blue and brown books

In thinking about the difference between mind and body, internal and external, consciousness and the world and how they further relate to the epistemic foundations of knowledge we’ve been discussing so far in the A Cat Named Schrödinger series. In particular the issues raised in the comments of the most recent Mk II apply to these overall notions of epistemology. By clarifying the problems of knowledge, or at least attempting to clarify them, it will further give us an idea of how to go about systems of social and political ways of living.

I’d like to make the case that there is no real distinction between mind and body, mind and world, or any inside and outside dichotomy. In order to show this, it requires a great deal of work in regard to foundationalism, and epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the base forms of knowledge. It is the area of philosophy that deals with the question “What can we know?” In doing so, we are opened to the foundations of knowledge, and all of those things assumed as the first premises. The issue of course, being that these premises are up for grabs themselves.

In working toward an understanding of epistemological foundations, let’s look at the grand-daddy of them all, Rene Descartes and The Meditations. The central claim in the Second Meditation is “Cogito Ergo Sum”, or “I Think Therefore I Am”. Often touted as a kind of self-help mantra whereby your willing something to be the case makes it the case, this conception is entirely missing the substance of Cartesian epistemology.
…

“I Think Therefore I Am” is the central building-block of what the west views as the human consciousness. Most all social and political philosophy is built upon this notion of individual thought. If not this particular notion of individual, than one that is similar to it. Descartes articulates is well, and this is why he is so important. Descartes sets out to find the primary germ of knowledge. That which cannot be doubted or questioned, where and how far does our consciousness go? By eliminating all forms of doubt about the world, that which cannot be doubted would be the basic form of knowledge.

I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (Meditation 2, quote from Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Descartes’ Epistemology)

Regardless of everything that can be doubted, doubt is an action of the mind, a thought. Thinking is an action and such an action requires an actor. I am, therefore, that actor. This is the base form of what we are as conscious beings. That we think, allows us to exist. This establishes the connection of mind to the world.

However, the question is whether this is the actual foundation, or base form of knowledge. Indeed, the thought experiment works in the way it is set up. We doubt all things that are doubtable, but that we are engaging in the act of doubting must constitute something for us. (If you look back on the Schrödinger series, you might recognize this as similar to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?“) That there is something concrete is not interesting in the end, this idea of ‘Something rather than nothing’ is not telling of anything more than what we commonly come to while brushing our teeth in the morning. instead what Descartes assumes is telling of the development of his epistemology.

Is Descartes truly at the furthest stretches of the mind? Is this act of doubt ridding all assumptions of the world and scientifically viewing the foundation of truth? Is he seeing where the software of the mind is written to the metal of the world’s hardware? Consider that by doubting all empirical aspects of the world, Descartes comes to the idea that the act of doubting constitutes our being a thing in the universe. Not only does this assume an object-oriented universe, but the assumption (even in the above quote) is still certain of a self, an actor separate yet connected to the world at large.

How is it that we go from the problem of consciousness, to the idea of something rather than nothing, to a split of mind and body? There is a lack of evidence if we are to take the Cartesian model.

To step back from the problem at hand, think about a language that is restricted to present tense, and what it would mean for a society to be without a sense of time. It is possible to imagine isn’t it? How does this limit/advance the world of these speakers? How is it augmented? The answer is; in more ways than we might know. In this same way that there are more possibilities of consciousness depending on our notion of present-tense, the issue of doubt, or distinctions and assumptions of mind and world might be problems of the language that we speak.

Returning to Cogito Ergo Sum, Descartes assumes there is a world separate from him, and is merely questioning his access to it. The act of doubting all empirical senses of the world has not dissolved the idea of there being a world separate from our minds. Furthermore, ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’ assumes an object oriented universe, and the thinker as an actor therein, that the world is separate from its experiencer.

The question then, in keeping with what we have been looking at so far in Mk I and Mk II is whether this notion of mind and body is a viable distinction. The case could be made that there is no such problem. For we are required to both doubt and assume to make any and all every day actions. Their solidity is a build up of habitual practises in that action-based histories. We cannot assume anything outside of what we know.

We don’t really need proof of an external world, because it’s not a problem that we actually have. There is no real reason to assume that the world is not out there and that our consciousness is connected to it. Every act is a processed act. Processed, in that it has been wrung out in the washing of assumption and speculation. Our knowledge all come from the same place, that’s why this text is understandable and why even if there is a hint of concern of the mind/body problem, we can still get up tomorrow morning, brush our teeth and go to work.