When we attempt to sort out the vagaries of a thing the non-representationalist account is tempting. I think it is true to some extent. If I see a knife, I see a knife I do not see a bit of metal as a knife. Because a meaning is use, that is the meaning so it is a knife, that’s all there is for it to be. The problem then becomes that this means there kind of is no knife because really knife is just a word I use in the presence of certain bits of stuff that give me then the impression that I am talking about something. This again is where the notion of accretion kicks in for we wish to say here that there is  a knife in something like the sense of naive objects, and this happens because the pneuma has accreted after the use. So we have a double stage process, the primordial process is a use like one and the secondary is the accretion of pneuma around the thing that has become focussed on. So the pure seeing of the knife is the seeing of the pneuma which is a knife (imagine a knife and there you can see  the pure pneuminous knife, that this impression is completely contingent is utterly besides the point because all the accretions are of course incoherent).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s