Here's a buffered news story, Dale:

[www.idahostatesman.com]

:^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the prologue of Hemingway's The Snows of Kilimanjaro:

Quote:

Prologue
Kilimanjaro is a snow covered mountain 19,710 feet high, and is said to be the highest mountain in Africa. Its western summit is called the Masai “Ngàje Ngài,” the House of God. Close to the western summit there is the dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leopard was seeking at that altitude.

Porous?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish wrote, "Also, we talk about porous/buffered selves and porous/buffered cultures. This is not good because without further definition it seems to disallow a porous self existing in a buffered culture. So we need further clarification on that point--can a culture be hybrid (roughly 50-50); can it be majority porous/buffered?"

It's a while since I read that short book on Charles Taylor's thought. The "porous self" and the "buffered self" are his terms. I suppose that a society can be mostly supportive of porosity or bufferedness, but that within it there may be minority groups of dissenters. If the standard view of Democritus is right, then he and his disciples might have been a minority group within a society in which the porous self was predominant.

A society could be tolerant; it could allow porous selves and buffered selves to coexist without disabilities. This would be a liberal society. I'm not sure that history will show that such societies have staying power. The United States have done (historically speaking) rather well in this regard (though with intolerance in other areas), but I'm not sure this will continue to be true.

"I maintain that selves who'd self-label as "enlightened", or "worldly" (therefore buffered, as I understand it) might make an exception for legitimate deeply felt emotions. I think you're far too ready to see unadultered examples of either "self"--as you describe them they're little more than caricatures--and I'm beginning to wonder if Taylor's model is not too hopelessly and artificially constrained to actually make any sense in the real world--and by this I mean to either a porous or a buffered culture.

"It is like he found a few identifiable traits/tendencies and is trying to come up with a Grand Unified Theory of sociology. I'm afraid that it's not going to be that simple."

Sure -- I imagine a social theory must always be simpler than the reality it attempts to illuminate.

"...here's a real, current story.

"We have three cats. In Feb of 2021 one was diagnosed with feline lymphoma and we were advised to make preparations for as gentle a euthanasia as available and that this would be needed within weeks, and maybe 2 months at the most. As of this date he's still alive with no apparent ill effect; he was seen last spring by a different vet who confirmed the diagnosis and prognosis, recognized that the earlier prognosis had not come to pass, and had no explanation for it.

"So is this a miracle? If it's not a miracle, note well that neither we, nor the vet, has made any attempt at explaining his good fortune in terms of materialistic science. So we just filed it away under 'we just don't know'."

Sure. A possible explanation is that the test(s) for feline lymphoma are less accurate than was assumed. It's possible, too, that there's an as-yet-undetected but ultimately physical interaction between you and your cat, that helps his immune system, etc. Both of these would allow the buffered self to remain intact. Or it could be proposed, from a minority point of view over against official U. S. society (public education, science funding, etc.) that humankind has a relationship, of divine origin, with animals, which has been mostly lost since the Fall, but that is "arch-natural." There is a book by a vet named Joanne Stefanatos called Animals and Man: A State of Blessedness, that relates stories of saints who had a sort of Paradisal relationship with otherwise wild, shy or dangerous, animals.

[alaskasbakery.com]

It could be, then, that vestiges of humankind's relationship as God's "viceregents" remain; your love for your cat effected something like a miracle.

Who knows?

In any event, I'm glad to read of your cat's continued companionship with your family.

We have had two kittens added to our previous four, for two weeks now, Giles and Aino (officially Jenny).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16 Aug 23 | 06:30PM by Dale Nelson.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a buffered news story, Dale:
>
> [www.idahostatesman.com]
> ticle278306763.html
>
> :^)


Charles Fort, call your office.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I really do think that perhaps you're coming at
> this particular argument from a pre-determined
> position of mankind's ontological superiority to
> the animal kingdom"
>
> Sure. I suppose others commenting here likewise
> bring their own positions to bear on the topic.
>
> I'm open to animal awareness to a greater degree
> than probably many people are, for example, that
> some animals may feel something we could call
> gratitude; or that some pets may sense illness and
> instinctively comfort the caregiving human.
>
> Perhaps I'm being asked to concede something not
> about animals, but about what it means for a
> creature to be a self.
>
> My impression is that, often, the same people who
> want to minimize the difference between animal and
> human, want likewise to minimize the difference
> between human intelligence and "artificial
> intelligence."
>
> But, again, I think I've shot my bolt; I've said a
> bunch of things that indicate why I am not willing
> to attribute self-awareness to animals, and
> haven't read anything to change my mind about
> those specific points.
>
> This was a side discussion about levels of being, that was spun from the porous-buffered selves topic.

You "haven't read anything to change your mind", are open to such data "if it exists," but didn't respond when I put some facts forward except to say I was out of line (whatever that means) in doing so. Seems rather disingenuous, don't you think, Dale? Pretentious snobbery, perhaps?

jkh

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote, "Also, we talk about
> porous/buffered selves and porous/buffered
> cultures. This is not good because without further
> definition it seems to disallow a porous self
> existing in a buffered culture. So we need further
> clarification on that point--can a culture be
> hybrid (roughly 50-50); can it be majority
> porous/buffered?"
>
> It's a while since I read that short book on
> Charles Taylor's thought. The "porous self" and
> the "buffered self" are his terms. I suppose that
> a society can be mostly supportive of porosity or
> bufferedness, but that within it there may be
> minority groups of dissenters. If the standard
> view of Democritus is right, then he and his
> disciples might have been a minority group within
> a society in which the porous self was
> predominant.

This I could see.

>
> A society could be tolerant; it could allow porous
> selves and buffered selves to coexist without
> disabilities. This would be a liberal society.
> I'm not sure that history will show that such
> societies have staying power. The United States
> have done (historically speaking) rather well in
> this regard (though with intolerance in other
> areas), but I'm not sure this will continue to be
> true.

In point of fact it doesn't matter whether a society is tolerant or not *so far as the actual belief systems of its constituents*.

Just as the Spanish had "crytpo Jews", so might woke society contain crypto porous selves.

>
> "I maintain that selves who'd self-label as
> "enlightened", or "worldly" (therefore buffered,
> as I understand it) might make an exception for
> legitimate deeply felt emotions. I think you're
> far too ready to see unadultered examples of
> either "self"--as you describe them they're little
> more than caricatures--and I'm beginning to wonder
> if Taylor's model is not too hopelessly and
> artificially constrained to actually make any
> sense in the real world--and by this I mean to
> either a porous or a buffered culture.
>
> "It is like he found a few identifiable
> traits/tendencies and is trying to come up with a
> Grand Unified Theory of sociology. I'm afraid that
> it's not going to be that simple."
>
> Sure -- I imagine a social theory must always be
> simpler than the reality it attempts to
> illuminate.
>
> "...here's a real, current story.
>
> "We have three cats. In Feb of 2021 one was
> diagnosed with feline lymphoma and we were advised
> to make preparations for as gentle a euthanasia as
> available and that this would be needed within
> weeks, and maybe 2 months at the most. As of this
> date he's still alive with no apparent ill effect;
> he was seen last spring by a different vet who
> confirmed the diagnosis and prognosis, recognized
> that the earlier prognosis had not come to pass,
> and had no explanation for it.
>
> "So is this a miracle? If it's not a miracle, note
> well that neither we, nor the vet, has made any
> attempt at explaining his good fortune in terms of
> materialistic science. So we just filed it away
> under 'we just don't know'."
>
> Sure. A possible explanation is that the test(s)
> for feline lymphoma are less accurate than was
> assumed.

Two separate tests.

> It's possible, too, that there's an
> as-yet-undetected but ultimately physical
> interaction between you and your cat, that helps
> his immune system, etc. Both of these would allow
> the buffered self to remain intact.

However, that's not what either us or the 2nd vet attempted to do. It was just a smile at the unexplained "good" fortune of the cat.

And yet I'd suspect that my wife, the vet, and me might honestly be characterized as buffered selves *most of the time*.

> Or it could
> be proposed, from a minority point of view over
> against official U. S. society (public education,
> science funding, etc.) that humankind has a
> relationship, of divine origin, with animals,
> which has been mostly lost since the Fall, but
> that is "arch-natural." There is a book by a vet
> named Joanne Stefanatos called Animals and Man: A
> State of Blessedness, that relates stories of
> saints who had a sort of Paradisal relationship
> with otherwise wild, shy or dangerous, animals.
>
> [alaskasbakery.com]-
> dvm-cva-cvc-mhma-wildlife-rehabilitator/
>
> It could be, then, that vestiges of humankind's
> relationship as God's "viceregents" remain; your
> love for your cat effected something like a
> miracle.
>
> Who knows?

Which, as I understand Taylor, is fine for porous selves, but not to be expected from buffered selves.

I am absolutely fine without an answer of any kind for very many topics; life has taught me that, at least. Most people I know are, too, to a greater or lesser degree. Again, by far the most pure buffered selves I've encountered are in literature, as representative characters.


>
> In any event, I'm glad to read of your cat's
> continued companionship with your family.
>
> We have had two kittens added to our previous
> four, for two weeks now, Giles and Aino
> (officially Jenny).

I enjoy our discussions, Dale, but I judge Taylor's hypothesis as I understand it to be unsupportable. It's a waste of time, really. He's far too rigid and far too--well, it looks to me like he's not dealt much with people, or if he has, he's being quite subjectively selective about what he's seen. He is forcing his data through the eye of a needle of his own device.

Normally, I try not to be prematurely judgmental about new ideas, but Taylor's is pretty clearly a doozy.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No problem with that take on Taylor. But I'm glad I brought it up -- we had some good discussion, and Hespire, I think it was, had an exceptionally interesting quotation from CAS to Derleth that came up in the course of this conversation.

Kipling Wrote:
-
>
> You "haven't read anything to change your
> mind", are open to such data "if it exists," but
> didn't respond when I put some facts forward
> except to say I was out of line (whatever that
> means) in doing so. Seems rather disingenuous,
> don't you think, Dale? Pretentious snobbery,
> perhaps?


Aw, come on, Kipling. I did not say you were out of line to "put some facts forward." I said it was out of line to accuse me of being devious. Now moreover I'm disingenuous, pretentious, and a snob, and there were some other things back there too. You can do better than this kind of thing. At any rate you'll have to if you want me to respond to you.

As for the elephant facts, you sent someone's email address, not a link to a source. Was the idea that I should email this person and say, "Hi, you don't know me, but a guy who calls himself Kipling sent me to you to ask about some elephants?"

; )

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No problem with that take on Taylor. But I'm glad
> I brought it up -- we had some good discussion,
> and Hespire, I think it was, had an exceptionally
> interesting quotation from CAS to Derleth that
> came up in the course of this conversation.

Yes, good stuff, Dale!

:^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> -
> >
> > You "haven't read anything to change your
> > mind", are open to such data "if it exists,"
> but
> > didn't respond when I put some facts forward
> > except to say I was out of line (whatever that
> > means) in doing so. Seems rather disingenuous,
> > don't you think, Dale? Pretentious snobbery,
> > perhaps?
>
>
> Aw, come on, Kipling. I did not say you were out
> of line to "put some facts forward." I said it
> was out of line to accuse me of being devious.
> Now moreover I'm disingenuous, pretentious, and a
> snob, and there were some other things back there
> too. You can do better than this kind of thing.
> At any rate you'll have to if you want me to
> respond to you.
>
> As for the elephant facts, you sent someone's
> email address, not a link to a source. Was the
> idea that I should email this person and say, "Hi,
> you don't know me, but a guy who calls himself
> Kipling sent me to you to ask about some
> elephants?"
>
>. My middle name is Kipling and the email link was a simple mistake. Not responding to evidence of cognitive abilities you categorically denied the exist of in any and all animals (I understand you spoke in generalities, but even so the subject had been broached) suggests a confirmation bias as wide as the Cumberland Gap. I'm glad that your sense of humor seems to be in better shape than mine is these days, Dale, and I apologize for the offensive words I used.

jkh

Thanks, Kipling. I think I usually said that I was "aware of no evidence for" various faculties in any animals, rather than "categorically denying" such. But never mind.

If we're going to discuss animals and mankind more, rather than the buffered-porous topic for the thread (which might well be talked out), I'd be interested in a link to a good article relating to the points you've wanted to make about elephants, etc. I'd learn something.

But also, are you aware of evidence relating to a number of points or questions I offered regarding animal consciousness? (Be patient with me if I missed a substantive response to any of these.)

I wrote:

It feels to me like the profound difference between recognizing a mirror image and having the capacity to evaluate oneself, including the accuracy of one's own memories, is being underestimated. ...No animal ... is ever aware that it has forgotten anything [as far as I know].

I know of no evidence that animals take responsibility for their actions -- much less take responsibility for their thoughts. Even small children can, and do, do that: "I will not be afraid at the doctor's today."

Human beings make promises: they can relate together the three essentials for making promises, namely (1) a sense of personal identity, (2) a sense that the future is different from the moment we're in now, (3) language; at least, I can't imagine how one would make promises without some kind of verbalization, if only in one's own mind.

Human beings restructure their inner world. They say: I'm going to learn to play an instrument, or I'm going to get plastered, and so on. They choose to alter their inner world for their benefit and perhaps that of others. Is there any evidence detectible to us that animals choose to restructure their inner worlds? Of course they do restructure their inner worlds in the sense that they learn from experience, as I can see with our two rescue kittens. But so far as I know, it is instinct, not a personal consciousness, that prompts them to do this. They can't, so far as I know, choose not to. I can choose not to learn all sorts of things: how to drive a car, type blood, whatever. I can choose not to learn things that might challenge my present opinions. Is there any evidence that this is true of animals?

I think these are fair points and questions. I think one can agree with each and all of them without dismissing the qualities of animals that you have mentioned. My wife believes that our pets (cats and dogs) can sense it sometimes when we are feeling unwell and they may respond by snuggling up. I guess I'm not sure that they do sense our illnesses, but I think it's possible and I like the idea.

I would hesitate to so that if animals lack the qualities I've mentioned above, they are nevertheless selves. Granted the qualities you've mentioned, one could say that they suffice for us to say selfhood exists. This difference maybe could be resolved by each of us saying "this is how I understand selfhood." Isn't that the issue between us -- not that I dispute the things you have said about elephants; do you dispute any of the points I've made above?


As for things that work against our notions, what comes to my mind again is that research about people with extreme hydrocephaly who should be severely retarded (if they live at all), and yet may lead normal lives. (I included a link to The Guardian's article on that yesterday.) A friend of mine who looks to science plus his own experience for reliable knowledge basically replied, "Huh." This was after he had stated to me that he had no interest in an idea of consciousness or mind that was not within the skull. Wow! The same article tells of a woman who had heart and lung transplant. After the operation she began to feel cravings for food she hadn't care for before. She began to feel an erotic interest in attractive girls. Eventually she learned that the donor had been a teenage male. But my friend was content to shrug this off.

PS Nothing I've written should be taken to imply that I deny the humanity of idiots (=persons with profound mental disability), etc. They are human like us but their ability to "realize" or to express their humanity may be impaired.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17 Aug 23 | 03:20PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale, I do agree with your main points, and thanks for the reprisal. Yes, we need a reliable source on the subject of the brain function of higher primates. I think the complex behaviors I gave examples of are, like the ape devising a tool with surprising geometric perception, exceptions to the general state of wide divergency between all animals and humans. A historical survey of advancements in this field would also be interesting. In the early Victorian age there must have been much discussion on the subject of our responsibility for the natural world as urbanization began. Elizabeth Gaskell is an author whose novels treat realistically of those times. So, I'm reading Bram Stoker's weird tales now and hoping to get some good comments about his work. I think Taylor's concept is very useful, and am continuing to review your exchanges on it; there was a lot of neat observation on both sides, and I didn't mean to sidetrack you guys. On the subject of cats, my wife has felt and seen a black cat (Zita), that we lost several years back around our house. I also felt her presence once but haven't seen her. This means we are Porous Selves, doesn't it? Cheers!

jkh

It sure sounds like porosity to me, unless you explain away those impressions in materialist fashion somehow.

Delighted to see a Gaskell reader here. I have an anecdote. I was teaching a British novel course, just a few students, one of whom I knew and liked but I knew he worked at a filthy job at the edible bean plant -- clearing out dust and rat corpses, whatever. He was a gruff-voiced, imposing-looking smoker. Anyway, I thought he might think one of the novels -- Gaskell's Wives and Daughters -- was not his kind of book!

HE LOVED IT!

At least he sure seemed to read it well and liked it.

That's a promising topic -- early Victorian consideration of animals and stewardship of them, etc. I wish I knew something about that. Ever read Richard Jefferies? I used to have his (late Victorian, I think) book Wood Magic with an introduction by Richard Adams, but gave it away without having read it.

It's fun how cats interact with us. We have a one-eyed tabby, Tess, who spontaneously started this hilarious thing in which she sits back on her hind legs and starts sort of paddling in the air with her forepaws. She was rewarded for that and of course does it often when she catches my eye (the reward has to be a very small amount of the food she likes so that she doesn't get too plump). I don't suppose she thought it through, figured out just what would catch my eye and amuse me (and dinner guests, etc.), but it works that way. You wouldn't see a feral cat do that sort of thing. So, does the cat somehow get on the right wavelength to elicit some behavior from me? It looks that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Aug 23 | 04:27PM by Dale Nelson.

Probably so! We brought Zita back from the brink as a kitten so maybe that has something to do with her continued presence, she being both seen and heard here. I enjoyed Wives and Daughters, so started to read Mary Barton/A Tale of Manchester Life (1848). Didn't get far (it was last Winter), but this was a very influential novel and I should get back to it. Back notes describe it as "part of a nineteenth-century British trend to understand the enormous cultural, economic and social changes wrought by industrialization". She developed two strongly contrasting settings, the main one focused on the urban poor. Have not read Richard Jefferies. Did you know that Stoker's manuscript of The Undead (his working title for what became Dracula) was found in a Pennsylvania barn in the 1980s? Lovecraft got wind of the fact that Stoker had sent it stateside and thought maybe his good friend Edith Miniter (a regionalist, fellow amateur journalist and close friend of his) had been asked to help Stoker out with the epistolary style. I guess somebody did. My details here are not necessarily accurate, you know... That new movie just out,"The Last Voyage of the ---------is based on the story in Dracula that Stoker based on an actual derelict account. I will not go see it because it looks like just another animated gore fest, with the vampire looking ridiculously inhuman.

jkh