Let us explain the status of the universal in knowledge by a simple example. When we assert critically that this penny is round, we do not mean to assert that there is an entity, called the quality round, which is possessed by the penny; nor do we mean that the penny is composed, among other things, of the universal round.
Rather it seems to us that we mean that the shape of the penny is best understood by means of this universal round. And this shape is the formation of its parts. Universals are means for thinking truly about things and their connections; they are not parts of things, nor peculiar adjectives of things.
They take into consideration the big picture and keep elements generalized. When universals become too specific they take away from the ultimate goal of understanding how all of the big pieces fit together to create a whole, much like a petition without petition signatures.
How, then, must we adjudge the status of the presented content in perception? Existentially, as an intracortical occurrence to be correlated with the perceived object; epistemologically, as the contentual material out of which knowledge of the object can be gleaned.
One of the main contentions has been the desirability of setting up a critical notion of what knowledge of the physical world actually is. It is hard for mere mortals to comprehend the physical world because they become distracted by life’s small trials and tribulations. To understand the general concept of knowledge takes much focus and motivation.
The general conditions of knowledge are twofold: (1) the presence of data, which are adaptive and (potentially) revelatory responses to things, and (2) the intelligent use and interrogation of these data in the way of analysis and synthesis, the formation of hypotheses, the construction of concepts, etc.
When discussing the mind-body problem, we shall attempt to show that the capacity for both these conditions is to be assigned to the brain; the brain, however, risen to the level of conscious functioning.
What we are permitted to accept is a complex stimulation of the brain which is welcomed and furthered by it in accordance with its own nature and interests. The conscious brain-mind is interested in things for good biological reasons and, like a skilled lawyer, draws out their story bit by bit and puts it together in its own language, possibly even turning it into a petition example. The physical world must be assisted toward its unintentional self-revelation by such an organ as the brain-mind if knowledge is to arise.
This setting of the content of knowledge allows us to claim a genuine conformity between it and the physical existents known. The situation is, of course, unique, and metaphors will not much help us. We are confined to the subjective side and can never have in consciousness the existent known, though we can literally grasp it with our hands.
Penetrative intuition of the physical world is impossible just because we are what we are, organisms stimulated by external things. Physical being is determinate and knowledge patterns after it in accordance with its own medium.
