Krimel --
I must compliment you for posting one of the clearest expositions of
epistemology that I've seen. While I disagree with most all of it, I
appreciate that you clarified your position (and perhaps Pirsig's) in
response to my comments without acrimony, a comportment that Arlo would do
well to imitate.
[Ham]:
I find it difficult to understand how the human intellect arises
out of society (which is non-human and precedes it).
[Krimel]:
In fact Pirsig, mistakenly I think, asserts that the social level is
entirely human as well. In any case humans are also made of
inorganic stuff and biological stuff but these realms are not
exclusively human as are the social and intellectual.
All living organisms are made of inorganic and biological stuff, but such
stuff is not the essence of cognizant awareness
But here is how intellect might arise out of society.
Human social responses are ours by virtue of our
evolutionary heritage. Primates in the main are social
creatures and part of being a social creature is interacting
with others. From most members of the primate family
the expression and the understanding of the expression
of emotion suffices. The physiology of emotion is
communicated through outward signs that are linked to
the emotional experience of the individual. Smiling,
frowning, open and closed body posture, the pitch of
vocalizations; these are all signals arising from and
pointing to the emotional tate of con-specifics.
All of that is true. However, it speaks of social responses -- observed
"behavior" as opposed to subjective awareness. Even your analysis of
emotional experience and communication is treated as exhibited gestures
rather than as conscious feelings of the participants. It dismisses
proprietary sensibility altogether.
As our species evolved these emotional expressions
became increasingly more elaborate. Our primary adaptation
is increased brain mass. We have about three times the
cortical tissue as our nearest relative. We have every reason
to suppose that this increased neural functions to preserve
past experience. It expands memory. Prior to this expansion
of memory in neural form most memory was preserved in
the form of DNA or genetic code. In humans this hard coded
memory becomes secondary to neutrally coded memory and
the experience of the individual.
As our ancestors evolved the ability to recall greater and
greater expanses of their own personal history, we became
unstuck in time. We were not confined to the immediate
instant. Our past, encoded in memory allowed us to
live in other moments and to compare and contrast the past
with the present.
Again, this is an anthropological perspective of man "as a social creature"
based on evolutionary (genetic) history that ignores psychic development and
the metaphysical relation of self to other. It suggests that "memory is
preserved in DNA code" and that primitive man lacked recall to compare past
and present, neither of which has scientific substantiation.
I suspect that this process of becoming unstuck in time allows
for the taking of multiple perspectives, which is what Tomesello
talks about. As he claims, language seems to grow out of this
ability to appreciate and share multiple perspectives.
There really cannot be an intellectual "level" without some means
of encoding and decoding the past.
That's a highly speculative assumption which, even if it could be verified,
is no reason to dismiss subjective awareness. The knowing "I" of
consciousness is so basic and self-evident to each of us that the attempt of
philosophers to avoid it is incredulous to me.
It really is not possible for later events to dominate earlier
events. This would involve some kind of time paradox,
as in the case of the new Star Trek movie which seems to
be taking us into an alternative time line. Events preceding
each other is what we call the passage of time. Evolution is
an account of how and why present circumstances result
from the processes of the past.
But what does this "account" avail us in the life experience? How do we as
sentient beings benefit morally, spiritually or psychologically from
knowledge about the evolution of the inanimate universe? What meaning or
purpose is implied for man in an automatic process that is indifferent to
his needs and values?
[Ham]:
Intellection is something individuals do, socially or by themselves.
It's the analytical function of conscious awareness, not a repertory
of knowledge hanging around in the social milieu waiting for
people to latch onto it.
[Krimel]:
Intellection seems to be a word you made up, for reasons known
only to you 'cognition' is not good enough. But nevermind that
for a second, the intellectual level IS indeed "a repertory of
knowledge hanging around in the social milieu waiting for people
to latch onto it."
Emotional expression is encoded genetically and is sufficient to
improve the reproductive success of most mammals (emotion is
a uniquely mammalian adaptation).
What evidence do you have that supports this? Do reptiles, fish and birds
not
feel emotion? The neurology of emotion should not be confused with
emotional expression. Again, this is something immanently sensed or "felt"
by the creature, not a "behavior pattern" stored in the genes. I disagree
entirely with this objectivist concept.
As our species evolved language as an elaboration of
emotional expression, we became better able to share
not only joint experiences of the present but distant
experiences of the past. We began to tell stories around
the fireside. Those stories became "common knowledge".
All societies at some stage in their history rely on an oral
tradition to preserve the shared memories of the past.
...As such it can survive much longer than the life span
of the individual who encoded it.
You continue to describe the thought process as a collective phenomenon,
whereas conceptualization, analysis, and valuation are functions of
individual awareness. "Encoding" history and intelligence is something
computers can do.
Unlike electro-mechanical devices, man is cognizant of his reality and the
values
that arouse his emotions. I submit that subjectivity is what man's
existence is about, and objective reality is his creation.
[Ham]:
I'd say that experience is acquiring knowledge,
which is not possible without thought.
[Krimel]:
This is just factually wrong. Many times the experience of
individuals changes their future repertoire of responses
without any thinking at all. Insects and fish can be classically
conditioned. This is where experience modifies even
autonomic responses. Procedural memory occurs when
we learn a new skill like chipping stone into tools, weaving
or riding a bicycle. None of these require thought, at least
not language mediated thought. In fact in this sense perhaps
MOST knowledge is acquired without thought.
What about individual freedom and the realization of value that are unique
to human beings?
Quality in the sense that it is a "sense" or as I prefer to
think of it a "sense of senses" is not the product of individual
experience. It is genetically encoded. The experience of our
ancestors tells us what is good and what is bad for us.
We are hardwired to like some things and dislike others.
Sensation is certainly the essence of awareness in that
awareness is the result of parallel processing. Awareness is
the synthesis of diverse sensations. When those diverse
sensations are integrated and placed alongside the stored
recollections of previous experience, perception gives rise
to conception. We begin to abstract the common features of
the past and relate them to the present as guides to the future.
Essence is nothing more than the set of common features of
past events encoded as concepts.
While encoding and decoding are certainly unique to
individuals, we are as a species, makers of meaning.
But code whether it is genetically, linguistically or artistically
rendered is not dependant on any single individual. In fact
each individual is entirely dependent on the code itself.
I think that man is the "measurer" of all things. In the
process of measuring we construct an anthropocentric
universe. After all we only care about those things that
relate to us as individuals. But to claim that the universe
itself is somehow dependant on MAN...well that's just vanity.
[Ham]:
What is metaphysically meaningless is a transitional universe
in which man is an irrelevant byproduct -- a universe that arises
from nothingness and "moves toward betterness" for its own purposes.
[Krimel]:
The first part of your statement is indeed hard to swallow
but hardly "meaningless". It means a great deal to understand
that we are products of the processes of the "universe" not the
reason for it or cause of it. This is painful to accept. But so far
every attempt to explain this away just dissolves into self pity
or self adulation. The frank acknowledgement that the universe
doesn't give a rat's ass about us is sugar coated and concealed
within all of the major religions.
The second part of your statement is I believe your version of
Pirsig's inability to see or grasp the essential conclusion of
evolutionary theory. What he or at least some of his interpreters
miss is that "betterness" is a relative term and "purpose" is an
emergent property of feedback systems.
Biological evolution, social adaption, and exhibited behavior seem to
comprise your description of Man. If anyone wants to know what is meant by
an objectivist approach to philosophy, this is perfect example. Instead of
envisioning man as the free agent of value, you claim that value (Quality)
is "wired into" man as a fixed code, along with the morality that directs
his behavior.. Even conceptualization is predetermined as part of nature's
"encoding" process.
Regrettably, this triadic definition overlooks self-awareness, value
realization, individual identity, freedom of choice, the ability to "remake"
oneself and seek one's own destiny, human creativity in science,
entrepreneurship and the arts, and a host of other attributes that
distinguish man's persona and unique capabilities.
Your assertion that man plays no part in creating the universe or directing
the course of history essentially makes him a robot of nature. To deny
man's aspiration to noble goals on the premise that it's indicative of
"self-pity" and "vanity" not only demeans humanity and its record of
achievement but reveals the nihilistic bent of a disillusioned soul.
I sincerely hope that some event in your life will inspire you toward a more
salutary worldview.
Thanks for all the the effort you put into this dissertation.
Best wishes,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
