At 15:45 17/08/02 -0400, you wrote:
(REH)
<<<<
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.
>>>>
I am sorry to hear about your economic problems. I am afraid that I can't
comfort you with an optimistic view of America's economy generally. There
are too many debts (literal and metaphorical) acquired during the
profligacy of the past ten years to be paid off quickly. In my view, it's
going to be a long haul of painful deflation in the years ahead that could
only be circumvented prematurely by a resumption of the sort of
hyper-inflation of the 70s. If this is helpful in your planning for the
future, so be it. Certainly if I were a touch younger (I don't much care
now, except for the future of my grandchildren) I would not really know
what I would do by way of maximising my own financial security for the
years immediately ahead.
<<<<
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.
>>>>
No brain scientist of any repute espouses Pribram's ideas today. It had a
fashionable fling a decade or two ago as neuroscience was beginning to take
off rapidly but, as the cortex is being increasingly mapped, it is
certainly not believed to be holographic. Most brain cells are highly
associated with many others all over the cortex and brain activity and
versions of a particular memory may be found in multiple places, but there
such things as extremely specific neurons ("grannie cells") which, if
removed (or affected by a stroke, for example), constitute a memory loss
which cannot be restored from elsewhere in the brain (as would be implied
by a purely holographic cortex).
(REH)
<<<<
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"
>>>>
It doesn't bear building an economic theory, but it is certainly the case
that the vast extent of the frontal lobes (compared with other primates) is
known to be concerned with novel perceptions (and various ways of dealing
with them by way of planning future action).
<<<<
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.
>>>>
I don't think I've ever said that Art in a general sense had terminated.
What I have said is that the specific arts that arose in the medieval ages
have probably developed as far as they are able because they have explored
all possible skills within the physiological parameters on which they
depend (the human hand-and-eye for the graphic arts, the range of voices
for music, the size of the human frame and its requirements for
architecture, the abilities of the human body for dancing, etc, etc).
Perhaps new forms of Art may emerge in the future -- but (in my view) not
of the sort that disfigure the world of Art today (paintings from elephant
dung, pickled corpses of sheep, Cage's music composed of silence, etc).
(REH)
<<<<
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.
>>>>
I think a great deal that is said about human consciousness -- whatever it
is -- is also pure speculation. Generally though, I think that there is no
strict dividing line bewtween us and the other animals. And this includes
the mystery of consciousness.
(REH)
<<<<
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
>>>>
I certainly hope that your specific economic problems can be eased in the
coming days.
Best wishes,
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
