Throughout history and various cultures, the understanding of the connection between the human ‘soul’, ‘mind’, and body has varied. In ancient Egypt,…
The Brain as a Symbolic Object of Representation: Consciousness, Mind, and the Soul from Antiquity to the 18th Century
— It is an interesting thing, this…what should we call it?
First off, I feel I have to say that in what follows I am not complaining about the post’s point or meaning. In fact, I find it very interesting.
I give this disclaimer because the first thing I am saying is that it is a funny thing that I would read that post, be interested in it, and then think it is saying something about me, my brain, consciousness, what ever word I would use here – I am not sure which one is appropriate – and then come out of the post with some new sense of possibility, say, of who to what I am.
That, to me, is the curious thing.
The intellectual processing. See that I am not adhering to a fundamentally definitional approach to things. To me, definition is a convention, a way to navigate the world. We gotta start somewhere and when I say ‘intellectual’ we should note first that you already know what I mean.
A bunch of you just stopped and spit up their coffee (tea?). As the post draws upon for its analysis language and meaning and context and history — basically, modern phenomenal subjectivity — play an essential part of knowledge. How dare you rely upon such a blatantly ignorant assumption! You…
I was going to put : heretic.
Yes. Quite blatantly not academic politic0 correct. My approach is that for you to be reading and understanding what I am writing you must already understand the words I am using implicitly (outside of untranslated language and a different use of symbols). That is to say, if you understand enough to offer a rebuttal or critique or just disagree, then you already understand what I am saying as true, in as much as what you are understanding is not wrong. For, how could you know what to rebut? It is only when something offends us as to what I (or any author) writes that we look for the term that appears to be provoking the constipation — I mean consternation, I mean complication — and we thus center in on that word or phrase and move to offer a clarification for…who?
When I think about this element, again I (meaning me; I am not sure if you do) become curious. To whom or for whom am I clarifying?
I see a difference in intellectual and academic approach right here. Of course I am writing and posting this because it is nice for people to read it, and I am trying to communicate something, but am I making an argument? I would say yes and no. I am trying to show something, as I say, to make notice of something. And, I feel that most people who are involved with intellectual if not academic exercise and involvement are more often trying to make an argument, and not simply in the effort of bringing out a kind of awareness. In fact, I might even say the career or academic activity is the profession of the attempt to make you aware that you and everyone else are incorrect. A certain type of awareness is assumed as given, as already required for the interaction to be taking place.
(See: this kind of being OK with being incorrect in process with others is what psychologist Carol Dweck calls a growth mindset, btw.)
Brain As Representation.
If I assume that a particular kind of awareness is not something that everyone has, then I might approach communication differently. I cannot simply approach from that standpoint of trying to prove something. I cannot simply show an organization of evidence and correctly expect that everyone (of worth) must recognize it and process the meaning correctly. I would even say that this assumption, the correct way, is identified to what I said above: I am to feel uncomfortable at some point, notice something that is incorrect, center in on the word that is troubling, and then pronounce my trouble in the manner or etiquette that we have established, in which certain assumptions are held as beyond reproach or analysis (in fact they are invisible to that approach).
Is the brain a representation?
Somehow I think the question that should arise before this question is, basically, heretical.
Is a brain important to my efforts?
The reason why I say this question is heretical is because the answers likely are set upon a reaction that would set me (the speaker of the question) aside as not human. All humans have a brain and you are arguing that you may not have a brain that is important to your thinking.
Of course you have a brain that thinks. To not consider a brain as the absolutely necessary part of consciousness, thinking, what have you, is flat out a ridiculous and nonsensical idea. And some might proceed automatic rebuttals in course similarly, that is, if they don’t just stop listening beyond the ridiculous question.
So I say before I think about the intellectual ramifications of representation of a brain, I might look at what reactions I have to questions concerning what I believe to be true. Such as: my brain is doing X,Y, Z..
And pretty much no one wants to do that, I would say, most people are often completely unable to do this. Simply speaking, most people don’t have time to ponder, as someone said to me, “those philosophical questions”, and, in consideration of the fact that they got better things to do for what they consider a life and what they need to do to support themselves, this makes perfect sense. Now, see I am not suggesting any socially economic priority, because, then we would have to ask if such priority is likewise represented, and what reactions arise in the questioning of that, and we would be stuck getting nowhere. It is simply often enough people do not have time nor interest in understanding themselves. One’s self is taken as given.
This is the quagmire of modern subjectivity. It is not incorrect, but indeed is necessary beyond all argument. Just think about how you are pondering all the possible rebuttals at this moment. Your brain is doing that, even if you call it something else, even if you disagree that it is a brain doing that, and whatever you call it had political and economic repercussions, not merely in some social world, but for how and what you know Being is.
You know this because you already know this despite what argument, definition, or replacing of terms one could offer. What ever other idea you have or that someone could offer, it is based upon an assumption that is already in place between us at every instance of argument, and even if we change the terms of the argument.
SO….?
Again, the history and academic field that post author gave us is pretty interesting and informative, and useful. Indeed, in a couple of my papers I have cited some things Vidal has written about the history of the development of psychology, and I will look into the other writers.
So…If you are curious in what I have to say about all this, and with how you do, could, and are able show up, you might not revolt from gratuitous promotion of my fourth book:
Counseling and Orientation:
Toward a General Philosophy of Mental Health.
This is the pre-distribution copy. It takes some time to spread out all over the world to outlets.
- As to the Repost Author: I hope that you are not taking me using you post as a means to promote my book as a sleight or impropriety. that was not my original intention; it just wound up that way because I got tired of writing. Readers should note the Repost Author at this point knows nothing of my book, and to my knowledge, has no interest in helping me promote my book. And, if they wish for me to disassociate their post from my book, I will gladly take their link off this post.