J R Molloy wrote:
> I think it premature to offer an "explanation
> of mind" until one has examined it thoroughly.
When you look into a mirror, J.R., do you see the mirror? How can you study
the mirror without looking at it? And yet I granted in a prior post that the
mirror is more than the sum of its reflections. I said "mirror" [i.e. mind] was
a logical construct, an explanatory principle which accounts for what we see
we we look into it.
That all has to do with the analysis of phenomena. I also said that "Mind"
(unlike the mirror) is the "origin" of thoughts ["Intrapsychic conceptual struc-
tures"]. "Thoughts", in other words, are the "phenomena" of "Mind".
Now I agree with you, and the Hellenics -- "gnothi seauton" is a very good
thing. But the same reflexive epistemological problems apply here as well.
The "self" that looks cannot see itself but only observe itself looking. You
want to know that the Mind IS -- everything we know is knowledge of how
it APPEARS.
But, J.R., I want to know too. So perhaps we might consider asking "Mind"
to explain itself? We can add to your question "Why do WE want to know"
the question "Does Mind have any interest in knowing itself?". WHY has it
not done so already, such that "Mind" is a self-evident idea? WHY do we
have to ask? WHY is "Mind" not "intuitively obvious"?
Bob
> -------------------------------------------
> "I know I've never completely freed myself of the suspicion that there are some
> extremely odd things about this mailing list. I'm sure you'll agree that there's
> some truth in what I say."
> --Harold 9000
"What makes you think that, Harold?"
=======================
Robert M. Owen
Director
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
=======================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:41 MDT