Sartre 1f
Being and nothingness: the pursuit of being
V. Being-in-itself.
the argument:
we can form some conclusions regarding the phenomenon of being
consciousness is the revealed revelation of existents –
and existents appear before consciousness on the foundation of their being
the primary characteristic of the being of an existent is never to reveal completely
an existent can never be stripped of its being – its being is the ever present foundation of the existent
consciousness can always pass beyond the existent – not towards its being – but to the meaning of its being
the meaning of the being of the existent in so far as it reveals itself is the phenomenon of being
this meaning has itself a being – based on which it manifests itself.
the meaning of being is valid for every phenomenon
the phenomenon of being is not being – but it indicates being and requires it
the phenomenon of being like ever primary phenomenon – is immediately disclosed to consciousness
we have what Heideggar calls a pre-ontological apprehension of it – that is one which is not accompanied by a fixing in concepts an elucidation
the elucidation of the meaning is valid only for the being of the phenomenon –
since the being of consciousness is radically different – it will necessitate a particular elucidation in terms of the revealed-revelation of another type of being – being for itself
and being for itself is opposed to the being of the phenomenon – the being in itself
the elucidation of the meaning of being-in-itself can only be provisional
previous work enables us to distinguish two separate regions of being – the being of the pre-reflexive cogito – and the being of the phenomenon
we have established by examination of non-positional self-consciousness that the being of the phenomenon can on no account act upon consciousness
in this way we have ruled out the realistic conception of the relations of the phenomenon with consciousness
the spontaneity of the non-reflexive consciousness shows us that conscious cannot get out of its subjectivity – therefore it cannot act on transcendent being – nor admit the passive elements necessary to constitute the transcendent being
this rules out the idealist solution
it seems transcendent being and consciousness are two closed totalities without possible means of communication
there is a solution other than idealism or realism
in short even if it had been created – being in itself would be inexplicable in terms of creation – for it assumes its being beyond the creation
this is equivalent to saying that being is uncreated
but we do not need to conclude that being creates itself – which would suppose it is prior to itself
being cannot be causa sui in the manner of consciousness
being is itself
this means that it is neither passivity or activity
both these notions are human and designate human conduct or the instruments of human conduct
being is equally beyond negation as beyond affirmation
being is not a connection with itself
it is itself
it is an immanence which cannot realize itself
an affirmation which cannot affirm itself
an activity which cannot act – because it is glued to itself
every thing happens as if - in order to free the affirmation of self from the heart of being – there is necessary decompression of being
the un-differentiation of the in-itself is beyond an infinity of self-affirmations – in as much as there is an infinity of modes of self-affirming
being is in itself
if it is in itself – this means that being does not refer to itself as consciousness does
it is this self
it is itself so completely that the perpetual reflection which constitutes the self is dissolved in an identity
that is why being is at bottom beyond the self
being is opaque to itself because it is filled with itself
this is to say – being is what it is
being-for-itself will be defined - as being what it is not – and not being what it is
being in itself has no consciousness of itself
the in-itself has nothing secret – it is solid – in a sense we can designate it as a synthesis – but it is the most indissoluble of all – the synthesis of itself with itself
the result is evidently that being is isolated in its being
it does not enter into any connection with what is not itself
it cannot encompass no negation – it is full positivity – it knows no otherness
it is not subject to temporality
consciousness can be conscious of it as no longer being – because consciousness is temporal
the full positivity of being is re-formed on its giving way
it was and at present other beings are – that is all
being in itself is –
being can neither be derived from the possible – or reduced to the necessary
necessity concerns the connection between ideal propositions – but not that of existents
an existing being can never be derived from another existent qua existent – this is the contingency of being in itself
being-in-itself cannot be derived from possibility
the possible is a structure of the for itself – that is it belongs to the other region of being
being in itself is never possible or impossible – it is
uncreated – without reason for being – without any connection with another – being in itself is de trop for eternity
being is – being is in itself – being is what it is –
commentary:
(1) being-for-itself and being-in-itself
the distinction of being-for-itself – and being-in-itself -
reality is not divided
it is a unity – a singularity
the unity qua unity – the singularity – is the unknown
by viewing the conscious (being-for-itself) and the non-conscious (being-in- itself) as opposing modes of being –
Sartre loses the unity and singularity that is reality
the point is this idea of the opposition of being-for-itself and being-in-itself – leaves us without any unifying account of being
Sartre confuses being with dimension
he confuses the whole (of being) with its parts (the dimensions of internality and externality)
being-for-itself and being-in-itself are dimensions of a greater unity
and this greater unity – is unknown
apart from this the distinction between being-in-itself and being-for-itself is not genuine
it is if anything - poetic
the conscious and the non-conscious are dimensions of a unity
the internal and external dimensions
these dimensions do not exist for any reason
they simply exist as the relation that is human reality
internality does not exist for the outside world
the outside world does not exist independently of the internal
(2) the realistic conception
two regions of being – pre-reflexive cogito and the being of the phenomenon –
any action – any human action is like reality itself – a singularity
the fact that it has a dual aspect – an internal and external expression – does not entail separate and distinct regions of being –
it makes no sense to say the internal and the external dimension of anything – interact
to say that suggests a division or a separation
which denies the essential unity
and this undercuts the whole enterprise
leaves you with nothing
the idea that conscious acts on the non-conscious – or visa versa – is actually an illusion
Sartre calls it the realistic conception – and he is right here – it is realistic
it is characteristically what people think happens – it is their praxis
and it is not to be dismissed
it is an operational illusion
(3) being is the unknown
when Sartre says being-in-itself is neither passivity or activity – he is just saying being is unknown
but this of course is my view of the matter
Sartre wants to begin with something other than the unknown – something that has ‘something’ to it –
but it is an unnecessary complication –
to just say – the unknown - leaves the question completely open
to introduce being – compromises this purity – by saying – something is there
and when of course we ask – what is it? – we get back to where we began – the unknown
we do not need this merry-go-round of being
(4) consciousness and being-in-itself
affirmation and negation are actions of consciousness
consciousness – exists
it does not – it is true - exist out there in the external world –
the external dimension
consciousness exists as a dimension of reality – or being if you like
it is the internal dimension
it is distinguished in the first place by the fact that it is not observable
only the external is observable
consciousness – is the observing –
the observing that is unobserved
what Sartre call ‘being-in-itself’ is the external world – the world of matter
this being-in-itself does not include consciousness on his view
consciousness for Sartre is nothingness
now Sartre has got into this predicament because he has confused one dimension of reality with reality as a whole
this is exactly the same mistake the idealist and the materialist make
they confuse a dimension with the totality
consciousness is a reality - and on any reasonable understanding of the concept of being-in-itself – consciousness – like anything else that exists – would be included
in so far as being-in-itself is to be the totality – then it is the unknown
(5) self-reference and internality
that consciousness refers to itself – distinguishes it as - internal
self reference is the distinguishing characteristic of the internal dimension
the external dimension – is not – self-referential
that is it is not internal
- it is not conscious
being-in-itself is neither the internal or the external dimension
it is that which is the unity of the internal and the external
it is the unknown
the fact of self-reference is the fact of internality
that an entity – an existent – can refer to itself – signifies internality
the external is without the capacity for reference – and for self-reference
and it is this fact which characterizes the surface of things
as to the origin of this attribute of self-reference –
we have only consciousness (self-reference) as an analytical tool
consciousness can only assert its awareness of self-reference
and this is self reference – asserting self-reference
that is all we can have from consciousness is the expression of self-reference
there is nothing outside of consciousness that can function as a higher order consciousness – that could take human consciousness as its object – and give it an explanation
God – has been argued in this connection – or if he hasn’t he should have been –
just for the sake of the argument
but if there was such a God the explanation would only be good for him – of no value to us
so it still comes down to consciousness simply recognizing itself
that is the end of the penny section
beyond this – if you wish to go there – is the greater unknown
(6) being-for-itself
being-for-itself as being what it is not and not being what it is –
so we have a double contradiction – and the idea that we end up with nothingness –
this is a horrible misuse of logic
even on what I would call a conservative or standard view of contradiction – we have a logically false proposition – a proposition that is that is so constructed that it cannot be true –
my own view – as I argued in my work on Wittgenstein in the Skeptikos blog is that the contradiction as with the tautology is a useless propositional string that masquerades as a proposition
so however you regard the contradiction it is clear it does not signify
it is not that it signifies nothing
it simply does not signify –
consciousness is essentially different to non-consciousness
consciousness is internality
the non-conscious – externality
internality – consciousness is – if you like – the realm of self-reference
the external is the realm of non-reference
however you bag it up – consciousness is a reality – consciousness is in the world – consciousness is not some perverted logical contortion
again Sartre’s above characterization is more suggestive of poetry than logic
poetry runs in defiance of logic – that is its basis and its charm
and I think poetry is the language of the internal – in whatever artistic form you choose
however for Sartre – there is no internal
consciousness for Sartre exists – if you can say it exists – outside of being
this to my mind is taking poetry just a verse too far
(7) no such point of view
Sartre speaks of regions of being – the in-itself – the for-itself – as if he has an objectivity
an objectivity of the order of sub specie aeternitatis –
the point of view of eternity
there is no such point of view
the only point of view is that of consciousness
consciousness is aware of the fact that it is in the world –
it is not outside of the world – outside of being-in-itself
the outside of consciousness is the surface of things – the material world
it is rather simple
straightforward
the world as a unity – as it were before the division of dimensions – is unknown
it is the singularity we face front up and have to interpret and deal with
the deconstruction of the unity into dimensions enables us to do this
it gives us an operational dynamic
this deconstruction is necessary – it is essential as an operating basis for the human animal
(8) in conclusion - Spinoza
Sartre says being-in-itself is isolated – has no connection with itself – does not encompass negation – is full positivity – and is not temporal
for this re: Spinoza’s substance
Spinoza though not only had space for mind in his substance – he also had the manners to include it – or at least invite it to the party
for Sartre there is no mind – there is no consciousness – there is just the big nothing of being – which he calls being-in-itself – which includes everything that is not conscious
there is no place for mind in Sartre’s reality
and to relegate it to nothingness is the solution you have when you have no solution
he says the three characteristics of being-in-itself are – being is – being is in itself – being is what it is -
this is just an identity statement – x = x
what x is – if x is anything – is unknown
(9) postscript
what we face initially is the singularity - the essential unknown
this is the true pre-reflexive reality – it is pre cogito and pre-object
the first reflection which is a necessary primary functioning of the human animal – is the revelation of the internal and external domains of the totality
that is the awareness of awareness and the awareness of the object of awareness
the recognition of an internal and external dimension
this dimensional awareness is the operating domain of the human being
reflection on reflection reveals the internal unknown
reflection on the world outside reveals the external unknown
the unknowns of internality and externality are dimensional unknowns
action is a singularity
it is reaction to the unknown – the essential unknown and the dimensional unknowns
we act to defy this reality
our actions initiate internal categories and external practises
these primary functional bases are given in the organism
that is the need to act initiates the ‘knowledge’ of evolution
this always occurs in the context of the given reality of the entity – in the case of human beings ideational and physical contexts
that is we have thought patterns and physical capabilities to enable us to operate in the unknown as physically aware unities
these thought patterns and physical capabilities are functional stratagems
their only significance is their utility
what we make of the inside (mind) and the outside (matter) is the history of our action
the history of action is the history of illusion
our reactions are always at base reactions to the ever present unknown
it is at the heart of every human being –
it is the essence of human reality
TO BE CONTINUED
© greg. t. charlton. 2008.
