we operate within a totality
we cannot define it
for we cannot say what it is not
the idea of this is absurd
so what can we say of it?
just that it is the ground of our conceptions
it is logical space
the domain we think in - and I mean this in a non-party political sense
it is indefinable
all definition is within
this domain
it is the ground we operate on
and it is just that which is unknown
has to be
must be
for conception is about knowledge
knowledge is the decisions within this domain
this space
we gain nothing by attempting to define it
it is to mistake it for what it is not
is to confuse the world with what is created or made within it
the world is no creation
it is the ground of creation
the space of it
24.1.07
22.1.07
the conception of totality
the conception of the totality
is like the horizon
we see it - it is always there - as a frame of reference - we can approach it but never reach it
it is strictly speaking an illusion
conception is always within a domain
and this means a concept is defined by what it includes - and what it does not include
everything - may appear to include - but it does not exclude -
the idea of a conception of everything
is just that - an idea
it is not a conception
it might then be thought - well we can approach everything?
it is true we can have larger conceptions
as in concept 3 includes the domains of concepts 1 and 2
but we cannot approach everything
for the reason that we cannot conceive it in the first place
despite all our efforts at comprehensiveness - and inclusion - we think
always within limitations
this is really to the nature of man
attempts to over throw this fact have destructive consequences
as any illogical pursuit will
is like the horizon
we see it - it is always there - as a frame of reference - we can approach it but never reach it
it is strictly speaking an illusion
conception is always within a domain
and this means a concept is defined by what it includes - and what it does not include
everything - may appear to include - but it does not exclude -
the idea of a conception of everything
is just that - an idea
it is not a conception
it might then be thought - well we can approach everything?
it is true we can have larger conceptions
as in concept 3 includes the domains of concepts 1 and 2
but we cannot approach everything
for the reason that we cannot conceive it in the first place
despite all our efforts at comprehensiveness - and inclusion - we think
always within limitations
this is really to the nature of man
attempts to over throw this fact have destructive consequences
as any illogical pursuit will
17.1.07
on Spinoza's watch
Spinoza's argument begins with ultimate explanation
his work is a demonstration that the world is a demonstration of his definition
his definition of substance
Spinoza does not reach for the ultimate - he begins with it
his argument is that existence is all that there is
it is therefore without limit
his argument for infinity is an argument against limit
for if there is a limit there is something on the other side of it
and such a view could not function as a comprehensive view of what is
what is assumed here is that reality is a unity
could there be other realities?
not on Spinoza's watch
whatever exists - however it exists is an expression of existence
existence is the universal
hence on this view it makes no sense to speak of the absence of existence
there is no void - as in non-existence
this knowledge is not gained from the senses
rather from reasoning
from logic
it depends for its success on the argument that we can conceive oneness -
that we can conceive totality - limitlessness
and that this conception - corresponds to what is
so the logic of one - the conception of oneness
the flaw in this argument is that such a conception has no existential content
it is to conceive nothing
this is the great paradox of Spinoza's argument
his grand conception of existence
the totality - is a conception of no thing
this is the first point
the second point is this -
you begin with the concept of oneness
and then move to define it in terms of limitlessness - and hence totality
it is to universalize the concept of one - to take it out of all contexts
against this can be put
if the one - is not limited - as it is when defined for example as a
member of a sequence then it makes no sense to speak of one at all
one in relation to what?
therefore the universalization of one is to misconstrue it - to effectively to make it meaningless - such an argument is to the destruction of the concept of one
this is to question the argument at the level of conception
the next move - the ontological argument is beyond the pale
it is to assume that we can say from our limited perspective - what the ultimate nature of the world is - simply on the basis of our conception - what we conceive
that we can know that this conception corresponds to reality
it is the supreme argument for supreme vanity
and I say on meta / moral grounds it should be - must be rejected as rubbish
his work is a demonstration that the world is a demonstration of his definition
his definition of substance
Spinoza does not reach for the ultimate - he begins with it
his argument is that existence is all that there is
it is therefore without limit
his argument for infinity is an argument against limit
for if there is a limit there is something on the other side of it
and such a view could not function as a comprehensive view of what is
what is assumed here is that reality is a unity
could there be other realities?
not on Spinoza's watch
whatever exists - however it exists is an expression of existence
existence is the universal
hence on this view it makes no sense to speak of the absence of existence
there is no void - as in non-existence
this knowledge is not gained from the senses
rather from reasoning
from logic
it depends for its success on the argument that we can conceive oneness -
that we can conceive totality - limitlessness
and that this conception - corresponds to what is
so the logic of one - the conception of oneness
the flaw in this argument is that such a conception has no existential content
it is to conceive nothing
this is the great paradox of Spinoza's argument
his grand conception of existence
the totality - is a conception of no thing
this is the first point
the second point is this -
you begin with the concept of oneness
and then move to define it in terms of limitlessness - and hence totality
it is to universalize the concept of one - to take it out of all contexts
against this can be put
if the one - is not limited - as it is when defined for example as a
member of a sequence then it makes no sense to speak of one at all
one in relation to what?
therefore the universalization of one is to misconstrue it - to effectively to make it meaningless - such an argument is to the destruction of the concept of one
this is to question the argument at the level of conception
the next move - the ontological argument is beyond the pale
it is to assume that we can say from our limited perspective - what the ultimate nature of the world is - simply on the basis of our conception - what we conceive
that we can know that this conception corresponds to reality
it is the supreme argument for supreme vanity
and I say on meta / moral grounds it should be - must be rejected as rubbish
16.1.07
metaphysical nerve
beyond experience is what we do not know
beyond knowledge
it is pretty straightforward -
you can't further describe this state
it is by definition beyond description
nevertheless
even some great thinkers have lost their nerve and jumped
Plato into Forms
Descartes into God
Kant into the Noumenon
Schopenhaur into Will
Hegel into the Absolute
there is a moral point to the epistemology of radical (or common sense) skepticism
it is that there is a limit to human vanity
and that limit is the end of knowledge
the unknown is the end of vanity
the logic of it is straightforward - clear cut
what we cannot know we cannot know
nothing more to say
no need to say it
full stop
walk away with dignity
beyond knowledge
it is pretty straightforward -
you can't further describe this state
it is by definition beyond description
nevertheless
even some great thinkers have lost their nerve and jumped
Plato into Forms
Descartes into God
Kant into the Noumenon
Schopenhaur into Will
Hegel into the Absolute
there is a moral point to the epistemology of radical (or common sense) skepticism
it is that there is a limit to human vanity
and that limit is the end of knowledge
the unknown is the end of vanity
the logic of it is straightforward - clear cut
what we cannot know we cannot know
nothing more to say
no need to say it
full stop
walk away with dignity
the accident of necessity?
awareness
as a relation
that is reflection
it is the positing of x by x
(how did this come about?)
all awareness
finally self-awareness
what are the options here?
it seems some profound metaphysical shift
from one dimensional reality
(non-aware reality)
to self-aware reality
it's the separating out of an entity
into the relation of subject and object
subject aware of the object
the subject aware of the subject
awareness itself is still the mystery
we can only approach it via self awareness
and here - all we are presented with is the fact of it
no reason for it
no account of its origin
nature took a turn
or had a turn
and found itself - in various forms
seeing - seeing itself - and even seeing its seeing
it is an unexplainable event
evolution - meta / natural suggests itself here
but it is finally just to say
there was this development
not how or why
Darwin spoke of genetic change as blind
perhaps this is the key
the straightest assessment
on a metaphysical level
blind change tells us what?
the accident of necessity?
life or death -
as a relation
that is reflection
it is the positing of x by x
(how did this come about?)
all awareness
finally self-awareness
what are the options here?
it seems some profound metaphysical shift
from one dimensional reality
(non-aware reality)
to self-aware reality
it's the separating out of an entity
into the relation of subject and object
subject aware of the object
the subject aware of the subject
awareness itself is still the mystery
we can only approach it via self awareness
and here - all we are presented with is the fact of it
no reason for it
no account of its origin
nature took a turn
or had a turn
and found itself - in various forms
seeing - seeing itself - and even seeing its seeing
it is an unexplainable event
evolution - meta / natural suggests itself here
but it is finally just to say
there was this development
not how or why
Darwin spoke of genetic change as blind
perhaps this is the key
the straightest assessment
on a metaphysical level
blind change tells us what?
the accident of necessity?
life or death -
15.1.07
substance and function
so consciousness is what sees - the inside / the outside - it is not what is seen
so
do we leave it at that?
there is a clarity to this - if not substance
that which does the seeing I have suggested transcends that which is seen
so we can speak of consciousness as outside of subjectivity and objectivity
outside of mind and matter
not in any substantial sense
only in a functional sense
the function of consciousness - that is consciousness - is presupposed in the seeing of (mind / matter - inside / outside)
it is the function of revelation
NB.
I guess the point here is that a function is not a substance
it is an action
and the attempt to reduce - or explain - or define a function substantially is
wrong headed
substance ontologies are very simple - and not that useful
yes the world is made of things
but also functions - actions
and an action / function - is not a thing
so
do we leave it at that?
there is a clarity to this - if not substance
that which does the seeing I have suggested transcends that which is seen
so we can speak of consciousness as outside of subjectivity and objectivity
outside of mind and matter
not in any substantial sense
only in a functional sense
the function of consciousness - that is consciousness - is presupposed in the seeing of (mind / matter - inside / outside)
it is the function of revelation
NB.
I guess the point here is that a function is not a substance
it is an action
and the attempt to reduce - or explain - or define a function substantially is
wrong headed
substance ontologies are very simple - and not that useful
yes the world is made of things
but also functions - actions
and an action / function - is not a thing
consciousness as a logical point
consciousness as a logical point
that has an internal and external
capacity
this is to give a purely operational definition of consciousness
operational as distinct from substantial definition
a substantial definition tells us what x is
a capacity / operational definition tells us what x does -
what it is capable of - how it operates
as to the substantial question -
we can't say what consciousness is
there is no outer consciousness view of consciousness
so we can never know what it is
that it is
is to say what about it substantially?
that it is - and its nature can only be ascertained dispositionally -
the contents of consciousness can be described and so defined
the objects - outside of consciousness - can be described and so defined -
the world can de defined
but consciousness - cannot be known in this way
but again for this to happen - consciousness would need to be its own object
consciousness is subjectivity
it is that which perceives / conceives object
therefore
subject
so perhaps we need to think of consciousness as an ideal point - a transcendent
category
transcendent that is to its functions
its functions of subjectivity -
and objectivity
in itself - it is unknowable
a Kantian noumenon?
as I see it
such a view avoids - both idealism and materialism
as these conceptions / realities
are functions of consciousness
and cannot therefore be characterizations of it
rather than noumenon I prefer the description / idea of a logical point
a point that transcends subjective and objective realities
and all we can say here is that it is
no further description is possible
a consequence of this I think is that therefore consciousness is not to be regarded as a substance of any kind -
it is not substantial - it is substanceless
the question - what is the mind is therefore the wrong question
the mind as a what - does not exist
that has an internal and external
capacity
this is to give a purely operational definition of consciousness
operational as distinct from substantial definition
a substantial definition tells us what x is
a capacity / operational definition tells us what x does -
what it is capable of - how it operates
as to the substantial question -
we can't say what consciousness is
there is no outer consciousness view of consciousness
so we can never know what it is
that it is
is to say what about it substantially?
that it is - and its nature can only be ascertained dispositionally -
the contents of consciousness can be described and so defined
the objects - outside of consciousness - can be described and so defined -
the world can de defined
but consciousness - cannot be known in this way
but again for this to happen - consciousness would need to be its own object
consciousness is subjectivity
it is that which perceives / conceives object
therefore
subject
so perhaps we need to think of consciousness as an ideal point - a transcendent
category
transcendent that is to its functions
its functions of subjectivity -
and objectivity
in itself - it is unknowable
a Kantian noumenon?
as I see it
such a view avoids - both idealism and materialism
as these conceptions / realities
are functions of consciousness
and cannot therefore be characterizations of it
rather than noumenon I prefer the description / idea of a logical point
a point that transcends subjective and objective realities
and all we can say here is that it is
no further description is possible
a consequence of this I think is that therefore consciousness is not to be regarded as a substance of any kind -
it is not substantial - it is substanceless
the question - what is the mind is therefore the wrong question
the mind as a what - does not exist
12.1.07
metaphysical awakeness
what I am getting at is that yes - it makes sense to speak of an inner life and an outer world
this is the reality as given - or one common description of it
however on reflection all categories of this argument are open to question
each reality as posited is on reflection not beyond reflection
you can dig in and take a stand
but really a stand on what?
the issue - these issues are always live - never put to bed
and so the only position finally that has any real logical integrity
is the position of no position
reflectively speaking
the plus here is an open mind
an awareness that is not contained - from the inside
it is to be in a perpetual state of metaphysical awakeness
and we can maintain such a position
even as we go about the very particular business of living
it is to say - yes the world demands and perhaps - I accept - but I do not accede
on the metaphysical level my judgement is in suspense
this is the reality as given - or one common description of it
however on reflection all categories of this argument are open to question
each reality as posited is on reflection not beyond reflection
you can dig in and take a stand
but really a stand on what?
the issue - these issues are always live - never put to bed
and so the only position finally that has any real logical integrity
is the position of no position
reflectively speaking
the plus here is an open mind
an awareness that is not contained - from the inside
it is to be in a perpetual state of metaphysical awakeness
and we can maintain such a position
even as we go about the very particular business of living
it is to say - yes the world demands and perhaps - I accept - but I do not accede
on the metaphysical level my judgement is in suspense
inner experience
since Descartes at least
the argument on both sides of the river is that inner experience is privileged
in that it is my experience and direct
we begin with consciousness
and its relationship with the outside world
this - a primal reflection
(you don't have to start with this reflection
you can begin where and how you like
but as a starting point it is rather uncontraversial
it is where I start)
OK
but let's not get too excited
about inner experience
firstly it is not at all clear what it is
even from the inside
how do I describe my thoughts -
if that's the tag I'm going to give inner experience?
well with other - what?
thoughts
so - there is no explanation
x is x
perhaps in different clothes
at different times
we don't know what inner experience is
what experience is
we can describe it logically
i.e. - it is not - that which is not experienced
?
yes
you think I jest
experience - is what it is - whatever that is - and not what it is not
since we can reflect on the matter and come at it from different angles
different characterizations are possible
only characterizations of thought by thought
and we need also to ask -
just how inner - inner is?
I grant it is compelling at a primal level
but reflectively it is anything but -
or should I say does not have to be
perhaps inner experience - is only inner because it works best to divide reality so?
if you take the view - e.g. - that everything that exists is fundamentally of the same status - whatever that may be
you might say - everything is objective - even the so called inner life
this I think is Spinoza's view of the matter
that it is just - another natural fact
a fact that has the same status -
as other objective states - i.e. the weather
and is therefore in no sense privileged
perhaps if you like - seen from an objective stand point -
to be just another - unremarkable - fact of the world
knowledge just another natural phenomenon
and so there are views -
and views - perspectives - perceptions -
are just like leaves on a tree
there is no privilege
inner experience
my sense of myself is what?
an inner experience?
how is this to be distinguished from the outside?
my body in the world -
isn't this all I know?
and is this inner experience?
of what - the outside?
how to distinguish inner from outer?
what separates?
the argument on both sides of the river is that inner experience is privileged
in that it is my experience and direct
we begin with consciousness
and its relationship with the outside world
this - a primal reflection
(you don't have to start with this reflection
you can begin where and how you like
but as a starting point it is rather uncontraversial
it is where I start)
OK
but let's not get too excited
about inner experience
firstly it is not at all clear what it is
even from the inside
how do I describe my thoughts -
if that's the tag I'm going to give inner experience?
well with other - what?
thoughts
so - there is no explanation
x is x
perhaps in different clothes
at different times
we don't know what inner experience is
what experience is
we can describe it logically
i.e. - it is not - that which is not experienced
?
yes
you think I jest
experience - is what it is - whatever that is - and not what it is not
since we can reflect on the matter and come at it from different angles
different characterizations are possible
only characterizations of thought by thought
and we need also to ask -
just how inner - inner is?
I grant it is compelling at a primal level
but reflectively it is anything but -
or should I say does not have to be
perhaps inner experience - is only inner because it works best to divide reality so?
if you take the view - e.g. - that everything that exists is fundamentally of the same status - whatever that may be
you might say - everything is objective - even the so called inner life
this I think is Spinoza's view of the matter
that it is just - another natural fact
a fact that has the same status -
as other objective states - i.e. the weather
and is therefore in no sense privileged
perhaps if you like - seen from an objective stand point -
to be just another - unremarkable - fact of the world
knowledge just another natural phenomenon
and so there are views -
and views - perspectives - perceptions -
are just like leaves on a tree
there is no privilege
inner experience
my sense of myself is what?
an inner experience?
how is this to be distinguished from the outside?
my body in the world -
isn't this all I know?
and is this inner experience?
of what - the outside?
how to distinguish inner from outer?
what separates?
11.1.07
knowledge
the world as it appears
as it is in consciousness
is the world in awareness
is this knowledge?
it is data
consciousness reflects on this data
it is the reflection that is knowledge
the reflection occurs because awareness in itself
is without explanation
reflecting on it leads to knowledge
we reflect on it because - as it is
it is unknown
and our reflection
how do we know its status -
i.e. do we have knowledge here?
well first up
knowledge is what?
we might say it is a foundation to our experience
that it is an ideal underpinning of what is given
OK
still what this is
what this amounts to
why it is sought
are all reflective questions
the answers are not out there -
they are - if they are - in there
the point is
reflection may posit knowledge
but reflection -
of one kind or another is -
the only basis to this posit
to call for a foundation - to that which functions as foundation to what is given
is to ask for what?
we really don't know
as it is in consciousness
is the world in awareness
is this knowledge?
it is data
consciousness reflects on this data
it is the reflection that is knowledge
the reflection occurs because awareness in itself
is without explanation
reflecting on it leads to knowledge
we reflect on it because - as it is
it is unknown
and our reflection
how do we know its status -
i.e. do we have knowledge here?
well first up
knowledge is what?
we might say it is a foundation to our experience
that it is an ideal underpinning of what is given
OK
still what this is
what this amounts to
why it is sought
are all reflective questions
the answers are not out there -
they are - if they are - in there
the point is
reflection may posit knowledge
but reflection -
of one kind or another is -
the only basis to this posit
to call for a foundation - to that which functions as foundation to what is given
is to ask for what?
we really don't know
7.1.07
the mind in the world
the mind in the world
translates?
this is rather a reflection - an attempt at explanation of the relation of mind and matter
the mind is in the world
it is the inside of the outside -
what is it - that has this inside and outside?
for Kant - the thing in itself
for Spinoza - substance
how do we describe mind in matter?
even the terms mind and matter are just labels for the unknown
we know an outside - an inside
this relation is given to us
in mind
and mind reflecting on itself sees itself as inside matter
therefore the outside -
what it is - is just that which has these dimensions
so it cannot be described in internal or external terms
mental or physical
at best it is neutral - yes
mind is a feature of neutrality
matter a feature of neutrality
to say we don't know is not to say enough
it goes beyond knowledge and its absence
the inside is a dimension of being
the outside a dimension of being
mind - knowledge is a dimension of being
matter a dimension of being
being as such
beyond description
the outside does not interact with the inside
the inside is not a spin-off of the outside
the outside is not the inside
the inside is not the outside
knowing is a way of being
just as not knowing is a way of being
p.s.
mind is in space
it is not extension
extension is a property of the outside
the mind is intentional - non-extended
in space
intentional space is the space of mind
space therefore has two attributes - internal - external
the unity cannot be conceived as extended or intentional
if it exists spatially - it must exist as / in a third dimension
for inside and outside are dimensions of the unity
the unity is over and above its attributes
they therefore cannot apply
but what does apply we cannot say
p.p.s.
for Spinoza the unity - its characteristic is absolute infinity
if this is to mean it cannot be defined - yes
as regards it being unlimited - as distinct from limited
it is to mistake an issue of substance for an issue of definition
the fact is we cannot say what the unity - the totality is
we cannot assume it is a substance - unlimited or not
that it is - yes
what it is - no
substance as existence?
OK
but why?
how can we so define it?
translates?
this is rather a reflection - an attempt at explanation of the relation of mind and matter
the mind is in the world
it is the inside of the outside -
what is it - that has this inside and outside?
for Kant - the thing in itself
for Spinoza - substance
how do we describe mind in matter?
even the terms mind and matter are just labels for the unknown
we know an outside - an inside
this relation is given to us
in mind
and mind reflecting on itself sees itself as inside matter
therefore the outside -
what it is - is just that which has these dimensions
so it cannot be described in internal or external terms
mental or physical
at best it is neutral - yes
mind is a feature of neutrality
matter a feature of neutrality
to say we don't know is not to say enough
it goes beyond knowledge and its absence
the inside is a dimension of being
the outside a dimension of being
mind - knowledge is a dimension of being
matter a dimension of being
being as such
beyond description
the outside does not interact with the inside
the inside is not a spin-off of the outside
the outside is not the inside
the inside is not the outside
knowing is a way of being
just as not knowing is a way of being
p.s.
mind is in space
it is not extension
extension is a property of the outside
the mind is intentional - non-extended
in space
intentional space is the space of mind
space therefore has two attributes - internal - external
the unity cannot be conceived as extended or intentional
if it exists spatially - it must exist as / in a third dimension
for inside and outside are dimensions of the unity
the unity is over and above its attributes
they therefore cannot apply
but what does apply we cannot say
p.p.s.
for Spinoza the unity - its characteristic is absolute infinity
if this is to mean it cannot be defined - yes
as regards it being unlimited - as distinct from limited
it is to mistake an issue of substance for an issue of definition
the fact is we cannot say what the unity - the totality is
we cannot assume it is a substance - unlimited or not
that it is - yes
what it is - no
substance as existence?
OK
but why?
how can we so define it?
5.1.07
the mind reflects
the mind reflects
it reflects on reflection
reflection of?
what I am suggesting is that the ground of reflection is unknown
so therefore?
our reflections on the unknown are
finally unknown
if so
what then is reflection about?
what is knowledge?
our reflections - the illusion of knowledge
yes
but still the question of knowledge
why knowledge?
on this view - if there is no knowledge - only the illusion of
what sense to speak of it?
knowledge as explanation
knowledge as underpinning to what is presented to consciousness
knowledge as description
there must be something there to be described
yes
but do we know what it is?
what would it be to know it?
this is the question
and I don't know how to answer it
how to address it
an account is a description
an ideal picture
perhaps any such picture is knowledge
and then for particular purposes we refine the issue
we are back to what is reflected
the relation of mind to its object
just is knowledge?
we can't step outside of this
knowledge is the mind in the world
the world reflected in mind
what then is the problem?
knowledge is reflection
what I am aware of is what I know
OK
awareness equals knowledge
or
awareness is the knower in the world
awareness is a feature of the natural world given entities that are aware
we - human beings - are aware of awareness
but we cannot say what awareness is -
only that it is the mind in the world
can we say what awareness is?
that it is an internal property of matter -
the inside of matter?
again we can say that such is the case
not why
knowledge as I am putting it - a feature within -
in the world -
it can only be a view
not the view
the view may be suggested - by the fact of a view -
but we cannot go there
the world cannot be contained in knowledge
it is rather that knowledge is contained by the world -
reflection on awareness is the attempt to explain - give a further description - provide another account
awareness just is the mind in the world -
the mind translates the outside to itself - to the inside - and then goes to work on it -
it is a translation from material to ideal
this is the idea
there is no objective view of this - no independent test of this translation
what happens happens
and the truth is we don't know
we can't know
is it therefore a relevant issue?
yes
but only in the face of the claim of truth or certainty -
these concepts derive from the vanity of awareness
I see what I see therefore it must be
actually - it is - I see what I see
and no further claim can be made
what must be - cannot be decided
not to say that it is not an interesting question for speculation
and perhaps addressing this question - is the source of creativity
but only because what must be
cannot be seen
p.s.
perhaps what I was trying to say is
we begin with the fact of the mind in the world
awareness and awareness of
the mind sees
what this seeing is - is not seen
what is seen is only
what is seen
to describe what is - it to reflect on it
it being the awareness
we can only say of this awareness - what it is not
in the attempt to define
and what it is not - is just that -
strictly speaking it can only be described logically
x and ~x
that's it
it reflects on reflection
reflection of?
what I am suggesting is that the ground of reflection is unknown
so therefore?
our reflections on the unknown are
finally unknown
if so
what then is reflection about?
what is knowledge?
our reflections - the illusion of knowledge
yes
but still the question of knowledge
why knowledge?
on this view - if there is no knowledge - only the illusion of
what sense to speak of it?
knowledge as explanation
knowledge as underpinning to what is presented to consciousness
knowledge as description
there must be something there to be described
yes
but do we know what it is?
what would it be to know it?
this is the question
and I don't know how to answer it
how to address it
an account is a description
an ideal picture
perhaps any such picture is knowledge
and then for particular purposes we refine the issue
we are back to what is reflected
the relation of mind to its object
just is knowledge?
we can't step outside of this
knowledge is the mind in the world
the world reflected in mind
what then is the problem?
knowledge is reflection
what I am aware of is what I know
OK
awareness equals knowledge
or
awareness is the knower in the world
awareness is a feature of the natural world given entities that are aware
we - human beings - are aware of awareness
but we cannot say what awareness is -
only that it is the mind in the world
can we say what awareness is?
that it is an internal property of matter -
the inside of matter?
again we can say that such is the case
not why
knowledge as I am putting it - a feature within -
in the world -
it can only be a view
not the view
the view may be suggested - by the fact of a view -
but we cannot go there
the world cannot be contained in knowledge
it is rather that knowledge is contained by the world -
reflection on awareness is the attempt to explain - give a further description - provide another account
awareness just is the mind in the world -
the mind translates the outside to itself - to the inside - and then goes to work on it -
it is a translation from material to ideal
this is the idea
there is no objective view of this - no independent test of this translation
what happens happens
and the truth is we don't know
we can't know
is it therefore a relevant issue?
yes
but only in the face of the claim of truth or certainty -
these concepts derive from the vanity of awareness
I see what I see therefore it must be
actually - it is - I see what I see
and no further claim can be made
what must be - cannot be decided
not to say that it is not an interesting question for speculation
and perhaps addressing this question - is the source of creativity
but only because what must be
cannot be seen
p.s.
perhaps what I was trying to say is
we begin with the fact of the mind in the world
awareness and awareness of
the mind sees
what this seeing is - is not seen
what is seen is only
what is seen
to describe what is - it to reflect on it
it being the awareness
we can only say of this awareness - what it is not
in the attempt to define
and what it is not - is just that -
strictly speaking it can only be described logically
x and ~x
that's it
the search for truth
can be regarded as the blind imperative of consciousness
it is consciousness' response to the impenetrability of the world
it is relentless
and but for reflective metaphysics - without reason
it is strictly speaking an end that has no end
its origin
is the origin of consciousness
the conception that consciousness arrives at which it will regard as the truth
is from another point of view - another moment of consciousness - the illusion
that is to be pierced - or done away with
illusion is a conception of consciousness
it is consciousness knowing itself as it is
not what it might become
the becoming is always the aspiration for - the hope for truth
which is what?
the end of illusion - yes
but how to know?
when is the moment realized?
consciousness has no answer to this
it seeks but knows it can never identify the end of seeking
also it has no means of stopping the seeking
Indian philosophies have recognized this as the issue of living in consciousness
and have devised stratagems for resolution
the point is though
there can only be refuge in illusion
enlightenment or unenlightenment
logically speaking there is no difference
this is perhaps the great point - the great truth
it can only be a choice of illusion
and a choice of criterion
for the choice of illusion
there is no knowledge here
it is I think a matter of form
to find what nearly fits well
or the skin one can live within
laughter is the sound of God
it is consciousness' response to the impenetrability of the world
it is relentless
and but for reflective metaphysics - without reason
it is strictly speaking an end that has no end
its origin
is the origin of consciousness
the conception that consciousness arrives at which it will regard as the truth
is from another point of view - another moment of consciousness - the illusion
that is to be pierced - or done away with
illusion is a conception of consciousness
it is consciousness knowing itself as it is
not what it might become
the becoming is always the aspiration for - the hope for truth
which is what?
the end of illusion - yes
but how to know?
when is the moment realized?
consciousness has no answer to this
it seeks but knows it can never identify the end of seeking
also it has no means of stopping the seeking
Indian philosophies have recognized this as the issue of living in consciousness
and have devised stratagems for resolution
the point is though
there can only be refuge in illusion
enlightenment or unenlightenment
logically speaking there is no difference
this is perhaps the great point - the great truth
it can only be a choice of illusion
and a choice of criterion
for the choice of illusion
there is no knowledge here
it is I think a matter of form
to find what nearly fits well
or the skin one can live within
laughter is the sound of God
4.1.07
reflection and unity
reflection
what it is - how it is to be described or explained?
is finally no more than an other reflection
a reflection on reflection
we can't get outside of it - in fact strictly speaking we can't say there is an outside to it
so where is the self in all this?
the self is a reflection
a meta reflection
an organizing principle
an argument for stability -
and one that seems to work
at the centre of this?
well some say - mind
as if there is a substance - to which these - all reflections - refer logically
the primary reflection of the outside world is just this - of substance
this is the walking down the street view
it doesn't last long
if - if you reflect on it
but substance is a reflective construct
the reflection that is mind - is
a clear reflection of this
I speak of mind as reflection - as an operation
this is my preferred view -
the thing is beyond this what can we say?
what is the essence of it?
what is that point of unity of inside and outside?
what is behind it - if you like?
the answer here is empty
I don't want to say the question is not meaningful
just that there is nothing in the place where the answer should be
it is an open logical space
what it is - how it is to be described or explained?
is finally no more than an other reflection
a reflection on reflection
we can't get outside of it - in fact strictly speaking we can't say there is an outside to it
so where is the self in all this?
the self is a reflection
a meta reflection
an organizing principle
an argument for stability -
and one that seems to work
at the centre of this?
well some say - mind
as if there is a substance - to which these - all reflections - refer logically
the primary reflection of the outside world is just this - of substance
this is the walking down the street view
it doesn't last long
if - if you reflect on it
but substance is a reflective construct
the reflection that is mind - is
a clear reflection of this
I speak of mind as reflection - as an operation
this is my preferred view -
the thing is beyond this what can we say?
what is the essence of it?
what is that point of unity of inside and outside?
what is behind it - if you like?
the answer here is empty
I don't want to say the question is not meaningful
just that there is nothing in the place where the answer should be
it is an open logical space
3.1.07
reflected reality
what I have been putting in various forms and arguments is the view that our reality is a reflected reality
that our knowledge so called is reflection
what we know is reflection
in one form or another not hard to grasp
empiricists held it as a tenet that the world reflects on consciousness
rationalists that the world outside mind is only known given the mind's reflections on it
I go with a third view a sceptical view
that we do not know
and that our reflections - are in fact reflections on and of the unknown
so what of that beyond reflection?
I say it is the object of knowledge - which I define as the unknown - and I say our
reflections - in so far as we hold them to be knowledge - are all open to question
still they are reflections
the mind reflects
and if we understand that there is no bed rock to reflection
nothing can be the touch stone to truth
nevertheless we still have the fact of reflection
we still have reflection as the epistemological reality of conscious - self-conscious
beings
reflection is an act of knowledge - in the sense that no one reflects from nothing
we are given in whatever form as epistemological entities something to work with
and we always have something to work with -
this data - epistemological data - becomes the object of reflection
it is what we reflect upon
what I argue is that it takes some thought to see that there is nothing that can be
known beyond this facade of reflection
the world beyond this is what cannot be known
Descartes thought that a good start in this business was himself
and who could argue with the common sense wisdom of this
he came quickly to see that what he could not question was that he thinks
the point being - yes he did know something - and it was at the very least about
himself
Descartes of course had not abandoned his pursuit of knowledge - it was a life raft
and he clung to it
really though - all he had actually managed to identify was that he reflects
now to say what this is - is of course to reflect upon it
it is to perform an epistemological operation
and its status - epistemological - ontological - is a matter of reflection
so here I am suggesting that the knower so called is reflection bound
logically speaking Descartes was no further down the road of his inquires at the end as he was at the beginning
and what of Descartes himself - or for that matter you or I
if you take reflection out of the picture?
what do we know of ourselves?
what can we know?
I say we must regard ourselves as unknowns
that our knowledge so called is reflection
what we know is reflection
in one form or another not hard to grasp
empiricists held it as a tenet that the world reflects on consciousness
rationalists that the world outside mind is only known given the mind's reflections on it
I go with a third view a sceptical view
that we do not know
and that our reflections - are in fact reflections on and of the unknown
so what of that beyond reflection?
I say it is the object of knowledge - which I define as the unknown - and I say our
reflections - in so far as we hold them to be knowledge - are all open to question
still they are reflections
the mind reflects
and if we understand that there is no bed rock to reflection
nothing can be the touch stone to truth
nevertheless we still have the fact of reflection
we still have reflection as the epistemological reality of conscious - self-conscious
beings
reflection is an act of knowledge - in the sense that no one reflects from nothing
we are given in whatever form as epistemological entities something to work with
and we always have something to work with -
this data - epistemological data - becomes the object of reflection
it is what we reflect upon
what I argue is that it takes some thought to see that there is nothing that can be
known beyond this facade of reflection
the world beyond this is what cannot be known
Descartes thought that a good start in this business was himself
and who could argue with the common sense wisdom of this
he came quickly to see that what he could not question was that he thinks
the point being - yes he did know something - and it was at the very least about
himself
Descartes of course had not abandoned his pursuit of knowledge - it was a life raft
and he clung to it
really though - all he had actually managed to identify was that he reflects
now to say what this is - is of course to reflect upon it
it is to perform an epistemological operation
and its status - epistemological - ontological - is a matter of reflection
so here I am suggesting that the knower so called is reflection bound
logically speaking Descartes was no further down the road of his inquires at the end as he was at the beginning
and what of Descartes himself - or for that matter you or I
if you take reflection out of the picture?
what do we know of ourselves?
what can we know?
I say we must regard ourselves as unknowns
mind and matter a logical unity
the world outside of mind presents as mindless
mindless here is material
the outside (of mind) is material
mind is internal to matter
the unity of mind and matter in a conscious - self-conscious individual - is not a
substantial equality
it is logical
the logical necessity of an inside - only being what it is - given the outside
and the outside - being what it is - and because of its - the relationship with the inside
the unity is dimensional
and this is the point - it is not substantial
the unity - is unknown - extra-dimensional
the person as Strawson put it
in my view - is in itself without definition
it is - the unity - in whatever manifestation - beyond definition -
it is - as a logical entity - the unknown
the unity of mind and matter (the whole - in this case) is beyond definition
and the unknown - I am presenting here - as a logical unity - a logical point if you like
true - this idea of the logic of the unity of dimensions (internal / external) is a logic
only given consciousness
for this is all logic is - a product of consciousness
or should I say consciousness in relation to the non-conscious
so
outside of this logic?
is a no go zone
it is the outside of the domain of mind
it cannot be legitimately addressed - from a logical point of view
only imaginatively
this is the function - the point of the imagination to go where there is no logic
art is the answer to absence
mindless here is material
the outside (of mind) is material
mind is internal to matter
the unity of mind and matter in a conscious - self-conscious individual - is not a
substantial equality
it is logical
the logical necessity of an inside - only being what it is - given the outside
and the outside - being what it is - and because of its - the relationship with the inside
the unity is dimensional
and this is the point - it is not substantial
the unity - is unknown - extra-dimensional
the person as Strawson put it
in my view - is in itself without definition
it is - the unity - in whatever manifestation - beyond definition -
it is - as a logical entity - the unknown
the unity of mind and matter (the whole - in this case) is beyond definition
and the unknown - I am presenting here - as a logical unity - a logical point if you like
true - this idea of the logic of the unity of dimensions (internal / external) is a logic
only given consciousness
for this is all logic is - a product of consciousness
or should I say consciousness in relation to the non-conscious
so
outside of this logic?
is a no go zone
it is the outside of the domain of mind
it cannot be legitimately addressed - from a logical point of view
only imaginatively
this is the function - the point of the imagination to go where there is no logic
art is the answer to absence
1.1.07
consciousness freedom and determinism
consciousness
sees the world outside itself as determined
consciousness sees itself - the world of consciousness as indeterminate
is indeterminate equivalent to free?
freedom?
I think it fair to say the mind regards itself - as being what it is (whatever that is) and
not what it is not
the mind is not free to be not mind
this being said
relative to the non-conscious world
the mind is -
free - or different?
different - yes
free - well I think yes if free is not determined
and here determined - is that which is non-conscious
I will stick with indeterminate
but in what sense?
the world of the mind is the world of knowledge
the mind is free to the extent that it does not know
that it is not determined by knowledge
I argue that knowledge is an illusion - necessary - but still an illusion
and so the mind is only determined - if we can use that word -
by illusion
to see through this - the illusion of knowledge
is to see to its absence
the absence of knowledge is what leaves the mind free
it is the reason for its indeterminism
in the non-conscious world - this question does not arise
or should I say it doesn't arise for the non-conscious world - just because it is non-
conscious
if this is how consciousness sees itself and sees the world
what can we say of the world in itself - per se?
well we can't say anything
nothing to be said
even to say we don't know -
is this going beyond bounds - strictly speaking?
we might need two senses of the unknown here
the unknown in the sense of the absence of knowledge
and the unknown in the sense of the world beyond knowledge
sees the world outside itself as determined
consciousness sees itself - the world of consciousness as indeterminate
is indeterminate equivalent to free?
freedom?
I think it fair to say the mind regards itself - as being what it is (whatever that is) and
not what it is not
the mind is not free to be not mind
this being said
relative to the non-conscious world
the mind is -
free - or different?
different - yes
free - well I think yes if free is not determined
and here determined - is that which is non-conscious
I will stick with indeterminate
but in what sense?
the world of the mind is the world of knowledge
the mind is free to the extent that it does not know
that it is not determined by knowledge
I argue that knowledge is an illusion - necessary - but still an illusion
and so the mind is only determined - if we can use that word -
by illusion
to see through this - the illusion of knowledge
is to see to its absence
the absence of knowledge is what leaves the mind free
it is the reason for its indeterminism
in the non-conscious world - this question does not arise
or should I say it doesn't arise for the non-conscious world - just because it is non-
conscious
if this is how consciousness sees itself and sees the world
what can we say of the world in itself - per se?
well we can't say anything
nothing to be said
even to say we don't know -
is this going beyond bounds - strictly speaking?
we might need two senses of the unknown here
the unknown in the sense of the absence of knowledge
and the unknown in the sense of the world beyond knowledge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)