to reflect

so to reflect - which I am suggesting is the defining
characteristic of the mind - is to -

to have a thought -

is to have a thought - and to know you are having the
thought

now in reality - there are not two phases (as in time)
to this

the having is the knowing

the knowing is thus - what?

it is if you like the fact of the thought - and its
awareness

the point is though isn't that - the awareness cannot
really be distinguished from the fact of the thought -
the having

and so

thought - too is just this - awareness - writ small

an instance thereof

what I am suggesting is that awareness - thought -
mind - is reflection

or 'reflection' is a term - name - to describe -
awareness

so

we can take what I have just said above -
and think about it

reflect on it -

this is what?

to posit the thought expressed

and to what?

essentially just to regard it - as an object -
of thought

so it is really - a subject - something thought -
being - becoming - the object of thought

being included in - within the range of another
thought

being subsumed?

in any case it is clear that the magic of it is that
thought (awareness) can be subject and - can be an
'object' - of awareness

it is this possibility - inherent in awareness -
that gives it - a logical fluidity - a capacity to be
knowledge / to be the object of knowledge - that
distinguishes thought from other manifestations of
nature

so - it is thought that is fundamentally dualistic
in its activity - its expression

and what of the nature of such a 'thing' if you can
call it that?

beyond this logical fluidity - I can't see what else
you might say of thought - it's inherent nature -

it has this facility - or this facility is a description
of it - what it does - what happens - beyond that -
beyond such expressiveness - it is essentially unknown

we know awareness

we know self awareness

we know the fact of it - its existence - its experience -

we can to some extent describe and define it

but we can never see it for what it is (beyond this
facility)

it is thus a unity - with two aspects - subjective and
objective

matter (non-conscious) - I would suggest is one dimensional

it is a shell

thinking

so we can only work from the inside - in relation
to understanding the nature of thought

that is we can only think out an answer

we can only study the terrain - we can never leave
it and look back

we build our idea of thought - from thought

we can only describe what happens in thinking

and primarily - what I think happens is reflection

thought thinking itself -

how can we understand this - explicate it?

'reflection' is this the right term?

it seems thinking is an organic process that is
fundamentally holistic - that within itself -
separates itself - into subject and object -

thought - can be subject - can be object -

modes of thinking -

anyway -

reflection -

the seeing - of that which sees? - by that which sees -

so - an entity that creates itself within itself -

reflection

I'm interested in the idea that the primary
characteristic of the mind is reflection

matter (and this is not to prejudge the question
of the relationship of mind and matter)
does not reflect - or so it would seem

except I suppose that our first metaphor for
reflection is physical - a physical relationship
as i.e. - in the case of a physical reflection

so maybe reflection is not a distinguishing
characteristic of mind -

in any case it makes the question of just what
reflection is - more crucial

so we have at least the basic idea of physical
reflection - we know what this refers to -
we have the experience

does it still make sense to speak of the mind
reflecting?

how does this come out?

'I have a thought'

now the 'I' here is what?

a thought -

whatever else it is - it is this

and so 'I have a thought'

is what?

a thought - within a thought -

to put it very crudely

a thought referring to a thought?

(even cruder)

a thought having a thought?

what can all this mean?

but there is something else

within the 'I' - there is

the 'I' that knows that the 'I' is having a thought

so are we talking about three thoughts here?

all very strange - and terribly clumsy

but we have to start somewhere

so the question - 'what is a thought?''

we can only answer this with another thought

and so it is clear

we cannot expect thought to explicate itself -
and what else is there to do the job?

or another way of putting it

thinking has no outside

you can only think 'within'

within - thought

so it's Plato's cave without the shadows?

Santayana VIII (iii)

'nothing given exists as it is given' - the argument
that the contents of consciousness - the inhabitants
of the mental world - players in the phenomenal parade -
are not as they appear - but in fact are illusions -
perhaps in the main benign - but their true nature
is something else - and to this Santayana argues a
physicalist analysis -

here the problem (of Santayana as I read him) might
be taking too seriously what he is arguing against -
the thing is - as conscious beings we cannot but
describe - and we are thrust into this 'entelechy'
of description before we know it - Santayana can argue
for a physicalist description - OK - but the object
of all this is not the material world or the spirit -
these are only descriptions - of what is not known

how do I capture event x - but by describing it as -
'what I felt' or 'what I saw' - or 'what I imagined' -
and provide supplementary - detailed descriptions of x -
some of them for all intents and purposes given - given -
within certain parameters of positing

further description or analysis - scientific - philosophic -
to the details of - or concepts of ontology and epistemology -
are options - just as the initial descriptions are

what exists - how it exists etc. - is a function of
description - and what has just been said here - must be
understood as a description describing - a description

beyond this statement there is no commitment

hang up your rock and roll shoes

Santayana VIII (ii)

in a strict sceptical sense - or in the sense
I am holding to -

what is - is - but it is without description
pre-consciousness

what it may be - pre-consciousness - pre-knowledge -
is not a question that can be
answered -

does the tree exist - if no one observes it -
is the unobserved existent?

well for theoretical reasons - we say yes -
theoretical cum practical -

and for other theoretical - higher level reasons -
philosophic - we accept that perception is not to
be equated with existence

consciousness describes what exists

existence without description (consciousness)
is I say - undefined

the question of existence is just - and only the
question of description

without description there is nothing to be said

I just want to go a little deeper here

and say that our fundamental ontological and
epistemological categories - fall into this
classification

the material world - the physical object

the mind - knowing

are descriptions -

meta descriptions -

fundamentally - physically - biologically -
anthropologically - historically -
psychologically - entrenched

but finally descriptions

descriptions of the unknown

you might ask - well - hey could it be otherwise -
and isn't the fact that it can't - show - we are
not just talking of description - but in fact -
reality?

I don't know if human beings could conceivably -
in practice - do away with concepts of mind and matter

but I could imagine the possibility -

the organism - you might say (and this too -
is of course a description) operates within
certain parameters

it (whatever it is ) - defines - this we know - we do it

let us say there are base definitions - that fit -
the organism - and within its parameters

beyond these - base positions - there is room to move

p.s.

it is clear - I think (personal hunch - putting aside
onto-epistemological issues) - that we are hard-wired -
in the brain - to - as I put it - describe what exists -
in certain ways - in categories -

and here you could say - well - such descriptions -
just have to be real

the point about it is - these categories - are just
descriptions

so for practical - pragmatic - reasons - yes I would
go with such an idea - as being how it is - i.e. -
a scientific view - even though it is anything but
worked out -

there is no necessity in it

beyond our descriptions - there is no description to
appeal to - to refer to -

in this sense - everything is a posit

and - if so - then any description can be valid

to be is to be described

Santayana VIII

authorities for this conclusion -

what exists - exists - this is to say nothing

simply to recognize the fact of being

to describe - is something - a conscious -
self-conscious entity does - for its purposes

(its purposes too may need describing at times -
and there will be no definite description here -
only an ongoing argument)

so what we are talking about - when we are talking
about what exists - is our descriptions -

and our descriptions of what?

you see - this is the same question - on another level -

we can only answer this question with description

my point is - I think this question of existence is a
question only of representation

I say finally - and firstly - we don't know - what it is
we are describing - and this is just the reason for the
describing

and it is not as if the description is solid - that we can
as it were - base ourselves on this - and move forward

the description - is rather a devise - a tool (if you would
like to be hardheaded) - for the next move

and if the next move is successful (whatever this may be
or come to mean - is always up for grabs) - is the
description true?

who knows -

we all of course like to think we have a hold on existence -
contingency - the workings of it - the understanding of it -

and we refer to our theories - our descriptions -
our metaphysics and our science - as proof -

'happy coincidence' is the best that I can say -

and for reasons of mental health at least -
we need to believe

but finally belief is a ploy - in a logical sense -
in a psychological and material sense - a necessary fact

we are best to enjoy - if it happens that way

knowledge and consciousness

our knowledge of a physical object is a function of
consciousness - the structure of consciousness

consciousness - the function of consciousness is a
function of the physical world

what is knowledge - is that which is given

given in the relationship of consciousness to the
physical world

which is the physical world - functioning

so knowledge - in this sense - is an inner fact of
the physical world

it is a relation -

a relation of part (consciousness observes) to -
whole? - or part -

part - I think - and part - always -

the whole world - is never actually an object -
perhaps a concept -

rather an imagination - or a logical construct

so knowledge is a relation between physical objects -

and as such physical

however my use of 'physical' here is what?

'physical' is the characterization - but here it
is really a name

a name of that which exists

the point being - here it makes no sense to speak
of non-physical - there is nothing else - it is
just what it is

and therefore - in a true sense unknown

and unknown - because it cannot be defined

and defined in the sense of 'distinguished from' -
there is nothing else
therefore it is finally 'with no name'

(and it is at this point the scientist can give
the mystic a leg up)

p.s.

on this view to describe knowledge as a relation -
rather than an object

is to say it is - a relation between objects

and this statement: 'knowledge is a relation
between objects' - is a statement of reflection -
about knowledge - it is if you like a meta
characterization

and we can say from this knowledge is a reflective
relation

that is to say i.e. - it is not a causal relation -
between objects

but the point finally is that knowledge is a fact
of a certain physical relation

but we only know this - given knowledge

given the relationship

our knowledge - that is - is dependent - on knowledge

(even the absence of knowledge is dependent on the
existence of such a relationship)

and the existence of such a relationship (knowledge)
is a function of the relationship -

internal reading

the mind is simply a reading of physics

an internal reading

('in house' if you like)

physics reading itself

(Aristotle defined 'God' as 'thought of thought')

so

thought here - is by definition - a dimension of physics

of nature

an internal reading

a reading from within an entity

(this idea applies to biology - and of course psychology)

the reading - the interpretation

is strategy for the entity involved

what it (i.e. - man) requires - for its being -
its existence - its function

a kind of 'physics referring to itself'

there is no reason I think - to assume this is writ large

it is focus - or given a plurality of minds - foci

it is just function

consciousness is a logical (higher if you like)
development of this functioning

physics reads itself (for the purpose of the entity)

here it is clear there can be no objectivity -
in the sense of extra-physical reality

and hence - subjectivity has no sense either -
as a consequence

there is just what happens

as to why - or the origin of it all?

these questions - are just like any other questions -
a function - of the functioning

any theory - conception - metaphysics -
is to be seen in this light
as to determining the nature of this functioning -

any characterization will be - an outcome of the
function

and finally reducible to need

need to function

or just - functioning

p.s.

the mind as physics reading itself

this functioning of physics creates dimensions -
mind / matter - if you like - subjective / objective

the point being - before - this function

we cannot conceive mind or the world

these dimensions do not exist -

what exists - whatever exists - is just not known -

therefore -

mind is a function that creates function

a self creating function

it creates knowledge

but this knowledge is a function of a more
fundamental function

that exists - for no reason - outside of its
functioning

we can - imagine - a world without such function -
but we must discount any picture - for any such picture -
is just a function of the function - that is being
imagined as not to be -

this is to be involved in paradox
better to say - beyond knowing - is the unknown

meaning

the problem of language - of meaning

is the problem of the logic of discourse

'language' as such is best seen as the name of
languages -

common language - ordinary language - is in general
a logical nightmare

what you find in ordinary language is strands of
various ontologies operating apparently together
and harmoniously

this before reflection

i.e. an individual's description of another -
may involve i.e. - strands of a behaviouristic analysis -
and - physicalist views - and even with this
phenomenalistic strands - perhaps in the mix materialism
and spiritualistic ontologies - even indeed a good dose
of scepticism -

conflict over description - conflict - that is with
another's (set of) descriptions - is primarily an issue of -
which ontology - and hence - which onto-language is to be
adopted -

short of a decision - to be clear on which language or set
of languages to adopt in the circumstances - there will be
dispute over meaning - perhaps even incomprehension - on a
bad night violence

the issue I suggest is never that of meaning -

rather which meanings are to be employed - and by
implication - which ontology (ies) - metaphysic(s) -
are at issue

the point is not that people can't understand each other -
rather - that to do so - they need to be as we say
'on the same wave length'

hence - it seems that those who share the same -
or should I say similar metaphysics are more likely
to hit the same or similar note -

or - they can - perhaps without as much work as
those coming from divergent meta positions

nevertheless - reaching - or understanding common
ground - and being able to find common language
is never beyond possibility

however it is not just a matter of good will -
you need to have an open metaphysics -
to accommodate closed positions

perhaps an understanding that there is no one language -
no definite description -

that finally what we truly have in common is that we
don't know - and don't know each other

p.s

the truth about ordinary language is that it's a level
of meaning is faint - i.e. what is being said is to be
defined - looked into - meaning here - by and large - is
indeterminate

and to some extent this is how it should be - it is not
a failing - a fault -

we begin in obscurity - or non-clarity -

it is generally the emergence of conflict (ontological /
metaphysical) at this level which leads to clarification -
particularity -

or just a great tolerance of life - in a strange few

justification

justification is a key to metaphysics

the concept implies some form of objectivity

that which justifies is outside of - apart from that
subjected to justification

and there is also a sense of authority

this is the real kicker

for what can it mean?

in what does authority consist?

whatever it is - it is in some sense over and above
whatever - its subject(s) is (are)

really nothing more than a principle of organization
backed with concept of fear?

in metaphysical terms what justifies - a statement -
a theory - a system of belief?

what can it mean to appeal thus?

in science we might say - only success - of prediction -
of heuristic power -

so - no justification in the sense of something outside

and no authority but practice

we need standards - these though are made in the building
of theory like the basic structure of a physical building

in theoretical efforts

justifications - are really only second thoughts -
about what is going on -

the idea of an overall view - of a project

some holistic sense of how things are going

reflection on - and - reflection on reflection

this thinking has implications for epistemology

epistemology as the question of subjective and
objective knowledge

we can say we begin with our thoughts and ideas -
these are objects of the subjective realm -
the inside - dimension

the expression - manifestation - manifestation of
these subjective realities - can take objective form -
physical attributes

and so - we have something like the origin
and the end of action -

the knowing can be in both or either modes -
subjective / objective

the fact itself - really transcends the categories

it is as it were without categorization -
unless categorized

we bring these categories to bear - to explain events

they are but this

and we - but the kind of being that does this

determinism gives us our sense of freedom -
and it is no less real for this -

these categories - modes of knowing - are tools for
theoretical account - explanation

reflection on what happens

what happens without such imposture - of thought -
is without character - that is - as it is - in itself -

it is strictly speaking - unknown

we come into the picture and in so doing set its parameters

consciousness in the world is centre stage

but there is no centre

look into consciousness and all you will find is
consciousness - and this is to say you see the unknown

or perhaps precisely - what you see is the seeing

and it is in 'no place'

this non-existent centre - nevertheless gives parameters
to the world - the inside - the outside

a structure out of nothing -

and so consciousness - 'the undefined definer'

(the beggar as giver)

the unknown centre that gives the world its bearings

(and graciously surrenders itself - once things are up
and running)

on reflection - the only gift - knowledge