Use and Correct Use of Impressions — The Genus and the Qualified Case v0.1
Use and Correct Use of Impressions — The Genus and the Qualified Case v0.1
Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling (Eastern Illinois University). Analysis and synthesis: Dave Kelly. Prose rendering: Claude (Anthropic). 2026.
I. The Question
The corpus specifies correct use of impressions at length. The two clauses, the eight moments, the three joints, the failure surface, the decision point — each is an account of the qualification. None is an account of what is being qualified.
The gap shows in the instruction itself. Make correct use of impressions is not an instruction to begin doing something. It presupposes an activity already underway and directs how it should go. What that activity is, and whether it can be suspended, is the question this document settles.
II. Sterling on Control
Two primary-source passages carry the answer. Both are from the ISF, August and September 2019, in the thread family titled Making correct use of impressions.
The first is definitional. Against the trichotomy-of-control proposal, Sterling fixes the term:
“‘Control’ means ‘I can make this do what I want it to do, when I want it to do it’. If the thing doesn’t obey me on some occasions, then I don’t control it. I may ‘influence’ it, but I don’t ‘control’ it.”
(Sterling, ISF, 30 August 2019.)
This is strict. Control admits no degrees. A thing either obeys on every occasion or is not controlled at all.
III. Yielding as an Exercise of Control
The second passage applies the definition to the case that appears to refute it. Michael Edelstein had pressed the point of the addict, who resists on some occasions and yields on others — surely partial control. Sterling forces a dilemma. Either the addiction is literally overpowering, in which case there is no control whatever and the case is not an exception to the dichotomy but an instance of the second half of it; or it is not overpowering, in which case the man could have refused, and the control is entire.
Then the sentence that settles the present question:
“The fact that in situation X I sometimes choose to yield to a temptation and sometimes choose not to yield does not mean that I have partial control, it means either that on some of those occasions I had no control and on others I had full control, or else (more commonly) on some occasions I used my control to yield, and on some I used my control to resist.”
(Sterling, ISF, 3 September 2019.)
Yielding is an exercise of control. Not its absence, not its failure, not a lapse in which control was unavailable. The man who gives in has used the same faculty as the man who holds, and used it just as fully.
IV. The Joining — A Declared Seam
Sterling states this about control, in a context where what is controlled is assent. He does not state it in the vocabulary of use of impressions.
The step from one to the other is the corpus’s own, and it is marked here rather than presented as quotation. It runs: what is controlled is assent; use of impressions is the disposing of assent toward an arriving proposition; therefore what Sterling says of yielding and resisting holds of incorrect and correct use.
The inference is short and the corpus takes it as sound. It is nevertheless an inference, and any document quoting this one should carry the mark.
V. Use Defined
Use of impressions is the disposing of the prohairesis toward an arriving proposition — assent, dissent, or suspension.
Correct use is that same act performed well.
Incorrect use is use. Inattentive use is use. There is no fourth option in which the impression arrives and nothing is done with it.
VI. What Follows
No abstention. The rational faculty cannot decline to use an impression, because declining would itself have to be a disposition toward it. Every arriving proposition is disposed of. This is the ground of the no-neutral-moment corollary and of virtue being at stake at every moment: not that the agent is under constant obligation to act, but that the act is constantly occurring.
Inattention does not exculpate. “I wasn’t thinking about it” describes the quality of a use, not its absence. Sterling’s own gloss on the habitual case supports this — where a man has a habit of seeing something as good, the appearance arrives already valued, and it takes effort to resist. The habit does not remove the assent; it makes one direction cheap.
The two modes are two ways of using well. Standing disposition and recovery audit are not the presence and absence of use. The standing disposition is not a state of not-yet-using — it is the settled condition in which the arriving impression is used correctly without deliberation.
Reversion is use. The reverted moment is not a gap in the practice. The standing frame disposes of the impression while attention is elsewhere, and the resulting assents are the agent’s own. This is why reversion costs the moment: something was done, and done badly.
VII. Correct Use and Its Declared Restriction
The two clauses specify correct use for value-laden impressions. They do not specify it for the rest, and the corpus should say so rather than let the silence read as completeness.
The restriction is on the archival record. Steve Marquis put it twice in July 2019 — that there are assents of fact and assents of value, and that correct use of impressions will not leave assent to true impressions of fact out. Dave Kelly conceded the point and stated the reason: Epictetus focuses on the value judgments, and Seddon and Sterling follow him.
So the two clauses are a declared focus. The impressions they govern are the ones that can wreck a life. Correct use of a value-neutral impression follows the same rule as any truth-claim — assent if true, withhold otherwise — and requires none of the apparatus.
VIII. What Remains Open
Whether Sterling anywhere treats control as admitting a difference between the faculty and its exercise. His 15 August formulation, that making the right use of impressions is the only thing we control, reads as compression against the two passages above; but compression and position are distinguishable only by more of his text, and twenty-two threads in this family remain unretrieved.
Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling (Eastern Illinois University). Analysis and synthesis: Dave Kelly. Prose rendering: Claude (Anthropic). 2026.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home