Sartre 1d - the being of the percipi

Sartre 1d.

Being and nothingness: the pursuit of being.

IV. The being of the percipi.


the argument:


we have reduced things to the united totality of their appearances – and established that these appearances are a being that is no longer appearance

the percipi referred us to the percipiens – the being that is consciousness

consciousness is the absolute to which every phenomenon is relative

there is only known being

consciousness is not a phenomenon of knowledge – but is the structure of being

we are on the ground of phenomenology here

the question is – is consciousness sufficient to provide the foundation for the appearance qua appearance?

we have extracted its being from the phenomenon in order to give it consciousness – will consciousness subsequently restore it to the phenomenon?

the answer is in examination of the percipi

there is a being of the thing perceived – as perceived

if I reduce this table to its impressions – it nevertheless reveals itself qua table through this synthesis

that is it is the transcendent limit of the synthesis – the reason for it and its end

the table is before knowledge – and cannot be identified with it – otherwise it would be consciousness – pure immanence – and it would disappear as a table

in so far as the known cannot be reabsorbed into knowledge – we must discover for it a being

this being we are told is the percipi

let us recognize that the being of the percipi cannot be reduced to the percipiens – to consciousness

at most we can say it is relative to this being

still to the being of the percipi –


the mode of the percipi – to be perceived - is passive

if the being of the phenomenon is in the percipi – then this being is passivity

what is passivity?

I am passive when I undergo a modification of which I am not the origin – neither the source or the creator

so my being supports a mode of being of which I am not the source

but in order to support it – I must exist

and therefore my being is always situated on the other side of passivity

either I am not passive in my being – and am therefore the foundation of my being

or I am affected with passivity in my very existence – my being is received being – and hence falls into nothingness

passivity must be a relation of one being to another – and not of one being to nothingness

one can conceive of a creation on the condition that the created being recover itself – tear itself away from the creator – in order to close in on itself immediately – and assume its being

it is in this sense that a book exists as distinct from the author

but if the act of creation is to be continued indefinitely – if the created thing does not have its independence – then the creature is in no way distinguished from the creator – it is absorbed in him – we are dealing with a false transcendence

the creator cannot have even the illusion of getting out of his subjectivity

what element of passivity can we assign to perception – to knowledge?

we cannot assign passivity here - it is all activity - all spontaneity

it is precisely because it is pure spontaneity – because nothing can get a grip on it – that consciousness cannot act upon anything

thus esse est percipi would require that consciousness – pure spontaneity which cannot act upon anything – give being to a transcendent nothingness – at the same time keeping it in its state of nothingness

the percipi implies that the law of being of the perceptum is relativity

can we conceive that the being of the thing known is relative to the knowledge?

what can the relativity of being mean for an existent – if not that the existent has its being in something other than itself – an existent which it is not

certainly it would not be inconceivable that a being should be external to itself – if one means that this being is its own externality

but such is not the case here

the perceived being is before consciousness

consciousness cannot reach it

and it cannot enter into consciousness

and as the perceived being is cut off from consciousness

it exists cut off from its own existence

it would be no use to make of it an unreal – in the manner of Hursserl

even as unreal it must exist

the two determinations of relativity and passivity – which can concern modes of being – can on no account apply to being

the esse of the phenomenon cannot be its percipi

the transphenomenal being of consciousness cannot provide a basis for the transphenomenal being of the the phenomenon

here we see the error of the phenomenalists


commentary:


the act of perception reveals

it is an act however that is dependent on an underlying relation

that relation is the relation of consciousness to the non-conscious

unless this relation obtains there is no result

that is there is no appearance

appearance in itself – is unknown

as known – it can be accounted for either subjectively or objectively

it is not an either / or proposition

the subjective account (of this unknown) serves certain purposes

as indeed does the objective account

so – we can speak of appearance in terms of subjective impressions – or as that which is outside of the subjective impression – as the thing in itself –

i.e. the table in the sunlit room – or the table in terms of its dimensions and quantities

my argument is that appearance – independently of its subjective and objective arguments (internal and external dimensions) – is unknown

underlying this operational dualism is uncertainty

this uncertainty is the way of being for conscious entities aware of their existence in a non-conscious world – because appearance is – outside of our dealings with it – unknown

there is no touch stone –

back to Sartre –

substance theories – of Descartes – of Spinoza – of Sartre –

the argument of being as far as I can see must be a substance theory

clearly – Sartre does not want to accept – the fact of scepticism –

that his being – Descartes’ mind – and Spinoza’s God - are just synonyms for – or characterizations of – the unknown

but you could ask –

where do you go from here – if you are not to explain being in terms of substance –

what’s the alternative?

my argument is that we can deal with these issues in terms of dimensions

that is recognize that consciousness is the internal dimension – that the non-conscious – the external dimension

dimensions of a unity – that is as a unity – unknown

my argument is that we operate in terms of these categories

that they are essential to our understanding of the world

that they are essential to our being as human beings – as human animals

as to whether the world ‘in itself’ – is like this or not

I say we don’t know

what we can do ‘know’ is how we operate in it –

the point is – that which exists outside of consciousness – is the external dimensions of our reality –

our internality is consciousness is ‘the knowing’ – and that which is outside of this – that which is known

so there is on this view no question of either one being the other

the perceiver and the perceived are two dimensions of the one reality

my point in general is that the basis on which we operate is uncertainty

there is no ‘being’ – or ‘knowledge’ – that can be the basis of our reality

we operate with those notions that best enable us to function –

so even my dimensional analysis – this theory of an internal and external dimensions – as the operational categories of an unknown unity - is like any other account of the nature of reality – a functional stratagem

I argue that such an analysis makes more sense than the substantial theories offered by idealists and materialists and the phenomenalists and the absolutists

it’s all up for grabs

the point in an existential sense is to embrace uncertainty and deal with it – not run from it or deny it

ok – like I said – back to Sartre

Sartre asks – what is passivity?

and his answer is pretty much pure Spinoza – I am passive when I undergo a modification of which I am not the source or creator

Sartre notes that to support such a passivity – I must exist

and thus that my being is always situated on the other side of passivity

being here is some kind of back stop

for without it one’s identity would simply be passivity – what is received

and what then of identity?

space time co-ordinates for a ‘passivity cluster’?

any deterministic view is subject to this kind of argument

being – for Sartre is the metaphysical levee

without it the sea of passivity would just keep flowing

the problem really for Sartre is that being here functions as a kind of first cause

‘being’ has the ring of something

just as ‘God’ did for Thomas Aquinas

but the point really is that this something – if it is anything - is unknown

this is the truth of Sartre’s ‘being’

the essence that is being is unknown

he goes on to claim that consciousness is activity – is spontaneous –

and this the basis of his argument against esse est percipi – the idea that the percipi is
of an essentially different nature to the percipere –

so the argument hinges on the active / passive distinction

all human reality is open to explanation

that is – really – to description - to account

it is just here that the categories of consciousness and its object – of the internal and the external come into focus

it is clear we can explain conscious action in terms of its effect in the external world –

that is action in or from the internal dimension

and likewise – the external impacts on the internal

in such analyses 'active' and 'passive' are notions that play a role

clearly we can describe an action in terms of the action of consciousness on – the non-conscious

in which case – for the sake of the explanation – for the sake of the argument - the external world is regarded as passive

alternatively we can explain a conscious event in terms of an external action

here – consciousness is passive – the world is active

this conceptual flexibility is not possible if you think passive and active – are absolutes that only have one designation

they are concepts the value of which is to be found in their utility - that is their descriptive function

the subject which is to be described – some instance of the relation of the conscious and the non-conscious – is essentially unfixed

we fix it with our descriptions

so my point here is that I think it foolish to brand the object of perception – just as it is foolish to brand perception – with any mark – any name

how we describe consciousness – how we describe the world – is not set in some kind of metaphysical stone – that it is the job of philosophers to uncover

we make our characterizations – in the knowledge that there is no template to use – no prototype to appeal to

Sartre says the perceived being is before consciousness – consciousness cannot reach it – it cannot enter into consciousness

I realise Sartre wants to avoid the Cartesian problem of interaction

and it seems here that he might have done so

pretty radical solution – no interaction

at best all that seems to be left is a very cold parallelism

being might be in the centre here – but it would be a lonely and strange place to be –

like being between two rooms and listening to the conversations in both

also – the passive active distinction - to cut to the chase is a relational distinction

that is x is related to y – in that i.e. - x is passive relative to y – or x is active relative to y

what I am saying here is that passive and active describe a relation between –

they are not ‘essential attributes’ of the relata

so for all intents and purposes x and y could be anything at all –

Sartre here has used a relational argument to try and settle an essential dispute – he has thus missed the point and misapplied this argument

Sartre is clearly struggling to characterize the relata – consciousness and its object –

I think he is desperately trying to avoid the obvious – that in essential terms they can only be characterized as unknowns –

hence he has gone down the relational route

as I said earlier this is essentially a Spinozistic argument –

but in Sartre’s hands it is a crude instrument

Spinoza’s passive / active distinction hinges on his theory of knowledge

on Spinoza’s view we must distinguish between adequate and inadequate knowledge

inadequate knowledge is if you like partial or incomplete - and typically that which is given to mind by the world –

the mind as the receiver of this ‘knowledge’ is passive – passive in that it is the receiver

when the mind acts and acts on the basis of rational or complete ideas then its basis is adequate knowledge and its mode is active

from this we can argue that for Spinoza – consciousness is in itself or in essence neither passive or active –

it can be either – and that depends on its basis

Sartre desperately wants knowledge out of the picture as fundamental – and to rest on the laurels of being

but Spinoza’s argument regarding passive and active – shows us at least that if you have an epistemological underpinning the concepts can make sense – in a way that just appealing to being – like to the elephant in the room – does not

just by the by my own view on ‘adequate knowledge’ is that there is no such thing –

except – if you like the adequate knowledge that precedes effective action

in short all ‘knowledge’ – is essentially inadequate –

and this fact is why there continues to be knowledge and its growth

real adequate knowledge would be the end of the penny section

and as to Spinoza’s account –

on his view – the only adequate knowledge is the knowledge of God – or substance as a knowing thing

it is true that as modes of this substance we participate in the eternal truths

but it is also true that as modes we are only parts of whole – and thus essentially limited entities

any action - in the sense of self-caused action – is only ‘adequate’ in the sense that I believe I determine the action

this may be a necessary mode of thinking for self-determined action to occur – but it is only so because it is determined as such

any analysis – that is any explanation – will blow apart the apparent necessity of the determination

Spinoza himself as Sartre has already noted is a determinist – so in Spinoza’s world the totality determines the modes

as conscious entities we may think we determine – at least some of our actions – but in Spinoza’s metaphysics – this has to be an illusion

really with Spinoza freedom is a matter of ‘getting with the program’ – that is living – thinking and acting in terms of his metaphysics

ok – you might say – except that in fact it doesn’t work

Spinoza’s God – is really the unknown

and the unknown is silent

our thought and actions are not based on any foundation of knowledge or being

if there is a basis to our thought and action it is whatever basis we give to our thought and action –

there is a necessity to act – this I grant

but is – in itself – an undefined necessity –

in characterizing our actions – and the world of our actions - we create the illusion of knowledge

and this illusion – is the ground on which we operate – it is the real world

a note on Berkeley’s esse est percipi -

the idea here is that to be – is to be the object of perception

so clearly perception or consciousness is what is essential and central

whatever is within consciousness or perception - in so far as it is in consciousness – has being

on such a view consciousness exists outside of being

and therefore cannot be said to exist

and in that case – being then has no content

if it hadn’t been so influential you would have to say this is just a drunken Irishman with his cassock inside out

in the cold morning light – the reality we actually live in is two dimensional

we have an internal sense of the external world

the external world is external relative to our internal reality

the unity of these dimensions is the world – is just that which is to be known

the unity of these dimensions – is the world unknown

being is this unity – being is this unknown


(c) greg. t. charlton. 2008.

Sartre 1c - the pre-reflective cogito and the being of the percipere

Sartre 1c


Being and nothingness: the pursuit of being.

III. The pre-reflective cogito and the being of the percipere.


(1) my preamble


the phenomenal world as a relation between –

awareness and the object of awareness

appearance as the relation

ok

then to consciousness

what do we say of consciousness?

that we are aware of it

aware of awareness

awareness – is this self-consciousness?

but what are we aware of?

the standard view is that we are aware of the object of consciousness

but isn’t it the case that we are aware of the relation of consciousness to its object?

it is the relation we are aware of -

- not the object as such

- the object – consciousness – only exist as relata

the object in itself is a reduction from the relation

and so too consciousness –

consciousness ‘in itself’ as a reduction from the relation?

the relation as primary

the relata secondary

awareness in itself

or consciousness in isolation is a reduction?

just as the object – a reduction –

at the very least – a radical view

I know I am pushing the envelope here – and we’ll have to see if it moves and where it goes

in one sense what I am putting is that we can begin with ‘the unity’ – the unity of consciousness in the world

that this is a relation

I am saying we can explain it this way

if we do though

consciousness is not primary – the object of consciousness is not primary

consciousness and its object – are reductions from the unity

so to awareness

it might be put –

this relation if it holds can only hold – if consciousness – is aware of it

so awareness must come first?

but the thing is consciousness is in this relation – it is not outside of it

and in life I think you can argue consciousness is only ever a reduction

you might say an existentially necessary one

that the way the human animal operates is to separate its ‘self’ from the world outside itself – to divide the unity

this could be seen as really an adaptive reality

a reality needed for function

and I guess my overall point is that the unity as such is unknown

that for ‘knowledge’ to be possible – and the fact is knowledge is necessary – necessary to the operation and survival of the animal and of the species – subject and object – internal and external - must be deconstructed out of the unity

this division of consciousness and its object becomes the necessary operational basis for action

and that means the necessary conditions required to enable us to characterize – describe – give meaning to – the unity

so consciousness ‘in itself’ is an operational reality – is a reduction from the relation of consciousness and the non-conscious

actually we begin in the first moment as it were with the unity – but we can only describe this in reductive terms – i.e. – consciousness and non-consciousness

we can only deal with the reality – the metaphysical reality – in terms of these operational categories

the unity in a non-operational sense – a metaphysical sense – what some have termed ‘pure being’ - is unknown

ok – a work in progress -

back to Sartre


(2) the nature of the percipi


(a) positional consciousness


argument:


consciousness is not a mode of particular knowledge it is the dimension of transphenomenal being in the subject

consciousness is the knowing being in its capacity as being and not as being known

we must abandon the primacy of knowledge to establish that knowledge

all consciousness is consciousness of something

thus consciousness has no content

i.e. a table is not in consciousness – it is in space

the existence of the table is a centre of opacity for consciousness

consciousness is a positional consciousness of the world

all that there is of intention in my actual consciousness is directed towards the outside

not all consciousness is knowledge – but all knowing consciousness can be only of its object

the necessary and sufficient condition for a knowing consciousness to be knowledge of its object is that it be consciousness of itself as being that knowledge

this is not sufficient for me to affirm that the table exists in itself – but rather that it exists for me


commentary:


consciousness as transphenomenal being

this idea is a way of describing what you might call the state of consciousness – the fact of it – it’s a way that makes clear that consciousness is more than the awareness of any object outside itself

consciousness is the internal dimension of two dimensional beings

consciousness’ awareness is thus the internalization of the world outside itself

it exists in the world and its awareness is of the world

this tells us nothing about consciousness as such – but there is nothing to say – but that it is internal to the external

we also know that ‘consciousness is aware of itself’

what this means is no simple matter

my own view is that awareness just is this ‘phenomenon’ – this kind of thing

that all consciousness is ‘self-consciousness’ –

that such is the nature of internality – it is just simply the fact of it

any analysis of this will be consciousness reflecting on itself –

that is any attempt to explain consciousness reflecting on itself – will be just that consciousness reflecting on itself

so there is only the act of consciousness – and the act of consciousness is the only possible explanation of it

to cut to the chase – an explanation of consciousness is not possible

you have only the act of consciousness and there is nothing else to it

why then do we at least begin to seek an explanation?

well one reason may be that we use consciousness to explain and to account for the non-conscious – and so it is an easy mistake to think conscious can also account – for itself

it is to mistake the explanans for the explanandum

also consciousness’ awareness of itself suggests that ‘itself’ can be an object for consciousness

but in these terms consciousness is pure subjectivity – it is not subject and object

and pure subjectivity – unlike pure objectivity - just is aware

and awareness is – how shall we say – self-illuminating – phosphorescent?

in object language it is virtually impossible to describe pure subjectivity

one other point –

Sartre says – self-consciousness is not sufficient for me to assert that a table exists in itself – but rather that it exists for me

if as I argue consciousness is internal – is internality – then that which consciousness is primarily aware of is – external to it

thus consciousness exists in the world –

it is the relation of internality to externality

the internal does not exist for the external – the external does not exist for the internal

to suggest such is a very anthropomorphic view of reality

in philosophical terms it is pre-Copernican

an external dimension exists given the existence of consciousness

consciousness is internality – that which is external to consciousness – exists – as external

how you describe this external dimension – is another matter

we come equipped with certain categories – i.e. ‘object’ and ‘cause and effect’ ‘space’ and ‘time’ etc. – and these serve us well for most purposes

however the growth of knowledge has required refinements changes and sometimes replacement of our natural categories

so the question about the nature of the table – is really a question of description

in itself the external world is unknown

the point of consciousness is just to characterize this reality

and consciousness’ characterizations are then for all intents and purposes what the external reality is

the fact is there can be no definite descriptions here – there is nothing final in any act of consciousness

consciousness is without foundation – by its nature it is indeterminate


NB.


reflecting on acts of consciousness –

and reflecting on consciousness itself – being aware of awareness

reflection is an act of consciousness – directed – at consciousness?

it is consciousness – recognizing itself

bring itself up – as a false object

a false object

a false object in the sense of true – outside of consciousness – object

consciousness can only recognize itself as object-like

the thing is once this recognition is ‘realized’ – it is realized – as false

and so we have the realization that consciousness is not an object –

so we ask what is it?

its status is – not revealed

if not revealed – how can we know – what it is?

what it is – is the revealing

not the revealed

it is the light – not what it shines on



(b) what is consciousness of consciousness?


argument:


the problem here says Sartre is the illusion of the primacy of knowledge – so that we are ready to make consciousness the idea ideae in the manner of Spinoza

this is to make consciousness an object of reflection

consciousness would then transcend itself – and would like the positional consciousness of the world be exhausted in aiming at its object – but that object would itself be a consciousness

Sartre rejects this view of consciousness of consciousness

the reduction of consciousness to knowledge involves introducing the subject-object dualism

if we accept the knower-known dyad – a third term will be necessary for the knower to become known in turn and we will be faced with this dilemma

either we stop at any one term of the series – the known – the knower known – the knower known by the knower etc.

in this case the totality of the phenomenon falls into the unknown – that is we always bump up against a non-self-conscious reflection and a final term –

or else we affirm the necessity of infinite regress – idea ideae ideae etc. – which for Sartre is absurd

he goes on to say – thus to the necessity of ontologically establishing consciousness we would add a new necessity – that of establishing it epistemologically

are we obliged to introduce this dyad into consciousness ?

consciousness of self is not dual

if we are to avoid an infinite regress there must be an immediate non-cognitive relation of the self to itself

the reflecting consciousness posits the consciousness reflected-on – I am ashamed of it – I am proud of it etc.

the immediate consciousness which I have of perceiving does not permit me to judge or will or be ashamed etc.

all that there is of my actual consciousness is directed towards the outside – to the world

this spontaneous consciousness of my perception is constitutive of my perceptive consciousness

in other words every positional consciousness of an object is at the same time a non-positional consciousness of itself

if I count the cigarettes in a case it is possible I have no positional consciousness of counting them – then I do not know myself as counting

this refutes Alain’s formula – to know is to know one knows

yet at the moment the cigarettes are revealed to me as a dozen I have a non-thetic consciousness of my adding activity

if I am asked “what are you doing?” and reply “I am counting” – this reply aims not only at the instantaneous consciousness I can achieve by reflection but at those fleeting consciousnesses which have passed without being reflected on – those which are forever not reflected on in my immediate past

thus reflection has no kind of primacy over the consciousness reflected-on

it is not reflection that reveals the consciousness reflected-on to itself

quite the contrary – it is the non-reflective consciousness which renders reflection possible

there is a pre-reflective cogito which is the condition of the Cartesian cogito

at the same time it is the non-thetic consciousness of counting which is the very condition of my act of adding

if it were otherwise how would the addition be the unifying theme of my consciousness?

in order that this theme should preside over a whole series of syntheses of unifications and recognitions – it must be present to itself

not as a thing but as an operative intention which can exist only as a revealing revealed

thus in order to count one must be conscious of counting

to the argument that this idea of the revealing revealed is circular Sartre says it’s the very nature of consciousness to ‘exist in a circle’

he expresses it this way – every consciousness exists as consciousness of existing

and he goes on to say that self-consciousness is the only mode of existence which is possible for a consciousness of something


commentary:


in summary so far Sartre’s argument in relation to consciousness of consciousness – is that it cannot be explained epistemologically – in terms of knowledge

it is not reflection that reveals the consciousness reflected-on to itself

there is a pre-reflective consciousness that makes reflective consciousness possible

this is to say that it is of the nature of consciousness as an existent – that it is conscious of itself –

and this is meant in the sense of an ‘operative intention’ – which can exist only as the revealing revealed – to use an expression of Heidegger’s

self-consciousness just is the mode of existence that is consciousness

so to this point we have from Sartre the argument that we cannot explain self-consciousness in terms of knowledge – in terms of reflection

to account for self-consciousness we have to posit it as a mode of existence – and once this is done – knowledge flows

to assert self-consciousness as a condition for knowledge – as a reality that presupposes consciousness -

is almost like an ordinary language argument – or a description of what the man in street actually means when he says he is self-conscious

that is it takes the apparent fact of self-consciousness says yes it exists – and furthermore there would be no consciousness of anything without it

it is I think pretty close to a pragmatic assertion of a metaphysical claim

i.e. we need this principle of self-consciousness to explain consciousness and that is a good enough argument for asserting its existence

the prime facie problem here is that consciousness of consciousness is not explained or explicated – it is simply asserted

before he gets to this conclusion he argues that the knowledge based arguments result in scepticism or infinite regress

let us have a look at these arguments

can an idea hold an idea?

first off Soinoza’s ‘idea of the idea’ – does not explain self-consciousness –

it is just a description of it

secondly we can ask too – can there be an idea of an idea?

can I think about thought?

yes

but the thought I am thinking about

does not contain the act of thinking about

so – consciousness can never be an object – even a false object – of consciousness

that is consciousness – is always ‘left out’ of any idea of the idea

consciousness is the act that enable the idea of the idea

it is always presumed in any such analysis

it looks as if – even if you can hold consciousness – as an object – make it into such

the act of consciousness that enables this – is something other than – this ‘object’

so – the infinite regress argument doesn’t really get going – just because the act of consciousness is never part of the regreess

what this reveals about Spinoza’s argument – is that he has no theory of self-consciousness

and I would argue that he really has no theory of mind – that is anything other than geometrical

that is there is no internality in Spinoza’s reality

Spinoza’s reality is one dimensional

mind – in Spinoza’s philosophy is just an alternative description of extended reality

an alternative description of externality

an alternative – that in terms of his philosophy – has no basis

it is astonishing – but the fact is there is no internality in Spinoza’s reality

and as a result there is no mind

you can argue from this I think that if his theory of mind goes

his account of extension – as he puts it collapses too

the result is – we have from Spinoza an unknown reality

or is that an unknown God?

in relation to consciousness this is not far off the mark

my view is that consciousness is unknown

we imagine that we can account for it as consciousness of consciousness

but as the above shows this does not work

and it is an approach that really just results from imagining that the subject can be held as object

consciousness is pure subjectivity

by its nature it can never be object

the object - we can say this at least – is always that which is - outside of consciousness

consciousness is not outside of itself

and because of this it is not known – not knowable

it is the knowing – not the known

and as such is unknown

in a sense Sartre – correctly saw this

he just did not want to accept this conclusion

and he puts that we can think about it in another way –

we can approach the issue as an issue of being

but there is no real advantage in this approach

it is really to simply assert – we have consciousness - so it must be possible

and this possibility we will call ‘a mode of existence’ – as it were – for want of a better name

I have a better name - it is 'the unknown’

since Descartes there has been a somewhat schizophrenic relationship with scepticism

in western philosophy it is the only method –

but it is the conclusion most and I mean virtually every body has thought they could avoid –

and as far as I can see no one really has

Descartes certainly didn’t – and as with Berkeley no-one was fooled by God

the unknown writ large

it is clear that for Sartre – being functions as God

it has the same attribute

it is unknown


argument:


self-consciousness is the mode of existence that makes consciousness possible

just as an extended thing exists in three dimensions – so an intention a grief a pleasure – can exist only as immediate self-consciousness

if the intention is not a thing in consciousness – then the being of the intention can only be consciousness

this is not to say that some external cause could determine a physic event to produce itself

or that this event so determined in its material structure – should be compelled to produce itself as self-consciousness

this would be to make non-thetic consciousness a quality of positional consciousness
- as if the positional consciousness of the table would have in addition the quality of self-consciousness

this would be to make the psychic event a thing and to qualify it with ‘conscious’ – just as I can qualify this blotter with ‘red’

pleasure cannot be distinguished from consciousness of pleasure

consciousness of pleasure is constitutive of the pleasure as the very mode of its own existence – as the material of which it is made – and not as the form which is imposed by a blow upon a hedonistic material

pleasure cannot exist before consciousness of pleasure


we must avoid defining pleasure by the consciousness we have of it

this would be to fall into an idealism of consciousness – and that would bring us to the primacy of knowledge

pleasure must not disappear behind its own self-consciousness

it is not a representation – it is a concrete event – full and absolute

it is no more a quality of consciousness than self-consciousness is a quality of pleasure

there is no more first a consciousness which receives subsequently the affect ‘pleasure’ – than there is first a pleasure (unconscious) – which receives subsequently the quality of ‘consciousness’

there is an indivisible indissoluble being – not a substance supporting its qualities – but a being which is existence through and through

pleasure is the being of self-consciousness – and this self-consciousness the law of being of pleasure

consciousness is not produced as a particular instance of an abstract possibility – but that in rising to the centre of being – it creates and supports its essence – that is the synthetic order of its possibilities


the type of being of consciousness is the opposite of that which the ontological proof reveals to us

since consciousness is not possible before being – and its being is the source and condition of all possibility – its existence implies its essence


this self determination of consciousness is not a genesis – a becoming – for that would force us to suppose that consciousness is prior to its own existence

this self-creation is not an act – for in that case consciousness would be conscious of itself as an act – which it is not

consciousness is a plenum of existence

and this determination of itself – by itself is an essential characteristic

the existence of consciousness comes from consciousness itself

this is not to say consciousness comes from nothing –

there cannot be a nothingness of consciousness – before consciousness

‘before’ consciousness one can only conceive of a plenum of being – of which no element can refer to an absent consciousness

consciousness is prior to nothingness and is derived from being


the paradox is not that there are self-activated existences - but that there is no other kind

what is unthinkable is the passive existence – that is existence which perpetuates itself – without having the force either to produce itself or preserve itself

there is nothing more incomprehensible than the principle of inertia

where would consciousness come from if it did come from something?

from the limbo of the unconscious – or of the physiological –

but if we ask how this limbo in its turn can exist – and where it derives its existence – we find ourselves faced with – passive existence

that is we can no more understand how this non-conscious given – which does not derive its existence from itself – can nevertheless perpetuate this existence – and find the ability to produce consciousness


by abandoning the primacy of knowledge we have discovered the being of the knower and encountered the absolute

consciousness has nothing substantial – it is pure ‘appearance’ in the sense that it exists only to the degree to which it appears

but it is because consciousness is pure appearance – because it is total emptiness – since the whole world is outside it –

it is because of this identity of appearance and existence within it – that it can be considered as the absolute


commentary:


consciousness is not conscious of it its origin

it is not aware of its origin

therefore it does not know its origin

be that sui causa or otherwise

the question of origin –

any theory of origin is defeated by the fact that consciousness cannot see itself as an object

it does not have an ‘object’ view of itself

again this endeavour – this futile endeavour is a result of consciousness regarding itself as what it is not

that is outside itself

(bad faith at the deepest level)

consciousness is a function

the object of its function is outside itself

the false idea that consciousness can hold itself as object leads to the idea that in some sense it can step outside itself –

and in so doing ‘see’ where it came from

this view of things is really best put in Spinoza’s dictum – sub specie aeternitatis

the God’s eye view of things

consciousness cannot see itself

consciousness is the seeing

if it did see itself – this would be ‘the seeing – seeing the seeing’

in such a case it is clear – there is nothing to see

I said above – bad faith at the deepest of levels – and I think this is the case

self-conscious cannot strictly speaking be described

we have no vocabulary for pure subjectivity

no vocabulary that is except in the creative arts – that is the language of art

subject–object language – only refers to the relation between

the relation between consciousness and its object

to try and explain consciousness – or ‘the knowing’ in subject-object terms – is quite frankly a contortion – a perversion

it doesn’t work – it can’t work

Sartre I think understands this to the extent that he says that consciousness determines itself by itself

what this means is that there is no explanation

consciousness explains what is outside itself

it does not - cannot explain itself

I would argue straight up consciousness does not cannot see itself

and so the essence of consciousness is that its essence is unknown

or in Sartre’s language the ‘being of the knower’ is unknown

which is to say being – the essence of being is that it is unknown

finally consciousness does not appear

consciousness is internality

internality is not – emptiness

appearance is the relation between the internal and the external

the world outside of consciousness is the external – is externality

appearance is an existential relation – the relation between the internal and external dimensions of reality

that which is outside of knowledge is absolute


(3) knowledge and existence


existence is the object of knowledge

in the first instance existence is that which is outside of consciousness – that which consciousness is not

this awareness though comes with the knowledge that consciousness exists

that is consciousness holds itself as object – while recognizing that its intentional object is the world outside itself

so of the relation of knowledge and existence?

it is not a question of origin – of which came first

awareness and its object are two aspects of the one relation

the unity of subject and object – is the unknown – and thus it is the unknown that is the ground of the relation

this is to say existence in itself is unknown – and that awareness – consciousness – or knowing in itself is unknown

in relation – which is the reality we deal with – where we begin – existence is the content of consciousness and consciousness the awareness of existence

once this is understood it is clear that the actual reality (of being in the world) is the unity of consciousness and existence

the unity is unknown

we respond to this reality by separating out – consciousness and its object – knowledge and existence

the separation is an operational necessity

it is needed that is to deal with the unknown –

it is necessary in order for us to negotiate the unknown – to act in the unknown

thus consciousness and its object – knowledge and existence – are ultimately functional abstractions


(c) greg. t. charlton. 2008.

Sartre 1b - the phenomenon of being and the being of the phenomenon

Sartre 1b

The pursuit of being.

II. The phenomenon of being and the being of phenomenon.


the basic question here –

‘Is passing beyond the existent toward the phenomenon of being actually to pass beyond it towards its being, as one passes beyond the particular red toward its essence?’

Sartre goes on to argue -

that the object does not posses being nor does it reveal being

the existent is a phenomenon – this means it designates itself as an organized totality of qualities

being is simply the condition of all existents

by not considering being as the condition of revelation but rather being as an appearance which can be determined in concepts – we understand that knowledge cannot by itself give an account of being

that is the being of the phenomenon cannot be reduced to the phenomenon of being

in a word the phenomenon of being is ‘ontological’ in the sense we speak of the ontological proof of Anselm and Descartes

the phenomenon of being requires the transphenomenality of being

that is the phenomenon exists only qua appearance – that is it indicates itself on the foundation of being

and so the being of the phenomenon although co-extensive with the phenomenon cannot be subject to the phenomenal condition – which is to exist so far as it reveals itself –

and consequently the being of the phenomenon surpasses the knowledge which we have of it and provides the basis of such knowledge

we can begin the assessment of Sartre’s point of view here by asking the question - what are we to make of this term ‘being’ – or to put it sharply ‘being as such’?

‘being’ does not refer to any specific existent

it is rather an open concept – and for that matter you might even say an empty concept

it is best seen as a category – a category of generalization that has no specific content

as to its use - in traditional philosophy this concept functions as an analytical tool

e.g. its function can be to provide an intellectual ground for the analysis of phenomenon –

i.e to enable us to analytically break down a phenomenon while at the same time having a sense of its unity

Sartre refers to it as the ‘condition of all existents’ – and what this really means is that it is a concept used in any argument that requires such generality

it is a tool of argument

Sartre says the existent is a phenomenon and it designates itself as an organized totality of qualities

the idea of an existent ‘designating itself’ is ridiculous

one response to this would be to say only consciousness designates – therefore it makes no sense to say that an existent – that is not conscious – designates

what I put earlier was a different view – it was that what appears is a relation between consciousness and the non-conscious –

between the internal and external dimensions of reality

that is given the existence of consciousness in the world appearance is the necessary ‘reality’ that results

my idea is that appearance is essentially a relation between –

quite apart from its content – it is a logical relation

a necessary relation - given consciousness in the world

so what appears to us is the relation of our consciousness to the world outside of it

it is as it were ‘a third world’

in traditional terms this means that we do not regard the phenomenal world as mental or physical – it is the relation between the two

but how are we to characterize it in a positive sense?

the whole history of thought characterizes it at its first moment as - unknown

and it is as a result of this initial comprehension – and the retreat from it that we have in the history of thought the attempts to reduce the phenomenal to either the mental or the physical – to mind or matter

my view is that it is neither – and as such it is unknown – and I mean ‘unknown’ here in a positive sense - not that is as a failure of comprehension but rather that it is a reality – a fact of the world – which we then go on to deal with

in our attempts to understand the phenomenal world – to define it – to be able to work with it - we bring to it literally whatever conceptions are needed to enable action – to enable us to operate in the world

in effect this means any view of the world is as valid as any other – from a logical point of view

in a practical sense this is of course not so – how people operate at any particular time and place will determine the value of their belief systems

there is no ‘final determination’ here – no absolute standard to appeal to – to assess the utility of any conceptual system

the standards that are applied are those standards that are regarded as having value

and what determines this is always up for grabs

e.g. history shows us that for certain individuals and indeed certain societies and cultures a materialistic view has been predominant

we see too that non-materialistic metaphysics has held sway for other individuals and groups at other times

my bet is that most people operate in uncertainty - that in any descriptive account of an individual's belief systems or a culture's ideologies you will find anything but certainty –

and that most operating belief systems are a plurality of logically inconsistent views

back to Sartre for a minute –

we can ask as Sartre does – what is behind appearance?

the simple answer to this question is – we do not know –

now historically and culturally this plain fact has been the source of anxiety

in response to this anxiety the imagination has gone to work – in overdrive

philosophical responses to this anxiety have been regarded (by philosophers at
least) as being rational and not emotional or superstitious

but all answers can be attempts to avoid the fact – and in so doing provide a false security

a false security that is only needed given a failure to accept the limitations of knowledge

and with this can comes the foolish belief that if we supplement reality with our imaginings we can find certainty

Sartre’s idea of the transphenomenality of being may be just another example of such - bad faith

if on the other hand one rejects any theory of epistemological certainty then one can be intellectually free and open to the full range of possible accounts of the nature of things

that we have this freedom to explore in our life the possibilities that life gives us is the true joy of living

uncertainty is the basis of this joy



(c) greg. t. charlton. 2008.

Sartre 1a - the phenomenon

Being and Nothingness

The pursuit of being.

I. The Phenomenon.

Sartre begins ‘Being and Nothingness’ with the question of the phenomenon –

he begins with the observation ‘modern thought has realized considerable progress by reducing the existent to the series of appearances which manifest it… Has the attempt been successful? In the first place we get rid of the dualism which in the existent opposes interior to exterior.’

appearance I will suggest has the logical status of relation

to say this is to give an explanation of appearance

why do we do this? why is it necessary – surely what appears just is what it is? where’s the problem?

there is only a question if the issue is one of knowledge

the event of the appearance is ‘in itself’ as they say without any issue

it is only on reflection that any question emerges

reflection just is this – the ground that allows for the raising of questions

and – we reflect – I don’t mean to jump the gun here – but it is just what conscious entities do

the question of knowledge only arises because of consciousness

anyway back to relation –

my view is that the appearance is the fact of - even ‘the product of’ the relation of consciousness and its object

now for this to be so – it follows that the object of consciousness is outside of consciousness

given this the appearance is where?

is it in consciousness – or – out of consciousness?

you see we need these categories of internality and externality to explain appearance

now I believe in the reality of the internal and external dimensions of reality

that is a reality that has consciousness in it

in short – conscious reality – and for us human reality

appearance just is – in my view the relation between the internal and the external dimensions of reality

appearance just is what occurs – given this relation

and it is I would suggest - logically necessary

that is the necessity is logical – given consciousness is in the world - appearance is the effect

and so appearance I think is best understood as an effect

but beyond this I say it is unknown

so – to this point I put - if we wish to explain appearance – and this is a natural philosophical reflex – we need to introduce ‘reflection’ – and that is to say consciousness

and consciousness I suggest just is internality

my view is that not all existents have an internal dimension – but given that some forms do – we can say there is an internal dimension to the world

consciousness is this internality – the two terms are synonymous

in a logical sense we can only speak of an internal dimension – given an external reality

the world outside of consciousness is a logical necessity – if consciousness is understood as the internal dimension – as internality

if we remove consciousness from the picture – there is no internal / external dichotomy

there just simply is no question of knowledge

we cannot as a matter of logic conceive of such a world

the relation of the internal and external dimensions is the fact of appearance

appearance does not reside inside or outside – it is a relation between

and it is just in this sense that it is metaphysically fundamentally an unknown

we do not know where to place it

this is not because we haven’t got our philosophical theories quite right

it is rather that appearance – cannot be placed –

what I mean by this is that the categories of internality and externality seem to cover the whole ground – if something is not inside – it’s outside right – or visa versa?

the thing is – with appearance – we don’t know

not I suggest because we have failed – rather because we cannot easily describe that which in itself is neither subject or object - but is the relation between

that is to say appearance is not a dimensional term –

it is a relational term

so in asking the question what is the nature of appearance – we are asking what is the relation between the internal and the external?

we know that – the relation exists – the question is how to describe it

and it is really here that the full possibilities of metaphysics can and have to be exhausted

that is to say all our philosophical theories are valid candidates for explication and explanation

we begin with what we do not know

towards the end of this first section Sartre has this to say:

‘This new opposition, the “finite and the infinite,” or better, “the infinite in the finite” replaces the dualism of being and appearance. What appears in fact is only an aspect of the object, and the object is altogether in that aspect and altogether outside of it. It is altogether within, in that it manifests itself in that aspect; it shows itself as the structure of the appearance, which is at the same time the principle of the series. It is altogether outside, for the series itself will never appear nor can it appear. Thus the outside is opposed in a new way to the inside, and the being-which-does-not- appear, to the appearance…..The genius of Proust, even when reduced to the works produced, is no less equivalent to the infinity of possible points of view which one can take on that work and which we will call the inexhaustibility of that work….Since there is nothing behind the appearance, and since it indicates only itself (and the total series of appearances) it cannot be supported by any being other than its own….If the essence of appearance is an “appearing” which is no longer opposed to any being, there arises a legitimate problem concerning the being of this appearing.’

my point is that the phenomenon is essentially unknown

when we understand that we see ‘an aspect of the object’ – what this points to is that ‘the object’ is outside of our attention – our consciousness – unknown

you do not need to introduce infinity here to explain the unknown

what Sartre means by infinity here is really just the awareness of the unknown status of the appearance

that is to say – as soon as we come to describe – to define the appearance it is clear that any description – and definition is inadequate

the act of description is a reflective act – and as such the attempt to know

the reason for this – and Sartre clearly sees this – is the need to act –

which in practical terms means the need to manipulate and use the phenomenon in question –

the appearance – that is – and this I think is quite obvious - must be determined if it is to be used – if it is to be acted on and with

this determination though is not a determination of the ‘object’- but rather a definition of the action

the question here is action – not knowledge – knowledge is the platform – if you like the illusion that gives action its determination

the point is the act

and it is clear that there is no one point of view that only determines action in relation to appearance –

that there are many only indicates that we have no absolute knowledge – no one methodology

what is possible is always what is not known

‘The legitimate problem concerning the being of appearance’ – is no problem and really illegitimate if you understand that appearance is – in its appearance – pre-reflective action – unknown

problem solved


(c) greg. t. charlton. 2008.