for Spinoza
the attributes of extension and thought
can be regarded as separate
and yet identical
the mind is the idea of the body
the body - the mind as extended
so one is the other in a different form
but to say this - to visualize it - to understand it
you need to be able to see both
to speak of both mind and matter - objectively -
where does this objectivity come from?
how is it possible?
this is what I shall call the fallacy of the third man
the idea that there is a third position -
that is objective to mind and body
that is outside of mind and body
a vantage point
a third perspective
Spinoza's metaphysics depends on this possibility
at best it is a conception - (that does not know itself)
an idea -
but when you understand what it is supposed to do
- to be
it is a position - outside of - reality -
it is a position that in Spinoza's terms is not that
of the body or that of the mind
rather - that of -
of what?
as I said in the previous post - Spinoza didn't shrink
from the issue -
for him the answer is God - is substance
OK - very well
but my argument is that such is not a position we can
have or adopt - in Spinoza's form or any other
and it is in one form or another an argument in Western
philosophy that is the source of much error
