we operate within a totality
we cannot define it
for we cannot say what it is not
the idea of this is absurd
so what can we say of it?
just that it is the ground of our conceptions
it is logical space
the domain we think in - and I mean this in a non-party political sense
it is indefinable
all definition is within
this domain
it is the ground we operate on
and it is just that which is unknown
has to be
must be
for conception is about knowledge
knowledge is the decisions within this domain
this space
we gain nothing by attempting to define it
it is to mistake it for what it is not
is to confuse the world with what is created or made within it
the world is no creation
it is the ground of creation
the space of it
24.1.07
22.1.07
the conception of totality
the conception of the totality
is like the horizon
we see it - it is always there - as a frame of reference - we can approach it but never reach it
it is strictly speaking an illusion
conception is always within a domain
and this means a concept is defined by what it includes - and what it does not include
everything - may appear to include - but it does not exclude -
the idea of a conception of everything
is just that - an idea
it is not a conception
it might then be thought - well we can approach everything?
it is true we can have larger conceptions
as in concept 3 includes the domains of concepts 1 and 2
but we cannot approach everything
for the reason that we cannot conceive it in the first place
despite all our efforts at comprehensiveness - and inclusion - we think
always within limitations
this is really to the nature of man
attempts to over throw this fact have destructive consequences
as any illogical pursuit will
is like the horizon
we see it - it is always there - as a frame of reference - we can approach it but never reach it
it is strictly speaking an illusion
conception is always within a domain
and this means a concept is defined by what it includes - and what it does not include
everything - may appear to include - but it does not exclude -
the idea of a conception of everything
is just that - an idea
it is not a conception
it might then be thought - well we can approach everything?
it is true we can have larger conceptions
as in concept 3 includes the domains of concepts 1 and 2
but we cannot approach everything
for the reason that we cannot conceive it in the first place
despite all our efforts at comprehensiveness - and inclusion - we think
always within limitations
this is really to the nature of man
attempts to over throw this fact have destructive consequences
as any illogical pursuit will
17.1.07
on Spinoza's watch
Spinoza's argument begins with ultimate explanation
his work is a demonstration that the world is a demonstration of his definition
his definition of substance
Spinoza does not reach for the ultimate - he begins with it
his argument is that existence is all that there is
it is therefore without limit
his argument for infinity is an argument against limit
for if there is a limit there is something on the other side of it
and such a view could not function as a comprehensive view of what is
what is assumed here is that reality is a unity
could there be other realities?
not on Spinoza's watch
whatever exists - however it exists is an expression of existence
existence is the universal
hence on this view it makes no sense to speak of the absence of existence
there is no void - as in non-existence
this knowledge is not gained from the senses
rather from reasoning
from logic
it depends for its success on the argument that we can conceive oneness -
that we can conceive totality - limitlessness
and that this conception - corresponds to what is
so the logic of one - the conception of oneness
the flaw in this argument is that such a conception has no existential content
it is to conceive nothing
this is the great paradox of Spinoza's argument
his grand conception of existence
the totality - is a conception of no thing
this is the first point
the second point is this -
you begin with the concept of oneness
and then move to define it in terms of limitlessness - and hence totality
it is to universalize the concept of one - to take it out of all contexts
against this can be put
if the one - is not limited - as it is when defined for example as a
member of a sequence then it makes no sense to speak of one at all
one in relation to what?
therefore the universalization of one is to misconstrue it - to effectively to make it meaningless - such an argument is to the destruction of the concept of one
this is to question the argument at the level of conception
the next move - the ontological argument is beyond the pale
it is to assume that we can say from our limited perspective - what the ultimate nature of the world is - simply on the basis of our conception - what we conceive
that we can know that this conception corresponds to reality
it is the supreme argument for supreme vanity
and I say on meta / moral grounds it should be - must be rejected as rubbish
his work is a demonstration that the world is a demonstration of his definition
his definition of substance
Spinoza does not reach for the ultimate - he begins with it
his argument is that existence is all that there is
it is therefore without limit
his argument for infinity is an argument against limit
for if there is a limit there is something on the other side of it
and such a view could not function as a comprehensive view of what is
what is assumed here is that reality is a unity
could there be other realities?
not on Spinoza's watch
whatever exists - however it exists is an expression of existence
existence is the universal
hence on this view it makes no sense to speak of the absence of existence
there is no void - as in non-existence
this knowledge is not gained from the senses
rather from reasoning
from logic
it depends for its success on the argument that we can conceive oneness -
that we can conceive totality - limitlessness
and that this conception - corresponds to what is
so the logic of one - the conception of oneness
the flaw in this argument is that such a conception has no existential content
it is to conceive nothing
this is the great paradox of Spinoza's argument
his grand conception of existence
the totality - is a conception of no thing
this is the first point
the second point is this -
you begin with the concept of oneness
and then move to define it in terms of limitlessness - and hence totality
it is to universalize the concept of one - to take it out of all contexts
against this can be put
if the one - is not limited - as it is when defined for example as a
member of a sequence then it makes no sense to speak of one at all
one in relation to what?
therefore the universalization of one is to misconstrue it - to effectively to make it meaningless - such an argument is to the destruction of the concept of one
this is to question the argument at the level of conception
the next move - the ontological argument is beyond the pale
it is to assume that we can say from our limited perspective - what the ultimate nature of the world is - simply on the basis of our conception - what we conceive
that we can know that this conception corresponds to reality
it is the supreme argument for supreme vanity
and I say on meta / moral grounds it should be - must be rejected as rubbish
16.1.07
metaphysical nerve
beyond experience is what we do not know
beyond knowledge
it is pretty straightforward -
you can't further describe this state
it is by definition beyond description
nevertheless
even some great thinkers have lost their nerve and jumped
Plato into Forms
Descartes into God
Kant into the Noumenon
Schopenhaur into Will
Hegel into the Absolute
there is a moral point to the epistemology of radical (or common sense) skepticism
it is that there is a limit to human vanity
and that limit is the end of knowledge
the unknown is the end of vanity
the logic of it is straightforward - clear cut
what we cannot know we cannot know
nothing more to say
no need to say it
full stop
walk away with dignity
beyond knowledge
it is pretty straightforward -
you can't further describe this state
it is by definition beyond description
nevertheless
even some great thinkers have lost their nerve and jumped
Plato into Forms
Descartes into God
Kant into the Noumenon
Schopenhaur into Will
Hegel into the Absolute
there is a moral point to the epistemology of radical (or common sense) skepticism
it is that there is a limit to human vanity
and that limit is the end of knowledge
the unknown is the end of vanity
the logic of it is straightforward - clear cut
what we cannot know we cannot know
nothing more to say
no need to say it
full stop
walk away with dignity
the accident of necessity?
awareness
as a relation
that is reflection
it is the positing of x by x
(how did this come about?)
all awareness
finally self-awareness
what are the options here?
it seems some profound metaphysical shift
from one dimensional reality
(non-aware reality)
to self-aware reality
it's the separating out of an entity
into the relation of subject and object
subject aware of the object
the subject aware of the subject
awareness itself is still the mystery
we can only approach it via self awareness
and here - all we are presented with is the fact of it
no reason for it
no account of its origin
nature took a turn
or had a turn
and found itself - in various forms
seeing - seeing itself - and even seeing its seeing
it is an unexplainable event
evolution - meta / natural suggests itself here
but it is finally just to say
there was this development
not how or why
Darwin spoke of genetic change as blind
perhaps this is the key
the straightest assessment
on a metaphysical level
blind change tells us what?
the accident of necessity?
life or death -
as a relation
that is reflection
it is the positing of x by x
(how did this come about?)
all awareness
finally self-awareness
what are the options here?
it seems some profound metaphysical shift
from one dimensional reality
(non-aware reality)
to self-aware reality
it's the separating out of an entity
into the relation of subject and object
subject aware of the object
the subject aware of the subject
awareness itself is still the mystery
we can only approach it via self awareness
and here - all we are presented with is the fact of it
no reason for it
no account of its origin
nature took a turn
or had a turn
and found itself - in various forms
seeing - seeing itself - and even seeing its seeing
it is an unexplainable event
evolution - meta / natural suggests itself here
but it is finally just to say
there was this development
not how or why
Darwin spoke of genetic change as blind
perhaps this is the key
the straightest assessment
on a metaphysical level
blind change tells us what?
the accident of necessity?
life or death -
15.1.07
substance and function
so consciousness is what sees - the inside / the outside - it is not what is seen
so
do we leave it at that?
there is a clarity to this - if not substance
that which does the seeing I have suggested transcends that which is seen
so we can speak of consciousness as outside of subjectivity and objectivity
outside of mind and matter
not in any substantial sense
only in a functional sense
the function of consciousness - that is consciousness - is presupposed in the seeing of (mind / matter - inside / outside)
it is the function of revelation
NB.
I guess the point here is that a function is not a substance
it is an action
and the attempt to reduce - or explain - or define a function substantially is
wrong headed
substance ontologies are very simple - and not that useful
yes the world is made of things
but also functions - actions
and an action / function - is not a thing
so
do we leave it at that?
there is a clarity to this - if not substance
that which does the seeing I have suggested transcends that which is seen
so we can speak of consciousness as outside of subjectivity and objectivity
outside of mind and matter
not in any substantial sense
only in a functional sense
the function of consciousness - that is consciousness - is presupposed in the seeing of (mind / matter - inside / outside)
it is the function of revelation
NB.
I guess the point here is that a function is not a substance
it is an action
and the attempt to reduce - or explain - or define a function substantially is
wrong headed
substance ontologies are very simple - and not that useful
yes the world is made of things
but also functions - actions
and an action / function - is not a thing
consciousness as a logical point
consciousness as a logical point
that has an internal and external
capacity
this is to give a purely operational definition of consciousness
operational as distinct from substantial definition
a substantial definition tells us what x is
a capacity / operational definition tells us what x does -
what it is capable of - how it operates
as to the substantial question -
we can't say what consciousness is
there is no outer consciousness view of consciousness
so we can never know what it is
that it is
is to say what about it substantially?
that it is - and its nature can only be ascertained dispositionally -
the contents of consciousness can be described and so defined
the objects - outside of consciousness - can be described and so defined -
the world can de defined
but consciousness - cannot be known in this way
but again for this to happen - consciousness would need to be its own object
consciousness is subjectivity
it is that which perceives / conceives object
therefore
subject
so perhaps we need to think of consciousness as an ideal point - a transcendent
category
transcendent that is to its functions
its functions of subjectivity -
and objectivity
in itself - it is unknowable
a Kantian noumenon?
as I see it
such a view avoids - both idealism and materialism
as these conceptions / realities
are functions of consciousness
and cannot therefore be characterizations of it
rather than noumenon I prefer the description / idea of a logical point
a point that transcends subjective and objective realities
and all we can say here is that it is
no further description is possible
a consequence of this I think is that therefore consciousness is not to be regarded as a substance of any kind -
it is not substantial - it is substanceless
the question - what is the mind is therefore the wrong question
the mind as a what - does not exist
that has an internal and external
capacity
this is to give a purely operational definition of consciousness
operational as distinct from substantial definition
a substantial definition tells us what x is
a capacity / operational definition tells us what x does -
what it is capable of - how it operates
as to the substantial question -
we can't say what consciousness is
there is no outer consciousness view of consciousness
so we can never know what it is
that it is
is to say what about it substantially?
that it is - and its nature can only be ascertained dispositionally -
the contents of consciousness can be described and so defined
the objects - outside of consciousness - can be described and so defined -
the world can de defined
but consciousness - cannot be known in this way
but again for this to happen - consciousness would need to be its own object
consciousness is subjectivity
it is that which perceives / conceives object
therefore
subject
so perhaps we need to think of consciousness as an ideal point - a transcendent
category
transcendent that is to its functions
its functions of subjectivity -
and objectivity
in itself - it is unknowable
a Kantian noumenon?
as I see it
such a view avoids - both idealism and materialism
as these conceptions / realities
are functions of consciousness
and cannot therefore be characterizations of it
rather than noumenon I prefer the description / idea of a logical point
a point that transcends subjective and objective realities
and all we can say here is that it is
no further description is possible
a consequence of this I think is that therefore consciousness is not to be regarded as a substance of any kind -
it is not substantial - it is substanceless
the question - what is the mind is therefore the wrong question
the mind as a what - does not exist
12.1.07
metaphysical awakeness
what I am getting at is that yes - it makes sense to speak of an inner life and an outer world
this is the reality as given - or one common description of it
however on reflection all categories of this argument are open to question
each reality as posited is on reflection not beyond reflection
you can dig in and take a stand
but really a stand on what?
the issue - these issues are always live - never put to bed
and so the only position finally that has any real logical integrity
is the position of no position
reflectively speaking
the plus here is an open mind
an awareness that is not contained - from the inside
it is to be in a perpetual state of metaphysical awakeness
and we can maintain such a position
even as we go about the very particular business of living
it is to say - yes the world demands and perhaps - I accept - but I do not accede
on the metaphysical level my judgement is in suspense
this is the reality as given - or one common description of it
however on reflection all categories of this argument are open to question
each reality as posited is on reflection not beyond reflection
you can dig in and take a stand
but really a stand on what?
the issue - these issues are always live - never put to bed
and so the only position finally that has any real logical integrity
is the position of no position
reflectively speaking
the plus here is an open mind
an awareness that is not contained - from the inside
it is to be in a perpetual state of metaphysical awakeness
and we can maintain such a position
even as we go about the very particular business of living
it is to say - yes the world demands and perhaps - I accept - but I do not accede
on the metaphysical level my judgement is in suspense
inner experience
since Descartes at least
the argument on both sides of the river is that inner experience is privileged
in that it is my experience and direct
we begin with consciousness
and its relationship with the outside world
this - a primal reflection
(you don't have to start with this reflection
you can begin where and how you like
but as a starting point it is rather uncontraversial
it is where I start)
OK
but let's not get too excited
about inner experience
firstly it is not at all clear what it is
even from the inside
how do I describe my thoughts -
if that's the tag I'm going to give inner experience?
well with other - what?
thoughts
so - there is no explanation
x is x
perhaps in different clothes
at different times
we don't know what inner experience is
what experience is
we can describe it logically
i.e. - it is not - that which is not experienced
?
yes
you think I jest
experience - is what it is - whatever that is - and not what it is not
since we can reflect on the matter and come at it from different angles
different characterizations are possible
only characterizations of thought by thought
and we need also to ask -
just how inner - inner is?
I grant it is compelling at a primal level
but reflectively it is anything but -
or should I say does not have to be
perhaps inner experience - is only inner because it works best to divide reality so?
if you take the view - e.g. - that everything that exists is fundamentally of the same status - whatever that may be
you might say - everything is objective - even the so called inner life
this I think is Spinoza's view of the matter
that it is just - another natural fact
a fact that has the same status -
as other objective states - i.e. the weather
and is therefore in no sense privileged
perhaps if you like - seen from an objective stand point -
to be just another - unremarkable - fact of the world
knowledge just another natural phenomenon
and so there are views -
and views - perspectives - perceptions -
are just like leaves on a tree
there is no privilege
inner experience
my sense of myself is what?
an inner experience?
how is this to be distinguished from the outside?
my body in the world -
isn't this all I know?
and is this inner experience?
of what - the outside?
how to distinguish inner from outer?
what separates?
the argument on both sides of the river is that inner experience is privileged
in that it is my experience and direct
we begin with consciousness
and its relationship with the outside world
this - a primal reflection
(you don't have to start with this reflection
you can begin where and how you like
but as a starting point it is rather uncontraversial
it is where I start)
OK
but let's not get too excited
about inner experience
firstly it is not at all clear what it is
even from the inside
how do I describe my thoughts -
if that's the tag I'm going to give inner experience?
well with other - what?
thoughts
so - there is no explanation
x is x
perhaps in different clothes
at different times
we don't know what inner experience is
what experience is
we can describe it logically
i.e. - it is not - that which is not experienced
?
yes
you think I jest
experience - is what it is - whatever that is - and not what it is not
since we can reflect on the matter and come at it from different angles
different characterizations are possible
only characterizations of thought by thought
and we need also to ask -
just how inner - inner is?
I grant it is compelling at a primal level
but reflectively it is anything but -
or should I say does not have to be
perhaps inner experience - is only inner because it works best to divide reality so?
if you take the view - e.g. - that everything that exists is fundamentally of the same status - whatever that may be
you might say - everything is objective - even the so called inner life
this I think is Spinoza's view of the matter
that it is just - another natural fact
a fact that has the same status -
as other objective states - i.e. the weather
and is therefore in no sense privileged
perhaps if you like - seen from an objective stand point -
to be just another - unremarkable - fact of the world
knowledge just another natural phenomenon
and so there are views -
and views - perspectives - perceptions -
are just like leaves on a tree
there is no privilege
inner experience
my sense of myself is what?
an inner experience?
how is this to be distinguished from the outside?
my body in the world -
isn't this all I know?
and is this inner experience?
of what - the outside?
how to distinguish inner from outer?
what separates?
11.1.07
knowledge
the world as it appears
as it is in consciousness
is the world in awareness
is this knowledge?
it is data
consciousness reflects on this data
it is the reflection that is knowledge
the reflection occurs because awareness in itself
is without explanation
reflecting on it leads to knowledge
we reflect on it because - as it is
it is unknown
and our reflection
how do we know its status -
i.e. do we have knowledge here?
well first up
knowledge is what?
we might say it is a foundation to our experience
that it is an ideal underpinning of what is given
OK
still what this is
what this amounts to
why it is sought
are all reflective questions
the answers are not out there -
they are - if they are - in there
the point is
reflection may posit knowledge
but reflection -
of one kind or another is -
the only basis to this posit
to call for a foundation - to that which functions as foundation to what is given
is to ask for what?
we really don't know
as it is in consciousness
is the world in awareness
is this knowledge?
it is data
consciousness reflects on this data
it is the reflection that is knowledge
the reflection occurs because awareness in itself
is without explanation
reflecting on it leads to knowledge
we reflect on it because - as it is
it is unknown
and our reflection
how do we know its status -
i.e. do we have knowledge here?
well first up
knowledge is what?
we might say it is a foundation to our experience
that it is an ideal underpinning of what is given
OK
still what this is
what this amounts to
why it is sought
are all reflective questions
the answers are not out there -
they are - if they are - in there
the point is
reflection may posit knowledge
but reflection -
of one kind or another is -
the only basis to this posit
to call for a foundation - to that which functions as foundation to what is given
is to ask for what?
we really don't know
7.1.07
the mind in the world
the mind in the world
translates?
this is rather a reflection - an attempt at explanation of the relation of mind and matter
the mind is in the world
it is the inside of the outside -
what is it - that has this inside and outside?
for Kant - the thing in itself
for Spinoza - substance
how do we describe mind in matter?
even the terms mind and matter are just labels for the unknown
we know an outside - an inside
this relation is given to us
in mind
and mind reflecting on itself sees itself as inside matter
therefore the outside -
what it is - is just that which has these dimensions
so it cannot be described in internal or external terms
mental or physical
at best it is neutral - yes
mind is a feature of neutrality
matter a feature of neutrality
to say we don't know is not to say enough
it goes beyond knowledge and its absence
the inside is a dimension of being
the outside a dimension of being
mind - knowledge is a dimension of being
matter a dimension of being
being as such
beyond description
the outside does not interact with the inside
the inside is not a spin-off of the outside
the outside is not the inside
the inside is not the outside
knowing is a way of being
just as not knowing is a way of being
p.s.
mind is in space
it is not extension
extension is a property of the outside
the mind is intentional - non-extended
in space
intentional space is the space of mind
space therefore has two attributes - internal - external
the unity cannot be conceived as extended or intentional
if it exists spatially - it must exist as / in a third dimension
for inside and outside are dimensions of the unity
the unity is over and above its attributes
they therefore cannot apply
but what does apply we cannot say
p.p.s.
for Spinoza the unity - its characteristic is absolute infinity
if this is to mean it cannot be defined - yes
as regards it being unlimited - as distinct from limited
it is to mistake an issue of substance for an issue of definition
the fact is we cannot say what the unity - the totality is
we cannot assume it is a substance - unlimited or not
that it is - yes
what it is - no
substance as existence?
OK
but why?
how can we so define it?
translates?
this is rather a reflection - an attempt at explanation of the relation of mind and matter
the mind is in the world
it is the inside of the outside -
what is it - that has this inside and outside?
for Kant - the thing in itself
for Spinoza - substance
how do we describe mind in matter?
even the terms mind and matter are just labels for the unknown
we know an outside - an inside
this relation is given to us
in mind
and mind reflecting on itself sees itself as inside matter
therefore the outside -
what it is - is just that which has these dimensions
so it cannot be described in internal or external terms
mental or physical
at best it is neutral - yes
mind is a feature of neutrality
matter a feature of neutrality
to say we don't know is not to say enough
it goes beyond knowledge and its absence
the inside is a dimension of being
the outside a dimension of being
mind - knowledge is a dimension of being
matter a dimension of being
being as such
beyond description
the outside does not interact with the inside
the inside is not a spin-off of the outside
the outside is not the inside
the inside is not the outside
knowing is a way of being
just as not knowing is a way of being
p.s.
mind is in space
it is not extension
extension is a property of the outside
the mind is intentional - non-extended
in space
intentional space is the space of mind
space therefore has two attributes - internal - external
the unity cannot be conceived as extended or intentional
if it exists spatially - it must exist as / in a third dimension
for inside and outside are dimensions of the unity
the unity is over and above its attributes
they therefore cannot apply
but what does apply we cannot say
p.p.s.
for Spinoza the unity - its characteristic is absolute infinity
if this is to mean it cannot be defined - yes
as regards it being unlimited - as distinct from limited
it is to mistake an issue of substance for an issue of definition
the fact is we cannot say what the unity - the totality is
we cannot assume it is a substance - unlimited or not
that it is - yes
what it is - no
substance as existence?
OK
but why?
how can we so define it?
5.1.07
the mind reflects
the mind reflects
it reflects on reflection
reflection of?
what I am suggesting is that the ground of reflection is unknown
so therefore?
our reflections on the unknown are
finally unknown
if so
what then is reflection about?
what is knowledge?
our reflections - the illusion of knowledge
yes
but still the question of knowledge
why knowledge?
on this view - if there is no knowledge - only the illusion of
what sense to speak of it?
knowledge as explanation
knowledge as underpinning to what is presented to consciousness
knowledge as description
there must be something there to be described
yes
but do we know what it is?
what would it be to know it?
this is the question
and I don't know how to answer it
how to address it
an account is a description
an ideal picture
perhaps any such picture is knowledge
and then for particular purposes we refine the issue
we are back to what is reflected
the relation of mind to its object
just is knowledge?
we can't step outside of this
knowledge is the mind in the world
the world reflected in mind
what then is the problem?
knowledge is reflection
what I am aware of is what I know
OK
awareness equals knowledge
or
awareness is the knower in the world
awareness is a feature of the natural world given entities that are aware
we - human beings - are aware of awareness
but we cannot say what awareness is -
only that it is the mind in the world
can we say what awareness is?
that it is an internal property of matter -
the inside of matter?
again we can say that such is the case
not why
knowledge as I am putting it - a feature within -
in the world -
it can only be a view
not the view
the view may be suggested - by the fact of a view -
but we cannot go there
the world cannot be contained in knowledge
it is rather that knowledge is contained by the world -
reflection on awareness is the attempt to explain - give a further description - provide another account
awareness just is the mind in the world -
the mind translates the outside to itself - to the inside - and then goes to work on it -
it is a translation from material to ideal
this is the idea
there is no objective view of this - no independent test of this translation
what happens happens
and the truth is we don't know
we can't know
is it therefore a relevant issue?
yes
but only in the face of the claim of truth or certainty -
these concepts derive from the vanity of awareness
I see what I see therefore it must be
actually - it is - I see what I see
and no further claim can be made
what must be - cannot be decided
not to say that it is not an interesting question for speculation
and perhaps addressing this question - is the source of creativity
but only because what must be
cannot be seen
p.s.
perhaps what I was trying to say is
we begin with the fact of the mind in the world
awareness and awareness of
the mind sees
what this seeing is - is not seen
what is seen is only
what is seen
to describe what is - it to reflect on it
it being the awareness
we can only say of this awareness - what it is not
in the attempt to define
and what it is not - is just that -
strictly speaking it can only be described logically
x and ~x
that's it
it reflects on reflection
reflection of?
what I am suggesting is that the ground of reflection is unknown
so therefore?
our reflections on the unknown are
finally unknown
if so
what then is reflection about?
what is knowledge?
our reflections - the illusion of knowledge
yes
but still the question of knowledge
why knowledge?
on this view - if there is no knowledge - only the illusion of
what sense to speak of it?
knowledge as explanation
knowledge as underpinning to what is presented to consciousness
knowledge as description
there must be something there to be described
yes
but do we know what it is?
what would it be to know it?
this is the question
and I don't know how to answer it
how to address it
an account is a description
an ideal picture
perhaps any such picture is knowledge
and then for particular purposes we refine the issue
we are back to what is reflected
the relation of mind to its object
just is knowledge?
we can't step outside of this
knowledge is the mind in the world
the world reflected in mind
what then is the problem?
knowledge is reflection
what I am aware of is what I know
OK
awareness equals knowledge
or
awareness is the knower in the world
awareness is a feature of the natural world given entities that are aware
we - human beings - are aware of awareness
but we cannot say what awareness is -
only that it is the mind in the world
can we say what awareness is?
that it is an internal property of matter -
the inside of matter?
again we can say that such is the case
not why
knowledge as I am putting it - a feature within -
in the world -
it can only be a view
not the view
the view may be suggested - by the fact of a view -
but we cannot go there
the world cannot be contained in knowledge
it is rather that knowledge is contained by the world -
reflection on awareness is the attempt to explain - give a further description - provide another account
awareness just is the mind in the world -
the mind translates the outside to itself - to the inside - and then goes to work on it -
it is a translation from material to ideal
this is the idea
there is no objective view of this - no independent test of this translation
what happens happens
and the truth is we don't know
we can't know
is it therefore a relevant issue?
yes
but only in the face of the claim of truth or certainty -
these concepts derive from the vanity of awareness
I see what I see therefore it must be
actually - it is - I see what I see
and no further claim can be made
what must be - cannot be decided
not to say that it is not an interesting question for speculation
and perhaps addressing this question - is the source of creativity
but only because what must be
cannot be seen
p.s.
perhaps what I was trying to say is
we begin with the fact of the mind in the world
awareness and awareness of
the mind sees
what this seeing is - is not seen
what is seen is only
what is seen
to describe what is - it to reflect on it
it being the awareness
we can only say of this awareness - what it is not
in the attempt to define
and what it is not - is just that -
strictly speaking it can only be described logically
x and ~x
that's it
the search for truth
can be regarded as the blind imperative of consciousness
it is consciousness' response to the impenetrability of the world
it is relentless
and but for reflective metaphysics - without reason
it is strictly speaking an end that has no end
its origin
is the origin of consciousness
the conception that consciousness arrives at which it will regard as the truth
is from another point of view - another moment of consciousness - the illusion
that is to be pierced - or done away with
illusion is a conception of consciousness
it is consciousness knowing itself as it is
not what it might become
the becoming is always the aspiration for - the hope for truth
which is what?
the end of illusion - yes
but how to know?
when is the moment realized?
consciousness has no answer to this
it seeks but knows it can never identify the end of seeking
also it has no means of stopping the seeking
Indian philosophies have recognized this as the issue of living in consciousness
and have devised stratagems for resolution
the point is though
there can only be refuge in illusion
enlightenment or unenlightenment
logically speaking there is no difference
this is perhaps the great point - the great truth
it can only be a choice of illusion
and a choice of criterion
for the choice of illusion
there is no knowledge here
it is I think a matter of form
to find what nearly fits well
or the skin one can live within
laughter is the sound of God
it is consciousness' response to the impenetrability of the world
it is relentless
and but for reflective metaphysics - without reason
it is strictly speaking an end that has no end
its origin
is the origin of consciousness
the conception that consciousness arrives at which it will regard as the truth
is from another point of view - another moment of consciousness - the illusion
that is to be pierced - or done away with
illusion is a conception of consciousness
it is consciousness knowing itself as it is
not what it might become
the becoming is always the aspiration for - the hope for truth
which is what?
the end of illusion - yes
but how to know?
when is the moment realized?
consciousness has no answer to this
it seeks but knows it can never identify the end of seeking
also it has no means of stopping the seeking
Indian philosophies have recognized this as the issue of living in consciousness
and have devised stratagems for resolution
the point is though
there can only be refuge in illusion
enlightenment or unenlightenment
logically speaking there is no difference
this is perhaps the great point - the great truth
it can only be a choice of illusion
and a choice of criterion
for the choice of illusion
there is no knowledge here
it is I think a matter of form
to find what nearly fits well
or the skin one can live within
laughter is the sound of God
4.1.07
reflection and unity
reflection
what it is - how it is to be described or explained?
is finally no more than an other reflection
a reflection on reflection
we can't get outside of it - in fact strictly speaking we can't say there is an outside to it
so where is the self in all this?
the self is a reflection
a meta reflection
an organizing principle
an argument for stability -
and one that seems to work
at the centre of this?
well some say - mind
as if there is a substance - to which these - all reflections - refer logically
the primary reflection of the outside world is just this - of substance
this is the walking down the street view
it doesn't last long
if - if you reflect on it
but substance is a reflective construct
the reflection that is mind - is
a clear reflection of this
I speak of mind as reflection - as an operation
this is my preferred view -
the thing is beyond this what can we say?
what is the essence of it?
what is that point of unity of inside and outside?
what is behind it - if you like?
the answer here is empty
I don't want to say the question is not meaningful
just that there is nothing in the place where the answer should be
it is an open logical space
what it is - how it is to be described or explained?
is finally no more than an other reflection
a reflection on reflection
we can't get outside of it - in fact strictly speaking we can't say there is an outside to it
so where is the self in all this?
the self is a reflection
a meta reflection
an organizing principle
an argument for stability -
and one that seems to work
at the centre of this?
well some say - mind
as if there is a substance - to which these - all reflections - refer logically
the primary reflection of the outside world is just this - of substance
this is the walking down the street view
it doesn't last long
if - if you reflect on it
but substance is a reflective construct
the reflection that is mind - is
a clear reflection of this
I speak of mind as reflection - as an operation
this is my preferred view -
the thing is beyond this what can we say?
what is the essence of it?
what is that point of unity of inside and outside?
what is behind it - if you like?
the answer here is empty
I don't want to say the question is not meaningful
just that there is nothing in the place where the answer should be
it is an open logical space
3.1.07
reflected reality
what I have been putting in various forms and arguments is the view that our reality is a reflected reality
that our knowledge so called is reflection
what we know is reflection
in one form or another not hard to grasp
empiricists held it as a tenet that the world reflects on consciousness
rationalists that the world outside mind is only known given the mind's reflections on it
I go with a third view a sceptical view
that we do not know
and that our reflections - are in fact reflections on and of the unknown
so what of that beyond reflection?
I say it is the object of knowledge - which I define as the unknown - and I say our
reflections - in so far as we hold them to be knowledge - are all open to question
still they are reflections
the mind reflects
and if we understand that there is no bed rock to reflection
nothing can be the touch stone to truth
nevertheless we still have the fact of reflection
we still have reflection as the epistemological reality of conscious - self-conscious
beings
reflection is an act of knowledge - in the sense that no one reflects from nothing
we are given in whatever form as epistemological entities something to work with
and we always have something to work with -
this data - epistemological data - becomes the object of reflection
it is what we reflect upon
what I argue is that it takes some thought to see that there is nothing that can be
known beyond this facade of reflection
the world beyond this is what cannot be known
Descartes thought that a good start in this business was himself
and who could argue with the common sense wisdom of this
he came quickly to see that what he could not question was that he thinks
the point being - yes he did know something - and it was at the very least about
himself
Descartes of course had not abandoned his pursuit of knowledge - it was a life raft
and he clung to it
really though - all he had actually managed to identify was that he reflects
now to say what this is - is of course to reflect upon it
it is to perform an epistemological operation
and its status - epistemological - ontological - is a matter of reflection
so here I am suggesting that the knower so called is reflection bound
logically speaking Descartes was no further down the road of his inquires at the end as he was at the beginning
and what of Descartes himself - or for that matter you or I
if you take reflection out of the picture?
what do we know of ourselves?
what can we know?
I say we must regard ourselves as unknowns
that our knowledge so called is reflection
what we know is reflection
in one form or another not hard to grasp
empiricists held it as a tenet that the world reflects on consciousness
rationalists that the world outside mind is only known given the mind's reflections on it
I go with a third view a sceptical view
that we do not know
and that our reflections - are in fact reflections on and of the unknown
so what of that beyond reflection?
I say it is the object of knowledge - which I define as the unknown - and I say our
reflections - in so far as we hold them to be knowledge - are all open to question
still they are reflections
the mind reflects
and if we understand that there is no bed rock to reflection
nothing can be the touch stone to truth
nevertheless we still have the fact of reflection
we still have reflection as the epistemological reality of conscious - self-conscious
beings
reflection is an act of knowledge - in the sense that no one reflects from nothing
we are given in whatever form as epistemological entities something to work with
and we always have something to work with -
this data - epistemological data - becomes the object of reflection
it is what we reflect upon
what I argue is that it takes some thought to see that there is nothing that can be
known beyond this facade of reflection
the world beyond this is what cannot be known
Descartes thought that a good start in this business was himself
and who could argue with the common sense wisdom of this
he came quickly to see that what he could not question was that he thinks
the point being - yes he did know something - and it was at the very least about
himself
Descartes of course had not abandoned his pursuit of knowledge - it was a life raft
and he clung to it
really though - all he had actually managed to identify was that he reflects
now to say what this is - is of course to reflect upon it
it is to perform an epistemological operation
and its status - epistemological - ontological - is a matter of reflection
so here I am suggesting that the knower so called is reflection bound
logically speaking Descartes was no further down the road of his inquires at the end as he was at the beginning
and what of Descartes himself - or for that matter you or I
if you take reflection out of the picture?
what do we know of ourselves?
what can we know?
I say we must regard ourselves as unknowns
mind and matter a logical unity
the world outside of mind presents as mindless
mindless here is material
the outside (of mind) is material
mind is internal to matter
the unity of mind and matter in a conscious - self-conscious individual - is not a
substantial equality
it is logical
the logical necessity of an inside - only being what it is - given the outside
and the outside - being what it is - and because of its - the relationship with the inside
the unity is dimensional
and this is the point - it is not substantial
the unity - is unknown - extra-dimensional
the person as Strawson put it
in my view - is in itself without definition
it is - the unity - in whatever manifestation - beyond definition -
it is - as a logical entity - the unknown
the unity of mind and matter (the whole - in this case) is beyond definition
and the unknown - I am presenting here - as a logical unity - a logical point if you like
true - this idea of the logic of the unity of dimensions (internal / external) is a logic
only given consciousness
for this is all logic is - a product of consciousness
or should I say consciousness in relation to the non-conscious
so
outside of this logic?
is a no go zone
it is the outside of the domain of mind
it cannot be legitimately addressed - from a logical point of view
only imaginatively
this is the function - the point of the imagination to go where there is no logic
art is the answer to absence
mindless here is material
the outside (of mind) is material
mind is internal to matter
the unity of mind and matter in a conscious - self-conscious individual - is not a
substantial equality
it is logical
the logical necessity of an inside - only being what it is - given the outside
and the outside - being what it is - and because of its - the relationship with the inside
the unity is dimensional
and this is the point - it is not substantial
the unity - is unknown - extra-dimensional
the person as Strawson put it
in my view - is in itself without definition
it is - the unity - in whatever manifestation - beyond definition -
it is - as a logical entity - the unknown
the unity of mind and matter (the whole - in this case) is beyond definition
and the unknown - I am presenting here - as a logical unity - a logical point if you like
true - this idea of the logic of the unity of dimensions (internal / external) is a logic
only given consciousness
for this is all logic is - a product of consciousness
or should I say consciousness in relation to the non-conscious
so
outside of this logic?
is a no go zone
it is the outside of the domain of mind
it cannot be legitimately addressed - from a logical point of view
only imaginatively
this is the function - the point of the imagination to go where there is no logic
art is the answer to absence
1.1.07
consciousness freedom and determinism
consciousness
sees the world outside itself as determined
consciousness sees itself - the world of consciousness as indeterminate
is indeterminate equivalent to free?
freedom?
I think it fair to say the mind regards itself - as being what it is (whatever that is) and
not what it is not
the mind is not free to be not mind
this being said
relative to the non-conscious world
the mind is -
free - or different?
different - yes
free - well I think yes if free is not determined
and here determined - is that which is non-conscious
I will stick with indeterminate
but in what sense?
the world of the mind is the world of knowledge
the mind is free to the extent that it does not know
that it is not determined by knowledge
I argue that knowledge is an illusion - necessary - but still an illusion
and so the mind is only determined - if we can use that word -
by illusion
to see through this - the illusion of knowledge
is to see to its absence
the absence of knowledge is what leaves the mind free
it is the reason for its indeterminism
in the non-conscious world - this question does not arise
or should I say it doesn't arise for the non-conscious world - just because it is non-
conscious
if this is how consciousness sees itself and sees the world
what can we say of the world in itself - per se?
well we can't say anything
nothing to be said
even to say we don't know -
is this going beyond bounds - strictly speaking?
we might need two senses of the unknown here
the unknown in the sense of the absence of knowledge
and the unknown in the sense of the world beyond knowledge
sees the world outside itself as determined
consciousness sees itself - the world of consciousness as indeterminate
is indeterminate equivalent to free?
freedom?
I think it fair to say the mind regards itself - as being what it is (whatever that is) and
not what it is not
the mind is not free to be not mind
this being said
relative to the non-conscious world
the mind is -
free - or different?
different - yes
free - well I think yes if free is not determined
and here determined - is that which is non-conscious
I will stick with indeterminate
but in what sense?
the world of the mind is the world of knowledge
the mind is free to the extent that it does not know
that it is not determined by knowledge
I argue that knowledge is an illusion - necessary - but still an illusion
and so the mind is only determined - if we can use that word -
by illusion
to see through this - the illusion of knowledge
is to see to its absence
the absence of knowledge is what leaves the mind free
it is the reason for its indeterminism
in the non-conscious world - this question does not arise
or should I say it doesn't arise for the non-conscious world - just because it is non-
conscious
if this is how consciousness sees itself and sees the world
what can we say of the world in itself - per se?
well we can't say anything
nothing to be said
even to say we don't know -
is this going beyond bounds - strictly speaking?
we might need two senses of the unknown here
the unknown in the sense of the absence of knowledge
and the unknown in the sense of the world beyond knowledge
29.12.06
the object of knowledge
the knower faced with the unknown conceives
this relation of knower to unknown is fundamental and primitive
we can argue about what conception is
my point here is that conceiving is a primitive essential response of the knower
it is what the mind does
it is of its nature
and to conceive is the making of knowledge
again what this amounts to - is a question of knowledge
but I say whatever it is to make knowledge -
this is the natural act of mind
the world as given - in a primal state is the unknown
the object of knowledge of the mind - is the unknown
knowledge is the natural response of the knower
it is what we do
the knower is a space that is open to the world
the world reflects in this space
the knower reflects on this reflection
this relation of knower to unknown is fundamental and primitive
we can argue about what conception is
my point here is that conceiving is a primitive essential response of the knower
it is what the mind does
it is of its nature
and to conceive is the making of knowledge
again what this amounts to - is a question of knowledge
but I say whatever it is to make knowledge -
this is the natural act of mind
the world as given - in a primal state is the unknown
the object of knowledge of the mind - is the unknown
knowledge is the natural response of the knower
it is what we do
the knower is a space that is open to the world
the world reflects in this space
the knower reflects on this reflection
the world of knowledge
Popper's idea of the third world is relevant here
it is in short the world of knowledge
we come into this world as knowers facing the unknown
this relation never alters
however we do not come to an empty slate
the world is full of knowledge
in fact we can speak of the world of knowledge
as the epistemological reality we inherit and which we begin with
any attempt to explain
any act that is of reflection
begins with what is epistemologically given to the knower
this - whatever it is - is what the knower works with
acceptance or rejection
partial or total
the fact remains we begin with epistemological pictures
these pictures are in themselves never fixed or stable
any stability is a matter of decision and convention
what I am trying to get at here is that reflection is never content free
the operation of reflection
is an operation with content
content that exists because it in some sense is given
the mind is always full
the question of what view to take on what issue is a question of which picture to see
the world through
the fact of different metaphysical pictures - points to the unknown - and raises
questions
questions for the reflective mind
what to do?
develop a concept of truth - and regard certain conceptions as false
go for some kind of commitment
or be open to the use of different conceptions
and keep an open mind
it is in short the world of knowledge
we come into this world as knowers facing the unknown
this relation never alters
however we do not come to an empty slate
the world is full of knowledge
in fact we can speak of the world of knowledge
as the epistemological reality we inherit and which we begin with
any attempt to explain
any act that is of reflection
begins with what is epistemologically given to the knower
this - whatever it is - is what the knower works with
acceptance or rejection
partial or total
the fact remains we begin with epistemological pictures
these pictures are in themselves never fixed or stable
any stability is a matter of decision and convention
what I am trying to get at here is that reflection is never content free
the operation of reflection
is an operation with content
content that exists because it in some sense is given
the mind is always full
the question of what view to take on what issue is a question of which picture to see
the world through
the fact of different metaphysical pictures - points to the unknown - and raises
questions
questions for the reflective mind
what to do?
develop a concept of truth - and regard certain conceptions as false
go for some kind of commitment
or be open to the use of different conceptions
and keep an open mind
the world is the possibility of thought
the world is the possibility of thought
the notion of thinking outside of the world may on the face of it strike one as a
reasonable thought
some philosophers - Plato for one - made a career of it
nevertheless it is clear on reflection to be impossible
but what such a notion leads us to is the question
if you cannot get outside of it to define
how then do you define?
how that is do you define the world?
my argument is we can only work from the inside
for all intents and purposes - and in a strictly logical sense - there is no outside
we cannot - to get right to it - define the world
we can only define what is in it
the world is our domain of definition
outside of the world there is no such question
no definition -
thought I have argued is reflection
and reflection is to make - to have pictures
ideal pictures
pictures - only of what is
we cannot conceive what does not exist
still the question - what is it that exists?
the fact of this question tells us
the answer - any answer is a question of possibility
there are that is possible answers to this question
possible pictures
these pictures - conceptions
can only be what is
what is - from an epistemological point of view is a matter of uncertainty
it is the question of knowledge
how and what it is we know
granted the world is
the issue is characterization
and the issue cannot be settled in the way we might wish
that is - objectively
for we have no way of assessing metaphysical characterizations
and by this I mean total views
what test is available?
granted we establish internal criterion in the form of logic
but logic only really decides sensibility
different world views can be offered
and if they are sensible from a logical point of view
then they are possible accounts
from an epistemological point of view
the world is possibility
how to decide between possible accounts of the actual
what possible epistemological world can rightly be given the status of actual?
as I put it above
there is no objective test here
objectivity is a notion that can only function in house
there is no view from the outside
of course - what happens is we make the outside
that is we decide what is in and what is out of the world
for instance - Plato excluded the sensible world from his version of the real
the situation is - at this level
we are best to regard the enterprise as interesting and useful
but not in fact resolvable
the answer is
we do not know
we have possible accounts
and these are all worthy
their actual value is a question of their utility
and this of course is finally a meta decision
what counts as useful
convention
based on necessity or its perception is the best we can do
the content of our possible accounts of the world or of parts or regions of the world
is simply a question of invention
and skillful use of what is epistemologically available
the point being
our conceptions are made out of what is given
perhaps ideas from one context adapted to another
or even the generation of new languages and hence concepts
to describe what we are presented with
invention
what is possible in thought
is only what is given in the world
what this amounts to is
what we can make
in ideal terms
of the non-ideal reality
the reality that is unknown
yet always and only
the object of knowledge
the notion of thinking outside of the world may on the face of it strike one as a
reasonable thought
some philosophers - Plato for one - made a career of it
nevertheless it is clear on reflection to be impossible
but what such a notion leads us to is the question
if you cannot get outside of it to define
how then do you define?
how that is do you define the world?
my argument is we can only work from the inside
for all intents and purposes - and in a strictly logical sense - there is no outside
we cannot - to get right to it - define the world
we can only define what is in it
the world is our domain of definition
outside of the world there is no such question
no definition -
thought I have argued is reflection
and reflection is to make - to have pictures
ideal pictures
pictures - only of what is
we cannot conceive what does not exist
still the question - what is it that exists?
the fact of this question tells us
the answer - any answer is a question of possibility
there are that is possible answers to this question
possible pictures
these pictures - conceptions
can only be what is
what is - from an epistemological point of view is a matter of uncertainty
it is the question of knowledge
how and what it is we know
granted the world is
the issue is characterization
and the issue cannot be settled in the way we might wish
that is - objectively
for we have no way of assessing metaphysical characterizations
and by this I mean total views
what test is available?
granted we establish internal criterion in the form of logic
but logic only really decides sensibility
different world views can be offered
and if they are sensible from a logical point of view
then they are possible accounts
from an epistemological point of view
the world is possibility
how to decide between possible accounts of the actual
what possible epistemological world can rightly be given the status of actual?
as I put it above
there is no objective test here
objectivity is a notion that can only function in house
there is no view from the outside
of course - what happens is we make the outside
that is we decide what is in and what is out of the world
for instance - Plato excluded the sensible world from his version of the real
the situation is - at this level
we are best to regard the enterprise as interesting and useful
but not in fact resolvable
the answer is
we do not know
we have possible accounts
and these are all worthy
their actual value is a question of their utility
and this of course is finally a meta decision
what counts as useful
convention
based on necessity or its perception is the best we can do
the content of our possible accounts of the world or of parts or regions of the world
is simply a question of invention
and skillful use of what is epistemologically available
the point being
our conceptions are made out of what is given
perhaps ideas from one context adapted to another
or even the generation of new languages and hence concepts
to describe what we are presented with
invention
what is possible in thought
is only what is given in the world
what this amounts to is
what we can make
in ideal terms
of the non-ideal reality
the reality that is unknown
yet always and only
the object of knowledge
28.12.06
reflection as an operation
reflection as operation
it is I suggested above to create a picture
this in a sense is what thought per se is
the creating of a picture - an ideal picture
yes - a picture in thought
and if we reflect on this - what?
we can only think
we cannot get an objective vantage point
what we can do is come at it from different directions
different directions?
what is this?
what I am interested in is what is reflection on reflection?
do we make another image - another picture - of the picture given?
yes - I think so
but you might ask - in what sense is it fundamentally different?
and where does it come from - the new picture?
what is its basis?
to reflect is to look at
to create an object of -
of?
of view
this is the operation of mind
that it can step back from itself - and hold itself in view
this suggests what?
that
mind is subject and object
that it can become
either
that its position is not fixed
beyond this
what can we say of it?
we do not know -
the mind outside of its functions
(and these are quite mysterious anyway)
is fundamentally unknown
here I suggest is the door to possibility
some have taken it to open to another realm
eternal life
but really it is simply - and in all purity
the unknown
it is I suggested above to create a picture
this in a sense is what thought per se is
the creating of a picture - an ideal picture
yes - a picture in thought
and if we reflect on this - what?
we can only think
we cannot get an objective vantage point
what we can do is come at it from different directions
different directions?
what is this?
what I am interested in is what is reflection on reflection?
do we make another image - another picture - of the picture given?
yes - I think so
but you might ask - in what sense is it fundamentally different?
and where does it come from - the new picture?
what is its basis?
to reflect is to look at
to create an object of -
of?
of view
this is the operation of mind
that it can step back from itself - and hold itself in view
this suggests what?
that
mind is subject and object
that it can become
either
that its position is not fixed
beyond this
what can we say of it?
we do not know -
the mind outside of its functions
(and these are quite mysterious anyway)
is fundamentally unknown
here I suggest is the door to possibility
some have taken it to open to another realm
eternal life
but really it is simply - and in all purity
the unknown
uncertainty
the thing in itself
is like - I have argued regarding substance - a singular conception
a decision to regard a feature of the world
be it mind - or the world itself in isolation
so it is no surprise really
that out of such a deliberation might come concepts like timeless - spaceless -
eternity
they are simply concepts of negation
not time - not space
and because we can come to these concepts
we imagine we are conceiving positively
that there is in fact a timelessness - or no space
or no time - eternity
how to regard this?
if you are prone to run with the ontological argument -
well anything you conceive will have a positive reality
existence
this though depends on the assumption that whatever we think is real - is true
it is indeed a very optimistic view of the mind
perhaps based on the fear - that if the mind is not reliable on any one matter -
perhaps it has no bone fides at all
and this just another version of the idea that the self does not deceive - the self
it is fear of error
which is all very well - but there can as a result be a problem of population - and
population control
Oakum's razor was one sensible methodological attempt to bring some order to the
situation
what I say is that reflection - which is what mind does - what consciousness does - is
an operation
if you like a logical operation -
the action of consciousness -
understood this way - you can see that the performing of an operation does not in itself
create anything
it may transform what is already there - but nothing is brought into the world - by the
operation - the operation of consciousness
so thinking is an operation
the performing of an operation
and the operation is reflection
reflection is just a picture of what is already there
the fact of different pictures tells us mind is never sure
cannot be sure
mind is - reflection is - and is only possible given - uncertainty
here it is clear mind is best described as indeterminate
I have been rather quick here
the thing is - you can't really ever properly speak of consciousness or the mind - in
itself
it is always in relation to
there just are no absolutes
metaphysically speaking it is all relative
so to understand the operation that is mind
you must speak of mind in relation to its object
the object of knowledge
is the unknown
therefore
uncertainty
is like - I have argued regarding substance - a singular conception
a decision to regard a feature of the world
be it mind - or the world itself in isolation
so it is no surprise really
that out of such a deliberation might come concepts like timeless - spaceless -
eternity
they are simply concepts of negation
not time - not space
and because we can come to these concepts
we imagine we are conceiving positively
that there is in fact a timelessness - or no space
or no time - eternity
how to regard this?
if you are prone to run with the ontological argument -
well anything you conceive will have a positive reality
existence
this though depends on the assumption that whatever we think is real - is true
it is indeed a very optimistic view of the mind
perhaps based on the fear - that if the mind is not reliable on any one matter -
perhaps it has no bone fides at all
and this just another version of the idea that the self does not deceive - the self
it is fear of error
which is all very well - but there can as a result be a problem of population - and
population control
Oakum's razor was one sensible methodological attempt to bring some order to the
situation
what I say is that reflection - which is what mind does - what consciousness does - is
an operation
if you like a logical operation -
the action of consciousness -
understood this way - you can see that the performing of an operation does not in itself
create anything
it may transform what is already there - but nothing is brought into the world - by the
operation - the operation of consciousness
so thinking is an operation
the performing of an operation
and the operation is reflection
reflection is just a picture of what is already there
the fact of different pictures tells us mind is never sure
cannot be sure
mind is - reflection is - and is only possible given - uncertainty
here it is clear mind is best described as indeterminate
I have been rather quick here
the thing is - you can't really ever properly speak of consciousness or the mind - in
itself
it is always in relation to
there just are no absolutes
metaphysically speaking it is all relative
so to understand the operation that is mind
you must speak of mind in relation to its object
the object of knowledge
is the unknown
therefore
uncertainty
time and space
consciousness
is in time and in space
consciousness in itself - reflecting on itself - is timeless and spaceless?
consciousness - the mind - locates itself in space and time - in reflecting outside itself
that is in identifying that it is in itself - but here most significantly - in the world -
this is an ontological primitive - and an epistemological unknown -
consciousness sees in (itself - the inside) and out - (the world - the outside)
so space and time are - on this view characteristics of the outside of consciousness
of the world -
consciousness is in
perhaps I have overstated the case here
in relation to space
time I think is straightforward -
consciousness regards itself as timeless - in itself
but spaceless?
surely we only have a sense of consciousness
as being in
in - not just the world
but in a body - my body
this it would seem is no secondary reflection
this is primary
so space - is externality
is what consciousness is in
we don't have a sense of consciousness as spaceless
in the same way as we have a sense of consciousness as timeless
space is externality
what is time?
time as internality?
yes
primarily
the succession of conscious states
and also - an externality?
the world - the outside is a succession of states
so there is a correspondence
yes
and of space?
is space internal?
I don't think so
in the sense that
consciousness does not have - or see itself as having internal space
the space of consciousness is what it is in
unless we wish to speak in an idealist or religious manner
spiritual space
the space of the spirit
- an internal space
I don't think so
I come back to the intuition that space is what consciousness is in - therefore in
relation to consciousness - the outside
time as an internality
space the externality
inner space
the inside
the inside of the body - is in my view - consciousness
this is what the inside is -
an inside to the inside I don't get
so can we nevertheless speak of consciousness
as the inside space?
poetically yes
but ontologically I don't think it stacks up
OK
space as the external dimension
therefore consciousness in itself - if it makes any sense to speak of this - is spaceless
now time
the idea of the timeless
does the same apply?
consciousness in itself - timeless
OK we have a sense of this
but the reality of consciousness in the world
is that consciousness is in time
spacelessness and timelessness - abstractions
what follows from this for the question of the nature of space and time?
space is the externality
mind the internality
time as a characteristic of space - of the externality
time as a characteristic of consciousness
consciousness and the world
the inside and the outside
have time as a common attribute
do we still want to say that space is just an external dimension?
inner space is what?
mind
O.K.
outer space - no mind - what I've been calling the world
therefore space and time
characteristics of mind and matter
inner and outer seem to be the main categories here
inner / outer - space / time
space and time common characteristics
therefore essential characteristics
of reality
of the inner - of the outer
this is not to say much
I haven't got too far here
is in time and in space
consciousness in itself - reflecting on itself - is timeless and spaceless?
consciousness - the mind - locates itself in space and time - in reflecting outside itself
that is in identifying that it is in itself - but here most significantly - in the world -
this is an ontological primitive - and an epistemological unknown -
consciousness sees in (itself - the inside) and out - (the world - the outside)
so space and time are - on this view characteristics of the outside of consciousness
of the world -
consciousness is in
perhaps I have overstated the case here
in relation to space
time I think is straightforward -
consciousness regards itself as timeless - in itself
but spaceless?
surely we only have a sense of consciousness
as being in
in - not just the world
but in a body - my body
this it would seem is no secondary reflection
this is primary
so space - is externality
is what consciousness is in
we don't have a sense of consciousness as spaceless
in the same way as we have a sense of consciousness as timeless
space is externality
what is time?
time as internality?
yes
primarily
the succession of conscious states
and also - an externality?
the world - the outside is a succession of states
so there is a correspondence
yes
and of space?
is space internal?
I don't think so
in the sense that
consciousness does not have - or see itself as having internal space
the space of consciousness is what it is in
unless we wish to speak in an idealist or religious manner
spiritual space
the space of the spirit
- an internal space
I don't think so
I come back to the intuition that space is what consciousness is in - therefore in
relation to consciousness - the outside
time as an internality
space the externality
inner space
the inside
the inside of the body - is in my view - consciousness
this is what the inside is -
an inside to the inside I don't get
so can we nevertheless speak of consciousness
as the inside space?
poetically yes
but ontologically I don't think it stacks up
OK
space as the external dimension
therefore consciousness in itself - if it makes any sense to speak of this - is spaceless
now time
the idea of the timeless
does the same apply?
consciousness in itself - timeless
OK we have a sense of this
but the reality of consciousness in the world
is that consciousness is in time
spacelessness and timelessness - abstractions
what follows from this for the question of the nature of space and time?
space is the externality
mind the internality
time as a characteristic of space - of the externality
time as a characteristic of consciousness
consciousness and the world
the inside and the outside
have time as a common attribute
do we still want to say that space is just an external dimension?
inner space is what?
mind
O.K.
outer space - no mind - what I've been calling the world
therefore space and time
characteristics of mind and matter
inner and outer seem to be the main categories here
inner / outer - space / time
space and time common characteristics
therefore essential characteristics
of reality
of the inner - of the outer
this is not to say much
I haven't got too far here
21.12.06
we begin thinking
we begin thinking in thought
the world outside of thought is non-thought - it is not thought
it is the object of thought
that which thought is primarily directed at
it is the first instance in that thought recognizes what it is not
thought or mind sees itself as situated in non-thought
this is the primary presentation
thought inside a world of non-thought
consciousness in a non-conscious world
in fact we never go beyond this reality
the primary function of thought is to characterize the unknown (that which is not
thought) in thought
it is to transform
to translate the unknown to thought
to knowledge
to appropriate the unknown
in one sense this is all thought does
at the heart of this activity - the essence of it is - uncertainty
thought is uncertain
all that is certain paradoxically is the unknown
but the unknown does not speak
we can only attempt to grasp and characterize it in thought
any such characterization - description
is finally based on description
and whatever is to count as an initial description is finally a matter of decision - and in
general convention
we inherit certain conventions
and we make new ones
they are platforms
on the unknown
masks for the unknown
like the human face
the world outside of thought is non-thought - it is not thought
it is the object of thought
that which thought is primarily directed at
it is the first instance in that thought recognizes what it is not
thought or mind sees itself as situated in non-thought
this is the primary presentation
thought inside a world of non-thought
consciousness in a non-conscious world
in fact we never go beyond this reality
the primary function of thought is to characterize the unknown (that which is not
thought) in thought
it is to transform
to translate the unknown to thought
to knowledge
to appropriate the unknown
in one sense this is all thought does
at the heart of this activity - the essence of it is - uncertainty
thought is uncertain
all that is certain paradoxically is the unknown
but the unknown does not speak
we can only attempt to grasp and characterize it in thought
any such characterization - description
is finally based on description
and whatever is to count as an initial description is finally a matter of decision - and in
general convention
we inherit certain conventions
and we make new ones
they are platforms
on the unknown
masks for the unknown
like the human face
we begin
we begin with the world as given
we may not be able to accurately describe what it is we face
(what constitutes and accurate description?)
but we are in the midst of a given reality
that is we are not confronted with possibility - a possible world
the world is
possibility is an after thought
possibility is not ontological
possibility is epistemological
possibility is knowing
the possibility of knowing
what it is - that we are - and are in
the given (the world) is given - as undefined
we are given - a working model - in perception
but how to describe this is the question of humanity
descriptions are necessary
necessary for the act of living
to use a metaphor -
our descriptions are tools
different tools required for different jobs
no universal
without tools we don't operate
we don't describe
there is no prototype we can refer to
we can only respond to our biology -
to its imperatives
(and this too a description)
and how we describe this - conceive this - is an indeterminate matter
such is the history of science -
of thought
thought is the basis of action
there is no basis to thought but thought
we may not be able to accurately describe what it is we face
(what constitutes and accurate description?)
but we are in the midst of a given reality
that is we are not confronted with possibility - a possible world
the world is
possibility is an after thought
possibility is not ontological
possibility is epistemological
possibility is knowing
the possibility of knowing
what it is - that we are - and are in
the given (the world) is given - as undefined
we are given - a working model - in perception
but how to describe this is the question of humanity
descriptions are necessary
necessary for the act of living
to use a metaphor -
our descriptions are tools
different tools required for different jobs
no universal
without tools we don't operate
we don't describe
there is no prototype we can refer to
we can only respond to our biology -
to its imperatives
(and this too a description)
and how we describe this - conceive this - is an indeterminate matter
such is the history of science -
of thought
thought is the basis of action
there is no basis to thought but thought
illusion
the argument for illusion is what?
that reality is not all its cracked up to be -
may or may not be - real?
heaven forbid
or is it rather that the perceiver may not perceive - correctly?
so again
reality (here I include the perceiver) is not all it's cracked up to be - but the problem
can be isolated to the perceiver -
still though - it is however you work it -
that reality - and I am speaking sub species aeternitatis here - is not - what?
stable?
it can be real
it can be illusory
at this point real looses its universality
real - if real is to mean anything must include - veridical perception and illusory
perception -
and then the question
what are we to say of real?
one answer is - we don't know
so illusion is what?
perceptually -
reason to question the deliverances of the senses
the key to the sceptical door
epistemologically?
the argument of difference
without a clear uncontraversial theory of what is real - what is reality
(and this is not possible)
there is no argument for illusion
there is no illusion - only difference
the sceptical response to difference is to acknowledge it - accept it - embrace it
it is to understand there is no uncontraversial view of reality
that in fact there is no uncontraversial reality
metaphysical
epistemological
political
ethical
the argument of positive skepticism is diversity and tolerance
that reality is not all its cracked up to be -
may or may not be - real?
heaven forbid
or is it rather that the perceiver may not perceive - correctly?
so again
reality (here I include the perceiver) is not all it's cracked up to be - but the problem
can be isolated to the perceiver -
still though - it is however you work it -
that reality - and I am speaking sub species aeternitatis here - is not - what?
stable?
it can be real
it can be illusory
at this point real looses its universality
real - if real is to mean anything must include - veridical perception and illusory
perception -
and then the question
what are we to say of real?
one answer is - we don't know
so illusion is what?
perceptually -
reason to question the deliverances of the senses
the key to the sceptical door
epistemologically?
the argument of difference
without a clear uncontraversial theory of what is real - what is reality
(and this is not possible)
there is no argument for illusion
there is no illusion - only difference
the sceptical response to difference is to acknowledge it - accept it - embrace it
it is to understand there is no uncontraversial view of reality
that in fact there is no uncontraversial reality
metaphysical
epistemological
political
ethical
the argument of positive skepticism is diversity and tolerance
19.12.06
the logic of consciousness - assertion and denial
the first moment of consciousness is awareness
(whatever this is)
and awareness of awareness
which is exactly what it is
reflectivity
consciousness knows itself as itself
this is the fact - the presentation
I frankly don't see how this can be further explicated
any supposed explication is just that - or a statement of that which is to be explicated -
it is that is a reflection of and on consciousness
so - here the explication is actually a statement of that which is to be explicated
and of this
there is no explication
the second moment of consciousness is awareness of what it is not - the world - the
outside of consciousness - the object
so consciousness asserts itself and what it is not -
x and ~x
this is the proposition of consciousness
x and ~x
the x's here are not just short hand
they are the unknown realities
the assertion of x (consciousness) is an unknown
the negative of x is an unknown
some have taken this to mean that consciousness brings nothingness to the world -
this is primarily Jean Paul Satre's argument
his argument confuses the negative and non-existence
the negative of consciousness is not nothingness - it is non-consciousness
existence here is not at issue
(existence is not in fact a problem
existence is a question of classification )
what consciousness brings to the world is assertion and its denial
it is the ground of assertion - and denial
consciousness asserts itself positively and defines itself negatively
the definition is really nothing more or less than this
consciousness is not that which is non-conscious
awareness is only definable given the contrast with that which is not aware
in a world with only consciousness - there would be no definition
and hence nothing to speak of
such a world is literally indefinable
for mind to have any functional reality - any reality - it must exist in contrast to the
non-consciousness
and so too the non-conscious
a conscious monism or a non-conscious monism is illiterate
the fundamental operation of consciousness -
everything else is derivative
awareness is assertion and denial
awareness / consciousness is x and ~x
such is the nature of consciousness
and this is not a substantial definition - rather a formal definition
it leaves issues of substance open
there is no ontological commitment in consciousness
the conscious world - or the world of consciousness is -
logical space
the space of x and ~x
this is to say - or another way to say it is that in a world where x and ~x could not be
asserted
there is no consciousness
is it not true that ~x is contained in x?
how else could it be?
x is only defined given ~x
~x only defined given x
consciousness comes into being when reality asserts itself
this is really all that can be said
and in this assertion is contained its denial
we can perhaps say assertion is thus the essential characteristic of consciousness
the non-conscious does not assert
it is non-assertive
and assertion is only possible - only makes any sense - against that which is not
asserted
only - that is given its negative
therefore
the world
(whatever this is)
and awareness of awareness
which is exactly what it is
reflectivity
consciousness knows itself as itself
this is the fact - the presentation
I frankly don't see how this can be further explicated
any supposed explication is just that - or a statement of that which is to be explicated -
it is that is a reflection of and on consciousness
so - here the explication is actually a statement of that which is to be explicated
and of this
there is no explication
the second moment of consciousness is awareness of what it is not - the world - the
outside of consciousness - the object
so consciousness asserts itself and what it is not -
x and ~x
this is the proposition of consciousness
x and ~x
the x's here are not just short hand
they are the unknown realities
the assertion of x (consciousness) is an unknown
the negative of x is an unknown
some have taken this to mean that consciousness brings nothingness to the world -
this is primarily Jean Paul Satre's argument
his argument confuses the negative and non-existence
the negative of consciousness is not nothingness - it is non-consciousness
existence here is not at issue
(existence is not in fact a problem
existence is a question of classification )
what consciousness brings to the world is assertion and its denial
it is the ground of assertion - and denial
consciousness asserts itself positively and defines itself negatively
the definition is really nothing more or less than this
consciousness is not that which is non-conscious
awareness is only definable given the contrast with that which is not aware
in a world with only consciousness - there would be no definition
and hence nothing to speak of
such a world is literally indefinable
for mind to have any functional reality - any reality - it must exist in contrast to the
non-consciousness
and so too the non-conscious
a conscious monism or a non-conscious monism is illiterate
the fundamental operation of consciousness -
everything else is derivative
awareness is assertion and denial
awareness / consciousness is x and ~x
such is the nature of consciousness
and this is not a substantial definition - rather a formal definition
it leaves issues of substance open
there is no ontological commitment in consciousness
the conscious world - or the world of consciousness is -
logical space
the space of x and ~x
this is to say - or another way to say it is that in a world where x and ~x could not be
asserted
there is no consciousness
is it not true that ~x is contained in x?
how else could it be?
x is only defined given ~x
~x only defined given x
consciousness comes into being when reality asserts itself
this is really all that can be said
and in this assertion is contained its denial
we can perhaps say assertion is thus the essential characteristic of consciousness
the non-conscious does not assert
it is non-assertive
and assertion is only possible - only makes any sense - against that which is not
asserted
only - that is given its negative
therefore
the world
the point of consciousness
what I have argued is that we begin in the midst of reality
(and for that matter stay there and end there)
our awareness - we understand as awareness of
we are aware of the world - the world outside our consciousness
and we are aware of this awareness -
we are this - awareness of awareness
self - if the term is to mean anything is that which is aware
what that is - is another question
it is at the centre of - awareness of the outside world - and aware of awareness - the
inner world
so that - at the centre - is what we might call self
that - is a logical point
that is as much as we can say - about that
that it is - OK
what about what it is?
this question of what
is what sort of a question?
it is a question of substance
and what is this?
what does substance come down to
composition
to ask what x is composed of is to ask a substantial question
so what is consciousness - made of -
what is the self?
we can only really answer this negatively
consciousness is made of that which is not non-conscious
OK this doesn't take us too far
but it is not frivolous to make the point
that consciousness can only describe itself as what it is not
and the same is finally true of the non-conscious world
what is the world outside of consciousness made of?
that which is not conscious
so we have only logic here
only that which is - and that which is not
no substance
in a final metaphysical sense
any substantial theory of the inside or of the outside
is finally a fiction of consciousness
consciousness' answer to the unknown
or ways of dealing with the absence of substance
of grounding
for itself and for what it sees - the world outside itself
of that which exists we can only say that it exists
this is not to give it any content
content is a construction
the necessary after-thought
(and for that matter stay there and end there)
our awareness - we understand as awareness of
we are aware of the world - the world outside our consciousness
and we are aware of this awareness -
we are this - awareness of awareness
self - if the term is to mean anything is that which is aware
what that is - is another question
it is at the centre of - awareness of the outside world - and aware of awareness - the
inner world
so that - at the centre - is what we might call self
that - is a logical point
that is as much as we can say - about that
that it is - OK
what about what it is?
this question of what
is what sort of a question?
it is a question of substance
and what is this?
what does substance come down to
composition
to ask what x is composed of is to ask a substantial question
so what is consciousness - made of -
what is the self?
we can only really answer this negatively
consciousness is made of that which is not non-conscious
OK this doesn't take us too far
but it is not frivolous to make the point
that consciousness can only describe itself as what it is not
and the same is finally true of the non-conscious world
what is the world outside of consciousness made of?
that which is not conscious
so we have only logic here
only that which is - and that which is not
no substance
in a final metaphysical sense
any substantial theory of the inside or of the outside
is finally a fiction of consciousness
consciousness' answer to the unknown
or ways of dealing with the absence of substance
of grounding
for itself and for what it sees - the world outside itself
of that which exists we can only say that it exists
this is not to give it any content
content is a construction
the necessary after-thought
18.12.06
metaphysical theories / logical space and metaphysical junk
metaphysical theories - i.e. - materialism and idealism - are attempts to account for the
unknown
to provide a foundation in knowledge - for our actions
what is fundamental is the unknown
these metaphysical theories are covers for the unknown
masks for the unknown
they provide platforms for action
they are in fact substitutes for knowledge -
for foundation
the need for foundation is what is really at issue here
I argue - it is a feature of consciousness - a characteristic of mind - to seek a basis
the point is - if there was foundation
the mind could not know - for it would of necessity be outside of mind - and for that
matter outside of the world
I do not think it makes any sense to speak of such
to go down this track is to mistake metaphysical need for reality
in reality there is no foundation to knowledge
if there was - the question would not arise
idealism begins with mind and argues that the world outside of mind can be shown to
in fact be mind
materialism that the outside reality can be shown to be in fact applicable to the inside
both are attempts to provide a singular account of the nature of reality
if successful both destroy the basis on which they are proposed
in the case of idealism - mind - the inside is extended to cover the outside - and as a
result the distinction is destroyed - there is no outside
if no outside - no inside
on what is idealism based?
and you can put the question - if mind cannot be distinguished from non-mind - does
it in fact have any definition?
what is it - where is it?
in the case of materialism - matter - the outside is extended to cover the inside - and
as a result the distinction is destroyed - there is no inside
if no inside - no outside
on what is materialism based?
again - if matter is all there is - how can it be defined - determined?
to say matter is everywhere - is not necessarily to make a substantial claim - without
metaphysical distinction (which a successful comprehensive theory defeats) it can be
argued there is no content to the materialist thesis
so there is a serious issue of definition if either idealism or materialism is taken to be a
complete account of the nature of reality
can I suggest that idealism is a useful theory of mind - what I would call a prime
position - a place to start - an initial response to the question - what is mind?
and materialism a useful theory of the world outside of mind - again we need to begin
with something in order to deal with what it is (the unknown) we are faced with
either put forward as a comprehensive metaphysics I suggest falls on its own sword
they are best seen natural characterizations - and useful tools
idealism has proven its worth e.g. as a platform for religious aesthetic and ethical
thinking
materialism as a successful impetus for scientific / empirical pursuits
both are best seen as constructs on the unknown
in practice - decisions are made about foundation - positions adopted - platforms used
this is the reality of practice
the theoretical attempt to furnish the world with one all embracing account is more in
the line of a parlor game - an exercise
which nevertheless may - and in fact does yield not just pleasure but new ideas - new
ways of looking at the world
nevertheless most of us operate in a universe of metaphysical junk -
a whole range of ideas systems and concepts
and use determined by need and circumstance
and nothing is guaranteed - you can and do always go back to the junkyard for new
bits and pieces to assemble or attach - or to start foraging again
the metaphysician functions primarily in this space - as an inventor of new ideas - new
ways of seeing - he makes the junk we all need - (and may even have a hand in
managing the yard)
the yard is logical space - the junk - the theories and concepts we need and / or use to
live in the unknown
unknown
to provide a foundation in knowledge - for our actions
what is fundamental is the unknown
these metaphysical theories are covers for the unknown
masks for the unknown
they provide platforms for action
they are in fact substitutes for knowledge -
for foundation
the need for foundation is what is really at issue here
I argue - it is a feature of consciousness - a characteristic of mind - to seek a basis
the point is - if there was foundation
the mind could not know - for it would of necessity be outside of mind - and for that
matter outside of the world
I do not think it makes any sense to speak of such
to go down this track is to mistake metaphysical need for reality
in reality there is no foundation to knowledge
if there was - the question would not arise
idealism begins with mind and argues that the world outside of mind can be shown to
in fact be mind
materialism that the outside reality can be shown to be in fact applicable to the inside
both are attempts to provide a singular account of the nature of reality
if successful both destroy the basis on which they are proposed
in the case of idealism - mind - the inside is extended to cover the outside - and as a
result the distinction is destroyed - there is no outside
if no outside - no inside
on what is idealism based?
and you can put the question - if mind cannot be distinguished from non-mind - does
it in fact have any definition?
what is it - where is it?
in the case of materialism - matter - the outside is extended to cover the inside - and
as a result the distinction is destroyed - there is no inside
if no inside - no outside
on what is materialism based?
again - if matter is all there is - how can it be defined - determined?
to say matter is everywhere - is not necessarily to make a substantial claim - without
metaphysical distinction (which a successful comprehensive theory defeats) it can be
argued there is no content to the materialist thesis
so there is a serious issue of definition if either idealism or materialism is taken to be a
complete account of the nature of reality
can I suggest that idealism is a useful theory of mind - what I would call a prime
position - a place to start - an initial response to the question - what is mind?
and materialism a useful theory of the world outside of mind - again we need to begin
with something in order to deal with what it is (the unknown) we are faced with
either put forward as a comprehensive metaphysics I suggest falls on its own sword
they are best seen natural characterizations - and useful tools
idealism has proven its worth e.g. as a platform for religious aesthetic and ethical
thinking
materialism as a successful impetus for scientific / empirical pursuits
both are best seen as constructs on the unknown
in practice - decisions are made about foundation - positions adopted - platforms used
this is the reality of practice
the theoretical attempt to furnish the world with one all embracing account is more in
the line of a parlor game - an exercise
which nevertheless may - and in fact does yield not just pleasure but new ideas - new
ways of looking at the world
nevertheless most of us operate in a universe of metaphysical junk -
a whole range of ideas systems and concepts
and use determined by need and circumstance
and nothing is guaranteed - you can and do always go back to the junkyard for new
bits and pieces to assemble or attach - or to start foraging again
the metaphysician functions primarily in this space - as an inventor of new ideas - new
ways of seeing - he makes the junk we all need - (and may even have a hand in
managing the yard)
the yard is logical space - the junk - the theories and concepts we need and / or use to
live in the unknown
14.12.06
beyond mind and matter
I don't think we can say what mind is
just that it posits itself - and recognizes itself - as inside
the world - you might say -
but however you characterize the outside -
that which mind is inside of - the point is -
mind is the inside -
so I argue here a radical thesis of skepticism
which just is that we do not know
we don't know what mind is - or what it is mind is in
I say this to make the point that we can go beyond the idealist / materialist debate -
debate that is about - what
what mind is (what the inside is)
what is outside of mind (what the outside is)
what I am pointing to is the ground of this debate in its purity
the logic of it if you will -
materialism and idealism are attempts to show - to say - we do know - what is
I think we can go beyond these last ditch attempts at knowledge
and point to the absence of knowledge
epistemologically speaking we begin in the midst of it all
and look for foundations
this looking for foundation and all it entails is our living
the act of living - of searching - gives content - to our lives
(content to the contentless I would argue)
foundations are not to be found in either mind or matter
mind and / or matter may function for us - as foundations - in practice
but they are essentially only covers for the unknown
we don't know but we must act
we define - define and create
mind and matter are two such definitions
two such creations
what is behind these creations - these posits
what it is that is behind mind and matter
we cannot know
we cannot say
we begin in the midst of it all
we remain in the midst of it all
we end up in the midst of it all
beyond this (however you characterize it)
we do not know - cannot know
cannot say
just that it posits itself - and recognizes itself - as inside
the world - you might say -
but however you characterize the outside -
that which mind is inside of - the point is -
mind is the inside -
so I argue here a radical thesis of skepticism
which just is that we do not know
we don't know what mind is - or what it is mind is in
I say this to make the point that we can go beyond the idealist / materialist debate -
debate that is about - what
what mind is (what the inside is)
what is outside of mind (what the outside is)
what I am pointing to is the ground of this debate in its purity
the logic of it if you will -
materialism and idealism are attempts to show - to say - we do know - what is
I think we can go beyond these last ditch attempts at knowledge
and point to the absence of knowledge
epistemologically speaking we begin in the midst of it all
and look for foundations
this looking for foundation and all it entails is our living
the act of living - of searching - gives content - to our lives
(content to the contentless I would argue)
foundations are not to be found in either mind or matter
mind and / or matter may function for us - as foundations - in practice
but they are essentially only covers for the unknown
we don't know but we must act
we define - define and create
mind and matter are two such definitions
two such creations
what is behind these creations - these posits
what it is that is behind mind and matter
we cannot know
we cannot say
we begin in the midst of it all
we remain in the midst of it all
we end up in the midst of it all
beyond this (however you characterize it)
we do not know - cannot know
cannot say
12.12.06
existence
existence - conscious existence -
is without foundation
the question of foundation only arises in consciousness
the mind - thinking a basis for itself
Descartes was true to this instinct and followed it to the letter
existence he thought was foundation
but he missed it
for existence - conscious existence - is what seeks foundation
take consciousness out of the equation - and so goes the problem of foundation
the seeking for foundation
could well be said to be the point of consciousness
its essence - what it does - what distinguishes it from the non-conscious
a search for reason
for reason is at the back of consciousness and yet any reason there is is only a product
of consciousness
hence you could say
consciousness makes its own foundation
this is what it does - must do - to be what it is
as a tree seeks nourishment from the ground - in being a tree
we never reach rock bottom here
because any proposal for foundation
is soon recognized for what it is - a fraud
in that it is a product of consciousness - and not what it is based upon
very difficult though to stop looking
even when you know there is nothing to find
nothing that can be found
out of this truly futile endeavour comes the best that we have
all our knowledge - our dreams
is without foundation
the question of foundation only arises in consciousness
the mind - thinking a basis for itself
Descartes was true to this instinct and followed it to the letter
existence he thought was foundation
but he missed it
for existence - conscious existence - is what seeks foundation
take consciousness out of the equation - and so goes the problem of foundation
the seeking for foundation
could well be said to be the point of consciousness
its essence - what it does - what distinguishes it from the non-conscious
a search for reason
for reason is at the back of consciousness and yet any reason there is is only a product
of consciousness
hence you could say
consciousness makes its own foundation
this is what it does - must do - to be what it is
as a tree seeks nourishment from the ground - in being a tree
we never reach rock bottom here
because any proposal for foundation
is soon recognized for what it is - a fraud
in that it is a product of consciousness - and not what it is based upon
very difficult though to stop looking
even when you know there is nothing to find
nothing that can be found
out of this truly futile endeavour comes the best that we have
all our knowledge - our dreams
mind cannot be conceived
that which is in itself
and is conceived
through itself
it seems for Spinoza
substance exists separate from
any conception of it
any conception of it occurs in it
and any such conception is of it
so how can a conception be in and of?
in and of one in the same thing
surely it is impossible to conceive of something
that is not separate from the conceiving -
from that which does the conceiving?
if we argue mind is subjectivity
it's object is that which is outside of subjectivity
that which is objective
we may choose to think of mind as an object
but perhaps this is just a fact of language
of grammar - of the structure of grammar
once realized - we need to drop the concept of mind
as object
I prefer reflectivity as it is not object-like
but rather operative - an operation - an action
so a conception is a subjective - focus
which is defined by what it includes - and what it excludes
a subjective definition pure and simple
for this reason substance as that which has no negative - no outside
on my view cannot be conceived
cannot be conceived - and cannot be conceived through itself
any conception must be outside of that which is conceived
if it is not outside - it simply cannot be conceived
on this view mind can never be regarded as co-extensive with the external world
it is always within - it cannot be otherwise
the world is outside of mind
mind is in the world
and so
mind cannot be conceived
for it is not outside of itself
yes
and is conceived
through itself
it seems for Spinoza
substance exists separate from
any conception of it
any conception of it occurs in it
and any such conception is of it
so how can a conception be in and of?
in and of one in the same thing
surely it is impossible to conceive of something
that is not separate from the conceiving -
from that which does the conceiving?
if we argue mind is subjectivity
it's object is that which is outside of subjectivity
that which is objective
we may choose to think of mind as an object
but perhaps this is just a fact of language
of grammar - of the structure of grammar
once realized - we need to drop the concept of mind
as object
I prefer reflectivity as it is not object-like
but rather operative - an operation - an action
so a conception is a subjective - focus
which is defined by what it includes - and what it excludes
a subjective definition pure and simple
for this reason substance as that which has no negative - no outside
on my view cannot be conceived
cannot be conceived - and cannot be conceived through itself
any conception must be outside of that which is conceived
if it is not outside - it simply cannot be conceived
on this view mind can never be regarded as co-extensive with the external world
it is always within - it cannot be otherwise
the world is outside of mind
mind is in the world
and so
mind cannot be conceived
for it is not outside of itself
yes
where logic ends
I took Spinoza's definition of substance - that which is conceived through itself - and
argued that this definition is a definition of mind
this was a spin-off of the Spinoza discussion
mind conceives itself
mind - that which conceives - conceives that which conceives
and argued that this view - while true - cannot be explicated
as it stands it is to define the source as its product - or action
and so the definition collapses on itself
mind is greater than its conceptions
therefore if mind conceives itself
the conception (of mind) is lesser than mind
which is to say x is lesser than x
alright
the question is how do we get into this mess?
what all the above points to is that mind reflects
that reflectivity is the essential characteristic of mind
and so to the next and obvious question
what is it?
what is reflectivity?
now I have argued we cannot say
for to answer this question - we have to use concepts of mind
like subject / object for example
to explicate mind
it is again to attempt to use the product of mind to account for mind
and further
behind this idea - the belief - or hope that in some way we may be able to step out of
mind - to see mind - to explain mind
that an extra-mind objectivity is possible
now it is clear at this point that such is absurd
but the thing is absurd yes - but at the same time - it seems like the natural route to
take
why is this?
I think it is because of reflectivity
that is - we reflect on mind
or at least think we can
we can't - we can only reflect within -
but it is reflectivity that suggests that we can
and what are we to say here?
that the fundamental process of mind leads us astray -
that there is - or should be some limit or boundary to reflection -
that we discover - you guessed it - on reflection?
reflectivity - just seems to me to be a process - an action if you like
it is what mind does - just what it does
and like any other natural process - it is just what happens
just what happens in this world
our decisions about it - reflections - on reflectivity - are arguments of reflection
essentially no different from any other reflection - on the world or on mind
we make decisions - for reasons - in this case - for reasons of metaphysics
we never actually get out of it
the fact that we might want to - or think we can
is just another reflection
which from the point of view of logic
makes no sense
this is no great problem so long as it is realized that at such a point we are not actually
doing anything logical
imagination begins were logic ends
argued that this definition is a definition of mind
this was a spin-off of the Spinoza discussion
mind conceives itself
mind - that which conceives - conceives that which conceives
and argued that this view - while true - cannot be explicated
as it stands it is to define the source as its product - or action
and so the definition collapses on itself
mind is greater than its conceptions
therefore if mind conceives itself
the conception (of mind) is lesser than mind
which is to say x is lesser than x
alright
the question is how do we get into this mess?
what all the above points to is that mind reflects
that reflectivity is the essential characteristic of mind
and so to the next and obvious question
what is it?
what is reflectivity?
now I have argued we cannot say
for to answer this question - we have to use concepts of mind
like subject / object for example
to explicate mind
it is again to attempt to use the product of mind to account for mind
and further
behind this idea - the belief - or hope that in some way we may be able to step out of
mind - to see mind - to explain mind
that an extra-mind objectivity is possible
now it is clear at this point that such is absurd
but the thing is absurd yes - but at the same time - it seems like the natural route to
take
why is this?
I think it is because of reflectivity
that is - we reflect on mind
or at least think we can
we can't - we can only reflect within -
but it is reflectivity that suggests that we can
and what are we to say here?
that the fundamental process of mind leads us astray -
that there is - or should be some limit or boundary to reflection -
that we discover - you guessed it - on reflection?
reflectivity - just seems to me to be a process - an action if you like
it is what mind does - just what it does
and like any other natural process - it is just what happens
just what happens in this world
our decisions about it - reflections - on reflectivity - are arguments of reflection
essentially no different from any other reflection - on the world or on mind
we make decisions - for reasons - in this case - for reasons of metaphysics
we never actually get out of it
the fact that we might want to - or think we can
is just another reflection
which from the point of view of logic
makes no sense
this is no great problem so long as it is realized that at such a point we are not actually
doing anything logical
imagination begins were logic ends
11.12.06
mind out of mind
we cannot step outside of mind to see it - to regard it as an object - in the way we i.e.
see a physical object
this is quite obvious - to suggest otherwise is ridiculous
mind is that which explains
it must therefore be regarded as unexplainable in itself
in this sense the mind cannot be known
what can be known is mind as it is - as it appears
that is awareness
awareness is all there is to it
we cannot objectify awareness and place it within awareness
what I mean here is i.e. - Jack Smart and other mind-brain identity theorists argue the
mind is a brain state
what we have here is a theory of mind - physicalism - which it is thought can then be
made applicable to the act of mind - to awareness
so that the idea of physicalism - a conception of mind
is said to explain mind
no such idea - physicalism or another - is a theory of awareness (there is no such
thing) it is a product of awareness
what is produced is not that which produces
or a concept that comes out of mind
is not mind
mind is not an idea
mind is the source of the idea
to apply the idea - as an explanation of mind is to presume a realm of knowledge -
outside of mind
it is to assume there is a place we can see mind from
this is of course ridiculous - unless you think you can argue for an ideal transcendent
realm - in e.g. the way Plato did - or spiritualists and religious people do
such concepts are just posits of mind out of mind
see a physical object
this is quite obvious - to suggest otherwise is ridiculous
mind is that which explains
it must therefore be regarded as unexplainable in itself
in this sense the mind cannot be known
what can be known is mind as it is - as it appears
that is awareness
awareness is all there is to it
we cannot objectify awareness and place it within awareness
what I mean here is i.e. - Jack Smart and other mind-brain identity theorists argue the
mind is a brain state
what we have here is a theory of mind - physicalism - which it is thought can then be
made applicable to the act of mind - to awareness
so that the idea of physicalism - a conception of mind
is said to explain mind
no such idea - physicalism or another - is a theory of awareness (there is no such
thing) it is a product of awareness
what is produced is not that which produces
or a concept that comes out of mind
is not mind
mind is not an idea
mind is the source of the idea
to apply the idea - as an explanation of mind is to presume a realm of knowledge -
outside of mind
it is to assume there is a place we can see mind from
this is of course ridiculous - unless you think you can argue for an ideal transcendent
realm - in e.g. the way Plato did - or spiritualists and religious people do
such concepts are just posits of mind out of mind
that which concieves itself
that which conceives itself is mind
this might be a good preliminary characterization
but how can this characterization be explicated?
what is involved here?
clearly that which conceives itself is that which reflects
OK
but again what is it to reflect?
the thing that reflects is that which can see itself
have an idea of itself
and here we are talking about that which has ideas
and
has an idea of itself
as that which has ideas
the having of the idea of the self
is here an idea of an idea
what does this tell us about ideas
that they can be of that which they are not (the world)
and that which they are
that the idea is not defined by its object
its object can be itself or outside of itself
the object is not what determines the idea
the idea is an idea regardless of whether it holds an idea as its object
or a non-idea as object
OK
but isn't it the case that mind is defined by this capacity
this capacity to
reflect on itself and on the world
reflection is two dimensional
yes
but to reflect on itself
to hold itself as object?
you could say well what we are dealing with is two ideas
idea x and the idea of idea x
just two ideas -
no great mystery
the thing is though
how do you separate out the two ideas?
mind and its idea
are there two?
isn't it just mind -
and that mind can and does
it is the nature of the thing to see itself
mind does not step outside of mind to do this
mind conceives itself
this is what it does
is this a primitive position -
that is there is no further explanation?
is this just what awareness is?
and again there is no outside position or perspective possible
the only perspective is mind
that it conceives itself is just what it does
that is what mind is
for the life of me I don't see how this is possible
and by that I mean I don't get what is going on here
mind
holding itself as object
is mind
which is to say
the idea of mind (held by mind) is mind
how can anything be itself
and be that which sees itself?
are not there two entities here?
(I know this is clumsy - but what can I say?)
or perhaps
a function?
does this make it easier?
the function of reflection
OK
still no explication
just a re-statement in terms of function rather than things
mind is this function?
reflectivity - seems more than function - more like essence
the nature of the thing
perhaps we can say - reflectivity - awareness happens
we call this happening - this action - mind
and we try and explain it in terms of subject and object
but really these categories are categories of the mind in action
they cannot be then turned on the mind to explain its action
if you try and do this - you end up with trying to say
x is subject and x is object
and the whole point of the subject / object distinction
is that the subject and object are not one in the same
they are separate - different and apart
so to say the mind conceives itself
is to say the subject is object
this shows clearly I think that such an analysis does not work
does not get us anywhere at all
so perhaps
awareness - mind
is just simply a primitive - unanalyzable
it analyzes - but it cannot be analyzed
we cannot get behind it
there just is no objective position here
objective / subjective again -
categories of mind -
that cannot be used to account for mind
we recognize the feature - but we cannot say anything else
any attempt to do so - is trying to go outside of knowledge to explain it
we are best to face the fact that here we know that mind is -
not what it is
it is the source of knowledge - and therefore its explanation
is outside of knowledge
this might be a good preliminary characterization
but how can this characterization be explicated?
what is involved here?
clearly that which conceives itself is that which reflects
OK
but again what is it to reflect?
the thing that reflects is that which can see itself
have an idea of itself
and here we are talking about that which has ideas
and
has an idea of itself
as that which has ideas
the having of the idea of the self
is here an idea of an idea
what does this tell us about ideas
that they can be of that which they are not (the world)
and that which they are
that the idea is not defined by its object
its object can be itself or outside of itself
the object is not what determines the idea
the idea is an idea regardless of whether it holds an idea as its object
or a non-idea as object
OK
but isn't it the case that mind is defined by this capacity
this capacity to
reflect on itself and on the world
reflection is two dimensional
yes
but to reflect on itself
to hold itself as object?
you could say well what we are dealing with is two ideas
idea x and the idea of idea x
just two ideas -
no great mystery
the thing is though
how do you separate out the two ideas?
mind and its idea
are there two?
isn't it just mind -
and that mind can and does
it is the nature of the thing to see itself
mind does not step outside of mind to do this
mind conceives itself
this is what it does
is this a primitive position -
that is there is no further explanation?
is this just what awareness is?
and again there is no outside position or perspective possible
the only perspective is mind
that it conceives itself is just what it does
that is what mind is
for the life of me I don't see how this is possible
and by that I mean I don't get what is going on here
mind
holding itself as object
is mind
which is to say
the idea of mind (held by mind) is mind
how can anything be itself
and be that which sees itself?
are not there two entities here?
(I know this is clumsy - but what can I say?)
or perhaps
a function?
does this make it easier?
the function of reflection
OK
still no explication
just a re-statement in terms of function rather than things
mind is this function?
reflectivity - seems more than function - more like essence
the nature of the thing
perhaps we can say - reflectivity - awareness happens
we call this happening - this action - mind
and we try and explain it in terms of subject and object
but really these categories are categories of the mind in action
they cannot be then turned on the mind to explain its action
if you try and do this - you end up with trying to say
x is subject and x is object
and the whole point of the subject / object distinction
is that the subject and object are not one in the same
they are separate - different and apart
so to say the mind conceives itself
is to say the subject is object
this shows clearly I think that such an analysis does not work
does not get us anywhere at all
so perhaps
awareness - mind
is just simply a primitive - unanalyzable
it analyzes - but it cannot be analyzed
we cannot get behind it
there just is no objective position here
objective / subjective again -
categories of mind -
that cannot be used to account for mind
we recognize the feature - but we cannot say anything else
any attempt to do so - is trying to go outside of knowledge to explain it
we are best to face the fact that here we know that mind is -
not what it is
it is the source of knowledge - and therefore its explanation
is outside of knowledge
10.12.06
in itself / through itself
that which is in itself and conceives through itself
this statement of the nature of substance
needs to be tackled head on
first up there is no question here -
substance just is this -
that which is in itself and conceived through itself
conceived through itself -
conceived as what?
conceived as substance -
substance conceived as substance
that is
substance conceiving itself
what can this mean?
what does it conceive itself as?
as substance
OK
so what does this tell us?
how far does this advance us?
what then - can we say - as a result of this - substance is?
presumably -
only that - it is that which is conceived through itself
so are we told anything at all here?
and another question
how does something conceive itself through itself?
what is the logic of this?
we can ask Spinoza - could substance exist - unconceived?
which is to go to the status of the conception of substance
is this essential to the nature - the being of substance?
there seems to be no room for this in what Spinoza has written
substance is that which conceives itself
substance is a concept - as much as the object of the concept
in fact there is no distinction
there is no subjective / objective distinction here in Spinoza's substance
substance is one
it is here thought and extension
thought is extension
extension is thought
the division we see
that is the foundation of our system of logic
on Spinoza's view is simply failing to the see the essential unity
and oneness at the heart of it all
so mind (conception) is substance
extension is substance
substance in itself is
these attributes - and their infinite companions
beyond attributes - can we speak of substance?
it would seem so - given the initial definition
and what is this - what does it come to?
it comes to X is and X is C (conceived)
and then
X is conceived as X
XCX
the conception of X
is not X1 - it is X
so again
substance in itself - independently of attributes - speaking of it in this way just has to
be unknown
what we know of substance is its attributes
its attributes are perceived
and the question - what is being perceived here?
I perceive extension
I perceive thought
do I have any grounds for assuming these attributes are universal - essential features
of reality?
I don't know if I got to where I wanted to get to here
what interests me is substance conceiving itself
how can this be possible?
surely for this to be
substance would have to be the object of a conception?
and if the conception and its object are in some sense apart
separate
and would not the conception have to be outside of substance
which is not possible
therefore substance
cannot conceive itself
this statement of the nature of substance
needs to be tackled head on
first up there is no question here -
substance just is this -
that which is in itself and conceived through itself
conceived through itself -
conceived as what?
conceived as substance -
substance conceived as substance
that is
substance conceiving itself
what can this mean?
what does it conceive itself as?
as substance
OK
so what does this tell us?
how far does this advance us?
what then - can we say - as a result of this - substance is?
presumably -
only that - it is that which is conceived through itself
so are we told anything at all here?
and another question
how does something conceive itself through itself?
what is the logic of this?
we can ask Spinoza - could substance exist - unconceived?
which is to go to the status of the conception of substance
is this essential to the nature - the being of substance?
there seems to be no room for this in what Spinoza has written
substance is that which conceives itself
substance is a concept - as much as the object of the concept
in fact there is no distinction
there is no subjective / objective distinction here in Spinoza's substance
substance is one
it is here thought and extension
thought is extension
extension is thought
the division we see
that is the foundation of our system of logic
on Spinoza's view is simply failing to the see the essential unity
and oneness at the heart of it all
so mind (conception) is substance
extension is substance
substance in itself is
these attributes - and their infinite companions
beyond attributes - can we speak of substance?
it would seem so - given the initial definition
and what is this - what does it come to?
it comes to X is and X is C (conceived)
and then
X is conceived as X
XCX
the conception of X
is not X1 - it is X
so again
substance in itself - independently of attributes - speaking of it in this way just has to
be unknown
what we know of substance is its attributes
its attributes are perceived
and the question - what is being perceived here?
I perceive extension
I perceive thought
do I have any grounds for assuming these attributes are universal - essential features
of reality?
I don't know if I got to where I wanted to get to here
what interests me is substance conceiving itself
how can this be possible?
surely for this to be
substance would have to be the object of a conception?
and if the conception and its object are in some sense apart
separate
and would not the conception have to be outside of substance
which is not possible
therefore substance
cannot conceive itself
sub specie aeternitatis
the thing is this
to define substance (as Spinoza does) one must know it - or know of it
the definition is fine tuning - characterization
now the question
given that we are with substance speaking of everything - the totality
the question is - where does this notion come from - originate?
OK we think - and we think about
we think about what?
what we are aware of - what we see - what we experience -
are we aware of the totality?
in a logical sense - yes
the argument goes -
I am a part of something greater
that greater is finally all that is
yes
so - no question here of experiencing the totality
not logically possible
but know - in the sense of a logical deduction yes
here we are talking about frameworks of knowledge
categories necessary for knowledge
transcendental categories in Kant's terminology
on this view - the totality - substance - in Spinoza's terms
is what?
a reality - an actually existing reality?
or - categories of the understanding necessary for the having of knowledge?
i.e. - is substance - reality or a way of understanding reality?
I think the latter
so we think substance -
substance becomes a way of understanding the world and man's place in it?
what the world is
as it were outside of this understanding
without these categories of knowledge -
is the real question
but in fact it is one we cannot know the answer to
the world as such - in itself as Spinoza has put it - and Kant would too
is unknown
unknowable
so we operate within - within the world
and know - know in terms of categories of understanding
and these are just functions of consciousness
how - human consciousness works - its set up position
consciousness is in the business of knowing
and it comes equipped as it were for the job
you might take the view - alright accept this -
and really therefore - isn't this just all knowledge is?
no need as it were to look beyond - for something else
by definition - on this view - there just isn't anything else
fair enough I think - and I guess such is the Kantian solution
Kant's argument is an account of how consciousness works
basically - if we as conscious entities - operate in such a way - i.e. know - then this
(the transcendental categories) must be presumed
for without them we cannot account for epistemological behaviour
so it is an argument of entailment
I know - what are the conditions necessary for this?
I am not sure that Kant has really answered the question - and certainly - not finally
what he has done at least is say there must be pre-existing conditions for knowledge
if knowledge is to follow
- or what he calls knowledge
could one argue - that we cannot actually know - this
what they are?
we cannot that is get to the transcendental level of understanding
that yes it is a way of seeing the issue
but would it not be more to the point to say - we don't know -
we can't go there -
except in an imaginative sense?
it's a background picture
in general I think what I am asking is - what can you see?
what can be seen?
and it is connected to another question
where are you?
in relation to Spinoza
let me put it this way
to know substance - as an object of thought - to be able to conceive substance
substance must be outside the concept
and therefore the conceiver - outside of substance
was this what Spinoza was trying to get up - or was presuming is possible - something
along these lines anyway - in proposing his sub species aeternitatis argument?
yes - from the point of view of eternity (whatever this really means) we may - in some
sense be able to see - or conceive substance
but who has this point of view -
who can see from that place -
who is in that place?
to define substance (as Spinoza does) one must know it - or know of it
the definition is fine tuning - characterization
now the question
given that we are with substance speaking of everything - the totality
the question is - where does this notion come from - originate?
OK we think - and we think about
we think about what?
what we are aware of - what we see - what we experience -
are we aware of the totality?
in a logical sense - yes
the argument goes -
I am a part of something greater
that greater is finally all that is
yes
so - no question here of experiencing the totality
not logically possible
but know - in the sense of a logical deduction yes
here we are talking about frameworks of knowledge
categories necessary for knowledge
transcendental categories in Kant's terminology
on this view - the totality - substance - in Spinoza's terms
is what?
a reality - an actually existing reality?
or - categories of the understanding necessary for the having of knowledge?
i.e. - is substance - reality or a way of understanding reality?
I think the latter
so we think substance -
substance becomes a way of understanding the world and man's place in it?
what the world is
as it were outside of this understanding
without these categories of knowledge -
is the real question
but in fact it is one we cannot know the answer to
the world as such - in itself as Spinoza has put it - and Kant would too
is unknown
unknowable
so we operate within - within the world
and know - know in terms of categories of understanding
and these are just functions of consciousness
how - human consciousness works - its set up position
consciousness is in the business of knowing
and it comes equipped as it were for the job
you might take the view - alright accept this -
and really therefore - isn't this just all knowledge is?
no need as it were to look beyond - for something else
by definition - on this view - there just isn't anything else
fair enough I think - and I guess such is the Kantian solution
Kant's argument is an account of how consciousness works
basically - if we as conscious entities - operate in such a way - i.e. know - then this
(the transcendental categories) must be presumed
for without them we cannot account for epistemological behaviour
so it is an argument of entailment
I know - what are the conditions necessary for this?
I am not sure that Kant has really answered the question - and certainly - not finally
what he has done at least is say there must be pre-existing conditions for knowledge
if knowledge is to follow
- or what he calls knowledge
could one argue - that we cannot actually know - this
what they are?
we cannot that is get to the transcendental level of understanding
that yes it is a way of seeing the issue
but would it not be more to the point to say - we don't know -
we can't go there -
except in an imaginative sense?
it's a background picture
in general I think what I am asking is - what can you see?
what can be seen?
and it is connected to another question
where are you?
in relation to Spinoza
let me put it this way
to know substance - as an object of thought - to be able to conceive substance
substance must be outside the concept
and therefore the conceiver - outside of substance
was this what Spinoza was trying to get up - or was presuming is possible - something
along these lines anyway - in proposing his sub species aeternitatis argument?
yes - from the point of view of eternity (whatever this really means) we may - in some
sense be able to see - or conceive substance
but who has this point of view -
who can see from that place -
who is in that place?
the substance argument
the proposal - the definition of substance - as 'that which is in itself and conceived
through itself'
states quite boldly - brazenly perhaps that
(i) there is something that is in itself
(ii) that such conceives through itself
so first up we have an equivalence of domain between that which is - and that which
conceives
substance - exists in its own right
and conceives itself
one might ask
isn't conception an act of the mind?
and for it to be complete
the conception has an object
that which is conceived
so conception and its object - two distinct categories
for x to conceive through itself
suggests x is conception
conceiving itself
thought thinking itself
good definition of God - but where is the world?
Spinoza says - substance is in itself
i.e. it is not a part of anything else
it is thus in some sense existence per se
everything that exists
and is conceived through itself
well yes -
there is nothing else - from which to conceive substance
but is substance conceived
can it be conceived?
presumably if it is conceived through itself
the conception
is within substance
if so
how can the part embrace the whole?
surely on this view
thought - conception is some function within
there cannot that is be an objective conception
a conception from outside
so how can substance - ever be an object
how can it be an object of conception?
so what I am questioning here is the idea - that x can conceive x
on such a view there is no distinction between subject and object
an essential distinction to be drawn if any conception is to take place
that which conceives cannot be that which is conceived
on such an arrangement we cannot say what the conception is -
(except perhaps itself)
and we cannot say what the object of conception is
to go down this track leads to the destruction of sense
the collapse of epistemology
and ontology here is about nothing
through itself'
states quite boldly - brazenly perhaps that
(i) there is something that is in itself
(ii) that such conceives through itself
so first up we have an equivalence of domain between that which is - and that which
conceives
substance - exists in its own right
and conceives itself
one might ask
isn't conception an act of the mind?
and for it to be complete
the conception has an object
that which is conceived
so conception and its object - two distinct categories
for x to conceive through itself
suggests x is conception
conceiving itself
thought thinking itself
good definition of God - but where is the world?
Spinoza says - substance is in itself
i.e. it is not a part of anything else
it is thus in some sense existence per se
everything that exists
and is conceived through itself
well yes -
there is nothing else - from which to conceive substance
but is substance conceived
can it be conceived?
presumably if it is conceived through itself
the conception
is within substance
if so
how can the part embrace the whole?
surely on this view
thought - conception is some function within
there cannot that is be an objective conception
a conception from outside
so how can substance - ever be an object
how can it be an object of conception?
so what I am questioning here is the idea - that x can conceive x
on such a view there is no distinction between subject and object
an essential distinction to be drawn if any conception is to take place
that which conceives cannot be that which is conceived
on such an arrangement we cannot say what the conception is -
(except perhaps itself)
and we cannot say what the object of conception is
to go down this track leads to the destruction of sense
the collapse of epistemology
and ontology here is about nothing
conception II
the conception is an enclosure
the totality is not enclosed
therefore
the totality cannot be conceived
the totality is the ground of conception
it is the space of conception
the space for conception
conception occurs within
the totality is the outside of (all) conception
the totality is logical space
the space in which thought is possible
the totality cannot be thought
the totality is not enclosed
therefore
the totality cannot be conceived
the totality is the ground of conception
it is the space of conception
the space for conception
conception occurs within
the totality is the outside of (all) conception
the totality is logical space
the space in which thought is possible
the totality cannot be thought
conception
I argue that to conceive is to delineate
so you always conceive within a domain
a logical domain
the question
can you therefore conceive of God?
of the totality?
this it would seem is to conceive the domain
in which all conception takes place
don't we do just this?
yet if we do -
given the above theory of conception
how do we do it?
that is if conception is always within domain
what domain is everything - the totality in?
- it seems none
so
is this account of conception wrong?
perhaps we don't always conceive within?
so the conception of everything?
the totality
do we conceive it or only imagine we do?
it's hard to say we don't
still at the same time - the idea that to conceive is to delineate seems dead on -
the two can't be right
one is up the creek
the totality - is really the idea of possibility
everything that is possible is the totality?
also - everything that is -
that does exist
it is the logic of the universal
all
can we conceive all?
we think we can
but isn't it really -
a negative conception?
x exists
~x - that which is not x
so
we conceive all
only the negative of an existential
so
all - is here
that which is not x
x and ~x is?
everything?
(strange logic)
and the point is - isn't it that everything cannot be defined
it must be an open concept
(for otherwise there would be something on the outside of everything)
and as such a negative concept -
this is to say - a positive concept - is a closed concept
it is an existential concept
so
do we conceive - everything - all - the totality?
is to ask
do we conceive negatively - that which is not?
in this case that which is not x
it is to conceive domain isn't it?
and the conception of domain is negative
or that which is outside of the domain is negative
so
a conception posits domain - and its negative
can everything be conceived?
that is can the negative of the domain be conceived?
that is - not everything?
the domain within which everything is
and what is outside of this domain
can you conceive nothing?
not everything?
no I don't think so - you can only conceive positively -
what exists
so what of conceiving everything?
everything
is the domain of the existential
x exists
the domain of x -
is that which exists
is existence
is it a conception or an assumption?
an assumption necessary for conception?
yes I think so
and so
how do we regard this assumption?
is it like a meta conception -
necessary to conceive anything at all?
perhaps
it is in logical terms - the conception of domain
can the assumption be - then -
that which is conceived
I think not -
but this is why - it appears as if it can be a positive conception
because it is always the necessary -
assumption of conception
we easily think that it is - a valid conception
it is not what is being conceived -
it is the ground of conception
and then the argument could be
that to conceive requires an assumption of domain
if domain - is to be conceived -
it must have - such an assumption
but it is the assumption
how is it to function as assumption - to itself?
how can it be what is assumed -
and what rests on the assumption?
therefore
domain is - strictly speaking - not conceived
to conceive everything is to mistake - assumption - for that which rests on the
assumption
this is to say you do not conceive everything - the totality
you conceive - on this assumption
so you always conceive within a domain
a logical domain
the question
can you therefore conceive of God?
of the totality?
this it would seem is to conceive the domain
in which all conception takes place
don't we do just this?
yet if we do -
given the above theory of conception
how do we do it?
that is if conception is always within domain
what domain is everything - the totality in?
- it seems none
so
is this account of conception wrong?
perhaps we don't always conceive within?
so the conception of everything?
the totality
do we conceive it or only imagine we do?
it's hard to say we don't
still at the same time - the idea that to conceive is to delineate seems dead on -
the two can't be right
one is up the creek
the totality - is really the idea of possibility
everything that is possible is the totality?
also - everything that is -
that does exist
it is the logic of the universal
all
can we conceive all?
we think we can
but isn't it really -
a negative conception?
x exists
~x - that which is not x
so
we conceive all
only the negative of an existential
so
all - is here
that which is not x
x and ~x is?
everything?
(strange logic)
and the point is - isn't it that everything cannot be defined
it must be an open concept
(for otherwise there would be something on the outside of everything)
and as such a negative concept -
this is to say - a positive concept - is a closed concept
it is an existential concept
so
do we conceive - everything - all - the totality?
is to ask
do we conceive negatively - that which is not?
in this case that which is not x
it is to conceive domain isn't it?
and the conception of domain is negative
or that which is outside of the domain is negative
so
a conception posits domain - and its negative
can everything be conceived?
that is can the negative of the domain be conceived?
that is - not everything?
the domain within which everything is
and what is outside of this domain
can you conceive nothing?
not everything?
no I don't think so - you can only conceive positively -
what exists
so what of conceiving everything?
everything
is the domain of the existential
x exists
the domain of x -
is that which exists
is existence
is it a conception or an assumption?
an assumption necessary for conception?
yes I think so
and so
how do we regard this assumption?
is it like a meta conception -
necessary to conceive anything at all?
perhaps
it is in logical terms - the conception of domain
can the assumption be - then -
that which is conceived
I think not -
but this is why - it appears as if it can be a positive conception
because it is always the necessary -
assumption of conception
we easily think that it is - a valid conception
it is not what is being conceived -
it is the ground of conception
and then the argument could be
that to conceive requires an assumption of domain
if domain - is to be conceived -
it must have - such an assumption
but it is the assumption
how is it to function as assumption - to itself?
how can it be what is assumed -
and what rests on the assumption?
therefore
domain is - strictly speaking - not conceived
to conceive everything is to mistake - assumption - for that which rests on the
assumption
this is to say you do not conceive everything - the totality
you conceive - on this assumption
substance II
what I was going to say is -
the conception of that which does not require the conception of anything else just is a
conception of singularity
it is thus the concept of one -
it is for Spinoza the view that there is one concept that explains - explains all diversity
- it is an explanatory concept - and the explanation is singularity
is oneness
if the conception does not require any other conceptions to be formed - then by
definition it is a concept of singularity
for we are here told no other concepts apply -
if you then assume a well formed concept is a conception of something -
then what it applies to - is a singularity
is a matter of logic
therefore what it refers to is one - is substance
and again by definition if the concept applies - then what exists is one substance
so the steps of the argument are:
(1) propose a concept of singularity
(2) assume it applies
alright
it is clear that we can do (1)
but do we the go to (2)?
generally not
why not?
because the fact that we might be able to conceive x is one thing -
whether x applies is quite another matter
in a way Spinoza is proposing in his definition of substance the ontological argument -
how do we know if a concept applies?
say the concept of a golden mountain
if it is meant to be an actually existing mountain of gold
we test the assertion - by looking for that which is asserted -
OK
what though of a concept of metaphysical unity -
everything is one
can this be tested?
no -
the reason being it has no empirical content -
it just cannot be tested - it cannot be falsified
it is not an empirical proposition
it is non-empirical
it is metaphysical
which is to say
what?
not that it is meaningless -
it is meaningful - but not empirical
again it is to say what?
it is to say
we have a view of the world that we hold - regardless of the facts of the world
it is a background view
that functions to - explain - give account for what we cannot know
the human understanding that needs to give some description of the unknown
for deep psychological reasons -
it is an account of the unknown
therefore such conceptions are descriptions of what cannot be known
they are strictly speaking imaginative
this is the category Spinoza's concept of substance falls into -
which is all very well
but it does not apply to the known world - or the knowable world
it cannot be regarded as a true account of what we know
or for that matter a false account
it is a fictional account
the mistake is to assume that all conception relates to the knowable world
this is not so
it is in Ryle's terms a category mistake -
it is to mistake the known for the unknown
and to assume that concepts that properly apply to one -
in fact apply to the other
which is wrong - and big time
the conception of that which does not require the conception of anything else just is a
conception of singularity
it is thus the concept of one -
it is for Spinoza the view that there is one concept that explains - explains all diversity
- it is an explanatory concept - and the explanation is singularity
is oneness
if the conception does not require any other conceptions to be formed - then by
definition it is a concept of singularity
for we are here told no other concepts apply -
if you then assume a well formed concept is a conception of something -
then what it applies to - is a singularity
is a matter of logic
therefore what it refers to is one - is substance
and again by definition if the concept applies - then what exists is one substance
so the steps of the argument are:
(1) propose a concept of singularity
(2) assume it applies
alright
it is clear that we can do (1)
but do we the go to (2)?
generally not
why not?
because the fact that we might be able to conceive x is one thing -
whether x applies is quite another matter
in a way Spinoza is proposing in his definition of substance the ontological argument -
how do we know if a concept applies?
say the concept of a golden mountain
if it is meant to be an actually existing mountain of gold
we test the assertion - by looking for that which is asserted -
OK
what though of a concept of metaphysical unity -
everything is one
can this be tested?
no -
the reason being it has no empirical content -
it just cannot be tested - it cannot be falsified
it is not an empirical proposition
it is non-empirical
it is metaphysical
which is to say
what?
not that it is meaningless -
it is meaningful - but not empirical
again it is to say what?
it is to say
we have a view of the world that we hold - regardless of the facts of the world
it is a background view
that functions to - explain - give account for what we cannot know
the human understanding that needs to give some description of the unknown
for deep psychological reasons -
it is an account of the unknown
therefore such conceptions are descriptions of what cannot be known
they are strictly speaking imaginative
this is the category Spinoza's concept of substance falls into -
which is all very well
but it does not apply to the known world - or the knowable world
it cannot be regarded as a true account of what we know
or for that matter a false account
it is a fictional account
the mistake is to assume that all conception relates to the knowable world
this is not so
it is in Ryle's terms a category mistake -
it is to mistake the known for the unknown
and to assume that concepts that properly apply to one -
in fact apply to the other
which is wrong - and big time
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)