this is where we begin

this is where we begin:

with consciousness in the world

this I argue is realism plain and simple

the human being as a two dimensional entity

the dimensions are internality and externality

the inside and the outside: mind and matter

mind and matter on this view are not substances - rather dimensions

dimensions of a singularity

how to characterize the unity?

we can only see inside and out -

we can thus only characterize internally and externally

as for the view from above - the third view - the view sub specie aeternitatis - there is
no such perspective

the unity as such is unknown

or the unity above and beyond its dimensions is unknown

OK

still it might be put that we only know this - if we know it - through consciousness

the idea being that internality and externality (mind and matter) are only - and finally
categories of consciousness

if so - the argument goes - all that is presented is an Idealistic picture

that all there is - is consciousness and its characterizations

so what of such an argument - is Idealism unavoidable?

my view is that consciousness recognizes itself as inside -

as inside the non-conscious dimension of the world

so crucial to the recognition of consciousness is a recognition of reality - outside of
consciousness

and the argument is that consciousness would not recognize itself - otherwise

could not distinguish itself - which in fact it clearly does

it distinguishes and defines itself dimensionally

in the absence of this dimensional distinction conscious could not recognize itself

which is to say consciousness would be unaware

that consciousness would not be - consciousness

what can the Idealist say to this -

that this recognition is illusory?

always the question is open - but is this particular question a sensible one?

can consciousness recognize itself as anything other than in the world?

I think not

but of the world?

is not the world only known via consciousness?

yes - quite true

and is what we know of the world only known in terms of consciousness' categories

indeed

nevertheless - the object of consciousness is that which is outside of consciousness

and what can we say of the outside without consciousness?

we cannot say anything

or to be more precise we can only say we do not know - we cannot know

there is no knowledge in the absence of consciousness

a world without consciousness is just that - an unknown and unknowable reality

all knowledge is a function of consciousness

knowledge is the natural expression of consciousness being in the world

consciousness itself - is thus a feature of the world - an attribute of it

which is to say consciousness depends on the world

the world does not depend on consciousness


p.s.


a note on Idealism and Materialism


Idealism amounts to the view that the world is one dimensional - that it has no outside

that the inside is all there is

the question to be asked is - the inside of what?

for on such a view there is no outside dimension

it is clear that you cannot maintain the argument of an inside dimension - of
consciousness - unless you can assert confidently that there corresponds an outside
dimension

with regard to Materialism -

a one dimensional world that is external - and has no internality - is not knowable -
therefore it cannot be asserted in the first place - it is non-sensical

the overall point is - that which is dimensional - has an ontological structure

and the ontological structure of a thing is its logic

it is what makes it what it is

to suggest that you can reduce a two dimensional entity to a one dimensional entity
is to argue illogically

it is to assume you can make something into what it is not


p.p.s.


a note on dimensions


a dimensional analysis of reality or of the mind-body relation is not a substance
analysis

dimensional analysis - is in the philosophical setting - a geometric analysis - let us
term this kind of analysis - meta geometrics

in real or practical terms - it is a structural analysis (a meta structural analysis)

in a 'theoretical' or mathematical sense - it is a formal analysis -

the point is that what exists (substance theories) are irrelevant - and non-productive -
in terms of ontological understanding - substance theories have held up any progress
on the question of the nature of things

first off we need to know what kind of thing we are dealing with - (and substance does
not deal with kind or type - substance theories are weak here because they undercut or
can undercut any formal / structural / meta geometric analysis) - and the way to
approach the problem of the nature of things is to first determine the type of the thing

what kind of thing do we have here?

what is its form - its structure?

a dimensional analysis is the beginning of an answer to these questions

if we ascertain the meta dimensions of a thing - we can begin to understand its nature
and dynamic

the issue is not as Spinoza thought - attributes of substance - it is dimensions of an
unknown unity

where we begin is with consciousness in the world

consciousness as the internal dimensions in a non-conscious external dimension

beyond these dimensions of internality and externality is the unknown

a two dimensional reality

my argument is this:

consciousness - my consciousness - is awareness - and this awareness is awareness of
itself - of awareness - in the context of non-aware reality

and the important term here is 'in'

and the argument from this -

therefore consciousness is the inside of the world -

it is that dimension of the world

the internality of the world

(I do not think the whole world has an inside

- only 'aspects' - regions of it

I favour a Leibnitzian - monad like theory here)

so the argument is essentially a logical one

that which has an inside by its nature has an outside

(though the reverse does not hold - not all 'outsides' have an inside)

so we begin I suggest with reality -

consciousness in the world

the world as two dimensional

further I do not think this can be explained

it is simply - what is

(the question is correct description)

the reality we begin with

the existential reality

I would suggest this view is better based - this theory of mind / body - than i.e. the
mind-body identity theory of Place and Smart

which rests on a denial of the internal - as a real dimension of reality

and the assumption that all that there is - is surface - and surface explanations are all
that are required or indeed possible

quite a bizarre idea

the language of the inner life is the language of art and under this umbrella I would
include all religious description of the inner life

we may wish to hold that the surface world -

the world of the surface - of matter is determined

it is clear though that the world of consciousness is not

it is essentially - not

hence creativity - art

and what these activities - these descriptions - these languages - address and express is
the indeterminacy of consciousness

so

we have internal logic and 'knowledge' - and external logic and 'knowledge'

reality for human beings is divided

as to the unity - all we have here is the truth - stark and simple - of skepticism

we do not know

there is no unified theory

the idea of - a third position suggests itself here - i.e. the idea of sub specie aeternitatis
- the unified point of view - the point of view of everything -

but in reality there is no such point of view

granted there should be

the fact of a two dimensional reality indicates a unity

a unity we imagine should be seen

but it is not - not revealed

- we can characterize it as the unity that underlies

- or the totality

- etc. etc.

the truth is - it is the unknown

and a corollary of this is that human beings are essentially unknowns

sensation

sensation as the event that has both a physical and mental dimension / description

are all sensations brain processes?

if we take the view that all sensations have an internal and external expression or
manifestation

then the question becomes what counts as a surface description of a sensation?

if you hold that the brain is the central registry of all physical (surface affects) then as
a mater of definition or logic any affect conscious or not will be describable as a brain
event or process

as I understand it in Descartes' time the human heart had something like this central
role in scientific explanation

so yes a sensation will manifest itself physically - just how that physical manifestation
is described will depend on the state of science - i.e. in seventeenth century science
you get a different account to that of the twentieth century scientific view

the real question in twentieth century philosophy of mind is - is sensation just a brain
process?

my argument is that consciousness is the internal dimension of the human being (and
other conscious entities)

the point being that consciousness is not on the surface of things - it is not a public
observable phenomenon

and that a brain process is a surface event of conscious entities

can we associate a brain process - a surface event with a non-surface - internal event?

are we justified in thinking that a brain process is an expression of a conscious event -
a physical surface manifestation?

a pin prick to the hand - the sensation of pain

a picture of brain activity at the time - let us say a region lights up - that doesn't when
there is no sensation of pain

can we say that the brain activity picture is the sensation?

we can say that the brain activity picture is an expression of the event of the sensation

assuming we are dealing here with a strictly veridical circumstance

and it is not likely to be the only physical expression - in fact most likely the least
noticeable

the brain process in this case is really an indicator of sensation - it points to the fact

and to the awareness - what do we make of this?

is the awareness (in this case of pain) the sensation proper?

at one time I would have said yes

however I am inclined now to give awareness - a similar analysis as that just given of
brain process -

yes awareness is awareness with everything that it involves - but here too it is an
indicator of the event - of the event of the sensation

an internal indicator

it is the way the event manifests internally

just as a physical / surface expression (i.e. brain process) is a way the event manifests
externally

as to the event - the event of the sensation

outside of its internal and external manifestations / description - it is without
characterization

in itself it is without character

its character is its affect

the argument

the argument is that reality is dimensional

that where mind exists it is two dimensional

and where it doesn't exist it is one dimensional

the existence of mind adds a dimension to reality

mind relative to the physical world - the material world - is internal

where there is mind it is the internal dimension of the entity

i.e. in a human being the body is the external dimension

the mind internal

consciousness is internality - internality is consciousness

if we examine the body at any level i.e. biological, molecular - we are only examining
the surface

the mind on the other hand is pure internality

when we speak of human being as an entity - i.e. 'a human being' - or some such non-
dimensional expression - we are referring to a unity -

that which is the unity of dimensions - is unknown

hence - non-dimensional - essentially non-descriptive terms are used such as 'person'

such an entity can only be understood and hence described - dimensionally

i.e. with human beings we speak of their physical (external) health and their mental
(internal) health -

an event that affects the unity will register on the outside and in the inside

that is an event can have a physical and mental impact

and therefore descriptions

the class of events that this is true of is known events

what of unknown events - i.e. events on the surface (body) that do not register in
consciousness?

these events are purely physical - external until they are made - known to
consciousness

until that is we become aware of them - and I'm thinking here of say the awareness
that comes with a doctor's explanation of the test results - so it's not immediate
conscious awareness

all conscious events - internal events - will have some physical (external) co-relate

hence it is possible in principle to identify the fact of thought in body (surface)
activity

consciousness describes

consciousness describes

describes what is presented to it

and what is presented to it?

it describes itself - and the world -

the world outside itself

consciousness describes

'what is presented to consciousness - to 'itself''

is a description

'the world outside itself'

is a description

the terms of consciousness' descriptions are in the first place - substantial

consciousness describes itself as 'consciousness', 'mind' etc.

consciousness describes what it is not - 'the world' - 'matter', 'physical' etc.

these are descriptions

the essence of consciousness is description

a description must distinguish itself - from other descriptions

and of the object of description?

is it then independent of description?

and is this a reasonable question?

or is it rather that what is there - is so because it is described?

the description gives substance - is the substance

the act of describing

as the existential act?

conscious describes

what is described ultimately is the act(s) of consciousness

consciousness describes itself as in the world -

the world is a description necessary for consciousness

without the world-description consciousness could not distinguish itself

therefore

no primary description would be possible

for all description depends on distinction

and a primary - fundamental distinction is between the description and its object

consciousness projects an object in description

either itself or what it is not

and here we leave substance - for p or -p is essentially a distinction of logic

I describe

therefore

'I am' is a description


p.s.


what I am getting here is that description (however you 'describe' it) is the action of
consciousness

subjectivity and objectivity - idealism and materialism etc. - on this view are
categories of description

the essence of description itself - outside itself as it were - is unknown

cannot be described

there is no place outside of description - in a metaphysical sense

the argument is that the categories of internality and externality are in the first place
descriptions of the unknown

the unknown is fundamental -

its primary description is consciousness in the world

this is to focus on consciousness as act

and the act - every act - I would say - as ultimately a description

consciousness describes itself - describes description

this is where the illogical comes into play in human experience

it is its origin

the act of describing - underpinning the descriptive / conscious act is absurd

but only in terms of logic

in terms of need - need to defend against the unknown - the horror of it

a necessity

mind and matter

mind in matter

at least in some forms of matter

the relation between the two?

awareness is mind

I don't think it make any sense to speak of mind as in any sense un-aware - like i.e. the
Freudians suggest

mind is awareness

OK

internal /external dimensions of the human being

will a physical effect on the body have a result in consciousness?

a mental event have a physical description?

my thinking is that certain events have both a physical and mental description

any physical event that is made conscious - has a mental description

and mental events - that is conscious events -

a physical description?

yes

always

so my focus is events - kinds of events

we can speculate that there are events in space / time that no consciousness is aware of

but any event that is apprehended by consciousness has a mental description

so any conscious event has a physical description

any internal event an external correlate

yes

so the event in itself?

outside of consciousness - an unknown

in terms of consciousness - it has - as a matter of fact - a double aspect - an internal
(conscious) description - an external - physical description

there is on this account no question of the relation of mind and matter - mind and
body

rather singular events that have dual descriptions

inside and out?

the entity with these dimensions - has two descriptions - in terms of its attributes

a singularity - the entity - independent of its dimensions -

there just is no account

no description

the unity that the attributes express - is what?

a logical unity

that which enables the possibility of the attributes

(and hence - descriptions)

logical in the sense that it must be presumed - for what is - to be

we are dealing ultimately with metaphysical facts

that in themselves have no explanation

Descartes: infinity substance God and the unknown

'We will thus never hamper ourselves with disputes about the infinite, since it is
absurd that we who are finite should undertake to decide anything regarding it, and by
this means, in trying to comprehend it, so to speak regard it as finite. That is why we
do not care to reply to those who demand whether the half of an infinite line is
infinite, and whether an infinite number is even or odd and so on, because it is only
those who imagine their mind to be infinite who appear to find it necessary to
investigate such questions. And for our part, while we regard things in which, in a
certain sense, we observe no limits, we shall not for all that state that they are infinite,
but merely hold them to be indefinite. Thus because we cannot imagine an exception
so great that we cannot at the same time conceive that there may be one yet greater,
we shall say that the magnitude of possible things is indefinite. And because we
cannot divide a body into parts which are so small that each cannot be divided into
others yet smaller, we shall consider that the quantity may be divided into parts whose
number is indefinite. And because we cannot imagine so many stars that it is
impossible for God to create more, we shall suppose the number to be indefinite, and
so in other cases.

And we shall name things "indefinite" rather than "infinite" in order to reserve to God
the name infinite, first of all because in Him alone we observe no limitation whatever,
and because we are quite certain that He can have none, and in the second place in
regard to other things, because we do not in the same way positively understand them
to be in every part unlimited, but merely negatively admit that their limits, if they
exist, cannot be discovered by us.'

- Descartes.

(From Principles XXVI and XXVII of the First Part of the Principles of Philosophy,
trans. Haldane and Ross. Cambridge 1911)


Commentary:

the idea of the infinite only makes any logical sense as a negative concept - that which
is not finite

Descartes wants to apply these concepts - finite and infinite to substances

a finite substance that which has limits - an infinite that which does not have limits

so to substance -

that which is before its attributes - before its presentation - the 'ground' of existence

or indeed as some have held - existence itself

what is clear is that substance is an abstraction

and an abstraction that is has been seen to perform certain philosophical functions -
i.e. to give a sense of metaphysical coherence in the midst of change - to be a 'logical
ground' to perceived attributes i.e. mind and matter - etc.

what I would argue is that the concept of substance is without substance-

that substance is not the stuff of the universe - but rather that it is an organizational or
operational principle

and one that is a natural result of the relation of the conscious to the non-conscious
world

consciousness operates with such a principle in order to function

so what you have with the idea of substance is an organizational principle designed to
give some coherence to the conscious world

it is the idea of unity - of oneness - and it seems to be essential to our functioning as
human animals

it might be asked - well what is being organized when such a concept or principle is
used?

that is if we are not going to use the term 'substance' for that which is being operated
on - what do we call it?

language is a platform of description

as language users we operate on that platform - and the platform of language is very
rich an complex

so we have many and diverse 'descriptions' of the world and our presence in the world

there is no one account

as to what underlies all accounts - what is essential?

the fact of the reality of the diversity points to one thing - and that is that we don't
know

so the world as given - prior to language if you like - is unknown

and it is to this unknown that we bring consciousness

which is to say consciousness makes the unknown - known

and so for me - Descates' substance is the unknown

once this is understood and grasped - the question - is substance finite or infinite? - is
seen in its correct light -

it is not a sensible question

that is it makes no sense to ask is the unknown finite or infinite?

the unknown is just that - unknown

All of Descartes' discussion here is infected with his notion of substance -

but he nevertheless makes an interesting distinction between the infinite and the
indefinite - and he does this really to reserve the infinite for God

he sill talks in terms of substance - i.e. 'indefinite things' - and this is a shame because
if he saw the matter in the operational sense I have proposed - there would be some
conceptual movement at the station

the dividing of a line i.e. is the repetition of an operation - now the example of the line
just points to the fact that there are indeed repeatable operations - or repeatable acts

and yes they are the kind of act that can go on indefinitely

this does raise the question - well what act is not repeatable indefinitely?

and by 'act' here I mean conscious act -

to cut to the chase - there are certain operations that require repetitive acts

so the question really is - in what operational setting does indefinite repetition make
sense?

thankfully not too many and not for long

we must also realize that a human being is not capable strictly speaking of indefinite
acts of any kind - in the sense of endless

it is better here to speak of repetitive acts and repetition

yes the idea of 'God' as the infinite - as that which is not finite -

is really just a trick - a misuse of logic

every proposition can be negated

we can say that that which is not finite is infinite

it does not follow at all that the term 'infinite' here actually refers to anything

the application of the negation sign to a proposition does not create an alternative
reality

what it does (in my view) is point to the non-utility of the proposition under
consideration - that's if it is correctly used

we can of course have great fun with negation sign - we can make all kinds of realities
if we think it signifies substance

substance as I have pointed out is not the issue - the issue finally is function

and the question for us always with our concepts is - what is the appropriate context
for the use of this concept?

in what context is it designed to function?

consciousness and its display

we begin in awareness with a knowledge of dimension

our awareness is of internality - and of externality

it is an awareness that manifests as logic - that which is - that which is not

this reality of awareness in the world - of internality and externality is the foundation
of logic - it is the ground on which all thinking is based

this is the reality of consciousness

awareness of awareness and awareness of what is outside of awareness

that consciousness is 'aware of itself' - is not a relation internal to consciousness

awareness just is this luminosity - it is of the nature of the thing - or more precisely
the reality of the dimension

internality is awareness

awareness is 'self-awareness'

that is all consciousness is self-consciousness

our language is essentially a tool for dealing with the external reality - and so its
fundamental structure is subject / object

when we come to consciousness - when we come to the internal reality - we find that
the object language does not fit

we need a language - if we are to explain consciousness as we do external objects -
that makes sense of a subject holding itself as object

and so this is the initial problem - the object language cannot be used in this context

really this just points to the fact that the internal dimension will not be elucidated by
external means - in external language

so at this point we are best to drop the idea altogether - object language or subject /
object language will not do the job -

but this is not a drama -

we cannot put prose to the service of consciousness -

but we can and do call on poetry

and poetry is just that 'misuse of object language' that will enable us to have a sense -
an 'account' of the internal

poetry in whatever form - in language - art - music - dance

poetry displays awareness

and at this point we realize there is no explanation

there is just display

and the possibilities of display are endless

poetry is the language of consciousness

finally consciousness is never authentically revealed in an external form

poetry is a corruption of the prosaic - of the subject / object language

a necessary one because we do need to display awareness

and there are indeed many reasons for this - but the essential enduring reason is the
need for delight

however the metaphysical fact is that awareness is essentially - internal -

and so essentially unrevealed

the poetry of the unrevealed is the essence of mysticism

there are those who prefer to direct their gaze inwards rather than outwards

those who prefer an internal focus rather than the external focus

here is theorigin of religious experience - the poetry of the internal

what is I think is clear is that neither perspective - the internal or the external is in
itself complete

the essential unity that either perspective presupposes is unknown