Philosophy: books and discussion

[TimMason]

I don't think it accounts for the headache I have now being experienced as "my" headache

People can separate themselves from what - from the point of view that holds to a constant self - should be 'their' pain. When someone at a vaudou ceremony, for example, is possessed by one or another of the Loa, the possessed body can cut itself, eat broken glass, put its hand through fire and so on. The person who has been possessed feels no pain. So it is possible to have stories in which ongoing body-states are not registered as 'belonging to' the self.

Under Prozac or similar drugs, the medicated person will feel removed from the site at which feelings are encountered. I was prescribed one of these things - I don't recommend them at all, but then my need was very minor - and the feeling was one of dissociation from the self that I had built up. Instead of experiencing (psychological) pain, I became a bystander to pain that was happening to someone.

On the whole, though, I'd advise aspirin. Which sometimes seems to me to have a similar effect on the headache that Prozac has on a depressive state.

@Sparrow : what do you make of this fellow?

[nguirado]

I just finished reading "Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. Very good. Relevant.

[FlorenceArt]

Speaking of reading, I am furious because I bought an e-book called "Letters to Lucilius", only to discover that it was a selection of 24 letters out of the 124 that are known. I think I will buy the book that I am now reading, which contains all the letters plus interesting background material in the foreword and introduction. I renewed the library loan once already, and I don't know how long it will take me to read the whole book, supposing I ever do, but I really want to read all the letters at least, and also several of the other works in the book.

I'm especially interested in the two he wrote for women, his mother Helvia (to console her of his exile), and another to a woman named Marcia. I understand that the stoics owned that even women could have a claim to wisdom, with a lot of teaching of course

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TimMason

@Sparrow : what do you make of this fellow?

It's an interesting story, reminds me of the film Memento or some of the patients Oliver Sacks writes about.
I'm not seeing a connection to the 'brain state' issue that I'm struggling to understand; but it does make me think that Descartes might have been more accurate if he'd said; 'I think now, therefore I am now'.

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I understand that the stoics owned that even women could have a claim to wisdom, with a lot of teaching of course

So, why so few women philosophers?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

So, why so few women philosophers?

They've usually got better things to do!

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

People can separate themselves from what - from the point of view that holds to a constant self - should be 'their' pain. When someone at a vaudou ceremony, for example, is possessed by one or another of the Loa, the possessed body can cut itself, eat broken glass, put its hand through fire and so on. The person who has been possessed feels no pain. So it is possible to have stories in which ongoing body-states are not registered as 'belonging to' the self.

Under Prozac or similar drugs, the medicated person will feel removed from the site at which feelings are encountered. I was prescribed one of these things - I don't recommend them at all, but then my need was very minor - and the feeling was one of dissociation from the self that I had built up. Instead of experiencing (psychological) pain, I became a bystander to pain that was happening to someone.

Indeed, individuals can dissociate themselves from what would normally be thought of and experienced as "their" experience - some forms of meditation focus on precisely that. But doesn't the fact that these anomalous experiences are possible through medication, ritual and meditation, "altered" states of consciousness in some sense, tend to suggest that in the normal case there is no such dissociation. In fact, unwanted and repeated dissociation is considered to be a mental illness, (not wishing to open up that discussion, but simply pointing to the difference between the normal case and anomalous cases).

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

But doesn't the fact that these anomalous experiences are possible through medication, ritual and meditation, "altered" states of consciousness in some sense, tend to suggest that in the normal case there is no such dissociation.

Maybe not 'no dissociation', perhaps the normal case is dissociation within 'acceptable' limits.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

So, why so few women philosophers?

This is a very touchy subject. It is also very difficult to draw any conclusions. And to have "objective" information.
In the attachment there is a chapter on gender, very interesting.

[TimMason]

perhaps the normal case is dissociation within 'acceptable' limits.

... and those limits are themselves variable. Take the example Sabbatai Zevi; if he were alive today, he would almost certainly be diagnosed as bipolar, whereas he actually managed to make a rather fine life for himself as a prophet and messiah.

Moreover, the limits may vary from one person to another: there are far more people who hear voices than there are people diagnosed as psychotic. Many of these people adjust very well to their voices, and live with them in something like harmony (the psychologist Richard Bentall suggests that people who are very sure of themselves dominate their voices, while people who feel socially or psychologically insecure are dominated by them).

Similarly with dissociation as with voices (which is, in a sense, a form of dissociation, for the voices are in fact one's own - if you monitor the vocal apparatus of someone who hears voices, you will find that they are subvocalizing). The question is what is acceptable - Bentall asks whether people complain or not. And the answer is that some do, and some don't.

Just as a matter of interest, I spent about five minutes this afternoon attempting to monitor my own processes of being. At the time, I was in a suburban train, returning from work. I had put my earphones on, to isolate myself from a rather noisy group sitting close to me. I was reading on my Boox (a book about the history of Christianity). At one level, there was a voice engaged in an argument with the author of the book, and putting it up against another book that I'm reading at home which has a chapter on the same subject. The voice was one I recognize as mine (I am aware of several voices which I acknowledge as my own, and I am also aware of several other voices, in particular those of my mother and my father. When I hear these voices, I am not 'hearing voices'; I know very well that they are synthesized from memories and so on).

While this conversation between me and the book was going on, I also engaged in a visual representation of myself walking up the hill from the station, calling into the Petit Casino on the High Street, and buying a sixpack of Draught Guinness. This was purely visual, and occurred in parallel with my bookish conversation.

While this was going on, and also in parallel, I was enjoying the music. Some of the songs made me smile, particularly when I recognized them as they started up. From time to time, the words might cut in on the conversation I was having with the book, and I would, for a bar or two, give them most of my attention. But even when I put them into the background, they were still there, and I would be aware of my toes twitching in time to the music.

At the same time, there were fleeting impression of fellow travellers, of the names of the stations, of people standing on platforms, of the Seine as the train bridged it.

All of this is quite remarkable, while also being very ordinary. The human brain manages to keep track of a large number of different domains, moving from one to the other so quickly that awareness appears to be seamless and total. However, this is not the case. My processing mechanism is capable of handling a relatively small amount of input at any one time. Much of the input is fragmentary and partial. To format it and make it comprehensible seems to need narrative work - and I have engaged in such work in presenting it here. If I had written of the same moments at another time, perhaps with some other object in mind, the narrative would have been different.

Brillat-Savarin held that "you are what you eat." Today, a lot of people will say, "you are what you tell." And just as diets may change from day to day, or from month to month, so can our autobiographies.

P.S. The Petit Casino closes on Mondays. I will have to slake my thirst on tomato juice. Or - almost unthinkable - water.

[TimMason]

The Guardian is hosting a series on "whether science can describe everything." Here's Sue Blakemore's opening shot. Note Steve Fuller's response, a few comments below the line. (Steve Fuller is a rather notorious sociologist of science).

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

... and those limits are themselves variable. Take the example Sabbatai Zevi; if he were alive today, he would almost certainly be diagnosed as bipolar, whereas he actually managed to make a rather fine life for himself as a prophet and messiah.

Had it not been for his forced conversion to Islam, his popularity today might rival that of Jesus.

As for Jesus, I've often wondered if he might have been bi-polar. Some of his words and actions if his biographers are to be believed seem to suggest it. He seemed to be capable from moving quickly from extremes of pacifism and bliss to anger and rage.

I hope no one takes this as an affront on their personal beliefs, as I am only expressing my own opinion, which may well be colored my own experiences and biases. I like the guy, and think he was a religious genius, but I don't think he was all his followers believe him to be.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

The Guardian is hosting a series on "whether science can describe everything." Here's Sue Blakemore's opening shot. Note Steve Fuller's response, a few comments below the line. (Steve Fuller is a rather notorious sociologist of science).

What a fascinating series. I hope it comes out in ebook form.

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by TimMason

The Guardian is hosting a series on "whether science can describe everything." Here's Sue Blakemore's opening shot. Note Steve Fuller's response, a few comments below the line. (Steve Fuller is a rather notorious sociologist of science).

It can describe, potentially, everything physical. If everything is physical, then it can potentially describe everything including why I'm posting this now.

If not, then no.

If you saw me flout a rule you feel strongly about, say clubbing a baby seal, you wouldn't get angry?

[beppe]

Originally Posted by nguirado

It can describe, potentially, everything physical. If everything is physical, then it can potentially describe everything including why I'm posting this now.

If not, then no.

If you saw me flout a rule you feel strongly about, say clubbing a baby seal, you wouldn't get angry?

Hello nguirado,

you use 3 times the world everything. The first time this use is not justified except from a blind faith in science which is in contrast with the argument.

Let me expand. The word potentially, that you prep-end, apparently mitigates the rigidity of the world everything, but it is inappropriate. In my opinion it is just hopeful. I have a strong opinion about this. I do not know of a single instance in which science has been capable of describing any single episode of reality with absolute precision. "Absolute" has the same "rigidity" of "everything".

It is my experience that whenever some non scientist, or quite often when a scientist with non scientific purposes, makes a statement about science, inadvertently or on purpose, his reasoning becomes fuzzy (from a scientific point of view)

Your reasoning has merits though, that probably might still float. To me it would be quite helpful if you recast it without making use of rigid words that when used outside a logic problem have a tendency to bring more damage then benefits.

[TimMason]

Blakemore's answer is similar to Beppe's: science cannot describe everything. On the other hand, she believes that it is capable of *explaining* everything.

Are scientists even interested in describing everything? Perhaps they are interested in describing as well as possible those bits of reality that test their theories.