phenomenology of mind-第56章

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！


Bumps　and　hollows；　there　is　room　for　selection！　And　again　his　murderous　propensity　can　be
referred　to　any　bump　or　hollow；　and　this　in　turn　to　any　mental　quality；　for　the　murderer　is　neither
this　abstraction　of　a　murderer；　nor　does　he　have　merely　one　protuberance　and　one　depression。
The　observations　offered　on　this　point　must　therefore　sound　just　about　as　sensible　as　those　of　the
dealer　about　the　rain　at　the　annual　fair；　and　of　the　housewife　at　her　washing　time。　（8）　Dealer　and
housewife　might　as　well　make　the　observation　that　it　always　rains　when　neighbour　so…and…so
passes　by；　or　when　they　have　roast　pork。　From　the　point　of　view　of　observation　a　given
characteristic　of　mind　is　just　as　indifferent　to　a　given　formation　of　the　skull　as　rain　is　indifferent　to
circumstances　like　these。　For　of　the　two　objects　thus　under　observation；　the　one　is　a　barren
isolated　entity　（Fürsichsein）；　an　ossified　property　of　mind；　the　other　is　an　equally　barren
potentiality　（Ansichsein）。　Such　an　ossified　entity；　as　they　both　are；　is　completely　indifferent　to
everything　else。　It　is　just　as　much　a　matter　of　indifference　to　a　high　bump　whether　a　murderer　is　in
close　proximity；　as　to　the　murderer　whether　flatness　is　near　him。

There　is；　of　course；　no　getting　over　the　possibility　that　still　remains；　that　a　bump　at　a　certain　place
is　connected　with　a　certain　property；　passion；　etc。　We　can　think　of　the　murderer　with　a　high　bump
here　at　this　place　on　the　skull；　the　thief　with　one　there。　From　this　point　of　view　phrenology　is
capable　of　much　greater　extension　than　it　has　yet　had。　For　in　the　first　instance　it　seems　to　be
restricted　merely　to　the　connexion　of　a　bump　with　a　property　in　one　and　the　same　individual；　in　the
sense　that　this　individual　possesses　both。　But　phrenology　per　naturam…for　there　must　be　such　a
subject　as　well　as　a　physiognomy　per　naturam…goes　a　long　way　beyond　this　restriction。　It　does
not　merely　affirm　that　a　cunning　fellow　has　a　bump　like　a　fist　lying　behind　the　ear；　but　also　puts
forward　the　view　that；　not　the　unfaithful　wife　herself；　but　the　other　party　to　this　conjugal
transaction；　has　a　bump　on　the　brow。

In　the　same　way；　one　may　too　/imagine”　and　“conjecture”　the　man　living　under　the　same　roof
with　the　murderer；　or　even　one's　neighbour；　or；　going　still　further　afield；　“conjecture”　one's　fellow
citizens；　etc。；　with　high　bumps　on　some　part　of　the　skull；　just　as　well　as　one　might　picture　to　oneself
the　flying　cow　that　was　caressed　by　the　crab　riding　on　a　donkey；　and　afterwards；　etc。　etc；　But　of
possibility　is　taken　not　in　the　sense　of　a　possibility　of　“imagining”　and　“conjecturing”　and
“picturing”；　but　in　the　sense　of　inner　possibility；　or　possibility　of　conceiving；　then　the　object　is　a
reality　of　the　kind　which　is　a　mere　thing　and　is；　and　should　be；　depived　of　the　significance　of　reality；
and　canthus　only　have　the　sense　of　it　for　imaginative　or　figurative　thinking。

The　observer　may；　in　spite　of　the　indifference　of　the　two　sides　to　one　another；　set　to　work　to
determine　correlations；　supported　partly　by　the　general　rational　principle　that　the　outer　is　the
expression　of　the　inner；　and　partly　by　the　analogy　of　the　skulls　of　animals　—　which　may　doubtless
have　a　simpler　character　than　men；　but　of　which　at　the　same　time　it　becomes　just　so　much　the
more　difficult　to　say　what　character　they　do　have；　in　that　it　cannot　be　so　easy　for　any　man's
imagination　to　think　himself　really　into　the　nature　of　an　animal。　Should　the　observer　do　so；　he　will
find；　in　giving　out　for　certain　the　laws　he　maintains　he　has　discovered；　a　first…rate　means　of
assistance　in　a　distinction　which　we　too　must　necessarily　take　note　of　at　this　point。

The　being　of　mind　cannot　be　taken　at　any　rate　to　be　something　completely　rigid　and　immovable。
Man　is　free。　It　will　be　admitted　that　the　mind's　original　primordial　being　consists　merely　in
dispositions；　which　mind　has　to　a　large　extent　under　its　control；　or　which　require　favourable
circumstances　to　draw　them　out；　i。e。　an　original　〃being〃　of　mind　must　be　equally　well　spoken　of　as
what　does　not　exist　as　a　〃being〃　at　all。　Were　observations　to　conflict　with　what　strikes　any　one　as
a　warrantable　law；　should　it　happen　to　be　fine　weather　at　the　annual　fair　or　on　the　housewife's
washing　day　—　then　dealer　and　housewife　might　say　that　it；　properly　speaking；　should　rain；　and　the
conditions　are　really　all　that　way。　So　too　in　the　case　of　observing　the　skull；　it　might　be　said　when
those　contradictory　observations　occur；　that　the　given　individual　ought　properly　to　be　what
according　to　the　law　his　skull　proclaims　him　to　be；　and　that　he　has　an　original　disposition　which；
however；　has　not　been　developed：　this　quality　is　not　really　present；　but　it　should　be　there。　The
〃law〃　and　the　〃ought…to…be〃　rest　on　observation　of　actual　showers　of　rain；　and　observation　of　the
actual　sense　and　meaning　in　the　case　of　the　given　character　of　the　skull；　but　if　the　reality　is　not
present；　the　empty　possibility　is　supposed　to　do　just　as　well。

This　mere　possibility；　i。e。　the　non…actuality　of　the　law　proposed；　and　hence　the　observations
conflicting　with　the　law；　are　bound　to　come　out　just　for　the　reason　that　the　freedom　of　the
individual　and　the　developing　circumstances　are　indifferent　towards　what　merely　is；　both　in　the
sense　of　the　original　inner　as　well　as　the　external　ossiform　structure；　and　also　because　the　individual
can　be　something　else　than　he　is　in　his　original　internal　nature；　and　still　more　than　what　he　is　as　a
skull…bone。

We　get；　then；　the　possibility　that　a　given　bump　or　hollow　on　the　skull　may　denote　both　something
actual　as　well　as　a　mere　disposition；　one　indeed　so　little　determined　in　any　given　direction　as　to
denote　something　that　is　not　actual　at　all。　We　see　here；　as　always；　the　same　result　of　a　bad　excuse；
viz。　that　it　is　itself　ready　to　be　used　against　what　it　is　intended　to　support。　We　see　the　thinking　that
merely　〃conjectures〃　brought　by　the　very　force　of　facts　to　say　in　unintelligent　fashion　the　very
opposite　of　what　it　holds　to　—　to　say　that　there　is　something　indicated　by　such　and　such　a　bone；
but　also　just　as　truly　not　indicated　at　all。

What　hovers　before　this　way　of　〃conjecturing〃　when　it　makes　this　excuse　is　the　true　thought…a
thought；　however；　which　abolishes　that　way　of　〃conjecturing〃；　—　that　being　as　such　is　not　at　all　the
truth　of　spirit。　As　the　disposition　is　an　original　primordial　being；　having　no　share　in　the　activity　of
mind；　just　such　a　being　is　the　skull…bone　on　its　side。　What　merely　is；　without　participating　in
spiritual　activity；　is　a　thing　for　consciousness；　and　so　little　is　it　the　essence　of　mind　that　it　is　rather
the　very　opposite　of　it；　and　consciousness　is　only　actual　for　itself　by　the　negation　and　abolition　of
such　a　being。

From　this　point　of　view　it　must　be　regarded　as　a　thorough　denial　of　reason　to　give　out　a　skull…bone
as　the　actual　existence　of　conscious　life；　and　that　is　what　it　is　given　out　to　be　when　it　is　regarded　as
the　outer　expression　of　spirit；　for　the　external　expression　is　just　the　existent　reality。　It　is　no　use　to
say　we　merely　draw　an　inference　from　the　outer　as　to　the　inner；　which　is　something　different；　or　to
say　that　the　outer　is　not　the　inner　itself　but　merely　its　expression。　For　in　the　relation　of　the　two　to
one　another　the　character　of　the　reality　which　thinks　itself　and　is　thought　of　by　itself　falls　just　on　the
side　of　the　inner；　while　the　outer　has　the　character　of　existent　reality。

When；　therefore；　a　man　is　told；　〃You　（your　inner　being）　are　so　and　so；　because　your　skull…bone　is
so　constituted；〃　this　means　nothing　else　than　that　we　regard　a　bone　as　the　man's　reality。　To　retort
upon　such　a　statement　with　a　box　on　the　ear　—　in　the　way　mentioned　above　when　dealing　with
psysiognomy　—　removes　primarily　the　〃soft〃　parts　of　his　head　from　their　apparent　dignity　and
position；　and　proves　merely　that　these　are　no　true　inherent　nature；　are　not　the　reality　of　mind；　the
retort　here　would；　properly　speaking；　have　to　go　the　length　of　breaking　the　skull　of　the　person　who
makes　a　statement　like　that；　in　order　to　demonstrate　to　him　in　a　manner　as　palpable　as　his　own
wisdom　that　a　bone　is　nothing　of　an　inherent　nature　at　all　for　a　man。；　still　less　his　true　reality。

The　untutored　instinct　of　self…conscious　reason　will　reject　without　examination　phrenology　—　this
other　observing　instinct　of　self…conscious　reason；　which　having　succeeded　in　malting　a　guess　at
knowledge　has　grasped　knowledge　in　the　soulless　form　that　the　outer　is　an　expression　of　the　inner。
But　the　worse　the　thought；　the　less　sometimes　does　it　strike　us　where　its　badness；　definitely　lies；
and　the　more　difficult　it　is　to　explain　it。　For　a　thought　is　said　to　be　the　worse；　the　barer　and　emptier
the　abstraction；　which　thought　takes　to　be　the　essential　truth。　But　in　the　antithesis　here　in　question
the　component　parts　are　individuality　conscious　of　itself；　and　the　abstraction　of　a　bare　thing；　to
which　externality　has　been　reduced　—　the　inner　being　of　mind　taken　in　the　sense　of　a　fixed　soulless
existence　and　in　opposition　to　just　such　a　being。

With　the　attainment　of　this；　however；　rational　observation　seems　in　fact　to　have　also　reached　its
culminating　point；　at　which　it　must　take　leave　of　itself　and　turn　right　about；　for　it　is　only　when
anything　is　entirely　bad　that　there　is　an　inherent　and　immediate　necessity　in　it　to　wheel　round
completely　into　its　opposite。　Just　so　it　may　be　said　of　the　Jews　that　it　is　precisely　because　they
stand　directly　before　the　door　of　salvation；　that　they　are　and　have　been　the　most　reprobate　and
abandoned：　—　what　the　nation　should　be　in　and　for　itself；　this；　the　true　inner　nature　of　its　self；　it　is
not　conscious　of　being；　but　puts　away　beyond　itself。　By　this　renunciation　it　creates　for　itself　the
possibility　of　a　higher　level　of　existence；　if　once　it　could　get　the　object　thus　renounced　back　again
to　itself；　than　if　it　had　never　left　its　natural　immediate　state　of　existence　—　because　spirit　is　all　the
greater　the　greater　the　opposition　out　of　which　it　returns　into　itself；　and　such　an　opposition　spirit
brings　about　for　itself；　by　doing　away　with　its　immediate　unity；　and　laying　aside　its　self…existence；　a
separate　life　of　its　own。　But　if　such　a　consciousness　does　not　mediate　and　reflect　itself；　the　middle
position　or　term　where　it　has　a　determinate　existence　is　the　fatal　unholy　void；　since　what　should
give　it　substance　and　filling　has　been　turned　into　a　rigidly　fixed　extreme。　It　is　thus　that　this　last　stage
of　reason's　function　of　observation　is　its　very　worst；　and　for　that　reason　its　complete　reversal
becomes　necessary。

For　the　survey　of　the　series　of　relations　dealt　with　up　to　this　point；　which　constitute　the　content　and
object　of　observation；　shows　that　even　in　its　first　form；　in　observation　of　the　relations　of　inorganic
nature；　sensuous　being　vanished　from　its　ken。　The　moments　of　its　relation　（i。e。　that　of　inorganic
nature）　present　themselves　as　pure　abstractions　and　as　simple　notions；　which　should　be　kept
connected　with　the　existence　of　things；　but　this　gets　lost；　so　that　the　abstract　moment　proves　to　be
a　pure　movement　and　a　universal。　This　free；　self…complete　process　retains　the　significance　of
some