The Ego and the Matter

Translation of this
http://pietroborghi.blogspot.com/2011/06/das-ego-und-die-materie.html.
---

There are those who believe that the mind in itself can be perceived. My take on it: sustaining that a mind can attain an immediate knowledge of itself is as absurd as the belief that a certain hammer could smash itself.
The mind is merely a tool. One has the faculty to know, which only makes sense as long as there is something to be known. Were it different, it would mean that the Knower could be in effect his Known, at the same time being Subject and Object. Such thought would then lead to the possibility of a learning experience independent of any object other than the mind — the faculty to know — of which relevance consists however in its relationship to the remainder of objects. With that said, what could the mind learn? That it can learn. But how can it be sure, if it has nothing learned and there is nothing to learn at all? It cannot. Therefore the existence of the mind manifests itself only in relationship to the sensible world, as it is a Knower; as such, it presupposes a Known, which is different than the Knower itself. When one thinks of himself, the Known is not his faculty to know, but his relation to something else, how he interacts with his environment. The mind, itself, is empty.
Think, for example, whether you are morally good or evil. What determines your answer? Whence do you draw it? From experience, from similar occurences you have previously undergone, bearing in mind your behaviour in these. You always need external proof for your statements, even if — and perhaps even more if — such statements are about yourself, for the experience, the matter, is everything that is the case.

The mind, itself, is empty.


Pietro Borghi