Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Kipling, I think that it's very important to consider that what you've described, that tends to illustrate how lacking many animals as compared to humans are when they come to play on our "home turf" (abstract problem solving) needs to be counterbalanced against the reality that we do equally poorly when playing on their home turf. Echo location by bats, migratory bird navigation, etc.

So as I've said before, humanity is not simply equal to animals in all other mental areas, but superior to them in sense of self and ability to think abstractly, humans are much better in this area, and woefully inadequate in others. It's fortunate that the single area of immense superiority acts as an evolutionary wildcard, enabling humans to avoid the lack of the other mental traits of animals.

I'm not a big fan of the animal kingdom, per se, but I do tend to see humanity as a differently-abled member of the animal kingdom, not something apart. Just a hell of a lot more complex and sophisticated.

> 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!

Yes! Porous!

:^)

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish wrote, "I do tend to see humanity as a differently-abled member of the animal kingdom, not something apart."

A "differently-abled animal" sounds close to the traditional idea of man as the rational animal. We're not apart from them in that we're animals (in ways we've discussed already), but we are apart from them -- a difference of kind and not just of degree -- in being "rational." That's how I see it, anyway.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote, "I do tend to see humanity as a
> differently-abled member of the animal kingdom,
> not something apart."
>
> A "differently-abled animal" sounds close to the
> traditional idea of man as the rational animal.
> We're not apart from them in that we're animals
> (in ways we've discussed already), but we are
> apart from them -- a difference of kind and not
> just of degree -- in being "rational." That's how
> I see it, anyway.

Fair enough, Dale.

--Sawfish

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

Another way of getting at the porous self vs. buffered self thing occurs to me. Something bropught to my mind just now an essay by Mary Ellen Ashcroft called "Last Thoughts by the Tombstone Pizzas," from 1988.

A little of it may be seen here:

[www.christianitytoday.com]

Ashcroft describes an incident in a supermarket in which a woman suddenly died of a heart attack, as I recall. Maybe she heard someone say, "At least she died quickly." This gets her thinking about how many people today would say the ideal death is the one in which you fell pleasantly asleep and didn't wake up -- no pain. She says that in earlier times, the thought of dying "unprepared" was disturbing. Hamlet decides not to assassinate Claudius because Claudius has been praying -- i.e. he is prepared, and Hamlet doesn't want to send the guy off while he's in a state of grace.

The context is Christian, but my guess is that in traditional cultures the idea was that you wanted to die aware that you were dying: you could hear the tribe lamenting your imminent loss, etc. Cultures like the ancient Greeks might approve of suicide in some circumstances, but the idea was that you prepared your soul for this (I'm thinking of the death of Socrates as depicted by Plato). I know of nothing in ancient literature that suggests the sudden, painless death is ideal.

But in a highly buffered culture such as ours, just having one's light switched off at a decent age is attractive -- it being understood that any other people about whom one cares will not be left in a seriously awkward place by your death, of course.

Sound about right?

By the way -- somewhere here I recently said that I believe our generally buffered Western society is turning again towards a porous understanding of things. You might think that, because I'm a Christian, I would be pleased. Nope, not really. Actually, I think many Christians who have lived as long as I have, and who will live long enough to see what's developing, will miss those "good old days" when Western society basically offered the possibility of being a porous self only in terms of the Christian church (and Judaism for Jews), the only alternative being humanism and/or atheism. David Hume, Voltaire, Darwin, Freud, Bertrand Russell, Madelyn Murray O'Hair -- these we could respond to fairly readily, and though we took them seriously, we Christians, they weren't exactly weird, creepy, alarming in a supernatural way!

That was kind of nice for Christians like me. I can still remember such times a little. We had our champions in the lists (some of whose names would probably mean nothing to most non-Christians; John Warwick Montgomery anyone?), but the books they wrote were instructive. The debates could be held on some common ground. Porous Christian vs. buffered mainstream thinker -- we could argue according to the rules of logic, the evidence of history, etc. Neither perhaps convinced the other very often. But it could at least be kind of fun. Early in my academic career, say 40+ years ago, I shared an office with a guy of mainstream buffered views. I think he liked our discussions about as much as I did.

But the "New Age movements" (I use the plural for something that could include everything from pop commercialized versions of Native American ceremonies to Suzuki Zen to Wicca to UFO cults), quaint as it often was, was a sign of hunger for porosity. And porosity "with a vengeance" we may be getting. Here's a link to a long article by Naomi Wolf, a Jew, a "third wave feminist," advisor to Bill Clinton and Al Gore, etc., who may have gone off her head with "conspiracy" theories. But take a look at this to see why a Christian might not exactly welcome a revived, emphatically non-Christian, porosity:

[brownstone.org]

Like I said -- porosity with a vengeance!

I expect this article, if anyone reads it, may be primarily for entertainment value. So -- I hope you enjoy the entertainment. At any rate I have now made it clear that in what I've written, I sure did NOT mean to suggest that longing for "any old porosity" -- in fact definitely NOT for the old porosity.

If you do read Wolf's article, please read it to the end.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Aug 23 | 09:16AM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:

> [brownstone.org]
> ods-returned/
>
>I hope I have
> now made it clear that in what I've written, I
> sure did NOT mean to suggest that longing for "any
> old porosity" -- in fact definitely NOT for the
> old porosity.
>
> If you do read Wolf's article, please read it to
> the end.

Perhaps this was overlooked or perhaps it was looked at and no one wanted to comment, which is OK. I'm not endorsing all of it, certainly.

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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!

Kipling, earlier in this discussion you mentioned elephants. I ran across this article

[www.thenewatlantis.com]

which I'm reading now.