -

not what it is

it is the source of knowledge - and therefore its explanation
is outside of knowledge

in itself / through itself

that which is in itself and conceives through itself

this statement of the nature of substance

needs to be tackled head on

first up there is no question here -

substance just is this -

that which is in itself and conceived through itself

conceived through itself -

conceived as what?

conceived as substance -

substance conceived as substance

that is

substance conceiving itself

what can this mean?

what does it conceive itself as?

as substance

OK

so what does this tell us?

how far does this advance us?

what then - can we say - as a result of this - substance is?

presumably -

only that - it is that which is conceived through itself

so are we told anything at all here?

and another question

how does something conceive itself through itself?

what is the logic of this?

we can ask Spinoza - could substance exist - unconceived?

which is to go to the status of the conception of substance

is this essential to the nature - the being of substance?

there seems to be no room for this in what Spinoza has written

substance is that which conceives itself

substance is a concept - as much as the object of the concept

in fact there is no distinction

there is no subjective / objective distinction here in Spinoza's substance

substance is one

it is here thought and extension

thought is extension

extension is thought

the division we see

that is the foundation of our system of logic

on Spinoza's view is simply failing to the see the essential unity

and oneness at the heart of it all

so mind (conception) is substance

extension is substance

substance in itself is

these attributes - and their infinite companions

beyond attributes - can we speak of substance?

it would seem so - given the initial definition

and what is this - what does it come to?

it comes to X is and X is C (conceived)

and then

X is conceived as X

XCX

the conception of X

is not X1 - it is X

so again

substance in itself - independently of attributes - speaking of it in this way just has to
be unknown

what we know of substance is its attributes

its attributes are perceived
and the question - what is being perceived here?
I perceive extension

I perceive thought

do I have any grounds for assuming these attributes are universal - essential features
of reality?

I don't know if I got to where I wanted to get to here

what interests me is substance conceiving itself

how can this be possible?

surely for this to be

substance would have to be the object of a conception?

and if the conception and its object are in some sense apart

separate

and would not the conception have to be outside of substance

which is not possible

therefore substance

cannot conceive itself

sub specie aeternitatis

the thing is this

to define substance (as Spinoza does) one must know it - or know of it

the definition is fine tuning - characterization
now the question

given that we are with substance speaking of everything - the totality

the question is - where does this notion come from - originate?

OK we think - and we think about

we think about what?

what we are aware of - what we see - what we experience -

are we aware of the totality?

in a logical sense - yes

the argument goes -

I am a part of something greater

that greater is finally all that is

yes

so - no question here of experiencing the totality

not logically possible

but know - in the sense of a logical deduction yes

here we are talking about frameworks of knowledge

categories necessary for knowledge

transcendental categories in Kant's terminology

on this view - the totality - substance - in Spinoza's terms

is what?

a reality - an actually existing reality?

or - categories of the understanding necessary for the having of knowledge?

i.e. - is substance - reality or a way of understanding reality?

I think the latter

so we think substance -

substance becomes a way of understanding the world and man's place in it?

what the world is

as it were outside of this understanding

without these categories of knowledge -

is the real question

but in fact it is one we cannot know the answer to

the world as such - in itself as Spinoza has put it - and Kant would too

is unknown

unknowable

so we operate within - within the world

and know - know in terms of categories of understanding

and these are just functions of consciousness

how - human consciousness works - its set up position

consciousness is in the business of knowing

and it comes equipped as it were for the job

you might take the view - alright accept this -

and really therefore - isn't this just all knowledge is?

no need as it were to look beyond - for something else

by definition - on this view - there just isn't anything else

fair enough I think - and I guess such is the Kantian solution

Kant's argument is an account of how consciousness works
basically - if we as conscious entities - operate in such a way - i.e. know - then this
(the transcendental categories) must be presumed

for without them we cannot account for epistemological behaviour

so it is an argument of entailment

I know - what are the conditions necessary for this?

I am not sure that Kant has really answered the question - and certainly - not finally

what he has done at least is say there must be pre-existing conditions for knowledge
if knowledge is to follow

- or what he calls knowledge

could one argue - that we cannot actually know - this

what they are?

we cannot that is get to the transcendental level of understanding

that yes it is a way of seeing the issue

but would it not be more to the point to say - we don't know -

we can't go there -

except in an imaginative sense?

it's a background picture

in general I think what I am asking is - what can you see?

what can be seen?

and it is connected to another question

where are you?

in relation to Spinoza

let me put it this way

to know substance - as an object of thought - to be able to conceive substance

substance must be outside the concept

and therefore the conceiver - outside of substance

was this what Spinoza was trying to get up - or was presuming is possible - something
along these lines anyway - in proposing his sub species aeternitatis argument?

yes - from the point of view of eternity (whatever this really means) we may - in some
sense be able to see - or conceive substance

but who has this point of view -

who can see from that place -

who is in that place?

the substance argument

the proposal - the definition of substance - as 'that which is in itself and conceived
through itself'

states quite boldly - brazenly perhaps that
(i) there is something that is in itself
(ii) that such conceives through itself

so first up we have an equivalence of domain between that which is - and that which
conceives

substance - exists in its own right

and conceives itself
one might ask

isn't conception an act of the mind?

and for it to be complete

the conception has an object

that which is conceived

so conception and its object - two distinct categories

for x to conceive through itself

suggests x is conception

conceiving itself

thought thinking itself

good definition of God - but where is the world?

Spinoza says - substance is in itself

i.e. it is not a part of anything else

it is thus in some sense existence per se

everything that exists

and is conceived through itself

well yes -

there is nothing else - from which to conceive substance

but is substance conceived

can it be conceived?

presumably if it is conceived through itself

the conception

is within substance

if so

how can the part embrace the whole?

surely on this view

thought - conception is some function within

there cannot that is be an objective conception

a conception from outside

so how can substance - ever be an object

how can it be an object of conception?

so what I am questioning here is the idea - that x can conceive x

on such a view there is no distinction between subject and object

an essential distinction to be drawn if any conception is to take place

that which conceives cannot be that which is conceived

on such an arrangement we cannot say what the conception is -
(except perhaps itself)

and we cannot say what the object of conception is

to go down this track leads to the destruction of sense

the collapse of epistemology

and ontology here is about nothing

conception II

the conception is an enclosure

the totality is not enclosed

therefore

the totality cannot be conceived

the totality is the ground of conception

it is the space of conception

the space for conception

conception occurs within

the totality is the outside of (all) conception

the totality is logical space

the space in which thought is possible

the totality cannot be thought

conception

I argue that to conceive is to delineate

so you always conceive within a domain

a logical domain

the question

can you therefore conceive of God?

of the totality?

this it would seem is to conceive the domain

in which all conception takes place

don't we do just this?

yet if we do -

given the above theory of conception

how do we do it?

that is if conception is always within domain

what domain is everything - the totality in?

- it seems none

so

is this account of conception wrong?

perhaps we don't always conceive within?

so the conception of everything?

the totality

do we conceive it or only imagine we do?

it's hard to say we don't

still at the same time - the idea that to conceive is to delineate seems dead on -

the two can't be right

one is up the creek

the totality - is really the idea of possibility

everything that is possible is the totality?

also - everything that is -

that does exist

it is the logic of the universal

all

can we conceive all?

we think we can

but isn't it really -

a negative conception?

x exists

~x - that which is not x

so

we conceive all
only the negative of an existential
so

all - is here

that which is not x

x and ~x is?

everything?

(strange logic)

and the point is - isn't it that everything cannot be defined

it must be an open concept

(for otherwise there would be something on the outside of everything)

and as such a negative concept -

this is to say - a positive concept - is a closed concept

it is an existential concept

so

do we conceive - everything - all - the totality?

is to ask

do we conceive negatively - that which is not?

in this case that which is not x

it is to conceive domain isn't it?

and the conception of domain is negative

or that which is outside of the domain is negative

so

a conception posits domain - and its negative

can everything be conceived?

that is can the negative of the domain be conceived?

that is - not everything?

the domain within which everything is

and what is outside of this domain

can you conceive nothing?

not everything?

no I don't think so - you can only conceive positively -
what exists

so what of conceiving everything?

everything

is the domain of the existential

x exists

the domain of x -

is that which exists

is existence

is it a conception or an assumption?

an assumption necessary for conception?

yes I think so

and so

how do we regard this assumption?

is it like a meta conception -

necessary to conceive anything at all?
perhaps
it is in logical terms - the conception of domain
can the assumption be - then -

that which is conceived

I think not -

but this is why - it appears as if it can be a positive conception

because it is always the necessary -

assumption of conception

we easily think that it is - a valid conception

it is not what is being conceived -

it is the ground of conception

and then the argument could be

that to conceive requires an assumption of domain

if domain - is to be conceived -

it must have - such an assumption

but it is the assumption

how is it to function as assumption - to itself?

how can it be what is assumed -

and what rests on the assumption?

therefore

domain is - strictly speaking - not conceived

to conceive everything is to mistake - assumption - for that which rests on the
assumption

this is to say you do not conceive everything - the totality

you conceive - on this assumption

substance II

what I was going to say is -

the conception of that which does not require the conception of anything else just is a
conception of singularity

it is thus the concept of one -

it is for Spinoza the view that there is one concept that explains - explains all diversity
- it is an explanatory concept - and the explanation is singularity

is oneness

if the conception does not require any other conceptions to be formed - then by
definition it is a concept of singularity

for we are here told no other concepts apply -

if you then assume a well formed concept is a conception of something -

then what it applies to - is a singularity

is a matter of logic

therefore what it refers to is one - is substance

and again by definition if the concept applies - then what exists is one substance

so the steps of the argument are:

(1) propose a concept of singularity

(2) assume it applies

alright

it is clear that we can do (1)

but do we the go to (2)?

generally not

why not?

because the fact that we might be able to conceive x is one thing -

whether x applies is quite another matter

in a way Spinoza is proposing in his definition of substance the ontological argument -

how do we know if a concept applies?

say the concept of a golden mountain

if it is meant to be an actually existing mountain of gold

we test the assertion - by looking for that which is asserted -

OK

what though of a concept of metaphysical unity -

everything is one

can this be tested?

no -

the reason being it has no empirical content -

it just cannot be tested - it cannot be falsified

it is not an empirical proposition

it is non-empirical

it is metaphysical

which is to say

what?

not that it is meaningless -

it is meaningful - but not empirical

again it is to say what?

it is to say

we have a view of the world that we hold - regardless of the facts of the world

it is a background view

that functions to - explain - give account for what we cannot know

the human understanding that needs to give some description of the unknown

for deep psychological reasons -

it is an account of the unknown

therefore such conceptions are descriptions of what cannot be known

they are strictly speaking imaginative

this is the category Spinoza's concept of substance falls into -

which is all very well

but it does not apply to the known world - or the knowable world

it cannot be regarded as a true account of what we know

or for that matter a false account

it is a fictional account

the mistake is to assume that all conception relates to the knowable world

this is not so

it is in Ryle's terms a category mistake -
it is to mistake the known for the unknown

and to assume that concepts that properly apply to one -

in fact apply to the other

which is wrong - and big time

substance

that which is conceived through itself - can only be that which conceives itself -
is this possible - and what is it to do this?

Spinoza says of substance - that which is in itself - and is conceived through itself

in other words - the conception of which does not need the conception of another
thing - from which it must be formed

that which is in itself is that which is not in anything else - straight up - you might say
- is everything

and it can only be conceived through itself or as itself?

there is no other way to conceive it no other concept required -

the idea of x is x - there is no ~x - we cannot here conceive ~x

OK - but the conception that does not require any other conception?

yes - it's 'the conceived through itself' that instructs one here

is this really the source of his double aspect theory - a body - the body that conceives
itself - a universal mind as it were that corresponds with the universal body?

I think so - however you could have one without the other -

Spinoza though is going for both - and right from the get go -

the idea - that the physical world - the totality does conceive itself -

and further - it is essential - to the notion of substance - from Spinoza's point of view -
that it does -

mind is substance conceiving itself - extension is substance as the object of mind
- the physical world as the extended expression of substance

mind as substance conceiving itself - as substance conceived -

and the thing is the whole issue is objective

objective - in the sense that mind is a characteristic of reality - even if - i.e. - there are
no human beings - the world thinks - we just happen to be expressions of this fact
- instances of the fact

this though gives us no special status - it is true of every thing that exists

subjectivity as we might call it is an objective reality -

there is only objective reality - at this point you might ask - well how then do you
distinguish extension and mind?

good question - mind is extension conceived - extension is mind extended

strictly speaking - for Spinoza - the question does not arise -

so it's not that we conceive substance - it is rather that substance - conceives us -
- this is how you need to think to get Spinoza - it's top down -

so existing in itself - and conceived through itself -

my question is - does it make any sense to speak of the thing in itself - that which
exists without being dependent?

existential dependents -

does it make any real sense to speak of everything?

if it does Spinoza's argument seems to go through

existence as such - we speak of it - but can we really conceive it - is it in fact a
sensible notion?

Kant was spot on - existence is no predicate - it is not a characteristic - it is the ground
- but what is this?

just a conception - to ground predicates - characteristics?

(have to be careful here - a step to the left - a step to the right - nihilism)

existence is no predicate - perhaps the most subversive statement ever made

could we dispense with existential statements - entirely and just have predicates
- predicates that strictly speaking do not refer to anything - actually refer to nothing -
have no referents - no ground - a world of characteristics that - characterize nothing?

Lewis Carroll might get on board here - with his cat - or what's left of it - in such a
world - there would be no substance - only expressions of interest -

and grins

Spinoza's definitions / Skeptikos II begins

The posts for skeptikos II begin here.

Spinoza's definitions

I. Cause of itself


I. By CAUSE OF ITSELF (sui causa) I understand that whose essence involves
existence; or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing.


everything conceived exists - the question is in what sense?

i.e. as something that exists just as a conception (in conception) - or something that
exists as outside of conception -

that which exists in conception and outside of conception - i.e. the idea of a table and
a table - exists two dimensionally - inside (as conception) and outside (as matter)

my point: anything can be conceived as existing

that is - that which is conceived exists

that which exists in the non-conceptual mode - on the outside - may or may not exist
as a conception

it depends on whether it has come under the purview of consciousness

what is conceived may or may not exist extra-conception

whether it does or not is a matter of looking

it is a question of experience

to say something exists - is simply to acknowledge it

that is to focus on it

and perhaps further to characterize it

therefore:

existence is reference

apart from this the concept has no content - it is open - or empty

the concept of existence as such is a concept without focus - therefore it refers - quite
ironically to - nothing


p.s.


to assert 'x' and to assert ' x exists' - is to what?

reassert 'x'?

it is as it were to underline 'x'

to assert existence is not to add anything

it is to mark 'x'

to give it focus

it is to pick it out


II. Finite in kind


II. A thing is said to be FINITE IN ITS KIND (in suo genere finita) when it can be
limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is said to be finite
because we can conceive of another body larger than it. Similarly, thought is limited
by another thought. But body cannot be limited by thought, nor thought by body.


a thought is limited by another thought -

a body limited by another body

a thought is not a body and a body is not a thought

the external world or dimension - the world of bodies is not of the internal world or
dimension

and visa versa

the inside is not the outside - the outside is not the inside - as a matter of logic

the conscious dimension is not the non-conscious dimension

the unity of the inside and the outside - is reality

is reality for conscious entities

what occurs in this two dimensional world - is the unity of the two dimensions

we can only speak of the two dimensions as separate in an analytical / theoretical
sense

in practice - in fact - all human activity is the unity of the conscious and non-
conscious

that is any act can be analyzed in terms of its conscious dimension and its non-
conscious dimension

its internality and its externality

the unity as such - the unity qua unity - has no other description but a dimensional
description

the unity qua unity is unknown - is unstatable

it can only be seen in terms of the internal world of consciousness and the external
world of the non-conscious

we cannot grasp the essence - only its dimensions


III. Substance


III. By SUBSTANCE (substantia) I understand that which is in itself and is conceived
through itself. That is, that the conception of which does not depend upon the
conception of another thing, from which it has to be formed.


that which is in itself is that which is not in anything else

that is - that which has no parameters

or that which cannot be defined

therefore substance cannot be known

and

the conception of which does not depend upon the conception of another thing -

is a conception that is not bound

I argue it is of the nature and logic of a conception that it is bound

therefore

substance is that which cannot be conceived

so

if we are to still give substance a positive sense

it can only be as the unknown

otherwise the concept has no place at all

to recognize the unknown is to place everything in context


IV. Attribute


IV. By ATTRIBUTE (attributum) I understand that which the intellect perceives of
substance as constituting its essence.


firstly -

what the intellect perceives as essence I would argue is the unknown

on this view 'knowledge' is not what is essential

it is the ground of knowledge that is essential - the object of knowledge -

and the object of knowledge - the ground of knowledge - is the unknown

intellectual perception - or conception - of attributes or characteristics - if we assume
we are talking here about something other than the unknown - is on this view - non-
essential

so if there are attributes - intellectually perceived characteristics - they are not
essential

secondly -

in short consciousness distinguishes itself and that which it is not

the fundamental distinction of consciousness is logical

consciousness recognizes itself as internal and what it is not as external to it - x and
~x

the primary distinction - or intellectual perception - is of metaphysical dimensions -
not of attributes

the ground of the internal / external distinction - (mind / matter - if you like) is not a
substantial distinction - it is distinction of dimensions - dimensions of the unknown

the distinction is based in logic

substance on this view can only be regarded as logical space

its essential characteristics are the dimensions of this space


V. Mode


V. By mode (modus) I understand the modifications of substance; that which is in
something else, through which it is conceived.


a mode as that which is in something else - through which it is conceived

in something else -

conceived in terms of what it is in -

that is known in terms of its epistemological context

i.e. an event in that which is external to consciousness - the surface - the physical
world - will be known in terms appropriate to that dimension - will be known as of
that dimension

and similarly - a thought - a mental event - will be known - will be apprehended as
being of the internal dimension - and understood in terms appropriate to that
dimension

knowledge like the world itself (the conscious and non-conscious dimensions) is
binary

there is no 'unified knowledge' - all knowledge is dimensional

we understand the world in terms of its dimensions

all events though in this world are two dimensional

a thought will have a physical correlate - a physical expression - in the surface that is
the body - i.e. brain activity

and the body too will express itself - manifest in thought

the unity is there - but it cannot be understood in a unitary manner

that is to say i.e. - a physicalist - surface account dose not - cannot - explain the
internal dimension -

and the mental is not the physical

we can speak of an event as having a physical and mental dimension

as to the event itself - in itself - there is no description - if you are to speak of it as
such - it can only be as the logical ground of internality and externality - and this can
only be referred to as the unknown


VI. God


VI. By God (Deus) I understand an absolutely infinite being: that is, substance
consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.


an absolutely infinite being -

that which is without limitation

conception is always within - within a context therefore limitation

there is no such thing as open concept

such is the negation of conception

it is to not have a concept

the absolutely infinite being is that which cannot be conceived

infinite attributes -

an infinite number of characteristics

is such that it cannot be defined

it is that which cannot be known


VII. Freedom


VII. A thing is said to be FREE (libera) which exists solely through the necessity of
its own nature, and is determined into action by itself alone. That thing is said to be
NECESSARY (neccessaria) or rather COMPELLED (coacta), which is determined
by something else to exist and act in a certain definite and determinate way.


a thing exists in terms of its own nature

its own nature is not determined by itself

the origin of the determination - the first cause - is not known

freedom is the absence of knowledge


VII. Eternity


VII. I understand ETERNITY (aeternitatis) in so far as it is conceived as following
necessarily from the definition of an eternal thing.


the definition of an eternal thing -

that which cannot be understood in terms of duration or time

we have no experience of such a thing

the notion of eternity - is the negative of what we experience

negation has no content - it does not refer to anything - its function is purely formal

it defines what is - in a logical sense -

it gives what is - its parameters - its form and content

beyond what is given in duration or time we have no knowledge

given this 'eternity' is what is not known

it is beyond knowledge - it is the unknown