Pete, take one step back from the word(concept) 'consciousness' and you
bump into language. And I am not talking at all about the linguistics of
Chomsky and friends. What is more familiar to fish than water? What is more
familiar to us than language? What do we have but language to look at
language? Wittgenstein attempts to make the familiar strange. Once it
becomes strange we might notice it and then...
Pete in part wrote:
"Consciousness is prior to
all our knowledge of the mechanisms of the world, while being invisible
to all but incisive introspection. Like water to fishes, something so
fundamental and pervasive is necessarily of profound significance,
and at some point in the future will yield to our investigations,
revealing some unimaginable profound insights into the nature of reality,
while doubtless vindicating some of the insights wrested from it
by the dodgy methods of research employed by traditonal introspection
schools. Researchers in the orthodox western tradition of hard
science, who seek the truth by whatever means works, are by no means
blind to this aspect of the world - which does not mean that they
currently pursue it. The reason for the limited research into the
nature of consciousness is that there is currently a lack of effective
mechanisms for getting a handle on it. Like the Mulla Nasrudin searching
for his keys under the lampost half a block from his darkened doorstep where
he dropped them, we do our work in the areas where our methods produce
immediate results."
**************************************************
* Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator *
* Faculty of Education, Queen's University *
* Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 *
* FAX:(613) 533-6307 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937*
* e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* "Ethics and aesthetics are one" *
* Wittgenstein *
* *
* *
**************************************************
