There is something I have been wondering about for some time without any
clear answer......let me see if I can state the problem simply:
intro
When one looks into a mirror, one sees a reflection of himself and
'knows' or is generally aware of two things. The reflection is not another
being or entity; and the reflection is of myself. Animals (including
primates) can stare into a mirror their entire life and never realize either
of these things. This 'ability' has in fact been used by some to
differentiate humans from other animals; it has been used as a criterion for
'human-ness'. Further, in developmental psychology it is a standard
devolpmental goal that the normal child reaches at a well defined age; akin
to a baby being able to fixate on an object at four weeks or smile at six
weeks. An easy way to test this is to paint a red spot onto the forehead of
the subject, put them into a room in front of a mirror and see if they
recognize that the spot is on their own forehead and not just that of the
reflection. The primate will never realize this, where as a child that has
passed that aforementioned developmental goal will quickly realize that the
spot is on his/her own head and typically points to it or tries to rub it
off.
statement #1
The ability to pass the 'red spot test' (which most anyone can do) seems to
encompass many things. But at the heart of it is the ability to
differentiate oneself from others and oneself from the rest of the world; at
least in a physical sense. Further, the ability appears to require the
separation of subject and object in the mind of the subject.
statement #2
MOQ and like theories assert that the separation of object and subject is a
manifestation of the mind...ZAMM suggests that this mindset began with the
early Greeks and propagated and proliferated to the present day...to the
point today in which we in the west cannot easily imagine a lack of this
separation.
statement #3
It would seem that the passing of the red spot test constitutes perhaps that
earliest transition of the child into the subject-object mindset. Further,
though I have no proof, my intuition tells me that the ability to pass the
red spot test predates the Greeks, the Egyptians, and other early societies.
I cannot imagine that an ancient Sumerian child for example looked at his
reflection in the river and did not realize at some point that it
represented at least in some manner, a reflection of himself. It appears
then that the ability to pass the red spot test predates the establishment
of western reason and analysis.
statement #4
it is my feeling that at some point an evolutionary step occurred in the
brain of humans to allow the passing of the red spot test. I can imagine
perhaps that while Cro-Magnon man would not pass the test anymore than a
primate, that at some point a new species came along such as Neanderthals
that would recognize that the spot was on their own head. *****In other
words the ability to separate subject and object seems to be an evolutionary
trait and not at all dependent on the edifice of reason, logic and
rationality developed later by the Greeks and others.***
Problem:
This appears to be in contradiction to what is asserted by Pirsig in the
MOQ. The red spot test suggests to me that subject-object separation is at
least in part, a fundamental physiological trait that humans have and other
animals do not. This trait would be analogous to vocal cords that allow
dynamic speech expression over a broad frequency range, which humans have
but many animals lack. Better stated, the trait which I would refer to
would be more like vision. The development of vision is fairly slow and a
child does not reach adult acuity until age six. This acuity is based very
much on exposure to visual stimuli in the environment, the sustained lack of
which causes irreversible visual deficits. Thus good vision is a genetic
program that requires environmental input as a source of feedback. In the
same way, I think subject-object separation is a genetic program that comes
to fruition early in childhood and hangs around the rest of ones life.
Evolution of the red spot trait makes sense if you think about...A trait
that allows an animal to realize the separation of itself from other animals
and objects would suddenly give it a tremendous survival advantage
(regardless of whether this knowledge is actually the 'truth'). The whole
idea of survival of the fittest and Darwinian evolution really is based on
the ability of an individual animal or species over another...it is based on
the subject-object separation even if the animal is unaware of it.
In an abstract sense evolution as we know it is bound by the rule of
survival, not so much by quality or the good. One might say that this is an
aspect of quality but that doesn't really feel right. Perspectives of the
world such as sense of self and time directionality could well be hardwired
into our brains because they 'are' or 'were' at some point a survival
advantage.
I think that the Greeks, Egyptians or other people did not give rise to
reason...I think that the red spot trait was the parent...that reason and
rationality are natural byproducts of this physiological separation...that
in a very real sense, separation and thus reason and logic are hardwired in
our brain like a circuit board.
There is some support for this in functional MRI and pet scans and other
psychological testing that suggests mathematical skills have a very well
defined focal location in the brain. There is additional support given by
the work of Sperry conducted on split brain phenonemon in which epileptic
patients had their corpus callosum cut. It is possible that math skill just
develops as a consequence of dealing with the environment, but more likely
there is a developmental program in childhood that has evolved to the
purpose of establishing these and other brain centers.
Thus the problem of realizing the MOQ maybe much greater than overcoming the
intrusion of western thought...it may mean that the realization requires
surmounting our own 'nature'...our own genetic programming. I question
whether this can be done. I question whether we can get an eagle to stop
flying or the humpback whale to stop singing or the man to stop seeing.
Ridding ourselves of the separation may be much more difficult than pirsig
thought, or just downright impossible.
Pirsig claimed that reason and logic were mental constructions made by
individuals that imply and thus give rise to the separation of subject and
object. From the above paradigm, I would state that the separation of
subject and object are physiological constructs that give rise to reason and
logic.
Is subject-object separation physiological? Is it programmed? What is the
relationship of programmed physiology to truth or the good? Could we be
decieved not by our intellectual predecessors but by our own physiology?
Did Pirsig have it backwards? Does the separation give rise to reason? What
would all of this mean for realizing the MOQ?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST