#physicalist

Hard Problem of Consciousness: Irreducible Mind [Part 2]

The history of the double slit experimentand the wave particle duality goes back as far as 1801, yet the world is only just starting to really work on understanding and applying the metaphysical implications of the universe of downward causation that we find ourselves in where consciousness chooses its observable reality from the field of quantum possibilities, and yet when we look in the mirror…

“The rise of the buffered identity has been accompanied by an interiorization; that is, not only the Inner/Outer distinction, that between Mind and World as separate loci, which is central to the buffer itself; and not only the development of this Inner/Outer distinction in a whole range of epistemological theories of a mediational type from Descartes to Rorty;’ but also the growth of a rich vocabulary of interiority, an inner realm of thought and feeling to be explored. This frontier of self-exploration has grown, through various spiritual disciplines of self-examination, through Montaigne, the development of the modern novel, the rise of Romanticism, the ethic of authenticity, to the point where we now conceive of ourselves as having inner depths.” — Charles Taylor, A Secular Age

I unfortunately read an awful article recently in Psychology Today (I hesitate to link to it, but it is here). It was written by someone named Izzy Kalman, a fan of Jordan Peterson, who’s ideas I also dislike a great deal.

To quickly summate, the author, Kalman, wants to help Peterson better attack the left so he offers two “fatal flaws” of the left that Peterson should exploit: 1) the left wants to erase the line between objective and subjective harm, and 2) the left wants to replace “might makes right” with “might makes wrong.”

Very briefly, it’s unbelievable to me that Psy Today would publish this guy in the first place; the sharp dualistic distinction he’s making between “objective harm” and “subjective harm” is seriously scary and seems very outdated to me, philosophically for sure, and psychologically too I would imagine…. The author makes a big deal about emphasizing how hurting someone’s feelings with words is not the same as some type of objective, physical bodily injury that may be inflicted upon someone. I didn’t look this guy up and don’t know what his training is, but he is definitely implying that psychological harm is not physical and therefore not as harmful; according to Kalman, if we’re “subjectively harmed” we’ve ultimately harmed ourselves, the insult (or whatever) from the other person had nothing to do with it. This seems terribly specious and actually very disingenuous, dangerous and just plain dumb.

Reading Kalman go on about “subjective harm” and “objective harm” I couldn’t think of a better example of what Charles Taylor (quoted above) terms a “buffered self.” Kalman obviously views physical bodies as containers for consciousness which does allow one to distinguish what is “me” from the “world out there”; what is “inner” is mine and what is “outer” is just unmediated stuff we encounter. Simple! Lol! If only it were true. When we talk about the human nervous system in the context of symbiotic relationships with our ecosystem, it doesn’t make sense to imagine the human nervous system and mind as enclosed within the skull; the human nervous system is more ecological than we would like to admit. We’re co-continuous with our environments and there is no clear distinction between mind and body. Thoughts, feelings, emotions are real things (not secondary illusions) that have causal efficacy. No one would argue that physically murdering someone is the same as insulting someone and hurting their feelings, but the difference here is a difference of degree not kind. Insulting someone, being verbally, emotionally and psychologically abusive, is harmful and traumatic and is emphatically wrong. It is my guess that Mr. Kalman behaves differently around different people, e.g. I bet he would bite his tongue around young children and not use the foul expletives he might use around his buddies at the golf club. Is he being politically correct when he censors himself like this? Of course not, he’s recognizing difference, recognizing power hierarchies and being lovingly sensitive to others.

Additionally, the whole “might makes wrong” thing, omg… Kalman is a biblical scholar too! At one point Kalman cites the Jewish Bible, claiming it forbids judges to engage in favoritism which supports his claim that “Sometimes the rich/strong person is the wrong one, and sometimes the weak/poor person is the wrong one.” He interestingly leaves out the little bit about how in the Judeo-Christian Bible preference is definitely given to the well-being of the poor and powerless of society in the teachings and commands of God as well as the prophets and other righteous people. A rich and powerful person may be legally right about something but the question of weather or not a legal system itself is right or wrong does not enter Kalman’s thought process. How unfortunately parochial and short-sighted of him.

…

Illustration above by Rosita Uricchio