Posted on 05/19/2003 9:53:42 AM PDT by betty boop
How do you know that, Humvee? Have you always lived, such that you know everything about the past, not to mention everything that may happen in the future? Yours seems to be a statement of "faith."
This is a very interesting essay and I applaud the author’s acknowledgment of the ancient Hebrew wisdom: “oriented around such a notion of speech, [they] thus located reality primarily in the spoken word.”
She says with regard to decontextualized knowing:
I would have liked to have seen a paragraph or two there...
That would have been fascinating, A-G. But I don't think that falls within the scope of what Professor Newman is up to here -- she's not dealing with issues of ontology per se, or eschatology/teleology. Ethics is certainly implicated, however -- and on that score, I do have to applaud an insight of Hank Kerchief's on a recent thread, in which he recognized that truth is the ultimate moral criterion.
The task Prof. Newman has set herself (if I'm understanding this essay correctly) is the epistemological problem of the "disincarnate knower." This is the case of a "knower" who presumes he can stand "outside" the totality of the universe that he observes -- to stand at some Archimedian point "outside" the universe, as if he himself were not part of what he is attempting to observe; as if his observation didn't "constitute" what he sees from a very partial (in a double sense) perspective. For the disincarnate knower assumes that what he observes is already "final" and "complete" -- instead of being a process in which he participates, and which he must view from the perspective of a finite stream of time, measured in terms of his own life span. In effect, the disincarnate knower has made himself the complete measure of what is.
This constitutes a fallacy that is so common today that very few people notice it, even when it's right under their noses, or when they're committing it themselves. In effect, this "discarnate knower" stance is implied in the position that Humvee took in saying that "there is nothing new under the sun." We may believe that we know this for a certainty -- but how can such a thing really be known, unless we are adopting a "godlike stance?" (Which we cannot do without fooling ourselves as to our own capabilities.)
Hahahahahaha!!! Ain't that the truth, beowolf! (Er, that "institutes" part -- yeah, you're right -- maybe such folk really do need to be institutionalized....)
I could launch a full-scale attack on Hegel here, right about now, in connection with the problem of "dualism." But I'll spare you!
It's good to see you, too, beowolf. Hope all is well with you and yours.
You are so kind, you're giving me a lot of slack here, Alamo-Girl. I wonder whether I've clarified anything so far, just in general.
What does it mean when we say there is a problem with "the 'disincarnate knower,' a 'knower' who presumes he can stand 'outside' the totality of the universe that he observes...?" What is the practical effect of this phenomenon? And how does the phenomenon arise in the first place?
At the sacrifice of a bit or two of technical accuracy, in the interest of ease of understanding, the problem might be put this way:
The "disincarnate knower" wants to abstract himself out of the "real" world so that he can entertain the notion that he is only his mind. All other "parts" of his being have been dropped down the ol' rat-hole of memory (hopefully never to be recovered). This "abstract mind" wants to "engage the world" of total reality, as if the world were something entirely separate from himself -- as if it were just another ordinary, normal "object of cognition" that lies in the familiar field of the space-time reality that we humans normally experience.
The fallacy mainly consists in the fact that there is no such thing as a 'disincarnate knower.' With the one exception: God. Only God stands "outside" what has been made -- for He made it, and therefore cannot be identical with it, or in any way subject to its rules.
All the rest of us, being "made," participate in all the rest of what has been made.
To pretend otherwise is to put on "divine boots." Yet the fact is, we humans never see the whole of creation, entire. To do that, we would have to be perfect in our knowledge of everything that ever took place in the past, and everything that can or will take place in the future -- not to mention possessing complete, perfect understanding of what is going on in our immediate present. (Arguably, we don't even have that.)
Thus I conclude that the "disincarnate observer" is a theoretical mistake of the first magnitude.
And the result of that mistake is to commit the fallacy of dualism: For the essence of dualism, practically speaking, is the the attitude of "me (e.g., my mind, my thoughts) against the world (e.g., in effect, "what I choose, or will, to think about").
The latter observation brings to my mind, at least, "shades" of the language of QM. I may well be misappropriating the language of quantum mechanics here, but to me it seems that the act of "selecting objects" for the "abstract mind" to think about is pretty darn close to the idea of the "observer" causing quantum state vector collapse to occur. When the vector state collapses, a "selection" has been made. It, together with its associated contents, become the reality envisioned.
But this is a only a partial reality -- for the other probabilities in the state vector, given time, may yet come to pass. But we, from our current vantage point, cannot know anything at all about how that turns out, in the end.
All we can take away from this line of thinking, IMO, is the idea that the "knower" -- QM's "observer" -- is inseparable from reality, and does far more than we currently appreciate to "constitute it," and thus, to make it come out the way it does.
To speak of a "disincarnate knower," therefore, is absurd.
Anyhoot, perhaps you'd agree with me that we've stumbled on an interesting problem here, Alamo-Girl. Hugs!
BB, If I had a boat, I could go for a cruise on this endless sea of meaningless psuedocognitive, psychomasturbational jargon
Well, with that confession, all I can say is I strongly doubt you have gotten into the spirit of this piece. Or its mind, by a long shot. No offense intended, e-s.
Now, if you want to think about for a while and maybe come back later, that would be great by me.
Indeed, we have ” stumbled on an interesting problem” though that was not my original intent in making the remark. I felt that the author was being dismissive on that particular subject.
The way you have defined the “disincarnate observer” includes a motive (”wants to abstract himself out of the "real" world so that he can entertain the notion that he is only his mind.”) and a perspective (” This "abstract mind" wants to "engage the world" of total reality, as if the world were something entirely separate from himself -- as if it were just another ordinary, normal "object of cognition" that lies in the familiar field of the space-time reality that we humans normally experience.”)
I did not understand the phrase, disincarnate knower, to be constrained in that fashion. Indeed, I don’t believe a theoretical physicist is “playing God” when he is conducting a thought experiment relative to subjects outside of space/time. IMHO, his effort would be temporally prejudiced (and self-defeating) - if he could not imagine his perspective discarnate.
The same kind of discarnate perspectives in thought experiments may reach to quantum mechanics as well. You mentioned the observer problem, where the observation itself effects a quantum state and thus, the classical world – such as the life or death of Schrödinger's cat. But even the concept of reality or locality at the quantum level is questionable by violations of Bell’s inequalities at distance and is in jeopardy from research concerning time and gravity at such scales.
Nevertheless, I am already quite convinced that consciousness is both non-spatial and non-corporeal and thus would appear to fit the bill as a “disincarnate” gatherer of knowledge. But that of course is without any motive, such as a desire to be “god-like” or “me against the world” or “I am only my mind” etc.
Thank you so much for the informative article and discussion! Hugs!!!
There's nothing wrong with "abstraction," as long as we're aware that's what we're doing. New insights are often gained from the process; but then they need to be "reconciled" with the facts of reality (which is not "abstract") in order to be truly useful. Hegel thought he could dispense with that latter step, facilitating the production of numerous ideologies that were inspired by his technique, and which still plague us today.
Are we really supposed to read beyond this parody of intellectualism? The Onion could not come up with a better lead.
I thougth it would be a good idea for bb to post this article, which I happened to discover immediately after reading this post, by her. You may choose to see especially the writing where the bold text lays. Or, you may choose not to.
To: unspun; Alamo-Girl; Kudsman; Phaedrus; logos; Diamond; beckett; cornelis; eastsider; OWK; ...I don't mean to poo-poo the Ancient Greeks "originality" but, hey, everybody tends to use what he finds best and available. And as you've seen "continuous improvement" knows no rights of possession.
Hope you don't mind my stomping accross your posts and their subject matter.
Not at all, unspun! I've already indicated that I think the great Greeks did in fact overplay Mind at the expense of Spirit. But being Greek, they were just doing "what came naturally" to them; for the great Greeks were, preeminently, thinkers. That doesn't mean they weren't aware of Spirit. It just wasn't their "most interesting problem."
Man is not just mind (nous). He is heart-and-mind -- as you suggested in a recent post. He is pneuma and nous both.
Have you read Blaise Pascal's Pensées? I'll bet you'd love Pascal. Like you (presumably), he regards passion -- thoughts coupled with feelings arising in the body -- as the essence of the human condition. The very formula of his definition (just given) bespeaks the intimate, irreducible integration of mind and spirit in Man. Not to flog a dead horse, but for Plato, to emphasize mind over heart (or spirit) represents a particular shift and focus of attention. This is different from the experience of our own time, where we see a fatal tendency of separating the two absolutely, with questions of the heart denigrated, and mind -- Reason -- made absolute. Arguably Plato never did this. And I strongly doubt he would regard this dualistic "divorce" as a healthy thing.
To try to make this issue plain: Pascal makes the distinction between two types of mind, one rigid and inflexible (the "geometer's mind"), the other open to the mysterious complex of total being ("intuitive mind" -- "supple and born with the impulse to love, especially what is beautiful," as Jacques Barzun has described Pascal's intent in his elucidation of the subject in Pensées). Pascal does not regard these two modes as either-or propositions or "classifiable types." Rather, both can coexist in the single mind of any individual.
Barzun presents this case brilliantly (IMHO) in From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present (New York: Harper Collins, 2000). So I will simply quote him at length:
"By geometrical [mind], Pascal means the mind when it works with exact definitions and abstractions in science and mathematics; by intuitive, the mind when it works with ideas and perceptions not capable of exact definition. A right-angle triangle or gravitation is a perfectly definite idea; poetry or love or good government is not definable. And this lack of definition is not due to lack of correct information; it comes from the very nature of the subject.
" 'Geometrical' matters are handled by all good minds without any argument over their interconnections, and mistakes in reasoning are quickly noticed and readily admitted by the culprit; whereas in matters of intuition...the details to take in are so numerous and fugitive that reasoning about them is chancy and good minds arrive in all honesty at different conclusions. Pascal might have added that this large number of elements rules out the use of Decartes' method: one can never be sure of having found all the parts of the problem or of having put back [as in the final stage of a jig-saw puzzle, i.e., its completion] all those one thinks one has found -- no complete analysis is possible of Love or Ambition.
"It is from this incapacity that the belief in science and mathematics as the only forms of truth has arisen. Such has been the faith of most scientists and mathematicians, who in turn have persuaded the people that apart from their experimental findings and deducings all is mere opinion, error, and fantasy. Even so, in every generation, thinkers -- including some notable scientists -- have maintained that the geometrical spirit and the method of Descartes do not apply to everything. Truths of a different order are attainable by finesse [i.e., intuition], even if consensus is lacking. The language iteself recognizes the source of the distinction: to know and to know about express the difference between intimate awareness and things learned. Some languages in fact use different words for the contrast: wissen and kennen, savoir and connaître. Man as scientist has come to know a great deal, but as human being knows and feels intuitively love and ambition, poetry and music. The heart-and-mind reaches deeper than the power of reason alone.
"Longing for unanimity in belief is understandable. The bloody conflicts of the world have their source in the realm of finesse, and to deplore the fact leads to such skepticism as Montaigne's. It is also the best argument for toleration. But although the realm of finesse does not yield unshakable conclusions, it is not alone in variability. Science is continually revising its declarations and at no time do its practitioners fully agree with one another. The unbroken confidence in it rests on the fixity of the objects defined, which makes every worker talk about the same thing and deal with it in the same way, thanks to numbers. But not even this amiable rigor ensures eternity to the results of its application. Still, when by a combination of science and finesse, useful inventions are created and benefit the common life, the public is doubly convinced that science has the monopoly of truth.
"The two 'minds' that Pascal describes do not constitute two species of individuals. They are but two directions that one human mind can take. Pascal himself is proof that one can be a great geometer and a profound intuiter. And in fact any good mind properly taught can think like Euclid and like Walt Whitman. The Renaissance...was full of such minds, equally competent as poets and engineers. The modern notion of 'two cultures,' incompatible under one skull, comes solely from the proliferation of specialties in science; but these also divide scientists into groups that do not understand one another, the cause being the sheer mass of detail and the diverse terminologies. In essence the human mind remains one, not 2 or 60 different organs.
"What, then, is the importance of Pascal's distinction? It is as an axiom for the critic and a warning against SCIENTISM. Ten succinct paragraphs of the Pensées state it with finality. Scientism is the fallacy of believing that the method of science must be used on all forms of experience and, given time, will settle every issue. [Bold added to this "best statement" of the fundamental premise of scientism I've ever come across.] Again and again, the bright thought has occurred, 'If we can only define our terms, if we can only find the basic unit, if we can spot the right <indicators>, we can then measure and reason flawlessly....'
"The motives behind scientism are culturally significant. They have been mixed, as usual: genuine curiosity in search of the truth; the rage for certainty and for unity; and the snobbish desire to earn the label scientist when that became a high social and intellectual rank. But these efforts, even though vain, have not been without harm, to the inventors and to the world at large. The 'findings' have inspired policies affecting daily life that were enforced with the same absolute assurance as earlier ones based on religion. At the same time, the workers in the realm of intuition, the gifter finessers -- artists, moralists, philosophers, historians, political theorists, and theologians -- were often diverted from their proper task, while others were looking on them with disdain as dabblers in the suburbs of Truth. The case of Karl Marx is typical. Infatuated with the kudos of science, he persuaded himself and his millions of followers in and out of the Sooviet Union that he had at last formulated the mechanics of history and could predict the future scientifically....
"The clue to the fallacy of SCIENTISM is this: geometry (in all senses of the term) is an ABSTRACTION from experience; it could not exist without the work of the human mind on what it encounters in the world. Hence the realm of abstraction, useful and far from unreal, is thin and bare and poorer than the world it is drawn from. It is therefore an idle dream to think of someday getting along without direct dealings with what abstraction leaves untouched. The meaning of this contrast is that the enterprise of science has its limits.
"Pascal does not stop at showing the difference between the two distinct grips that the human mind has on the world. In a widely quoted passage he adds: 'The heart has reasons that the reason does not know.' The heart here is not merely the seat of affections; it is desire in general, the impulses to action, and Reason is the discriminating servant that carries out some of them. Note that the word reason in the dictum is used in two senses: the reasons of the heart -- its needs and motives -- are not products of reasoning, or there would be no spontaneity in conduct, no sympathy, friendship, or love in the world.... [Pascal quips,] 'Whoever tries to turn angel turns beast,' punning on bête, which also means stupid....
"[F]or Pascal it is precisely the uncertainty arising from human truths that requires taking refuge in the bosom of God....
"For Pascal, man is miserable and great. On the scale of the universe, he is puny -- 'a drop of water can kill him; he is a feeble reed.' But he is a 'thinking reed.' The blind universe destroys him and all his works, but he is conscious -- he knows that which is stronger than he; that is why the silence of space fightens him. Yet thought (and here one includes science) remains master of that which does not know its own size and power."
* * * * * * *
That 'the silence of space fightens him' Pascal freely admits in Pensées: "the eternal silence of this infinite space frightens me." In this, as Barzun notes, he was "seeing the cosmos like an existentialist -- empty, bleak, and meaningless. How had all these rotating spheres come to be? Why all this void? And how absurd was that enigma, Man!... God's design was inscrutible."
Yet pace Jesse Ventura, who famously said that "religion is only a crutch for the weak": For Pascal, "Christ was the sole link with Meaning, and Christ's message was forgiveness and love. The divine was no abstract essence in which to merge for the ecstasy of forgetting self [which is the essence and goal of mysticism]; it was the living God [the God of the Presence -- Christ]. His miracles were all humane in purpose, and the miracle and mystery of His existence mediated for man the mystery of the infinite space and silence of creation."
In other words, the Unknown tetragrammatical God is perfectly inscrutible to the human mind. But Christ as divine mediator brings man into harmony with what Is, and alone gives man his place and meaning in the universe.
Though he died young (39) and was in poor health most of his life, Pascal was no weakling, but truly a strong man, heart and mind. And also a very great man, as both scientist and humanist.
153 posted on 05/13/2003 5:20 PM CDT by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
It might look very much like a "parody of intellectualism," js1138. But the fact of the matter is there really are people who fit the bill of the modernist disinterested spectator (e.g., Hegel and his ideological epigones) and of postmodernism's deconstructed self (e.g., Jacques Derrida). These folks have been incredibly influential in transforming Western society by promulgating and reinforcing the intellectual habit of sheer irrationality. Personally, I find this a matter of great concern. For thanks to these folks, rational discourse is becoming increasingly impossible.
If you don't worry about this, then just take a pass on this essay.
So do I. And the fallout of these disruptors you name is an attitude at large against words. Our self-respect overwhelms the courtesy of others. Instead of recognizing others, we claim a special right to dispense with history and substitute just any word we like. This is an unbelief of language to be meaningful.
It seems that a resistance to these distractions from civil respect is an attempt to first learn from the best teachers what those who have gone before have really said. This learning would itself be subject to correction from others. Graduation might then consist in assuming the postponed freedom to finally choose one's position.
Some have thought that it is not possible to step in someone else's shoes. This again is the unbelief of language to be meaningful.
If the dignity of the human person includes the freedom to choose, is not the knowledge of that choice a prerequisite? Of course, children grow up accepting the presuppositions uncritically, but that is not our understanding of human nature. We recognize there are qualities which make the human person mature.
It would seem that a test of that knowledge would be the faithful exposition of the motives and understanding of those we are free to disagree with. This is a tall order, but I think the necessary for the resistance to error.
Dismissal of one's opponent is part of debate. But a typical sham dismissal is the assumption that one knows the opponent's position merely on the basis of a conviction that one's own position is right. I think that is dangerous, especially in a democratic age where every Joe Schmoe thinks they can be president.
Sorry if this steps back a bit from the issue at hand: dualism. Analysis allows us to isolate the difficulties in dualistic thinking, however it does not allow us to exempt ourselves from the other difficulties that we participate in as historical and social beings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.