exclusively either to the mental or to the physical order. That which is attractive or repugnant stirs the body as well as the mind. "The 'interesting' aspects of things "rule the consecution of our several conscious streams; but they are "not wholly inert physically, though they be active only in those small corners of physical nature which our bodies occupy." 1 The individualized self is thus a peculiar assemblage or field of elements, which "comes at all times with our body as its centre, centre of vision, centre of action, centre of interest. . . . The body is the storm centre, the origin of coördinates, the constant place of stress in all that experience-train. Everything circles round it, and is felt from its point of view. The word 'I,' then, is primarily a noun of position, just like 'this' and 'here.' Activities attached to 'this' position have prerogative emphasis. . . . The 'my' of them is the emphasis, the feeling of perspective-interest in which they are dyed." Precisely as there is no consciousness an sich, and no activity an sich, so there is no mental power or "effectuation" an sich. The causality of mind lies in the drama, train, conjunction, or series, which is peculiar to the mind-complex. "Sustaining, persevering, striving, paying with effort as we go, hanging on, and finally achieving our intention- this is action, this is effectuation in the only shape in which, by a pure experiencephilosophy, the whereabouts of it anywhere can be discussed. ... Real effectual causation . . . is just that kind of conjunction which our own activity-series reveal." We meet here with a type of process that is sui generis. Whether human action is determined primarily by this process, or by the elementary processes of the nerve-cells, James does not attempt to decide. It is essentially a question between the activities of longer and of shorter span; "naïvely, we believe, and humanly and dramatically we like to believe," that the two are at work in life together. If we assemble these various aspects of mind, we can picture it in its concrete wholeness. The organism operates interestedly 1 "The Place of Affectional Facts in a World of Pure Experience," Essays on Radical Empiricism, pp. 150-151, and passim. Pluralistic Universe, p. 380, note. Ibid., pp. 390, 392. For the bearing of this on the question of freedom, see below, p. 373. • Ibid., p. 387. and selectively within its natural environment; and the manifold of elements thus selected compose the mind's content. But this content, when viewed by itself, exhibits certain characteristic groupings, patterns, and conjunctions. Of these the knowledge process is the most striking But as the body is the original instrument of selection and the source of individual bias, so bodily states and bodily orientation will be the nucleus of each individual field of content. The Function of Cognition II. THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE § 5. To understand the originality and value of James's contributions to this subject, it is indispensable that one should see his problem. One must respect the difficulty before one can appreciate his solution of it. James's problem can perhaps be formulated as follows: How can idea and object be two, and yet one be knowledge of the other, and both fall within the same individual conscious field? And this problem James proposes to solve empirically, that is, by an examination of cognition in the concrete. Just what is it that takes place, just what is found, when I have an idea of an object? Although James's discussions of knowledge relate mainly to this dual or mediated type, to knowledge about the thing b, which I have by virtue of the idea a, he does not regard this as the only type or as the standard type. "Knowledge about" is a derivative of "direct" knowledge, or "knowledge of acquaintance," and is never more than a provisional substitute for it. Representation is cognitive only in so far as it is a virtual presentation. In direct knowledge, or knowledge of acquaintance, "any one and the same that in experience must figure alternately as a thing known and as a knowledge of the thing, by reason of two divergent kinds of context into which, in the general course of experience, it gets woven." In knowledge of this type, in other words, the thing itself is acted on and felt about in the manner characteristic of an individual conscious field. The most notable case of this is sense-perception. In so far as there is here any difference between the knowing and 1 "Essence of Humanism," in The Meaning of Truth, p. 127. Cf. passim, and "Function of Cognition," ibid., pp. 1-42. the known, the knowing is simply the context, the company into which the thing known is received. And the individual knower will be that nuclear bodily complex which has already been described. The function of such knowledge is evidently to get things thus directly acted on, or thus directly introduced into life. But, humanly speaking, if the range of life is not to be narrowly circumscribed, it is necessary that most things should appear in it vicariously, that is, represented by what is known "about" them. "The towering importance for human life of this kind of knowing lies in the fact that an experience that knows another can figure as its representative, not in any quasimiraculous 'epistemological' sense, but in the definite practical sense of being its substitute in various operations." Thus the function of "knowledge about" is to provide substitutes for things which it is practically impossible to know directly, so that the original function of knowledge may be widely extended. It is only a special case of that which is characteristic of all organized life—namely, the broadening of its scope by delegation and indirection. And we are thus brought to the consideration of a narrow and definite problem. When may one item be, for cognitive purposes, substituted for another? That which may thus be substituted is "knowledge about," or "idea of," the thing for which it is so substituted; and the thing for which the substitution is made is the object. So that our question is equivalent to the traditional question, 'What is the relation between an idea and its object?' But it is important to bear in mind that James's question cannot be answered simply by saying that idea and object are identical. That in many cases they are identical, and that in all cases they are virtually identical, he does not deny. But he asks particularly about that respect in which they are not identical; where there is an actual otherness of content, or an actual temporal progression from the one to the other. And it must also be remembered also that James does not permit himself to deal with this question on other than empirical grounds; in other words, he assumes that all the terms referred to must be such as can be brought together within one field of consciousness. The older dualism, in which the something 1 Essays in Radical Empiricism, p. 60. For the meaning of "empiricism," see below, pp. 363–366. 2 'inside' represents something 'outside' every possible extension of the individual's consciousness, is regarded as obsolete.1 The relation characteristic of an idea and its object can be analyzed into two factors, intention and agreement. In the first place, the idea must somehow "mean" its object, that is, designate which thing is its object. And intention is prior to agreement. It is not sufficient that an idea should simply agree with something; it must agree with its object; and until its object has been identified, no test of agreement can be applied. "It is not by dint of discovering which reality a feeling 'resembles' that we find out which reality it means. We become first aware of which one it means, and then we suppose that to be the one it resembles." But intention is essentially a practical matter. What one intends is like one's goal or one's destination, in being what one's actions converge on or towards. And the idea owes its existence, as such, to an intention or plan of action of which the 'intended' is the terminus. Intention is, of course, often equivocal; but the intention is revealed, and becomes less and less equivocal as the plan of action unfolds. It is this which accounts for the superiority of gesture over words. If one can hold up the object, lay one's hand on it, or even point to it, its identity becomes unmistakable. So we must conclude that where the action on the object is not completed, the object is intended in so far as there is an incipient train of action which, if completed, would terminate in that thing. I may here and now have an idea of "the tigers in India," that is, mean, intend, or refer to them, inasmuch as what is in my mind is so connected circumstantially with the actual India and its tigers, that if I were to follow it up I should be brought face to face with them." In other words, to have an idea of a thing is to have access to it, even when it is not present. But an idea must not only intend its object; it must also, in some sense, "agree" with it. And here again we find that the essential thing is practical connection; for identity, or even similarity, is evidently not necessary. "We are universally held 1 Meaning of Truth, pp. 126–127. 2 "Function of Cognition," op. cit., passim, and especially pp. 28-32. • Ibid., p. 25. Cf. ibid., pp. 25, 35; also "Meaning of the Word Truth," op. cit., p. 217. Op. cit., pp. 43–50. 1 both to intend, to speak of, and to reach conclusions about to know, in short-particular realities, without having in our subjective consciousness any mind-stuff that resembles them even in a remote degree. We are instructed about them by language which awakens no consciousness beyond its sound; and we know which realities they are by the faintest and most fragmentary glimpse of some remote context that they may have, and by no direct imagination of themselves." Since it is not always necessary that the idea should resemble its object, we must conclude that the minimum agreement which is required of all ideas cannot be resemblance. And we shall understand that minimum agreement best where it is barest, where it is not complicated by the accident of agreement. The best example, then, will be the agreement of words with their objects. Now a word agrees with its intended object inasmuch as by an established convention it leads to that object, or enables one to find it. And what is true of single words will also be true of combinations of words; they will "agree," when they are so connected with a combination of things as to enable one to reverse the verbalizing operation and substitute that combination of things for them. But since it is possible that my idea should not prepare me for what it intends, it is evident that we are already within the domain of truth and error; agreement being the same thing as truth, and disagreement the same thing as error. And this is a matter for special and detailed examination. Before leaving the present topic, however, it is worth while once more to point out that for James all knowledge is virtually direct or presentative. First, the safest and surest of our everyday knowledge is sense-perception. Second, while it is not necessary that the idea should resemble its object, the idea will ordinarily be some fragment of the object, abstracted and made to serve for the whole. And in so far as this is the case the idea and its object are identical. Third, even mediated knowledge is completed only when by means of it the object is brought directly into the mind. So that the best idea would be that which would "lead to an actual merging of ourselves with the object, to an utter mutual confluence and identification." In other words, knowledge, generally speaking, is the entrance of 1 "Function of Cognition," op. cit., pp. 30-31. |