八喜电子书 > 经管其他电子书 > phenomenology of mind >

第58部分

phenomenology of mind-第58部分

小说: phenomenology of mind 字数: 每页4000字

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!




From this peculiarity; that the organ of activity is at once a form of being and the operation going
on within it; or again that the inner inherent being is itself explicitly present in it and has a being for
others; we come upon a further aspect of it different from the preceding。 For if the organs in
general proved to be incapable of being taken as expressions of the inner for the reason that in
them the action is present as a process; while the action as a deed or (finished) act is merely
external; and inner and outer in this way fall apart and are or can be alien to one another; the organ
must; in view of the peculiarity now considered; be again taken as also a middle term for both;
since this very fact; that the operation takes place and is present in it; constitutes eo ipso an
external attribute of it; and indeed one that is different from the deed or act; for the former holds
by the individual and remains with him。

This mediating term uniting inner and outer is in the first place itself external too。 But then this
externality is at the same time taken up into the inner; it stands in the form of simple unbroken
externality opposed to dispersed externality; which either is a single performance or condition
contingent for the individuality as a whole; or else; in the form of a total externality; is fate or
destiny; split up into a plurality of performances and conditions。 The simple lines of the hand; then;
the ring and compass of the voice; as also the individual peculiarity of the language used: or again
this idiosyncracy of language; as expressed where the hand gives it more durable existence than
the voice can do; viz。 in writing; especially in the particular style of 〃handwriting〃 — all this is an
expression of the inner; so that; as against the multifarious externality of action and fate; this
expression again stands in the position of simple externality; plays the part of an inner in relation to
the externality of action and fate。 Thus; then; if at first the specific nature and innate peculiarity of
the individual along with what these become as the result of cultivation and development; are
regarded as the inner reality; as the essence of action and of fate; this inner being finds its
appearance in external fashion to begin with in his mouth; hand; voice; handwriting; and the other
organs and their permanent characteristics。 Thereafter and not till then does it give itself further
outward expression in its realization in the world。

Now because this middle term assumes the nature of an outer expression; which is at the same
time taken back into the inner; its existence is not confined to the immediate organ of action (the
hand); this middle term is rather the movement and form of countenance and figure in general
which perform no outward act。 These lineaments and their movements on this principle are the
checked and restrained action that stops in the individual and; as regards his relation to what he
actually does; constitute his own personal inspection and observation of the action…outer
expression in the sense of reflexion upon the actual outer expression。

The individual; on the occasion of his external action; is therefore not dumb and silent; because he
is thereby at once reflected into himself; and he gives articulate expression to this self…reflexion。
This theoretical action; the individual's conversing with himself on the matter; is also perceptible to
others; for his speaking is itself an outer expression。

In this inner; then; which in being expressed remains an inner; observation finds the individual
reflected out of his actual reality; and we have to see how the case stands with regard to the
necessity which lies in the unity here。

His being thus reflected is to begin with different from the act itself; and therefore can be; and be
taken for something other than the deed is。 We look at a man's face and see whether he is in
earnest with what he says or does。 Conversely; however; what is here intended to be an
expression of the inner is at the same time an existent objective expression; and hence itself falls to
the level of mere existence; which is absolutely contingent for the self…conscious individual。 It is
therefore no doubt an expression; but at the same time only in the sense of a sign; so that to the
content expressed the peculiar nature of that by which it is expressed is completely indifferent。 The
inner in thus appearing is doubtless an invisible made visible; but without being itself united to this
appearance。 It can just as well make use of some other appearance as another inner can adopt the
same appearance。 Lichtenberg; (2) therefore; is right in saying: 〃Suppose the physiognomist ever
did have a man in his grasp; it would merely require a courageous resolution on the man's part to
make himself again incomprehensible for centuries。〃

In the previous case (3) the immediately given circumstances formed a sphere of existence from
which individuality selected what it could or what it wanted; either submitting to or transmuting this
given existence; for which reason this did not contain the necessity and inner nature of individuality。
Similarly here the immediate being in which individuality clothes its appearance is one which either
expresses the fact of its being reflected back out of reality and existing within itself; or which is for
it merely a sign indifferent to what is signified; and therefore signifying in reality nothing; it is as
much its countenance as its mask; which can be put off when it likes。 Individuality permeates its
own shape; moves; speaks in the shape assumed; but this entire mode of existence equally well
passes over into a state of being indifferent to the will and the act。 Individuality effaces from it the
significance it formerly had — of being that wherein individuality is reflected into itself; or has its
true nature — and instead puts its real nature rather in the will and the deed。

Individuality abandons that condition of being reflected into self which finds expression in lines and
lineaments; and places its real nature in the work done。 Herein it contradicts the relationship which
the instinct of reason; engaged in observing self…conscious individuality; establishes in regard to
what its inner and outer should be。 This point of view brings us to the special idea at the basis of
the science of physiognomy…if we care to call it a 〃science〃。 The opposition this form of
observation comes upon is in form the opposition of practical and theoretical; both falling inside
the practical aspect itself — the opposition of individuality; making itself real in action (in the most
general sense of action); and individuality as being in this action at the same time reflected thence
into self; and taking the action for its object。 Observation apprehends and accepts this opposition
in the same inverted form in which it is when it makes its appearance。 To observation; the deed
itself and the performance; whether it be that of speech or a more solid reality; stand for the
nonessential outer; while the individuality's existence within itself passes for the essential inner。 Of
the two aspects which the practical mind involves; intention and act (the 〃meaning〃 regarding the
action and the action itself); observation selects the former as the true inner; this (i。e。 the intention
or true inner) is supposed to have its more or less unessential externalization in the act; while its
true outer expression is to be had in the form in which the individual is embodied。 This latter
expression is a sensuous immediate presence of the individual mind: the inwardness; which is
intended to be the true internal aspect; is the particular point of the intention; and the singleness of
self…existence: both together the mind subjectively 〃meant〃 Thus; what observation takes for its
objects is an existence that is 〃meant〃; and within this sphere it looks for laws。

The primary way of making conjectures (meinen) regarding the 〃presumptive〃 presence of mind is
everyday (natürlich) physiognomy; hasty judgment formed at a glance about the inner nature and
the character of its outer form and shape。 The object of this guesswork thinking (4) is of such a
kind that its very essence involves its being in truth something else than merely sensuous and
immediate。 Certainly what is really present is just this condition of being in sensuous form reflected
out of sense into self; it is the visible as a sensuous presentment of the invisible; which constitutes
the object of observation。 But this very sensuous immediate presence is the mind's reality〃 as that
reality is approved by mere conjecture (Meinung); and observation from this point of view
occupies itself with its 〃presumed〃 (gemeint) existence; with physiognomy; handwriting; sound of
voice; etc。

Observation relates such and such a sensuous fact to just such a supposed or presumed
(gemeintes) inner。 It is not the murderer; the thief; that is to be known; it is the capacity to be a
murderer; a thief。 The definitely marked abstract attribute is thereby lost in the concrete indefinite
characteristic nature of the particular individual; which now demands more skilful delineations than
the former qualifications supply。 Such skilful delineations no doubt say more than the qualification;
〃murderer〃; 〃thief〃; or 〃good…hearted〃; 〃unspoiled〃; and so on; but are a long way short of their
aim; which is to express the being that is 〃meant〃; the single individuality; as far short as the
delineations of the form and shape; which go further than a 〃flat brow〃; a 〃long nose〃; etc。 For the
individual shape and form; like the individual self…consciousness; is qua something 〃meant〃;
inexpressible。 The 〃science of knowing men〃; (5) which is concerned about the supposed human
being; like the 〃science〃 of physiognomy; which deals with his presumed reality and seeks to raise
to the level of knowledge uncritical assertions of everday (natürlich) physiognomy; (6) is therefore
something with neither foundation nor finality; it cannot manage to say what it 〃means〃 because it
merely 〃means〃; and its content is merely what is 〃presumed〃 or 〃meant〃。

The so…called 〃laws〃; this kind of 

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的