2.png)
§1
Experience is an “internally-differentiated” atmosphere; an atmosphere which self-differentiates itself in-and-through froths of meaning; all of which “pour themselves out for” a determination of that atmosphere itself—this locus, or center, to-which and for-which all meanings converge, is none other than the Subject.
§2
Experience’s manifold differentiations all flow “inward” towards the Subject, and for the Subject.
§3
Experience is like a whirlpool, whose spiraling currents drag ribbons of sea-foam down from its directrix, into its submerged apex, wherein they collapse into a simple point; this very point, this Archimedean point, is the Subject.
§4
Experience is that which is exhaustively self-differentiated, to, through, and for, a determination of itself.
§5
The Subject is that to-which, through-which, and for-which, an Experience is exhaustively self-differentiated.
§6
The Object of Consciousness is that determination or aspect of Experience which is actively attended to by a factor, aspect, or determination of that Experience itself, said determination being that to-which, through-which, and for-which, said Experience is exhaustively self-differentiated.
§7
Experience has a determinate, “qualitatively contentful” structure that is diffused across three dimensions. Experience has (i) a Subject-dimension, (ii) a marginal-dimension, and (iii) a focal-dimension. Dimensions (i), (ii), and (iii) are “differentiated” structures that converge back into (i). The Subject-dimension, of course, is that dimension of Experience to-which, through-which, and for-which Experience, and all of its dimensions—including the Subject-dimension itself—are “differentiated.”
§8
“Meaning” is a valuative, qualitative “filling” or “content” that is for a Subject’s actual and/or possible appreciation and/or acknowledgement.
§9
The world of actual and possible “Meaning” is exhaustively saturated by value and feeling. As the “being” of value and feeling are both equally sustained by that Subject, to-which, through-which, and for-which they exist, it follows that the “being” of “Meaning” is incapable of being divorced or separated from the “being” of Subjectivity.
§10
A purely formal system is no different from Matter. A purely formal system lacks any determinate “Meaning” either “for-itself” or “for” any of its parts; indeed, all “Meaning” which said system has acquired, or will acquire, is “Meaning” that has been bestowed upon it from something Other than the formal system itself—a being that is “outside” of the system. Furthermore, even after this bestowal of “Meaning,” said system is still devoid of “Meaning-for-itself;” its “Meaning” is exhaustively “Meaning-for-another.” Now, that Other which is “outside” the system, and bestows the system with “Meaning,” not only “includes” said system within itself as “content,” but also distinguishes said system from itself—it recognizes the system as its “content,” as its Object, and acknowledges said Object as a being-for-me. Now, this Other is none other than Thought itself.
§11
If we were to take infinitely many coplanar geometrical figures of various determinate shapes and sizes, and have them expand, contract, and scurry about for an indefinite time, we can rest assured that no transformation, redistribution, pattern, or collision of said figures will ever yield a new figure with “cubical content”—a figure that not only exhibits a new dimension, but also envelops the aforementioned coplanar geometrical figures whose transformations, redistributions, patterns, or collisions gave rise to it. Indeed, all qualitative changes and transformations in those figures—and patterns thereof—will always be determinate manifestations of a generic character—or determinable—that had hitherto manifested itself in another determinate form. If, after an indefinite time, a change in the arrangement of those coplanar geometrical figures resulted in the manifestation of a new figure exhibiting “cubical content” enveloping those aforementioned coplanar geometrical figures, then said manifestation would be the manifestation of a new determinable that was itself “inclusive of” the former determinable, without itself being “included under it” as a determinate manifestation of said determinable. Such a disparate breach of continuity is paralleled in the idea that—at some point in time—Experience was “birthed” by transformations, redistributions, and modifications of Matter.
§12
(A) Matter has its center “out-of-itself.”(B) Experience has its center “in-itself.”
§13
(A) Matter is that which is exhaustively differentiated “out-of-itself.” (e.g. “Partes extra partes”)(B) Experience is that which is exhaustively differentiated “into-itself.” (e.g. “Partes intra partes”)
§14
Qualitative and relational changes (e.g. transformations, dilations, expansions, translations, rotations, reflections, etc.) in that which is exhaustively differentiated “out-of-itself” cannot account for what would be the manifestation of a new determinable (hitherto unmanifested) that exhibits (i) an “internally-differentiated” structure that returns “into-itself,” and (ii) is “inclusive of” the “externally-differentiated” material factors or elements that gave rise to it.
§15
I would say that I hold to a form of Absolute Idealism. My thinking is heavily influenced by the late-19th and early-20th century American Idealists (e.g. Royce, Calkins, Cunningham, Hollands, and Blanshard) and British Idealists (e.g. Bradley, Bosanquet, Haldane, McTaggart, Ward, Stout, etc.). I am also greatly indebted to the genius insights of Arthur Schopenhauer.
§16
I view Reality as a concrete, all-inclusive, and systematic whole, saturated with meaning and value—it is a unity-in-difference which exhibits a principle of coherence, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility. Furthermore, I hold that Reality (i.e., the Absolute) is genuinely conceivable or thinkable only in terms of “Mind,” “Spirit,” or “Experience.” Indeed, I would say that the Absolute is one with my own center of Experience and other centers of Experience as that concrete and actual system of meanings which rational, purposive agents (as well as non-rational agents) possessive of those centers of Experience, must acknowledge and take into consideration (or conform to) in the pursuit and fulfillment of their respective subjective interests, goals, plans, desires, and fundamental needs. I like to think of myself as maintaining a holistic conception of metaphysics, as well as a synoptic philosophical methodology—a method that is vehemently anti-reductionist in its approach and conclusions.
“Speculative idealism...takes the standpoint of concrete experience, which is also the standpoint of common sense and science. It begins by viewing mind and the objective system of nature as distinct, and it never dreams of identifying them; they remain distinct to the end. But speculative idealism does not permit their distinction to blind it to the fact that they are complementary; they are for it what they are in concrete experience, namely inseparably related aspects of that conscious life which is experience. It also accepts as complementary, and obviously so, the relation of the individual mind to the minds of other individuals. In other words, it accepts as complementary the social relationship between mind and mind. Thus for speculative idealism there are three moments or coordinates within experience: the self, other selves, and nature. These are accepted as they present themselves within experience as irreducible and ultimate distinctions. But, while recognizing their difference, speculative idealism also recognized their complementary nature and relationship. It does not accept them as discrete existences or entities each with its own independent self-enclosed center; holding on to the standpoint of concrete experience, it accepts them as complementary coordinates within experience.” (Cunningham, The Idealistic Argument in Recent British and American Philosophy, 296)
§17
Hegel writes,
“The nature of Spirit may be understood by a glance at its direct opposite—Matter. As the essence of Matter is Gravity, so, on the other hand, we may affirm that the substance, the essence of Spirit is Freedom....Matter possesses gravity in virtue of its tendency toward a central point. It is essentially composite; consisting of parts that exclude each other. It seeks its Unity; and therefore exhibits itself as self-destructive, as verging toward its opposite [an indivisible point]. If it could attain this, it would be Matter no longer, it would have perished. It strives after the realization of its Idea; for in Unity it exists ideally. Spirit, on the contrary, may be defined as that which has its center in itself. It has not a unity outside itself, but has already found it; it exists in and with itself. Matter has its essence out of itself; Spirit is self-contained existence....This self-contained existence of Spirit is none other than self-consciousness—consciousness of one’s own being. Two things must be distinguished in consciousness; first, the fact that I know; secondly, what I know. In self consciousness these are merged in one; for Spirit knows itself. It involves an appreciation of its own nature, as also an energy enabling it to realize itself; to make itself actually that which it is potentially.” (Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of History, 18)
As I understand this passage, Hegel is here illustrating something which I have touched upon elsewhere:(A) Matter is that which is exhaustively differentiated “out-of-itself.” (e.g. “Partes extra partes”)
(B) Experience is that which is exhaustively differentiated “into-itself.” (e.g. “Partes intra partes”)
§18
Contrary to the nature of Experience, the nature of Matter is exhausted by the reciprocal exclusion and repulsion of its composite parts; for, parts of Matter exemplify nothing other than flatness, out-spreadedness, and side-by-sidedness. Matter is neither “transparent-to-itself,” nor does it return either “into-itself” or “into-its-parts.” Matter, contra Experience, is always “outside-of-itself,” and is never at home with itself.
§19
All the rays of conscious activity emanate from a lone, aperspectival locus, an apperceptive unity, a kernel of self-determining and self-bestowing meaning, a being who is inclusive of all that is lived and known; this is the “I”—the knowing Subject—that being for whom, and to whom, all is Object.
§20
A fragmented, makeshift patchwork of discrete and discontinuous atomic qualities is not to be found in Experience. Indeed, a genuine pluralism is, strictly speaking, inconceivable—to think of Many is to think of Many-in-and-for-One. Just as a single, lone sound is heard from the moment of birth and rounds off at the time of death, so too is there but One Experience—the World of Experience. This sound, like Experience, may flicker and oscillate in tone, quality, shape, and definition, but its permanent essence remains invariant and One.
§21
Being is but the ribbons of feeling that dance on the winds of knowledge.
§22
All lies before the silent, stationary, and eternal “I”. The “I” cannot be brought into the light of consciousness, for it constitutes the limit of consciousness.
§23
Experience is immaterial, and Consciousness is immaterial activity poured out in time.
§24
In the act of self-reflection, the one “I” becomes acquainted with the sublimity of its inner sense—that scrolling canvas which collects the showers of colored-meanings bestowed upon it in and through the gaze of the knowing Subject, the “I”. The inner sense is a sandy beach which memorializes each unique bead of rain with an ephemeral crater, only to be filled again by the tide’s mighty arm—a crashing wing whose foaming feathers sweep the shoreline and prepare the canvas to be mottled anew with heaven’s tears.
§25
The present is a durationless sliver wedged in the heart of Being, crushed between the arms of eternity. The present is a rocky islet whose towering spire emerges from the roaring waves of ceaseless change and punctures the static vault of heaven. Stretching into the infinite past and infinite future, the wings of time shelter the whole of Being. If one were to climb that lone, crumbling mound, and reach its misty peak, one would find the “I”. However, the “I” cannot be seen, for it sees everything; the “I” cannot be heard, for it hears everything; the “I” cannot be known, for it knows everything. Apart from this seeing, hearing, and knowing being—there is nothing.1
§26
Experience is neither mere “Subjectivity” (i.e., a barren, isolated, private “I”), nor mere “Objectivity” (i.e., a mere fulguration of an ordered sequence or pattern of “sensa” or “percepta”); rather, Experience is, strictly speaking, a concrete, living Substance—in the Spinozistic sense of the term—it is a Substance within which Subjectivity and Objectivity are abstractly-distinguishable, coordinate factors or determinations.
§27
Experience is neither the “presence” of “qualia”, nor again is it the mere “having” of “qualia.” Qualia are merely qualitative, sensuous determinations of either the Objective aspect or the non-Objectified margins of Experience (e.g. the “redness” of a speeding car, the “blueness” of the clear sky, the “sweetness” of a tasty fruit, the “sting” of a feeling of pain, the “warmth” of a wool coat, etc.) Qualia are Experiential; however, they do not exhaust the “filling” of Experience.
§28
Experience is not the mere “togetherness” or “compresence” of Subject and Object; for, there is always a relatively determinable margin of Experience which, despite being present, falls outside the radius of explicit attention; this subliminal “surplus” wades in the margins of any given Experience and always “coats” or “qualifies” each moment of Experience with a unique “aura” or “tone.”
§29
Metaphysics is the systematic study of the ultimate nature of Reality. Anyone who embarks upon such a journey is, strictly speaking, a metaphysician. To say that such a task is either beyond the scope of knowledge, meaningless, or impractical, is to unconsciously enter the arena of metaphysical speculation. Indeed, any would-be objector to metaphysical inquiry is none other than “a brother metaphysician with a rival theory of first principles.”
§30
Metaphysics, despite being a spiritual endeavor, is not a discipline which necessitates the embracing of a species of theism, agnosticism, or atheism. Nor again should a metaphysic be identified with—heaven forbid—a mere quibbling over words, or a tedious regurgitation of banal truisms. A metaphysic, or at least a genuine metaphysic, is a systematic and holistic illustration of the concrete world of Experience—it is a spiritual act, a reflective act that is expressive of the world within which we live, move, and have our being.
§31
The following collection of fragments were written many years ago (They are not in any particular definitive order). Their style, terminology, and subject-matter jars with my present work and way of thinking. Despite the fact that I now find them to be unsatisfactory (and, in some cases, downright erroneous), I can’t help but feel that there lies a kernel of truth buried within some of them. Apart from making a few grammatical corrections, I have left them as they were initially written.
§32
What is a System? A System is a tool crafted by Mind for the interpretation and comprehension of itself and its world. A System takes many forms—all of which are dependent on the Mind’s own reflectiveness. A System provides Mind the foundation and substance for its own life and purpose.
§33
A System is a labyrinthine plane which consolidates Mind into a fixed, yet flexible, network of ordered paths. Upon its entry into the labyrinth, an Object gets dragged through a mechanized assembly line of manipulation, distortion, and eventually complete conformity. The System enslaves the Mind and its Object; indeed, the System ossifies Mind for the sake of the System’s own survival and sustenance. The System, begotten by Mind, repays its creator by enslaving him—Mind’s possibilities become limited, and its agency negated.
§34
Mind’s development is not a seamless journey. Quite the contrary, Mind’s progression is often thwarted by incomplete systems that entrap and imprison its own self-realization. In response to its entrapment, Mind redirects its inertia and alters its trajectory—only to be caught once more in (i) gravitational forces that bend Mind back upon itself and into the core of its own being, and (ii) tides that propel Mind into the vast regions of ignorance and possibility.
§35
This leads us to the concept of Mind-in-Flight: the process whereby Mind comes to reject its own System. This process is set in motion upon Mind’s encountering an immutable or insurmountable object, perspective, or idea that cannot to be assimilated and harmonized by said System. The System may pull through and withstand the assailing daggers; however, it does not emerge without battle scars. Its recovery begins to amass contradictions—shards of doubt embed themselves within the System’s core. The vestiges of the initial onslaught have extruded a fatal poison into the heart of the System. The System’s collapse is inevitable. After coming to terms with the dire situation at hand, Mind uproots itself—severing the connections that bounded it to the dying System, jettisoning its withering remains into past. Eventually, that fading shadow of how Mind once was—its former home and place of rest and satisfaction—will disintegrate into nothingness. Mind is unable to return to its shell after casting it off—there is no going back.
§36
Until Mind adopts a new home for itself—another System—it is carried through a sea of novelties and exoticism by the ropes of its own intentionality—swinging from thought to thought, idea to idea. Eventually, the scaffolding of a new System begins to metastasize and acquire mass and form. Mind extracts and absorbs particular elements from the encroaching ideas—features which it considers to be apt for the construction of its new home.
§37
Like the formation of planets, decontextualized ideas drift towards the Mind’s immaterial core. Unwanted and discrepant ideas are ejected back into the void, while others are drawn closer towards a central point until they collide and fuse into a mass of Meaning. The gravitational forces exerted by the ideas themselves alter the motion of surrounding ideas, dragging and tearing elements from each.
§38
Over time, Mind’s new System transitions from embryo to actuality—unfolding itself into manifold paths of possibility and discovery.
§39
Mind’s recognition of its own eternal dialectic is the moment at which Mind elevates itself into a higher form of consciousness—a new frame of reference from which Mind obtains a new vantage-point over itself and its world. This realization allows for Mind to burst from its confining linear, geometrical, and rigid designs—Systems that alienate Mind from itself. Indeed, once Mind becomes conscious of itself as riding its own pulsating current of Thought, Mind unlocks a new species of freedom: He may either continue searching for Systems wherein the form and matter are impenetrable, immovable, and dormant—hostile to itself and its own change; or, Mind can accept itself as pure act—a creative, dynamic process that pours itself out within a regal frame and showers the canvas with a swirling pallet of conscious color: Only the frame is fixed on the wall of actuality; by contrast, the symphony of color presented on the canvas is one that shall forever remain anew, everchanging, and returning upon itself.
§40
Mind’s current flows out-of-itself and back into-itself, absorbing novel Thoughts and Objects, recognizing its faults, and ever-emerging as a process of greater and greater enrichment. This is the sole design wherein the Mind has the opportunity to be acquainted with ataraxia. This particular shape through which Mind realizes itself will always be that of a restless tide, a mighty current. Mind must realize itself that it is its own “becoming” and accept that as its “being.”
§41
This conclusion is a both a blessing and a curse to the reflective Mind. Indeed, Mind must come to terms with a life of perpetual motion, and that his Thought and his World will never be granted with either rest or tranquility.
§42
We frequently speak of “loving” and “cherishing” photographs. But what do we mean by this? What are we really expressing our “love” for? What is the genuine object of our “cherishment”? As soon as we begin to reflect upon the nature of photographs, we uncover webs of subtle and unconscious knots—confusions resulting not only from the haziness of common expressions and causal parlance, but also from the enigmatic relationship between what a thing “is” and what it is “of”—a relation of identity-in-difference.
§43
A photograph both is, and is not, itself. Indeed, a photograph is a photograph only insofar as it vanishes into what is “other” than itself—a hilly landscape, a blooming flower, a colorful bowl of fruit, etc. The visual medium “discloses” a message; and in disclosing the message, it must, in some respect, be in contact with it through a point of shared identity. The identity of every photograph is dependent upon its own self-abasement and self-denial as a stand-alone, self-dependent, and self-contained being. Mere “likeness” or “similarity” fails to capture the essence of the relationship between a photograph and its subject matter. And understanding this relationship is essential for grasping what we really mean when we speak of “loving” and “cherishing” photographs.
§44
A photograph’s meaning, subject-matter, and value is determined by the person who comes into contact with it (physically or digitally). A photograph–by itself–is rarely the object of sentimental attachment. We treasure a photograph because of an object, event, or scene that lies outside or beyond the photograph—the photograph being a digital or chemical “representation” of said object, event, or scene. We “cherish” a photograph only insofar as we “love” what is “represented” by means of it or what is “disclosed” through it. We “treasure” and protect a photograph because it puts us into contact with an object of love and concern–and in most cases, this object has long since vanished.
§45
Unlike a photographic print, a digital photograph is, almost always, something “transparent”—like a glass window. If I am inside my house, I may see an object or event that is occurring outside “by means of” a glass window, or “through” a glass window. The glass window facilitates my view of the object or event without itself becoming the object of my attention or concern.
§46
Objects “appear” and manifest themselves perspectivally; however, an Object’s various “appearance-patterns” or “appearings” do not themselves “appear” or manifest themselves perspectivally; indeed, they are not themselves Objects, rather they are the “amodally-appreciated-appearings” of the Object. Fleeting and transitory, an “appearance-pattern” is ideal—it is essentially incomplete and fragmentary. It passes beyond itself and strives for completion and stability in what lies beyond itself.
§47
In referring to myself as “I”, I consciously determine myself as a being of which I am conscious; I posit myself as knowing, and knowing myself as such—thus, I establish myself as an identity of Subject and Object. As Object, I am enveloped within my own knowledge; as Subject, I am the enveloping.
§48
Gyrating patterns of molecular activity are, in toto, pervaded by a self-othering “side-by-sidedness.” Indeed, these events quâ “material happenings” (i.e., processes that “outspread” and “diffuse” themselves across an extended, spatio-temporal manifold) are only insofar as their “unfoldings” are repulsions “out-of-themselves”—no one of these “repulsions” either being, or having, a “moment of return” (i.e., a differentiation or phase wherein there is an “overreaching,” “including,” or “enveloping” of the distinction between “itself” and its “other” within “itself”). For any such “material happening”—regardless of its peculiar kind or character—there is neither an “interpenetration,” nor a “mutual-inclusion,” of its manifold differentiations or phases; on the contrary, we only find its differentiations or phases “withdrawing-into-Others” (i.e., “passing-out-of-themselves” at the expense of their own self-identity). However, these “Others”—the “beyonds” towards which the differentiations or phases of a “material happening” seek to “withdraw,” are themselves repulsions “out-of-themselves”—prolonging the monotony ad infinitum.
§49
Meaning is a two-fold movement—the “self-accretion” and “self-severance” of a “This” as it passes beyond itself towards a “not-This”—the two aspects of this “passage-beyond-self” are enveloped within a single “This-Now” (a “Mine”—quâ immediate “presence”) and, as so enveloped, is grasped as internally-complex (a “Mine-for-Me”—quâ mediated “presence”).
[1] Cf. Anquetil Duperron, Oupnek’hat: Theologia Et Philosophia Indica, Vol. I (Paris, 1801), p. 201-202.
No comments:
Post a Comment