Before I conjure the writings that this “place” deems cut off by the delineations (as if there were such a thing) of time, let me pause. First to orient myself (here and not there) and then to suggest some directions. All that really has purpose from “there” (a label and mode of description that could be translated by reference {wait: you want to hear something funny [cf. mildly]? Wait again: I don’t remember, I feel like I’m losing myself through planes of context, but, and this is at least is important and worth being reminded: I am always returned “here” [haha – a joke I would only get if I return to the frame of mind that concluded the writing of Wednesday, November 27, 2013] and there, which is also here, is what anything that matters consistently must reside} to it… and here I avoid opening a repeated set of brackets, for fear of more post-modern replications, or the futility of losing myself in a Borgesian paradox) was the letter I was writing (that’s not actually true, even if I insisted it at the time – just note the amount of mystery, all of it founded in myself, which has been revealed, both here and there {quotation marks be confounded, these brackets’ propagation is enough for me to bear}, and the suggestions beyond my current reach I might one day unearth, or even if not, the expression that this has permitted to-have/and unfolded), which is a torturous route for saying something very much related: I would like to continue writing the letter (thingamajig) at some point, preferably whilst its memes and motifs and philosophical conceits remain accessible to my imagination.
All that said. Let me pause. Look away. (Nb. I looked away). And step away (nb. it is quite likely I shall be unlikely to record the outcome of this set {i.e. including what completes this sentence} particular instruction) and retreat for a little while, if only for the sake of a break with all the rest that implies and hopefully entails.
Here’s a strangest (i.e. one of many) meditation: There are transgalactic ghosts arriving. They will collect everything that was seen by our minds. Everything I’ve ever known (every leaf from every tree and every face in passing) even by mere implication (pollen drifting across the oceans and the last breath exhaled by the last Neanderthal) will be compressed into a drop. These transdimensional ghouls will take that drop, and add it to their collection until they have an ocean deep enough to drown the clouds. With that magic task completed, and with the power of unimaginable intent, they shall haul this collection of seas made of drops, including the one that was mine, and take it to a star (not our Sun, another, point at one and have a guess, in fact, take another, take as many as you could imagine there’s time to choose) and in a single and godly force, cast it all and all and all into that self-immolating hellish sphere. And that is that. Look up at that sky, for our host habitat of a galaxy would not have noticed a measurable (nor conceivable, let alone perceivable) iota. Now best that we end this foolish meditation, and exorcise those space demons from our minds. It’s easy enough to do. Feel the grass or the sand or the wind and the temperature too. Feel your hands and your breath and remember a thing you were supposed to do and a friend you’ve not called in so long it’s become ages. What’s on television and what was the election about and how could AIDS be cured and where did my parents meet, and what about yours? What’s my name and what do I wish for and with whom would I sleep.
Some words on Wolff
My intention here is to offer some succinct paragraphs, which shall avoid redundancy by not merely re-informing what had previously been written, but to introduce intriguing ideas and conceptions (that stem from Wolff as a prompt in an improv).
Seed: Wolff’s two faculties of knowledge.
Wolff’s division of the mind into parts is unsurprising, following as it does a long history of similar divisions. I have neither the intention nor the recollection to illustrate a history of such architectures, but the earliest I am aware of is Plato’s, dividing the soul as he does (in at least one of his dialogues) into the rational and animal. Some (and Plato might be included in this unnamed set) in this tradition have included a third part, but here I am will allocate my discussion only to the temptation to bifurcate the mind. Wolff’s division resembles a tendency towards what can appear judgmental (when not explicitly said so). Consider the template of the rational mind, that is also so often held aloft as the epitome of humankind’s prized position amongst the multitudes upon the earthly realm. Thus, first of all, this duality allows philosophers to allocate a place to the “sapien” of Homo sapien, but also as a consequence, secondly, these philosophers have drawn a terrestrial tether or leash (the imagery chosen will depend on the role, as I explain). The lower part of humankind, that the religious slander with their presuppositions (transient, bestial, the source of vice and all unspiritual appetite), is necessary to complete the image. However, depending on the conducting philosophy, the resulting goal and purpose, and therefore meaning of this binary mystery does differ.
Let me remind myself: The two faculties Wolff describes are those of sense/imagination and reason/understanding. Furthermore, whether intended or not, it would a remiss not to mention that this dichotomy parallels two levels of knowledge. These are the levels of common/vulgar and scientific knowledge. The rest of Wolff’s epistemology shows just how he feels about these respective lots. Wolff writes extensively about science, giving it all sorts of elaborated structures*, thus implying strongly that the common mode of knowledge is not merely regular, but unproductive too.
The details don’t matter, but the feel for design is telling. Consider that within the level of the scientific mode of knowing there exist three further; historical, philosophical, and mathematical. And though I don’t know what he thinks of the other two modes therein, he has a lot to say about philosophical knowledge, placing philosophy herself at the fundamental position within science’s hierarchy, giving birth to twin philosophies, practical and theoretical. Theoretical philosophy begets a whole host of children (the triplet set of ontology, special metaphysics and physics) and grandchildren (from ontology’s apparently wide hips come a short host).
So to what end exist the faculty of sense or the level of common knowledge? To break the silence I can state as a minimum the obvious; sense is needed to know anything about the interactions of the world. Wolff may be a rationalist at heart, but even Bishop Berkeley opened his eyes at times. Common knowledge might then be the sense data uncritically received, taken at face value, and adding nothing not included. Now perhaps – I interject with an unflattering test of Wolff’s motivation – it is because he thinks that the key to knowledge is reason (and not empiricism) that he does everything he does to reject what is Other to reason. Perhaps – in all seriousness – but even if so, I cannot conceive it to be the major of the story.
Let me distract this train with another distraction: Given that irrational beings (e.g. mosquitoes, though others will do) can employ rational concepts (e.g. mathematical measure), which significantly are not (even secondary) properties of the object themselves, therefore “irrational beings” must be a mislabelling. (“That is no problem,” responds imaginary Wolff, for although it might offend the spirit of his project, and its aesthetics most certainly, it can be said that, “The crown of our species is a matter of degree of reason, no matter its minuscule presence in our inferiors.”)
So here’s the thing, I am at a loss. I’ve no clear direction, nor much of a hint for tactics. At most, I am keen (for reasons mostly relating to flexibility) to apply my own philosophies and creativity to this problem, and untie myself from the straightjacket of allegiance to history’s passage. Therefore: Let’s move on, leave this with a marker saying “?” and perhaps whilst walking down the road, between the shadows and the moonlight and will think and I will wonder “Maybe, instead of this, that.”
Seed Two: What is logic?
I might not get around to these – but these two prompts came to mind, and I’d like them here, if only for their suggestive purpose.
Seed Three: Does Wolff’s Cosmology imply An Illusory State of Being?
Allow me to ever so briefly elaborate on what that means to me: Recall the distinction between the two ends of atomic elements (with no particular space) and bodies (that produce general space by the harmony of its composition, PS. the analogy of the successive chimes producing a single note). That’s all I can be bothered stating for now. Should I ever take this on as a “challenge”, then remember that key-word.
