How does one lie within?
i) On the face of it, it is all so very easy –Te problem o what les within is the problem of having one element which as I feel it, and I share it, reaches out of me, and into others, is a part of other things, or peoples or something life. ii) We are all the a part in the world, a part of the world; a pt of time or a place within a wider place. To have a biology is to share in the forces of the universe; To have psychology is to share n the mind of a human. What could be simpler? iii) Trouble of course is course than it is so very difficult pitching the surfing mind within an oceananic world: there is really nothing stopping us forcing the issue either way. The world in might merely be in us, in our power. Or else we might not at all. We might be merely the epiphenomena of something else, something far more corruptive and problematic. iv) One over glories the position, then not of MAN, so much as life or reason. That I something belonging to a man that suddenly allows him to give himself airs, and understand himself as a God in his own world. God to hat old so perceiving or being he finds himself within. v) The philosopher can escape the cave and be surrounded by the light of reason illumining TRUTH in the world. One can bring back the One in the All in our souls, and ca do so freely. vi) Too on a journey becomes then merely to conquer time and partially space. vii) The alternative is to loose man in the rhythm f atoms or the spasm of clinannen. Mankind is a mere collection of dust, neat in itself and yet… viii) Of course very few philosophers pull the entire picture the whole hog; And all know they ought not to. ix) And yet here there is an essential division within bleeds into philosophy and it natural cousin. x) The natural philosophy of the eighteen century onwards, denied a poison where one was able to treat the world real as if it were out their (although given in ones own positions Te real world was out their roughly as we saw it (bar the illson0, and could be directly learn about. xi) Or to put it another way Locke’ rather infantile theory about the difference between perception and reality is actually right. There is a world and there are perceptions, and somewhere at some level there is a one to one mapping which us between them. xii) But philosophy itself fell our of love with this idea from Berkley onwards. IT is better the good philosopher claims to recognize that we are something a perceiving thing, in the world. perceptions tare therefore ours before they are anyone or anything else’s. xiii) The game then of being good philosopher is to define a good sense in which a thing is ours or a new our which can own the series o things. Philosophy becomes then a game played on ourselves as we orchestrate a world. xiv) And yet and yet….Neither side any win or loose such a game Then become statements or better partial solutions. xv) Or to put it better- to take a position within the In is itself incredibly tricky. xvi) Here that Spinoza dictum comes into fore. xvii) He says in a letter that the true infinitely infinite creature ought not to be contained by anything – including the sense in which it defines anything. xviii) Or to put it different way, there is not one sense of being within – and not one mind’s way of being a mind within. xix) Ere of course the good Deleuzian mind will nod. The problem is those Riemann space again. That is space itself is a local consecution. The within infinite n possible, but finite is generation. xx) And yet the generation, of this space is itself a part of a spacing, which hooks that special into all other elements, or is caught up in having I constellate with them. xxi) The space crises and crosses, and catch and are caught or better are already part. xxii) One cannot then understand The another as anything simple or there. xxiii) The another one is in shift around or might be other than one thought. xxiv) And yet here one hits another problem . xxv) And here the problems come all the more complex To hold down an another – s to attempt to fixiate it, and to change it interposes. One might then be able to hold down, say life and the create another, and yet this holding is really pointless. To hold it is to change its meaning and so to have lost it. xxvi) he only easy way to approach this problem is, a Hume did, To find your another sin ideas that you appear to have rejected. Hue rejected then the idea of the self. It is was deconstructed and reduced to an empty husk – rendered as a thing of nought. And yet the he refunds cautiously and I certain limits the idea so a self an the prides associated with it. xxvii) That which was expanded to an ‘in behind reason or favour, becomes answer a sense of belonging within with rhyme and reasons and meaning. xxviii) What one always needs to catalogue ins is not a bleary but a demonology of shifting lord s of nether world and other place. xxix) The Another name is legion. xxx) And yet (and there we have one of the flip emtnionedabove0, this does not mean that cannot define the relationship one has with that another. xxxi) This was done best, and with elliptical brilliance by Foucault. xxxii) H suggest that there are tow entering element. To pointers in which I catch a my mind; xxxiii) On the one hand, there is the being of words . Words have then a logic. Words demand a patter of the mind. Words create world of thought, and endless grammar to thinking. Words are very good little levi-straussian pointers. xxxiv) On the other there is the shifting sliding perspectives o sigh and looking. A scored shadow play of the mind. A series of neither slips which cannot be directly comprehended or restricted, an cannot be understood in words. xxxv) And then what lies between? xxxvi) one might tentatively space schema or rebus or some such element. Hat is some point the world d become flesh or the flesh become ord. xxxvii) But in a sense this is to miss the point. xxxviii) Between both these world, but also infuses both of them, there is a real another. That is a falseness that their a something, that cannot be water caught or defined. An ingrained other than cannot be spoken and yet is really there, xxxix) Reality as such, that is the schemata with catches up these tow middles and the sense one is when them, and another one cares to mention, cannot itself be caught by them. xl) To see the world or to have a body, is not what that body itself is. Between the two, the actually creation of the middle in which I an in, a and the another that that middle relates to, lies the space of an actual existence that middle cannot grasp, and can never comprehend, that string mystery of having a body or being a thing or being at a place. xli) This mystery, this chink of innate nature, this space of place or place of space, creates then the sense in which every middle is caught up in one another, and in themselves. xlii) Foucault might call it the Other. xliii) But of Spinoza it is the true mystery of the God (as opposed to mere susbstance0. God is the element what inhabit there here, and so doing creates the attributes. These attributes though must exist not in themselves, so much as in the fact that as God has an infinite power he necessarily creates also the power to understand himself as a perception. xliv) Te creates then a attribute in which the another are given as perceptions: that is in which in place the middle of that another. The ensue one is caught in that mystery by being rallied into the middle of something else. xlv) Once this move is made, Spinoza then suggests that another while it remains elusive God in itself, it can non the less be understood interims of attributes, which locate in their perceiving the perceiver within the pattern of the world. xlvi) This is all the more the case, he goes on to suggest because the unity of the attributes, the sense they are an essence as such, and can be thought o as a single thing, is caught up within and defined through the fact that they allow one to define the sense that do is the middle o all things xlvii) And they a middle never endless, but rather always catches you up in the nesting move, then an attribute has existence as a part of itself, and is therefore in a very real sense what is eternal. xlviii) He attribute is therefore to be given as that in which or though which eternity falls upon the mind. xlix) Spinoza is therefore attempting to map our a have you cake and eat it move; The absolute middle of God, that is the sense that one is caught upon any- or everything is at once the another- the mystery than cannot speak its man, and the engine in which that mystery is inscribed wherever it is inscribed, in words or sight or idea Go or attribute The mystery is hint the hooking itself: the sense we are caught up in a world an something apart . l) That is The seen in which we are caught up in the middle of a whatever as that thing which gives also the sense that it is a middle. That heighten which defines it own sense of being a humble as a part in what it is, and through what it is. li) I humble myself – as I make a world within, because I tat making I feel that othering present of a God who owes the lot in n edging me. lii) o better in being my finite self I dwelt my finite in the sense that I share in something as a fate that is beyond he, (as attribute and God's mind). I create then mind in my within being. O better God is the sense that every finite are caught up within one another, and through series of differing process. God is then the axis in which the finite is caught in the bigger picture. liii) To assert ones own impend or create daffy doctrines glorifying the finite is pointless for Spinoza. The point is not that God is crates through infinite mess – so much as he is the silent punning power in any me, that erupts as the place beyond finite essence) were middles converge in one another, and are to be given in each there. liv) God is pointer my existence is constellated by. My finite being is which the very act of being an absolutely middle of things creates. lv) Or perhaps better, go is the surprise to all things (including his idea) of finding oneself with options, and being caught up be things. He is the creativity of not having finishes understood as something for itself.. lvi) Here then is the full gamut of the sense one is within a thing. lvii) To be within is firstly to be apart o another – and here one hits the strange problem of allowing another in ones mind and defining ones own posting within it. lviii) The problem then being complicated in the fact there will be middles within the singletons another’s- middles which dictate how one understands what reality is. lix) And yet as that another is the powerhouse of the middle, the powerhouse to being of the middle, it cannot be fixed. lx) One needs then a mystery or a powerhouse of alternatives. lxi) What s more these alternative as not merle substantial ones, and within the one world there are clear complexities. To live in a single time from is of course o be always gathered in the middle o another, a thing which is beyond: I need to transcend myself, or create immanent movement beyond my spirit or comprehend this direction. lxii) One needs then in the middle not merely to account to a middling element but also it create vehicles which are capable of navigating times. lxiii) One needs then firs to chronicle he staffs of actual occurrence or the reality or matter needs the open ended stuff beyond perception or at least an account of it and its relation to my perceiving of it). lxiv) Or again and a rather a different level, one also needs o account for the stuff of perceiving itself, of those events that tumble into or mind and render a world one way and not he other. lxv) On needs then an account not merely of the middles beyond middle, but the implications and rips hat these middles have within or world. On needs then here not a be demonology of slipping middles, different senses we catch our selves within anything; but also within very or any one middle a bestiary of what is here, what creates are contained. lxvi) But also in the flipping that appears so much the norm of the mind, one needs also a handbook or something similar. That is a series of movement, of rules that will allow you to navigate where to be, and which middles became as elsewhere, and how then becomes elsewhere in he giving. lxvii) One needs then a series of slide rules to middles- designed not to measure so much as to function as the magic carpets to the mind. lxviii) Finally as a true philosophy ought one needs to be an account of other philosophies; That is of the problems of dimensions one or many or sliding), whichever been used to understand this series of moves, and a trace thoughts across them all – an account of how they open out on each other, and all ought to lead back to a less stodgy series. It is these elements this sections then looks to, |