I have been arguing what I call a dimensional theory of mind - of
reality - that human reality is two dimensional - that human beings
are two dimensional - that the two dimensions are internality and
externality - that the internal dimension just is consciousness - is mind - therefore mind is a dimension - that the external dimension is body -
the outside of mind - the entity as a whole - is not - to be described
in mental or physical terms - that the entity as whole is beyond
description - there is no non-physical / non-mental language - and so
for reasons of simplicity and practice we are best to say with Strawson -
'person'
that the human body is distinguished from the physical world (it is a
part of) - metaphysically - in terms of consciousness - consciousness
as the centre of a physical body - or more correctly of a person - that
there are other such forms - other such persons (I am not the only one)
and we recognize - a conscious determination - the fact of other persons -
on the basis of logical - ontological type
I don't think we have grounds to say internality is co-extensive with
externality - I favour a monad notion of internality - therefore not
everything that has an outside has an inside
consciousness is discrete and not universal - consciousness is particular
must we assume it is a development out of externality - out of the surface?
this is to ask how did it come about?
either it emerged from the physical - the surface - the (what was to then
become) outside - or it didn't
if it did - yes it was to be of the same nature - of the same essence -
but here I suggest we are not saying it is therefore physical
the fundamental nature - is not physical - physical is out there - is observable
the physical - the outside - the surface - I am suggesting is not fundamental -
the fundamental if it is to produce - both the physical and consciousness -
is other than either
the physical and the mental on this view are expressions of something - deeper -
more basic
Spinoza - would have said - substance
substance - as the name of the fundamental
now I have been arguing against substance - against the idea that the question
of the mind / body relation is a question of substance
my argument has been that the issue is dimensional
so the question - can you successfully speak of dimensions without substance?
what is a dimensional view?
what are dimensions?
are they not dimensions - that is of something - of substance?
my point is this - that we cannot say - what it is reality is made of -
in any final sense - therefore any account is a substitute for the absence of knowledge
we can say that - but not what
how do we describe consciousness?
what do we say it is?
it is what it is
the rest is poetry - metaphor
as too with the non-conscious
the world outside of consciousness
non-conscious - is the most accurate description - and this - is without
content - it is not a positive account of external reality
it is a logical definition
we know though that this unknown reality - unknown in a substantial sense - has
dimensions
this much we can say
our characterization is logical
mathematical if you like
