the goal in all of this is to find some unified account
yes - it's all mind in the end - no - sorry it's matter
the real problem here is not one of substance - it rather one of perspective
people I think - often don't know where they are coming from - or where they are
from the inside an act will be regarded as intentional - mind directed - you might say
the same act from an observer's point of view will be a surface event
OK - this we know
consciousness sees out
consciousness see in
consciousness is thus at the centre
an internal perspective - an external perspective
it's how you look
now the question will be - OK - how then to characterize the act in itself?
putting aside perspective - is it a mental event - a physical event?
an internal act that expresses itself on the surface
a surface act that - you would think under normal circumstances has a mental
co-relate
the point I wish to make here is that the act in itself - cannot be characterized
cannot be characterized as mental
cannot be characterized as physical
there is no 'in itself ' perspective
such a position is really - strictly speaking without perspective
or you may wish to go the way of Spinoza -
and postulate a sub specie aeternitatis point of view
yes - very well
but that there is no such point of view
no such perspective
the fact is the act in itself is without character
the human being - as a unified entity -
a person as Strawson put it - is in the same boat
my argument is that mental and physical predicates only apply - perspectively
that is from an internal point of view -
from a surface point of view -
the holistic vision is not possible
I mean it is a great argument for God
but that's what it is
it is to attempt to - or to believe one can - step out and look back
it's really a trick of consciousness
an undisciplined and misapplied use of the reflective operation
that is consciousness
from the point of view of no perspective - i.e. the thing in itself -
an entity - any entity is unknown
this is an analytic argument really
but it is not trivial
we see the inside of things (ourselves)
the surface of things - ourselves and the world
we look both ways
we do not see - cannot see from the top as it were
that is there is no such knowledge that can hold the inside and the outside
of an entity in one perspective
if we have grounds for unity - for holism - for oneness -
they are not based on seeing
our seeing is two dimensional
but once this is seen for what it is it
we may quite easily say - assume
that from whatever point of view
we are looking
at the unknown
that which is the object of the gaze
the gaze in
the gaze out
is in the first instance - what we do not know
be it the inner world or the outer world
our descriptions are descriptions of dimension
and are thus - dimension dependent
this is to say to understand mind and body
one must begin where one is
at the centre
the issue has been mistakenly regarded as one of substance
it is first and foremost a question of ontology
and this is to say a question of the dimensions of the world
you will fail if you think you can find a dimension free description
of the human being
perhaps you are inclined to say there is an essence beyond dimension
OK - but this is to refer to what you cannot know
