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.
