another way to put it might be like this -
it is consciousness that ascribes
if consciousness is to ascribe itself
consciousness must always be prior to what it ascribes itself to
anything - be it a person - a substance - whatever - is a construction of consciousness
this is consciousness taking a view of itself
reflecting on itself - its place if you like
we are dealing here with theory of consciousness - by consciousness
to think that the correct question is rather - what is consciousness ascribed to?
is to believe - isn't it - that you can speak from a position outside of consciousness?
view consciousness - from the outside of it
and see what it might connect to
this is a false objectivity
there is no such position - in relation to consciousness
any such position is one formulated in consciousness
and for this reason Wittgenstein might be right - consciousness cannot be ascribed
OK
you might think here the next step is solipsism -
against this I argue that consciousness - not only sees itself -
but for this to happen - that is to define itself - recognizes -
what it is not - that is recognizes the non-conscious
this is self consciousness we are talking about here
and the point being though we begin in consciousness - for this to occur -
for us to be aware - self aware - we recognize that which we are not -
whatever that is
therefore we begin as conscious entities in the world
so ascribing consciousness
look I think with Wittgenstein - this is not what it is about
consciousness is the internal dimension - of reality
it is the inside
I regard the physical world as the outside
the outside dimension
these are - metaphysical - ontological dimensions
we can only understand our world - its reality if we recognize its internality
and its externality
any one dimensional view is just not philosophically possible
be that solipsism or its external equivalent one dimensional physicalism
still I have a lot of time for Strawson's person argument
it is brilliant
a modern day version really of Spinoza's double aspect theory
without the problem of substance
the point is though
it is really about description of the whole
that which is two dimensional - body and soul
and yes there is a unity
and yes - what to call it?
person is as good as it gets
but person here is just a window to the vast unknown beyond
beyond our perception / conception of particularity
