Wow Keith,
That is some gift you gave me this
morning. I'm having to work more on other projects due to the
financial issues that we all are talking about on the list.e.g. I lost an
"account" yesterday which amounted to 20% of my income when that account had to
cut 30% of its work force because one of their accounts declared
bankruptcy. So I have less time for contemplative writing due
to the fact that my business comes not from salary but from individual job
to job. But let me make a couple of statements.
1. You answer my point about the Supra Limbic
Brain in the end of your post, which is that we are all still
speculating on brain material. Brain Neurons have been
found in other parts of the body as well, including the stomach and we may very
well find that Carl Pribram's "holographic" model of physical consciousness, on
a cellular level, is closer to the mark than the individual mechanical
systems model that you are using. That is my only point as was yours
when you said:
"our knowledge of neurophysiology is
totally insufficient to bear my case for novelty in "Hudson
Economics"
2. I find it interesting that you now
return to the Arts as artifact of cultural advancement rather than thought i.e.
math. I share that model and welcome you back
aboard. It is the discovery of great expression in the Art of
an Era that defines what is truly novel and inventive and that which is merely
derivative. Derivation being that which one protects as
Tradition. Understand I value Traditional Art as living history but
I believe that a society whose current art has either sunk to derivation and
imitation or whose expression has withered IS in decline. That
happened in England during the time of George III. But you said and I
agree.
"why we, humans, should be so much
concerned with philosophies and religions about our
significance
and the future, making discoveries, rearranging basic elements into objets d'art, etc."
and the future, making discoveries, rearranging basic elements into objets d'art, etc."
3. I think that your comment on species
difference is not scientific. In fact most science loses
objectivity when talking about that. EVERYTHING that is written
about the consciousness of other species is pure projection.
It is much worse than a mono-lingual Englishman writing about the significance
of French thought in the French language. I would think that the
common mis-understandings in our species alone around the behavior of other
languages and cultures would create a certain amount of humility but that is too
much to ask at this point. As we become more linguistically
sophisticated what we used to claim about other cultures is now claimed about
species that we have no instruments for defining intent beyond
observing our own children. I'm reminded of a student of
mine who was participating in a cellular study at Rockefeller University here in
New York City. She spoke of how, after watching the activities
of bacteria for a long period of time it became easy to ascribe human
consciousness to their activities even though there was no evidence to support
it. In short I believe this is not a viable argument given the information
that we possess in the judgment of non-human life's intentionality.
Thanks again for your wonderful post.
I must admit to preferring Hudson's Economics to many of the models that
I've seen. I apologize for being brief although I suspect there are
those who will applaud such things.
Have a good day and enjoy the tea and
walk.
Your Friend in New York
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 3:29
AM
Subject: America in decline? (was Re: What is
Economics, Hudson?
>
> I'm mainly replying to your posting, but also copying to Karen and Ed.
>
> You found my final description (of the frontal lobes of the cortex) just a
> little too cute. Well, yes, I brought it in almost as an adjunct to the
> economistic-type argument previously -- but mainly because I wasn't able to
> intertwine both trains of thought more organically in a brief posting.
> Nevertheless, I regard the fact of the large size of our frontal lobes (our
> "novelty-seeking brain") as of great importance.
>
> But before I mention frontal lobes again, let me answer your charge that
> Americans are not so much motivated by novelty as by security -- "Homeland
> Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc." You may well be right --
> you know America and Americans better than I do, obviously. (In fact, I'm
> sure you're right -- England has long been in this condition.) How I would
> answer this (and there have been many traces of this view in my previous FW
> posts going back months/years, so I haven't cooked it up for present
> purposes) is by saying that I believe that America is now in decline.
>
> Now I hope you will not be offended by this. Just bear in mind -- as I'm
> sure you do -- that all empires and civilisations have their day. In
> previous times they lasted for centuries, the earliest ones for a millenium
> or two; in more recent times, their lifespan is shorter. Think of the
> immense economic power and territorial span of the British Empire at around
> the turn of the 20th century. No-one could have possibly dreamed that the
> mere matter of the First world War should have debilitated it so profoundly
> that everything that characterised Britishness withered away quite rapidly
> from then onwards. By mid-century, to all intents and purposes, the British
> Empire had totally vanished, even though some residual institutions (the
> so-called "British Commonwealth") linger on.
>
> If I say, therefore, that America might be in steep decline -- even now,
> while it appears to be immensely powerful -- history shows that it's got to
> be a respectable proposition. As you'll know, America's possible decline
> has been discussed pretty thoroughly by Paul Kennedy in "The Rise and Fall
> of the Great Powers" and I won't attempt to repeat his analysis. Suffice it
> to say, however, that when a nation has lost that vital spark of discovery
> and adventurousness of the mind (which is what I suggest is happening), and
> is more concerned with deep worries about security, then that is a very
> important symptom of decline indeed. I hope you will accept that this has
> not been said in any sense of being anti-American as many European
> intellectuals are wont to do. In fact, I am a great admirer of what America
> has achieved and, in many ways -- constitutionally and educationally
> (particularly in its best universities) -- it is still a far better country
> than dear old England.
>
> Nor have I written this because I have necessarily transferred my
> affections elsewhere already. I have written in times past on FW about
> China as possibly being the next predominant civilization. I also happen to
> think that, for cultural, legal and institutional reasons, it is probably
> better place than any other country to develop what I think will be the
> next economically powerful "novelty good" -- biogenetics generally and
> organ replacement via cloning in particular. Be that as it may, China has
> other very considerable institutional problems (like Japan, mainly the
> state of its banks) and may not make it into the first ranks for these
> reasons.
>
> (And also -- mark this as being very important -- the previous involvement
> of Bush and Cheney in share schemes similar to those of Enron suggests a
> moral turpitude at the very top of America's establishment -- the sort of
> things that appears to be so prevalent in the decline of civilisations of
> the past. I wouldn't want to give too much weight to this at this stage,
> but the very heart of American decency and honesty has been compromised.)
>
> Now let me turn to your charge that the avidity of the frontal lobes for
> novelty is too vague and general because it can also include "Colliseum
> murders in Rome or the invention of Opera". Indeed it can (particularly the
> latter!). But let's take murder for example. If a demented person violently
> attacks my nearest and dearest, and I have have a suitable weapon to hand,
> it is quite likely that I will kill him if there is no other method of
> pacifying him. My frontal lobes would be scarcely involved in that.
> Emotions springing from the deepest parts of my brain, and fairly
> mechanical perceptual processing of the situation, plus some well-practised
> muscular movements on my part, would do the job.
>
> But if I were to carry out a premeditated murder which involved planning
> very particular circumstances (a novel situation, indeed) then my frontal
> lobes would certainly be involved -- probably for days beforehand. (Also,
> interestingly, PET scans show that the frontal lobes of a "depressed"
> person are very active indeed -- the brain is seeking answers and
> strategies for the future.) So, to criticise my case by saying that the
> frontal lobes are exceptionally versatile in conjuring up all sorts of
> future actions -- good, bad and so forth -- is beside the point.
>
> Does it not strike you as amazing that the frontal parts of the "thinking"
> part of our brain (the much wrinkled superficial wrapping around the
> evolutinary older parts of the brain) should be so much enlarged in the
> case of humans than in, say, the gorilla or the chimpanzee -- otherwise
> pretty smart creatures themselves much in advance of your ordinary mammal?
> And when we know (which is pretty well all we know at present) that it is
> almost exclusively involved in dealing with novel situations/concepts (with
> a view to doing something about them -- that is, in instructing the motor
> strip of the brain) then, in my humble view, this has got to be extremely
> significant.
>
> Yes, chimps and gorillas (and many other creatures) also have frontal lobe
> tissue which enables them to puzzle their way through in novel situation
> (even a crow can fashion a hook out of wire when it needs to probe for
> food), but ours is so enormously much greater. The considerable extent of
> our frontal lobes explains better than anything else why we, humans, should
> be so much concerned with philosophies and religions about our significance
> and the future, making discoveries, rearranging basic elements into objets
> d'art, etc. And last, but by no means least for the mass of people of more
> ordinary talents, the frontal lobes account very satisfactorily for the
> avidity for novel objects, services and entertainments -- the items which
> motivate economic growth -- and the superabundance of which, at various
> periods of history, seem to me to be the comcomitants of all virile
> civilisations.
>
> I mention frontal lobes only in passing, as it were, because our knowledge
> of neurophysiology is totally insufficient to bear my case for novelty in
> "Hudson Economics"(!). Instead, I think a great deal could be learned about
> economic booms and busts by a careful examination of precisely what goods
> (that is, those above and beyond those for basic necessities at any one
> time) appear to have sparked off particularly energetic and creative phases
> of past civilizations/empires and, in more modern times, nation-states.
>
> Keith
>
> At 12:07 16/08/02 -0400, you wrote:
> (REH)
> <<<<
> Unlike the part I snipped, I think this is just a little too cute. In
> short I am not going to say much about it except that it ignores too much
> and endangers your thesis by elevating a biological story that is too glib
> even for an artist. As you said wonderfully earlier in this post (the
> snipped part) the definition could be applied to too many other areas for
> it to work seriously in this one. For example it could explain the
> Coliseum murders in Rome or the invention of Opera but the real answer is
> more interesting and complicated than that.
>
> But let me go back to the "novelty" or James Burke "connections" theory of
> motivation. In America it is not so much about "novelty" except in the
> very idle rich, but about what Americans call "security". Homeland
> Security, Public Health, Financial Security, etc. This could produce a
> very Anal retentive population that would get little done and could become
> murderous in its defensiveness. . . .
> >>>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>
> Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
