Thanks, Eric. My question had to do with the (f)act of knowing anything rather than what it is that is known. Your discussion has to do with knowing a mind and the 1st vs 3rd person perspective. What about simply knowing that the sun is out (assume it is) or that the sky is blue (assume you are under a cloudless blue sky). From your perspective do you see a 1st/3rd person perspective when the subject matter is not someone's mind?
-- Russ On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[email protected]> wrote: > My understanding is that the terms 1st and 3rd person arose as ways of > talking about literary styles - and our use of them is metaphorical. An > essential part of the metaphor is that authors writing in 1st person are > typically granted privileged license to write about the mind of "I". In > contrast, people writing in (a non-omniscient) 3rd person, are typically not > granted as much license to write about the minds. This is not entirely true, > as people writing in 3rd person write about minds all the time, but their > writings are considered more vulnerable to dispute. For example, if Obama > wrote an account of his inauguration and said "I was terrified", it would be > considered less vulnerable to dispute than if I wrote an account of his > inauguration and said "He was terrified". If these linguistic conventions > become reified then we can start taking the "I" not merely to denote the > speaker/viewer, but to denote an entity in possession of unique powers that > justify the privileges commonly granted to the linguistic device. This is > suggested as my understanding of the history, independent of any value > judgment regarding the reification. > > There is a lurking problem, however, as these conventions do not always > seem to hold in the real world. The most glairing probelm is that, at least > sometimes, "I" can be wrong about my own mind and "He" can be right. (The > cause of my error can range from simply not paying attention to what I am > doing, to intentional self-delusion, to forgetting - think Alzheimer's.) For > some, these problems lead to an urge to collapse categories, to see if the > oddness cannot be gotten rid of if we leave behind the notion of uniqueness > that goes with having distinct labels. I suppose that on some formal level, > when a dichotomy collapses into a monism, it might not be particularly > important which category label remains. However, one category may be > preferred over another because it originally contained properties that the > author wishes to retain as implicit or explicit in the monistic system that > remains. These properties are ported along with word into the monistic > system, because the term retains sway as a metaphor. > > In this case, the historical bias has been to retain only the "I" position. > In this move, the "I" retains its unique insight about ourselves, and any > insight we think we have about others must be treated purely as insight > about ourselves, i.e. the mind that I know as "their mind" is really just a > sub-part of my mind. This leads to extreme forms of idealism (where all the > world exists merely as an idea), the two mind problem (is it ever possible > for two minds to know the some object?), etc., etc. These were huge turn of > the 20th century challenges for philosophy, having grown out of a tradition > of pushing more and more extreme the distinguished lineage of ideas flowing > from Descartes, Kant, Berkeley, etc. The problems, for the most part, > remain. In the extreme form, at least, this lineage leads to a heavy > intellectual paralysis, as it is not possible for any "I" to know any other > "I", nor to know the "real world" (should such a thing even exist). > > The alternative (assuming we are to retain one of the original labels), is > to have a bias for the "He" position. This leads to extreme forms of > realism, and often (but not always) to behaviorism. In this move, the "I" > has to get its information about the mind in the same that "He" has to get > information. That is, if my brother knows my mind by observing my behavior, > then I can only know my mind by observing my behavior. (Note, that the > assertion about observing behavior is a secondary postulate, supplimenting > the fundamental assertion that the method of knowing must be the same.) > > There are, presumably, things that the I-biased position handles well (I > don't know what they are, but there must be some). I know there are things > the He-biased position handles well. Among other things it allows us to > better understand perfectly normal and mundane conversations such as: > > A) "You are angry" > B) "No I'm not" > A) "Yes you are dear. I've known you long enough to know when you're > angry." > B) "I think I'd know when I was angry" > A) "You usually don't dear" > ... several hours later > B) "Wow, you were right, I was angry. I didn't realize it at the time. I'm > sorry" > > The I-biased position understands these conversations as very elaborate > shell games, where the first statement means something like: "The you that > is in my head is currently being modeled by me as having a first-person > experience of anger which is itself modeled after my unique first-person > experience of anger". Worse, the last sentence seems (to me) totally > incoherent from the I-biased position. The He-biased position much more > simply believes that a person's anger is visible to himself and others if > the right things are attended to, and hence the conversation requires no > shell game. Person B simply comes to attend aspects of the situation that A > was attending from the start. > > Now I will admit that the He-biased perspective has trouble in some > situations, but those can't really be discussed until the position is at > least understood in the situations it handles well. > > Eric > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 04:05 AM, *Russ Abbott <[email protected]>*wrote: > > Now that we've arrived safely in Canberra, here's my loose end. > > A number of people have talked about 1st person vs 3rd person > perspectives. What I'd like to know is what you all mean by a 3rd person > perspective. And what I'd really like to know is why what you mean by a 3rd > person perspective isn't the > 1st person experience of that perspective. In other words, what does one > mean by a perspective or view at all. If someone/something has a view, it's > not important (for what I think we're talking about) what the view is > viewing. What's important is that someone/something has that view. The > viewer then has a 1st person perspective of whatever is being viewed. If > what is being viewed has something to do with the viewer, that's neither > here nor there. > > The more abstract way of saying this is that meaning occurs only in a first > person context. Without meaning, all we have are bits, photons, ink on > paper, etc. If you want to talk about meaning at all -- whether it's the > meaning of a first or third person perspective -- one has already assumed > that there is a first person that is understanding that meaning. > > Now since Nick and I seem to have reached an agreement about our positions, > I'm not sure whether Nick will disagree with what I've just said. So, Nick, > if you are in agreement, please don't take this as a challenge. In fact, > whether or not you agree I think it would be interesting for others on the > list to respond to this point. On the other hand, Nick I'm not asking you > not to respond -- in agreement of disagreement. I'm always interested in > what you have to say. > > -- Russ Abbott > _____________________________________________ > Professor, Computer Science > California State University, Los Angeles > Cell phone: 310-621-3805 > o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Steve, >> >> You asked >> >> "How (if at all) does this fit into the 3rd/1st person discussion this all >> started with?" >> >> To be honest, I never tried to fit them together before. You are >> demanding reflexivity here ... that my principles concerning how to conduct >> a discussion be consistent with the argument I am presenting within the >> discussion. Always a useful demand. The best I can say is that both seem >> to embody my belief that in all matters of the mind, if we are willing to >> work hard enough, we can stand shoulder to shoulder and look at the same >> thing. >> >> By the way, a couple of you have indicated that you didn't get answers to >> questions you directed at me, and you rose to my defense. I confess I got a >> bit over whelmed there for a while and started selecting questions for >> answer that I thought I could handle cleanly (as opposed to muddily). >> Please if there were lose ends, push them at me again. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >> Clark University ([email protected]) >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Steve Smith >> *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >> Coffee Group >> *Sent:* 6/22/2009 10:13:50 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Direct conversation >> >> Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> >> Russ, and Glen, and Steve, n all >> >> Ironically, I am with Russ on this one! I believe both in the possibility >> and the benefits of clarity. >> I expected that when Russ and I were done, we would be able to agree on an >> articulation of our positions, where they are similar, where different, >> etc. In fact, one of the skills I most revere is the ability to state >> another person's position to that person's satisfaction. And, in fact, >> at one point, I thought I had achieved such an articulation, only to have >> Russ tell me I had got it wrong. My guess is that Russ has his feet deeply >> in Kant, and I have neither boots nor courage high enough to go in there >> after him. My son, who is a philosopher, has as good as looked me in the >> eye and said, "You aint man enough to read Kant!" >> >> >> I studied Kant when I was too young and foolish to know better... but then >> I had been raised on folks like Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein so Kant was no >> challenge. Today I think I would find Kant a bit intimidating. >> >> I am curious about the implications of "one of the skills I most revere is >> the ability to state another person's position to that person's >> satisfaction". It seems to have implications on the root discussion... >> The two ways I can obtain a high degree of confidence that I am >> communicating with another is if I can articulate their position to their >> satisfaction and vice versa... I prefer the former over the latter... in >> the sense that I am almost never satisfied in their articulation... at most >> I accept it with some reservations. But if they can keep a straight face >> while I reel off my version of their understanding of a point, then I try >> hard not to think too hard about it and call it good. How (if at all) does >> this fit into the 3rd/1st person discussion this all started with? >> >> - Steve >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > > Eric Charles > > Professional Student and > Assistant Professor of Psychology > Penn State University > Altoona, PA 16601 > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
