Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 03:21:19 +0100
Jason,
>I'm sure others will take issue with some of the details,
Yes, I have alredy a few points my self I wish to argue on :-)
>My initial reaction regards your suggestion that self-consciousness or
>self-awareness may fit best at the intellectual level. The problem that I
>foresee is that of an isolated individual or organism raised in virtual
>isolation -- that is, with only minimal social contact. Wouldn't you agree
>that such an individual would have some sort of self-awareness? (I'm
>intentionally avoiding the use of the term consciousness here, because I
>think that the ambiguity of the term may lead to conflict and confusion.)
We need to be very careful with the terms concerning consciousness, that I
absolutely agree on. I think we have to address this crucial notion though,
while trying not to include more than necessarry into the discussion. Here
is a fuller version of my present view on this:
I distinguish between a basic sort of consciousness or awareness in the same
sense as in 'knocked un-conscious', and self-consciousness or -awareness in
the sense of reflective consciousness of one self.
The basic awareness is connected with being an autonomous entity, because
being autonomous means heading for an embodied goal despite hindrances on
the road (this is the basic form of learning - changing behaviour upon
interaction with the world), and this implies the entity has to be aware of
the world around it, described as its 'umwelt'.
The reflective awareness is connected with what we may term 'free will' (yes
I believe I have to include this), meaning the ability to change ones will,
and 'will' being basically the autonomous goal mentioned above. The
realization of one self means for one the realization of ones autonomous
goal, of where one is bent on going. And realizing where one is going
entails realizing that one could go somewhere else - hence free will. This
is the basics of intellect, - imagination (forestillingsevne).(These
arguments needs to be probed more!)
I share your fascination of primate behavior, and parts of the above view
arose upon watching apes. I remember seeing a scene on television with a
chimpanzee and a mirror, and you could litterally see at some point how
suddenly she realized that it was herself in the mirror, upon which she
tried out various hilarious moves and faces. More scientifically, tests have
been made on whether an animal realizes (upon first having been acquainted
with mirrors) that the spot in the face in the mirror, is on its own face
(it has been put there under anaesthesia). Apes can do this and children
from about the age of three as far as I remember.
Anyway, it is evident that although we try to find these sharp distinctions
between levels (and I believe they are sharp in some sense), there is a
tremendous lot of gradual and continous change inside levels too.
More directly on your question of the isolated individual. I believe we are
somewhat misled with the myth of the rational hermit, Robinson Crusoe, and
no, I don't believe a human being could grow up in total isolation (so much
for science-fiction test-tube babies). There would off course have to be
some basic interaction just for the physical needs although these could be
kept to a minimum - but the kid would die anyway. Humans are basically
social animals and cannot develop in a non-social environment. I dont even
believe adults can survive for very long without *any* social relations, but
this is debateable.
Then we can take some middle example as the kid growing up among wolves, and
yes, this child could grow up because we are so like wolves. And it would
get some level of self-awareness, though which level I don't know. The
reason for believing this is that self-awareness presumes social awareness,
the awareness of other, and wolves would do fine in that respect.
>Based on this hypothetical, I would suggest that the most fundamental
>aspects of self-awareness (including emotions) reside best at the organic
>level. (I think Pirsig briefly comments on this in the SODV paper -- see
>the top of pg. 15.) As such, the intellectual level would contain only the
>abstract and creative 'world of ideas' to which you referred. I adamantly
>agree with your observation that the emergence of such ideas is dependent
>upon the shared wisdom and knowledge of the social level.
Could you give the quote by Pirsig, as there are no page numbers in my version?
I agree that emotions are part of the biological and social levels, I
distinguish between different 'kinds' of mind as I wrote in the previous
mail. On this I follow Gregory Batesons distinction, if you are familiar
with that, according to which mind is not special to humans but something we
share with animals and the rest of the living (to some degree). (Read his
Mind and Nature)
We might say we have three mental capacities: sense (organismic mind)
feeling or empathy (cultural or social mind) and reason (rational or
intellectual mind), the two of which we share with most living things. This
is a bit circular, because the sense in which I use these terms are
indicated by where they are placed.
Thanks for your reply Jason, kick back if I have missed your point.
Hugo
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:56 CEST