P. VII. The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of
things.
the argument in general is that there is an underlying unifying logic of all existing
forms
in Spinozistic terms - the logic of substance is manifested in the logic of attributes
which is to say the essential logic of mind is the essential logic of extension
we have from Spinoza the assertion of metaphysical unity
the basis of his argument is his definition of substance -
E.I.D.III. 'I understand SUBSTANCE (substantia) to be that which is in itself and is
conceived through itself; I mean that, the conception of which does not depend on
the conception of another thing from which it must be formed.'
that which is in itself and conceived through itself -
that which is in itself we can understand as that which is not in anything else
therefore it is that in which everything else is in -
so what do we say here - existence?
substance is existence as such
OK - now conceived through itself -
a conception in the normal use is a conception of -
that is there is an object of conception -
on such a view that which is conceived is other than the conceiving
so existence as such as an object is conceived by - what?
a subject
the subject cannot by definition be outside of existence - yes
but is this to say existence conceives itself?
I think not -
clearly a conception is in existence -
what of the idea of existence in itself -
this is to say everything is the subject of this conception
but can this be?
can the conception itself be - both be a conception separate from its object - and inside
its object
can we hold the concept of - as of the object being conceived?
in simple terms - the conception if it is an object - is not a conception - it is that which
is conceived
so if conception is of the object - there is no conception in the sense of that which is
apart from the object
in such a view - yes you have unity - all that is - is the object
but there is no possibility of knowing this - there is no possibility of knowledge
therefore if substance conceives itself - there is no conception
so - we can't actually speak of substance conceiving itself - such is a misuse of terms
if this is what is being argued then there is no knowledge
another point to make is this -
a concept is a concept of -
a concept of something
and a something is that which it is not
that is it has definition
it is particular -
so the question must be asked - how can the idea of substance as Spinoza defines it
- as that which has no restriction - as that which is not something that it is not -
actually be formed?
my point is that there is no such concept
because no such concept can be formed
we can say the world is 'x' and '-x'
that is the world is an entity and all that the entity is not
the point is we can only make such a statement in the form of a conjunction
a conjunction based on a particularity - 'x'
the '-x' even if you are to say it refers - to all that 'x' is not - still is not the totality -
is not the idea of substance argued by Spinoza
the idea of unrestricted totality is a logical mistake
Spinoza's idea of substance is a logical mistake - it is a misuse of the notion of
conception
I began this discussion of substance to get to the idea of unifying logic that is
manifested in thought and extension - for this I suggest is the idea behind P.VII. that
the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things
my argument is that Spinoza's idea of substance does not provide a basis for arguing
that there is an underlying essential or existential unity
and the reason for it is that the notion of substance cannot be established in the first
place
so what of any holistic account?
the argument is clear - there is no conceptual basis for it
so just at this point we can say we must dismiss the proposal of P.VII - for it is a
species of the holistic argument - that we can conceive a totality or a complete picture
- or in this case a universal order?
the world impacts the body and this impact is internalized in the mind
that there is external impact is clear
therefore we can say the impact itself is the external internalized
the event of impact has an external and internal dimension
the event itself is the unity of these dimensions
but what sense can we make of the event itself?
in itself - it is unknown
and further it is only known via it's internalization
so the idea of it is all that is known-
can we go from here to speak of the event as it were outside of its internalization
we would need to if we were to speak of an order and connection that is outside of
thought
the point is we can't
but at the same time - because we can't we are always in a position of uncertainty
we may assume that how we are affected provides a true picture of the world outside of
our knowledge - outside of mind
but we have no way at all of being sure of this
we can for practical purposes proceed as if - and indeed we do all the time -
but this is pragmatics - not objective knowledge
some think this is where you sink into blissful solipsism
but that is not the case at all
as a matter of logic we know the external world exists
it is that which is not our internality
that which is not mind
and we understand as a matter of logic that the internal is affected by the external -
but we have no objective view of the relation - we cannot step outside of it and see it
for what it is
we are this relation
we can only operate with what it provides
and what it provides is an a two-dimensional world
and knowledge is just the arguments we make in relation to this world
there is no guarantee to these argument
they spring from necessity -
but are incurably contingent
the essence of our knowledge is uncertainty
we have no way of establishing in an objective sense if there is any order or lack of it
in this reality
we simply do not know
the other point to make is that the body is not the world
and that the clearest impressions the mind has - is of the body
things exist independently of the mind in the outside world
we can only know of these things via the body
their existence - their logic as things in themselves - is not anything we have access to
- if indeed it makes any sense to speak of them in such a manner
