Mind and Body:
From René Descartes to William James
"Getting it less wrong" is one of several themes running through Serendip. The phrase is intended to express an attitude of engaged skepticism, an interest in and willingness to listen to stories not because they are "right" (no story can ever be) but rather because they have the potential to help one's own story become "less wrong". Below is one of several essays on Serendip that explore this theme in different contexts.
Inherent in the "less wrong" theme is the idea that story sharing is and should be an ongoing social activity, one in which stories and reactions to stories valuably feed new reactions and new stories. Hence this essay is accompanied by an initial set of "Dialogues", reactions to the story with reactions to the reactions by the original story teller. The dialogues are intended to illustrate one of the ways that stories impact on other people, and how those reactions in turn help to expand and modify the original story.
Dialogues are, of course, only a part of story evolution. Equally important interactions occur among individuals for whom the original story is grist for their own shared explorations, and within the minds/brains of individual readers/story tellers. These evolutions may, and frequently do, take forms quite different from essays and dialogues, and may involve things difficult to express in language at all. To try and capture some of this, the essay is accompanied as well by a set of "Other Forms of Exploration".
The bottom line of the "less wrong" idea is not only that a given story is not "right" but further that it is significant only insofar as it becomes a part of an expanding network of story sharings and alterations, from which all involved get things of value to themselves and for which all involved share responsibility. We are attempting here to both model and illustrate this process, in relation to a set of ideas for which the process is itself an expression. Please join in, in whatever way you feel comfortable (or can persuade yourself, by thinking if necessary, to become comfortable). There is an on-line forum where your thoughts will be made immediately available to others. "Thoughts in progress" can be as valuable to story evolution as more deliberative writing. If you'd like to contribute to either of the other two sections, please write us.
We've never met but I've heard a lot about you and read some of the things you've written (in English translation). My guess is that you are too smart to feel responsible for things others have done with your work since you died, and what's on my mind may be something of that kind. I needed to get it off my chest though and couldn't think of anyone better to write to about it, so thanks for listening and here goes.
How does the process of conceiving oneself as other relate to story telling and more importantly to delusions and lies brought up in your own stories as well as reaffirmations or conflicting stories of others? - Rachel Berman
I couldn't agree more that it's time to dethrone thinking - or elevate other means of knowing - to allow for, and to value, a multiplicity of ways into being - Sharon Burgmayer
If he had written "I feel, therefore I am," would you object so much to the statement? - Paul Burgmayer
In my experience, the ability to think does not always suffice to change myself - Anneliese Butler
the stuffness of the inside will always somehow be more overwhelming than the stuffness of the outside - Elizabeth Catanese
the maxim does speak to a way of thinking about classrooms that I like and 'believe in,' though had never articulated this way--actually, I think it's connected with why i've returned to/stayed with teaching to this point in my life - Jody Cohen
Women like myself ... have long understood Descartes' dualistic position as that of the (frankly clueless) enemy. Overhearing your conversation has nudged me to reconsider that opposition - Anne Dalke
In the field of psychotherapy there is often polarization between those who believe that "feeling" is the starting point and those who believe thinking is the starting point. "I am and I can think" is a more dynamic and inclusive approach to considering a starting point.- Lucy Darlington
But now I find myself back on this circular argument. I am, because I know/registrar interactions/changes within and without myself, but I cannot "know"until I am/zero/a point of reference. This tautology leaves me with only one option, namely, to not doubt my existence, to not be skeptical, to have FAITH - Wil Franklin
It's not the thinking per se, in the sense of using our cognitive apparatus, that I was talking about. It's "consciously experiencing." - Descartes/Elio Frattaroli
our problem is not in rejecting sources of authority ... but in finding something relevant to accept - Jed Grobstein
To have the thought is to make it a part of one's self, but the words come from something other than the self; the thought is both a part of one and not one, suggesting that the self is neither static nor a self contained entity. - Rachel Grobstein
Why would I want to change who I am? Someone living in a rose garden wouldn't want to change. - Warren Hampe
I have made notes toward an article about the difficulties of "bridging discourse communities" on our campus (in politics, ideology, academic disciplines, faith, and gender), and this letter is going to help me think forward - Michael Heller
The bottom line is for people to think? and to think deeply, without prejudice, and without preconceived notions of where the thinking will go? It's the old argument for the liberal arts education, and also for therapy and psycho-analysis, and ... - Lucy Kerman
you should recognize the fallibility of your own ideas which have become the basis for this paper. It might dishearten the reader, but it is very illustrative of your point. - Chelsea Phillips
How do we know that "thinking" is any different than sensory input? - Eric Raimy
I always saw not only the body, but the complex architecture that allows for our sense of consciousness, in a somewhat adversarial light... at best a rickety scaffolding that "we" sit atop, trying to keep steady and at worst a time bomb against which we race our whole life, trying to get in the things that count before something falls apart. - Maria Scott-Wittenborn
I draw on a sort of gut reaction and also on my experience interviewing legal services lawyers and clients and from what i see in the welfare and housing policy discourses. When we say that people have the potential to change (and is that the same thing as the power?) we do not take into account the structural conditions (and to extrapolate perhaps the biological parameters) within which change is possible - Corey Shdaimah
I am just reading Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind ... In my mind, Allan Bloom like many other culture warriors on both sides of the conflict does not seem to understand the difference between his truth and the truth. His truth is a problem of practice. The truth is an epistemological problem. - Roland Stahl
How can you be skeptic and not doubt the existence of trees, or of the complex structure that you claim is necessary to think? How can you be sure they are not mere thoughts, dreamed by you, God, or some wicked little demon? - Descartes/Paula Viterbo
Other Forms/Directions of Exploration
What Next? ... An Interim Reflection (2 August 2004)
A place for informal comments and conversation related to any of the materials available in this exhibit. Stop by, leave your own thoughts, read what other people are thinking, Whatever you've read/are thinking, its likely to be useful to someone else for their reading/thinking. And some of their thoughts in turn are likely to be useful for yours. So join in, and let's see what we can make of/do with sharing each other's being and thinking.
Here's the thing. Trees are. And they don't "think". So you can't have meant to say that things in general have to think in order to be. That would be contradicted by trees and other things (rocks, desks, etc) that you certainly knew about. Some people (not you, I'm pretty sure) would try to get around this problem by asserting that perhaps trees DO think. But that is, it seems to me, the product of not acknowledging that being and thinking are actually words for quite different things (a problem for which I do think you are in part responsible). All indications are that thinking is a pretty elaborate process that depends on a very elaborate architecture in the nervous system and trees literally don't HAVE a nervous system, much less an elaborately structured one. Being, on the other hand, seems to be more than adequately supported by much simpler assemblies of matter. So it seems, to me at least, pretty clear that trees (and other things) can be without thinking.
Given that you were primarily concerned with humans (and human inquiry), this may seem irrelevant but I think its actually quite germane. You see, humans ARE to a significant extent like trees. Like us, trees grow, trees take in nutrients, trees respond to changes in their environment, trees retain traces of prior occurrences in their lives, and so on. And they do all of those things (and more) without thinking. What that suggests is that much of what we do we probably do the same way trees do them, without thinking. In fact, there are lots of observations that indicate that that is indeed so. The "unconscious" is real, though not quite the beast that Freud (or people after him) made it out to be; see "Making the Unconscious Conscious, and Vice Versa"). Much of our lives reflects a whole host of things going on of which we are largely or totally unaware, just as a tree is.
Do you begin to see where I am going with this? One has to have an elaborate architecture to think, but not to be. We have an elaborate architecture but its one growing from (added onto) a simpler architecture that we share with trees. So we can be, just like trees, without thinking. And when we do think, its necessarily in ways that are rooted in how we are when we're not thinking (see "Getting It Less Wrong, the Brain's Way"). It is not thinking that is the sine qua non of being but the other way around. We are, and (because of what we are) we can think ...
You think I'm just splitting hairs here? Be patient and stick with me for just a couple more minutes. The thing is I don't think you had the observations about simpler and more elaborate architectures that we have now, and so you didn't suspect that being would have to come before thinking (that's probably why you got into trouble, and got other people into trouble, with the mind/body dichotomy problem too). You thought being and thinking were distinct and logically equivalent things, instead of being things related successively by the degree of complexity of their underlying architecture, and so you could start with either. Well, it has turned out it probably just isn't that way (cf Emerging Emergence: A Report on Progress).
But that's not the most important point I'm concerned about. If we are, and because of that we think, then one can't in fact use "thinking" as the unshakable starting point for everything else. There already is lots of stuff to be skeptical about, all the stuff that goes into being and, even more, all the stuff that goes into the kind of being that is able to think. NOW do you see where I'm going? A SERIOUS "profound skepticism", it turns out, has to doubt not only sense data and logic but the legitimacy of thinking itself.
NOW do you see the problem? A posture of profound skepticism is fine, but you can't stop where you stopped; "I think" won't bear the weight. One can (and I'll argue in a moment SHOULD) doubt what one thinks in a variety of senses up to and including whether there is any meaning/significance at all to "I think". One has to doubt not ONLY sense data and logic but also thinking.
Now THAT's a perhaps scary thought; if you can't trust sense data and you can't trust logic and you can't trust thinking (and, of course, you can't trust authority or the "revealed word") what CAN you trust? Or maybe its not so scary; I wonder what you'd think if you had the observations we have. Maybe, like me, you'd actually like it a whole lot that you can't trust thinking any more than you can trust any of those other things. For me it raises the really interesting question of what else there might be that you CAN take as a solid starting point for continuing inquiry. Maybe "feeling"? Lots of people like that one, but its also pretty notorious for getting one into troubles of various kinds.
So, here's a new(?) idea that appeals to me. Maybe at this point in human history we've finished cataloguing all the possible things that one MIGHT have used as a solid starting point for continuing inquiry and we can conclude (for the moment at least?) that NONE of them are in fact a solid starting point, in the sense that none can be taken as a given not subject to further skepticism and exploration. Maybe its time to seriously entertain the possibility that looking for a single solid starting point just isn't the right way to go, that one has to find another, different way to proceed.
Thinking may not be a solid starting point that one need not be skeptical about, but it IS, on the other hand, demonstrably useful at times. So too is being, without thinking. And so too, for that matter, are feeling, and logic, and sense data, and even the stories of other people (which is what "authority" and the "revealed word" are if you recognize their fallibility). Maybe then the starting point one is looking for to support ongoing inquiry is wherever one is at any given time based on all of these. And one can at any given time take any (or all) of these as a solid foundation in the sense that one won't ask questions about them before acting. That's the point, after all, isn't it? To have a solid foundation for acting at any given time? (as Wiliam James and the pragmatists put it "What concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life").
What's different, of course, about this approach is that one doesn't for all time abandon skepticism for some particular thing. Instead one temporarily abandons skepticism for all things in order to act. Having done so, however, one then returns to a complete skepticism. To put it differently, one acts, observes the consequences of action, and then uses those observations as part of one's on-going inquiry into anything and everything for which they may have relevance. If they raise questions about the appropriateness of the stories of other people, so be it. If they raise questions about the appropriateness of thinking, that's fine too. And the same, of course, holds for the validity of the feelings one had, or the logic one was using, or the sense data one had collected. Its all open to reconsideration and renewal. Now THAT's an appealing picture. For me at least. And, given your interest in skepticism as a starting point, maybe for you too?
One more minute? Because I still haven't quite gotten to what actually made me start thinking about all this. The REAL problem with "I think, therefore I am" is that it tends to encourage people to put unreasonable levels of trust in "thinking", to believe that thinking is the end all and be all and to doubt that they are unless they think. Even more importantly, it encourages people to believe that there is a stable "I", a "self" that, like logic or any of the other things I've mentioned, can be taken as an invariant, something that itself is not to be inquired into or changed. And that, it seems to me, misses entirely the point of "thinking". The wonderful thing that the elaborate architecture that makes thinking possible provides, for those of us who have it, is precisely the ability to reflect on and bring about changes in who we are. Trees can't do that, but we can. So, here's the change I would like to make in "I think, therefore I am". I suggest we reword it as
So, what do you think? An interesting extension of your commitment to skepticism (and my own)? An extension you might have made yourself if you were around today? Maybe at least a good starting point for some further thinking/inquiring? It would suggest, for example, that we should stop excusing behaviors as "human nature"; if this way of thinking is useful, it implies that there isn't any "human nature", at least not a fixed one. It also has some implications for how one understands "science", which I know was interesting to you, and for how one might usefully reconceive science.
The big thing, of course, is that by fully and completely following through on a posture of profound skepticism one very much expands the space for exploration and inquiry. While it may be a little uncomfortable to give up the security not only of authority and logic and sense data and thinking but also the "self", one achieves along this path the freedom to become, and, in becoming, to be onself the agent of new territory to explore and inquire into.
Thanks for helping me think along these lines. And thanks for listening. I won't expect to hear back from you, at least not directly. But I'd be pleased if you thought of this as a continuation of conversations you started, and I hope the conversations will continue through others who've also been talking with you.Serendip