Preliminaries

Greetings fellow point of view…

I am writing this knowing that I don’t know how you (all) see the world. Therefore, what I am going  to do here is simply to describe my point of view. Since I don't know how you see the world and what I want to to communicate my point of view, honesty becomes paramount. If I'm not honest with myself, my investigation will be inherently flawed and you'd know because if you're honest with yourself you'd see that what I am saying is not in coherence with what is evident. ... And what is evident? I do not mean ‘evident’ as in easy to see, but just see-able. And I am looking for what’s seeable because it’s indubitable. Or rather it can be doubted yes, but it’s just meaningless to do so – my doubting doesn't change its evident nature, it doesn't change anything. Once one sees something, it becomes evident. There is no question about what it is when it is seen. I've seen it and therefore I know it's seeable. But I'm not going to tell you what it is just like that, and that's really because I can't, it has to be seenTherefore my intention – as in all my writings – is to direct your attention to it so you can see what it is.

Now, I say ‘seeing’, but it might just as well be hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, feeling or any perceiving. The perception itself is this intangible “what it is like” to see or taste or smell or touch or feel. What is perceived can be talked about, but to convey what it is like to perceive by describing it is a practical impossibility. It refuses to be captured by words. Which is not so weird since words are descriptions, they are not that which they seek to describe. Words describe that which we want to describe, and a description is per definition not the same thing as that which it describes – but merely a description of it.

A description of something can be concrete or it can be abstract. By concrete I mean (well-)defined. If I were to signify to someone a particular thing very concretely, I could write a great many books wherein I define the subject matter very carefully and in much detail. From the appearance of the thing to the functioning (if it’s a mechanism) the molecular composition to the atomic substructure and so on. That certainly would be very concrete, and in the mind of the reader of the books, there wouldn’t be much room left for doubt as to what I’m referring to. It would take some time to read the books of course – since the subject matter is so thoroughly defined the description would be voluminous. Which I mention here to emphasize that the concreteness of a description is proportional to its length. Maybe not directly proportional (it might depend on the terms used and such), but that the more concrete a definition or detailed a description the more words are required, is one of the things I like to call evident. The more concrete the longer the description.

The opposite of concrete is ‘abstract’. Leaving a discussion of whether or not our language is dualistic in nature aside for the moment, I’d like to postulate that when it comes to the magnitude of the description, the abstract one is shorter than the concrete one. If the abstract is the concrete’s opposite and the concrete necessarily takes a more voluminous description, then it seems reasonable - presupposing language as dualistic - to expect a shorter description when abstract. The more abstract a definition (or indication if you like) the shorter the description.

The “golden mean if you like, between these two opposites would be a description not too abstract and not too concrete, it would be just exact. For something to be exact I must also be true – or at least for all practical purposes in conformity with actuality – which deserves further consideration, but I will not dwell too much on it now.

So if I ask if you know what this is, what would be the most exact answer? I’m looking for the evident truth about what this is. I could go on to say: “This is a liquid crystal display.” First of all I might be plainly wrong since some of you might be reading this on an ordinary CRT monitor. I could also say: “This is what is described in my five books about computer monitors, read them.” Right, this would most certainly cover any monitor you could be reading this on, but it wouldn’t be the evident truth since you’d have to read five books to find it.

The sentence “This is an LCD display.” and others like it are what’s called ‘identity statements’, because they identify (in this case) that which is indicated by the word ‘this’ with the words ‘liquid crystal display’. But first of all, last I checked we haven’t found any two things in this universe that are identical, which is not a problem for practical purposes, but is a problem for the philosopher who seeks coherence. Second since when is anything identical with the words we use to signify it? Why is it so hard to convey what it is like to perceive? Because the exact answer to the question “What is it like?” would be “It is like nothing else.”

Does it become clearer why this isn’t what one thinks it is? Maybe. I’ll try to shed some more light on it.

What can we say about perception and thought? To avoid going into a concrete description of the many different facets of thought, I will simply state, that what is certain in my mind is that there is an ‘internal dialog’ chattering away continuously. Only quiet between the words. How am I certain? I perceive this as if it were in my head. A (mostly audible) stream of what I would call words is perceived with what some like to call “the inner perception”. It’s not a sense perception since it evidently does have a different quality than the perceptions of what I like to call ‘world’. The words are now in my mind and now on this screen. The ones on the screen have a different quality than the ones that precede them. Since they are words they do fulfill the necessary criteria that define a description. Thus, thinking can be categorized as describing.

Now, read this and see past the description to what it indicates…

This I like to call ‘world’ is what it is. This, it and that which I am indicating with this description is what it is. Because it’s not what I say it is, because that’s a sound that originates in my vocal cords in my throat. A certain range of frequencies are agreed upon as indicating what we could call “different parts of world”. As we grow up we pick up the habit of naming ‘world’ with audible signaling. The audio that is perceived among the myriad of other perceptions, is “recorded” and can be played back “on command”. These we call ‘thoughts’ and they are the fluid repertoire of “footprints of perception”. And to – with it – intend the indication of identity between the it and what it indicates when not indicating itself would be contradiction. Therefore it is not what one thinks it is. Not only this, it is evident that it is what it is. Because it’s not what you think it is, it’s something else. But not any word I might utter in place of it. It is what it is could be called an exact statement. It is concrete in the sense that it is a trueism with seemingly universal application, while being abstract enough to not reveal any information about the indicated. Well, any information “revealed” by words in this way would only be more words. All indicating the same what we call ‘universe’. But what is the universe? It is what it is. It is what it is, whatever it is. That’s it. It is evidently identical with itself.

Now, at first “It is what it is.” and “The description is not what it is.” might seem rather banal statements. But trust me they’re not. Maybe you’ve already seen it. When one sees the depth of what it indicates – well what is between the words – not just intellectually understanding the statement, but when what it indicates is really seen, everything changes.

It has immediate repercussions in philosophical thinking, because now we know what we’re talking about. And that in turn brings with it practical suggestions. I'll mention a few here.

For example: a description is per definition – because it is a definition – a finite/defined thing. It indicates with and within perception, always. And that which it indicates is not like it, it is not itself defined in any way. It does not “contain” information or a description. We apply the description, the definition that defines a definite part of everything – which is perception. Everything is in perception and perception is in everything. It is what it is evidently indicates actuality. And since what it is is merely indicated by the description, what it is is everything that the description isn’t. It is not definite. It is not something. It is not any word conceivable. It is not something that can be defined. It is non-definite, in-finite? Infinite doesn’t mean neither incomprehensibly big nor does it mean incomprehensibly small – it’s just non-spatial, non-local, “non-every-thing”, but ‘it’ is very much there and everywhere, evidently. So, the question becomes, if the description is finite and that which it indicates is infinite, then how big is the difference between them? Yes, infinite. We could say then, that we are always, if we take what we think as true, infinitely wrong. And an obvious practical suggestion that is born directly of this would be, do not base practical decisions upon fantasies about how it might be or how you think it is. Base it only on the actual, evident now. Further, do not seek the idea, you'll never reach it. The idea will always be different from what actually is. Certainly do not confuse the two, thinking and reality. Don’t believe (take to be true) anything, but don’t disbelieve anything either, simply entertain, which means view without judgment, any thought that drifts by.

And as for philosophical thinking: if what it is is infinite and the description is finite, and what we understand/comprehend is the description only, then we are limited. Reason has it’s definite boundaries. Uncovering these will take primacy in the face of the merely comparative conclusions of reason.

If what it is is infinite it does not allow for separation within it. A separation creates parts and parts aren’t infinite. Thus, everything is one. And being one in every thinkable way.

I will be editing this text once in a while when thoughts surface that might sharpen these preliminary indications. So for now I'll leave you with this: It is what it is, whatever it is. It is not what I say or think it is. What I say or think it is is a description that serves as nothing but an indicator of that which I can see but not comprehend. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.


[Last edited: 28/06-2010]