From raymondpward at hotmail.com Sun Dec 1 11:52:31 2002 From: raymondpward at hotmail.com (Raymond P. Ward) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:52:31 -0600 Subject: [percy-l] Fw: Introduction and a question. Message-ID: > I'm new to the group. I'm sad to say I didn't know about Walker Percy until > 10 years after his death - despite living in the same area. I've been > intrigued by his books for about 2 years now. > > Here's my question: Who is "The Last Gentleman"? I read the whole book > assuming it was Will Barrett. But a few minutes after finishing the book, > it occurred to me that the Last Gentleman is Death. > > Raymond P. Ward > 6227 Magazine St. > New Orleans, LA 70118 > (504) 895-5057 (home) > (504) 701-4750 (mobile) > email: rayward7 at earthlink.net > web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~rayward7 > From karey at charter.net Mon Dec 2 19:08:02 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:08:02 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] RE: FOXP2 Message-ID: <005201c29a60$0c216bd0$0301000a@AFAC955012> I've just now had a chance at a "close reading" of this FOXP2 article (below), so to add a couple of reflections: It seems to confirm Percy's theories about a "radical anthropology" in which the language event advanced "Homo sapiens sapiens" to a new level, makes us uniquely "human," and differentiates us from the chimps. Acquisition of language occurs simultaneously with commerce in symbols of which more primitive species are incapable. But, it seems to disconfirm the idea that the phenomenon of "consciousness" is uniquely human and is related solely to language capacity, as I believe Percy would assert. I.E.: Surely these 14 language-incapacitated members of the 29 members of this London family were "conscious," fully human, even though they could not speak? As surely was Helen Keller before she comprehended Annie Sullivan's sign language "water" was water? They just did not have the capacity for "symbol-mongering" and all that that might entail. Anyway, thanks Marcus for this article. Karey Karey L. Perkins Senior Professor of General Education DeVry University 2555 Northwinds Parkway Alpharetta, GA 30004 770-521-4900 Ext. 3527 www.atl.devry.edu/kperkins ----- Original Message ----- From: marcus at loyno.edu To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:15 AM Subject: [percy-l] Percy's take on FOXP2 language gene? I am pretty certain that Percy would have been fascinated by the research at Stanford, Oxford and elsewhere that may point to a relatively recent genetic base for human language/symbolic capacity. Does anyone--Ken Ketner?--have any ideas how Percy might have responded to this article by Nicholas Wade? *************************************** The New York Times August 15, 2002, Thursday, Late Edition - Final SECTION: Section A; Page 18; Column 5; National Desk LENGTH: 703 words HEADLINE: Language Gene Is Traced To Emergence of Humans BYLINE: By NICHOLAS WADE BODY: A study of the genomes of people and chimpanzees has yielded a deep insight into the origin of language, one of the most distinctive human attributes and a critical step in human evolution. The analysis indicates that language, on the evolutionary time scale, is a very recent development, having evolved only in the last 100,000 years or so. The finding supports a novel theory advanced by Dr. Richard Klein, an archaeologist at Stanford University, who argues that the emergence of behaviorally modern humans about 50,000 years ago was set off by a major genetic change, most probably the acquisition of language. The new study, by Dr. Svante Paabo and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, is based on last year's discovery of the first human gene involved specifically in language. The gene came to light through studies of a large London family, well known to linguists, 14 of whose 29 members are incapable of articulate speech but are otherwise mostly normal. A team of molecular biologists led by Dr. Anthony P. Monaco of the University of Oxford last year identified the gene that was causing the family's problems. Known as FOXP2, the gene is known to switch on other genes during the development of the brain, but its presumed role in setting up the neural circuitry of language is not understood. Dr. Paabo's team has studied the evolutionary history of the FOXP2 gene by decoding the sequence of DNA letters in the versions of the gene possessed by mice, chimpanzees and other primates, and people. In a report being published online today by the journal Nature, Dr. Paabo says the FOXP2 gene has remained largely unaltered during the evolution of mammals, but suddenly changed in humans after the hominid line had split off from the chimpanzee line of descent. The changes in the human gene affect the structure of the protein it specifies at two sites, Dr. Paabo's team reports. One of them slightly alters the protein's shape; the other gives it a new role in the signaling circuitry of human cells. The changes indicate that the gene has been under strong evolutionary pressure in humans. Also, the human form of the gene, with its two changes, seems to have become universal in the human population, suggesting that it conferred some overwhelming benefit. Dr. Paabo contends that humans must already have possessed some rudimentary form of language before the FOXP2 gene gained its two mutations. By conferring the ability for rapid articulation, the improved gene may have swept through the population, providing the finishing touch to the acquisition of language. "Maybe this gene provided the last perfection of language, making it totally modern," Dr. Paabo said. The affected members of the London family in which the defective version of FOXP2 was discovered do possess a form of language. Their principal defect seems to lie in a lack of fine control over the muscles of the throat and mouth, needed for rapid speech. But in tests they find written answers as hard as verbal ones, suggesting that the defective gene causes conceptual problems as well as ones of muscular control. The human genome is constantly accumulating DNA changes through random mutation, though they seldom affect the actual structure of genes. When a new gene sweeps through the population, the genome's background diversity at that point is much reduced for a time, since everyone possesses the same stretch of DNA that came with the new gene. By measuring this reduced diversity and other features of a must-have gene, Dr. Paabo has estimated the age of the human version of FOXP2 as being less than 120,000 years. Dr. Paabo says this date fits with the theory advanced by Dr. Klein to account for the sudden appearance of novel behaviors 50,000 years ago, including art, ornamentation and long distance trade. Human remains from this period are physically indistinguishable from those of 100,000 years ago, leading Dr. Klein to propose that some genetically based cognitive change must have prompted the new behaviors. The only change of sufficient magnitude, in his view, is acquisition of language. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at . Visit the Walker Percy Project at From wpercy1 at mail.ibiblio.org Mon Dec 2 19:34:42 2002 From: wpercy1 at mail.ibiblio.org (Henry P. Mills) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:34:42 -0600 Subject: [percy-l] New Percy-L Submission Address, cntd. Message-ID: To all Percy-L members: This is a follow-up reminder that all future submissions to the listserv must be directed to: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Posts sent to the old address, percy-l at franklin.metalab.unc.edu, will fail and you will receive a terminal error message. This change means that if you simply reply to a message distributed through the old address (all messages prior to Friday), it will bounce. In this case, be certain, therefore, to substitute manually the new submission address for the old one in the To: field. Please send any email regarding questions, comments, or concerns directly to: wpercy1 at ibiblio.org Thank you, Henry P. Mills Director and Editor The Walker Percy Project http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From earthrisepress at comcast.net Tue Dec 3 07:07:28 2002 From: earthrisepress at comcast.net (Earthrise Press) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:07:28 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Message-ID: <007001c29ac4$8cf30700$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> "Wade Riddick" wrote: > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy a quotation to prompt comment? Frederick Glaysher Earthrise Press P. O. Box 81842 Rochester, MI 48308-1842 Voice: 248-651-3380 FAX: 248-608-6424 EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net www.fglaysher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From armstron at ohiou.edu Tue Dec 3 09:36:53 2002 From: armstron at ohiou.edu (Ken Armstrong) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:36:53 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings In-Reply-To: <007001c29ac4$8cf30700$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021203091216.01c9fa70@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> At 07:07 AM 12/3/2002 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote: Hey, Frederick, welcome to the list, I've enjoyed reading some of your essays (much to agree with, some not) since seeing your recent post on another list. I'm too tied to other duties to be much of a revivalist here, but your isolating the Percy quote below made me wonder not about the bad start the 21st may be off to (depends where you are?), but how now do we conceive ourselves in the cosmos? If rational, naturally good, and part of the cosmos then, what now? Or, in the "perception is everything" line of thought, how on the whole (not as individuals who may differ widely) do we conceive ourselves now? Ken Armstrong How about attempting a >"revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: > >Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: > >"The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well >as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... > >"It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision >of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, >which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also >ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." > >What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? >Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy >a quotation to prompt comment? > >Frederick Glaysher > >Earthrise Press >P. O. Box 81842 >Rochester, MI 48308-1842 >Voice: 248-651-3380 >FAX: 248-608-6424 >EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net >www.fglaysher.com From RGray at montreat.edu Tue Dec 3 09:38:39 2002 From: RGray at montreat.edu (Gray, Rich) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:38:39 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Message-ID: I'm an instructor at Montreat College in Western North Carolina. My Percy interest focuses on his novels. I just met with a reading circle who were finishing Thanatos Syndrome, Percy's last novel. Some of them objected articulately to the chaos in the plot: the Belle Ame school scene toward the end, the barrage of themes, Father Smith's whacky sermon at the end, and Tom More's passivity. I responded that this jumble of odd characters and scenes is Percy's way of reaching out toward the unnamed, post-Christian, chaotic age. How would any of you respond? Rich Gray [Original Message----- From: Earthrise Press [mailto:earthrisepress at comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings "Wade Riddick" wrote: > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy a quotation to prompt comment? Frederick Glaysher Earthrise Press P. O. Box 81842 Rochester, MI 48308-1842 Voice: 248-651-3380 FAX: 248-608-6424 EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net www.fglaysher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earthrisepress at comcast.net Tue Dec 3 11:35:00 2002 From: earthrisepress at comcast.net (Earthrise Press) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:35:00 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021203091216.01c9fa70@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> Message-ID: <003201c29ae9$ecb46ce0$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> Thanks Ken, for the welcome. I don't want to interfere with your duties but assume you can steal a moment or two since you responded. Given the Percy venue of this list, I'd say Percy suggests in the quotation I cite that the Enlightenment conception of man was destroyed by the catastrophes of the 20th Century, a common view he knew was not original to himself, i.e., so runs most of modern literature.... The cosmos has become a chaos, another commonplace. Isaac Bashevis Singer sums it up well in his Nobel Lecture, in terms Percy might have agreed with: "The serious writer of our time . . . cannot but see that the power of religion, especially belief in revelation, is weaker today than it was in any other epoch in human history. More and more children grow up without faith in God, without belief in reward and punishment, in the immortality of the soul, and even in the validity of ethics. The genuine writer cannot ignore the fact that the family is losing its spiritual foundation. All the dismal prophecies of Oswald Spengler have become realities since the Second World War. No technological achievements can mitigate the disappointment of modern man, his loneliness, his feeling of inferiority, and his fear of war, revolution and terror. Not only has our generation lost faith in Providence, but also in man himself, in his institutions, and often in those who are nearest to him." 1978. A lot of water under the bridge since then.... I agree "man is his thought." In such a chaos, the struggle in the early 21st Century is for the definition of "we." Percy marks out his ground in the rest of the piece I quoted from. I respect his conscience. Frederick Glaysher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Armstrong" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings > At 07:07 AM 12/3/2002 -0500, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > > Hey, Frederick, welcome to the list, I've enjoyed reading some of your > essays (much to agree with, some not) since seeing your recent post on > another list. I'm too tied to other duties to be much of a revivalist here, > but your isolating the Percy quote below made me wonder not about the bad > start the 21st may be off to (depends where you are?), but how now do we > conceive ourselves in the cosmos? If rational, naturally good, and part of > the cosmos then, what now? Or, in the "perception is everything" line of > thought, how on the whole (not as individuals who may differ widely) do we > conceive ourselves now? > > Ken Armstrong > > How about attempting a > >"revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: > > > >Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: > > > >"The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well > >as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... > > > >"It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision > >of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, > >which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also > >ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." > > > >What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? > >Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy > >a quotation to prompt comment? > > > >Frederick Glaysher > > > >Earthrise Press > >P. O. Box 81842 > >Rochester, MI 48308-1842 > >Voice: 248-651-3380 > >FAX: 248-608-6424 > >EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net > >www.fglaysher.com > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From earthrisepress at comcast.net Tue Dec 3 11:59:14 2002 From: earthrisepress at comcast.net (Earthrise Press) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:59:14 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: Message-ID: <003a01c29aed$4f381f80$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> Rich, I'd have responded that it's Percy's way of struggling or grappling with the age. Percy dramatizes the antinomies and conflicts in The Thanatos Syndrome. Much of what he wanted to say, as with all writers worth reading, resides in the tension.... At least, that's my view. A biased reader, perhaps. I'd want to convey too that Percy once said the main issue of The Thanatos Syndrome is "to what degree is the sacredness of the individual recognized," suggesting modern man seeks answers to the dilemmas of life in a diabolical pseudo-science reminiscent of the eugenics of Germany under Hitler. Frederick Glaysher ----- Original Message ----- From: Gray, Rich To: 'percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org' Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:38 AM Subject: RE: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings I'm an instructor at Montreat College in Western North Carolina. My Percy interest focuses on his novels. I just met with a reading circle who were finishing Thanatos Syndrome, Percy's last novel. Some of them objected articulately to the chaos in the plot: the Belle Ame school scene toward the end, the barrage of themes, Father Smith's whacky sermon at the end, and Tom More's passivity. I responded that this jumble of odd characters and scenes is Percy's way of reaching out toward the unnamed, post-Christian, chaotic age. How would any of you respond? Rich Gray [Original Message----- From: Earthrise Press [mailto:earthrisepress at comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings "Wade Riddick" wrote: > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy a quotation to prompt comment? Frederick Glaysher Earthrise Press P. O. Box 81842 Rochester, MI 48308-1842 Voice: 248-651-3380 FAX: 248-608-6424 EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net www.fglaysher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Tue Dec 3 12:05:06 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:05:06 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <007001c29ac4$8cf30700$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> Message-ID: <002801c29aee$264d0170$0301000a@AFAC955012> Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were all going to pot. An essay in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were killed in the Civil War than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical level, the 20th century wasn't any worse than other centuries... On a material level, our lives are terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than they have been ever (at least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy and the wars that are following it are tragedies of course -- but no worse than those that came before and actually far less I would say. However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why we're here, or who we are -- THIS is what's different about our century. On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this century is no better or worse than any others... We can still learn to be "ethical" in this transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern society -- ethical implies a statement about our behavior in the physical world, and the laws of nature still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't work, you won't produce and hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become motivated to work. If you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent you, abandon you, and you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If you cheat and lie, you will (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. Being unethical just doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the structure of the universe will ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically to succeed, or not learn our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will eventually fail." There are exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- THE world -- works that way. However, ethics is different from spirituality -- though the two are related more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense of meaning and purpose behind our actions. Spirituality implies something that is transcendent of the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. for Percy, something human -- different from the animals -- and entails such concepts and experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" and a "dark night" and "pattern" and "purpose." In other words, I can act ethically for the physical rewards/benefits of that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at all (though spirituality usually entails ethical actions). You referred to the "Thanatos Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters cavorting about engaging in all sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that that's unethical that is the problem with this -- but that it shows the absence of spirituality -- there's no meaning or purpose behind what should be a spiritual act. In TS, the water is tampered with to make a happy society on a physical plane, but there's no purpose to the happiness, no transcendent meaning related to that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is very closely related to Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in theme.) Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" work) has a great little book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind" (1989? though that might not be the first edition). In it he says the middle ages was an era in which man saw himself as a creature of God, as a creature with a soul, and his place in the world was determined by the state of his soul and relationship with God. So the middle ages was "Man with a soul," which became usurped in the Renaissance by mind, science, and intellect -- man was "Man with a mind," and in the 20th century, we no longer view our place in the world as defined by soul or mind, but by body. We are physical creatures, and that is the end of that. So, what's wrong with making society productive on a physical plane (certainly what the Nazis wanted -- Hitler was a Utopian) and people happy through physical inducement? It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It (the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Earthrise Press To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings "Wade Riddick" wrote: > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy a quotation to prompt comment? Frederick Glaysher Earthrise Press P. O. Box 81842 Rochester, MI 48308-1842 Voice: 248-651-3380 FAX: 248-608-6424 EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net www.fglaysher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Tue Dec 3 12:10:05 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:10:05 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Message-ID: <003a01c29aee$d3737b90$0301000a@AFAC955012> Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this time. I keep forgetting. KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were all going to pot. An essay in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were killed in the Civil War than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical level, the 20th century wasn't any worse than other centuries... On a material level, our lives are terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than they have been ever (at least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy and the wars that are following it are tragedies of course -- but no worse than those that came before and actually far less I would say. However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why we're here, or who we are -- THIS is what's different about our century. On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this century is no better or worse than any others... We can still learn to be "ethical" in this transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern society -- ethical implies a statement about our behavior in the physical world, and the laws of nature still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't work, you won't produce and hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become motivated to work. If you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent you, abandon you, and you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If you cheat and lie, you will (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. Being unethical just doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the structure of the universe will ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically to succeed, or not learn our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will eventually fail." There are exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- THE world -- works that way. However, ethics is different from spirituality -- though the two are related more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense of meaning and purpose behind our actions. Spirituality implies something that is transcendent of the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. for Percy, something human -- different from the animals -- and entails such concepts and experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" and a "dark night" and "pattern" and "purpose." In other words, I can act ethically for the physical rewards/benefits of that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at all (though spirituality usually entails ethical actions). You referred to the "Thanatos Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters cavorting about engaging in all sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that that's unethical that is the problem with this -- but that it shows the absence of spirituality -- there's no meaning or purpose behind what should be a spiritual act. In TS, the water is tampered with to make a happy society on a physical plane, but there's no purpose to the happiness, no transcendent meaning related to that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is very closely related to Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in theme.) Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" work) has a great little book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind" (1989? though that might not be the first edition). In it he says the middle ages was an era in which man saw himself as a creature of God, as a creature with a soul, and his place in the world was determined by the state of his soul and relationship with God. So the middle ages was "Man with a soul," which became usurped in the Renaissance by mind, science, and intellect -- man was "Man with a mind," and in the 20th century, we no longer view our place in the world as defined by soul or mind, but by body. We are physical creatures, and that is the end of that. So, what's wrong with making society productive on a physical plane (certainly what the Nazis wanted -- Hitler was a Utopian) and people happy through physical inducement? It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It (the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Earthrise Press To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings "Wade Riddick" wrote: > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy a quotation to prompt comment? Frederick Glaysher Earthrise Press P. O. Box 81842 Rochester, MI 48308-1842 Voice: 248-651-3380 FAX: 248-608-6424 EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net www.fglaysher.com From sldye at bluegrass.org Tue Dec 3 13:19:10 2002 From: sldye at bluegrass.org (Steve Dye) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:19:10 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <007001c29ac4$8cf30700$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> <002801c29aee$264d0170$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <006401c29af8$7af5ef20$e512a8c0@d247006> Well put! I may copy this and just hand it to folks who struggle with my own overblown and "convoluted" attempts to "explain" Percy! Thank you. ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were all going to pot. An essay in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were killed in the Civil War than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical level, the 20th century wasn't any worse than other centuries... On a material level, our lives are terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than they have been ever (at least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy and the wars that are following it are tragedies of course -- but no worse than those that came before and actually far less I would say. However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why we're here, or who we are -- THIS is what's different about our century. On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this century is no better or worse than any others... We can still learn to be "ethical" in this transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern society -- ethical implies a statement about our behavior in the physical world, and the laws of nature still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't work, you won't produce and hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become motivated to work. If you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent you, abandon you, and you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If you cheat and lie, you will (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. Being unethical just doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the structure of the universe will ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically to succeed, or not learn our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will eventually fail." There are exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- THE world -- works that way. However, ethics is different from spirituality -- though the two are related more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense of meaning and purpose behind our actions. Spirituality implies something that is transcendent of the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. for Percy, something human -- different from the animals -- and entails such concepts and experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" and a "dark night" and "pattern" and "purpose." In other words, I can act ethically for the physical rewards/benefits of that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at all (though spirituality usually entails ethical actions). You referred to the "Thanatos Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters cavorting about engaging in all sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that that's unethical that is the problem with this -- but that it shows the absence of spirituality -- there's no meaning or purpose behind what should be a spiritual act. In TS, the water is tampered with to make a happy society on a physical plane, but there's no purpose to the happiness, no transcendent meaning related to that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is very closely related to Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in theme.) Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" work) has a great little book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind" (1989? though that might not be the first edition). In it he says the middle ages was an era in which man saw himself as a creature of God, as a creature with a soul, and his place in the world was determined by the state of his soul and relationship with God. So the middle ages was "Man with a soul," which became usurped in the Renaissance by mind, science, and intellect -- man was "Man with a mind," and in the 20th century, we no longer view our place in the world as defined by soul or mind, but by body. We are physical creatures, and that is the end of that. So, what's wrong with making society productive on a physical plane (certainly what the Nazis wanted -- Hitler was a Utopian) and people happy through physical inducement? It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It (the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Earthrise Press To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings "Wade Riddick" wrote: > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy a quotation to prompt comment? Frederick Glaysher Earthrise Press P. O. Box 81842 Rochester, MI 48308-1842 Voice: 248-651-3380 FAX: 248-608-6424 EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net www.fglaysher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sldye at bluegrass.org Tue Dec 3 13:21:01 2002 From: sldye at bluegrass.org (Steve Dye) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:21:01 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: Message-ID: <007001c29af8$bcf5fdc0$e512a8c0@d247006> Right on! When I first read The Thanatos Syndrome after reading all of the others, I had the same reaction. Reading it wore me out. After a couple of other reads, however, I started to "get" it. Unfortunately, most folks won't have the time or the inclination to give it another chance. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gray, Rich To: 'percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org' Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:38 AM Subject: RE: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings I'm an instructor at Montreat College in Western North Carolina. My Percy interest focuses on his novels. I just met with a reading circle who were finishing Thanatos Syndrome, Percy's last novel. Some of them objected articulately to the chaos in the plot: the Belle Ame school scene toward the end, the barrage of themes, Father Smith's whacky sermon at the end, and Tom More's passivity. I responded that this jumble of odd characters and scenes is Percy's way of reaching out toward the unnamed, post-Christian, chaotic age. How would any of you respond? Rich Gray [Original Message----- From: Earthrise Press [mailto:earthrisepress at comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings "Wade Riddick" wrote: > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy a quotation to prompt comment? Frederick Glaysher Earthrise Press P. O. Box 81842 Rochester, MI 48308-1842 Voice: 248-651-3380 FAX: 248-608-6424 EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net www.fglaysher.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From earthrisepress at comcast.net Tue Dec 3 13:01:15 2002 From: earthrisepress at comcast.net (Earthrise Press) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:01:15 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <003a01c29aee$d3737b90$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <001c01c29af5$f98e1ae0$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> Karey wrote: >It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, >and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It >(the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. Are you sure? What do you make of THIS: http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/ Frederick Glaysher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this time. I keep forgetting. > > KP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Karey L. Perkins > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were all going to pot. An essay > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were killed in the Civil War > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical level, the 20th century wasn't > any worse than other centuries... On a material level, our lives are > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than they have been ever (at > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy and the wars that are > following it are tragedies of course -- but no worse than those that came > before and actually far less I would say. > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why we're here, or who we > are -- THIS is what's different about our century. > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this century is no better or > worse than any others... We can still learn to be "ethical" in this > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern society -- ethical implies a > statement about our behavior in the physical world, and the laws of nature > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't work, you won't produce and > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become motivated to work. If > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent you, abandon you, and > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If you cheat and lie, you will > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. Being unethical just > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the structure of the universe will > ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically to succeed, or not learn > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will eventually fail." There are > exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- THE world -- works that > way. > > However, ethics is different from spirituality -- though the two are related > more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense of meaning and purpose > behind our actions. Spirituality implies something that is transcendent of > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. for Percy, something > human -- different from the animals -- and entails such concepts and > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" and a "dark night" and > "pattern" and "purpose." > > In other words, I can act ethically for the physical rewards/benefits of > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at all (though spirituality > usually entails ethical actions). You referred to the "Thanatos > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters cavorting about engaging in all > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that that's unethical that is > the problem with this -- but that it shows the absence of spirituality -- > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should be a spiritual act. In TS, > the water is tampered with to make a happy society on a physical plane, but > there's no purpose to the happiness, no transcendent meaning related to > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is very closely related to > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in theme.) > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" work) has a great little > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > though that might not be the first edition). In it he says the middle ages > was an era in which man saw himself as a creature of God, as a creature with > a soul, and his place in the world was determined by the state of his soul > and relationship with God. So the middle ages was "Man with a soul," which > became usurped in the Renaissance by mind, science, and intellect -- man was > "Man with a mind," and in the 20th century, we no longer view our place in > the world as defined by soul or mind, but by body. We are physical > creatures, and that is the end of that. > > So, what's wrong with making society productive on a physical plane > (certainly what the Nazis wanted -- Hitler was a Utopian) and people happy > through physical inducement? It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, > and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It > (the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. > > Karey > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Earthrise Press > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > "Wade Riddick" wrote: > > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. > > I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest > in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a > "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: > > Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: > > "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well > as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... > > "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision > of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, > which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also > ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." > > What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? > Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy > a quotation to prompt comment? > > Frederick Glaysher > > Earthrise Press > P. O. Box 81842 > Rochester, MI 48308-1842 > Voice: 248-651-3380 > FAX: 248-608-6424 > EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net > www.fglaysher.com > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From karey at charter.net Tue Dec 3 13:16:13 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:16:13 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <003a01c29aee$d3737b90$0301000a@AFAC955012> <001c01c29af5$f98e1ae0$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> Message-ID: <00b101c29af8$10219b40$0301000a@AFAC955012> A great link! But...wouldn't it testify to Percy's point that we don't have direction in this society (and Huxley's -- John the Savage twirling from a rope, having hung himself in the lighthouse at the end of the novel like a directionless compass -- no direction in our world). Spirituality is not how our overarching culture defines us. There are many sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and a whole lot of my students are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly viewing themselves with a meaning, and defining themselves and their place and purpose in the world as spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no less -- but this is a sub-culture and they have just traveled only 50-100 miles from their hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and at work I suppose as well) with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think they're living a fairy tale. Humans are spiritual creatures and will, to a greater or lesser extent, look for some sort of spirituality to grasp onto -- but the dominant culture no longer guides and directs us in that, and hence we have all sorts of religious permutations -- sort of a grab bag -- take what suits you in the moment. If that is so, it kinda makes one think that if any of them will do, then none of them will do. Which is right? All? Some? None? A loss of universals, and hence, the postmodern world of physical "particulars," and "K-Mart Realism" (brand names) in literature taking the place of spiritual universal truths. ----- Original Message ----- From: Earthrise Press To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Karey wrote: >It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, >and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It >(the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. Are you sure? What do you make of THIS: http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/ Frederick Glaysher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this time. I keep forgetting. > > KP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Karey L. Perkins > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were all going to pot. An essay > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were killed in the Civil War > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical level, the 20th century wasn't > any worse than other centuries... On a material level, our lives are > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than they have been ever (at > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy and the wars that are > following it are tragedies of course -- but no worse than those that came > before and actually far less I would say. > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why we're here, or who we > are -- THIS is what's different about our century. > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this century is no better or > worse than any others... We can still learn to be "ethical" in this > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern society -- ethical implies a > statement about our behavior in the physical world, and the laws of nature > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't work, you won't produce and > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become motivated to work. If > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent you, abandon you, and > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If you cheat and lie, you will > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. Being unethical just > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the structure of the universe will > ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically to succeed, or not learn > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will eventually fail." There are > exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- THE world -- works that > way. > > However, ethics is different from spirituality -- though the two are related > more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense of meaning and purpose > behind our actions. Spirituality implies something that is transcendent of > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. for Percy, something > human -- different from the animals -- and entails such concepts and > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" and a "dark night" and > "pattern" and "purpose." > > In other words, I can act ethically for the physical rewards/benefits of > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at all (though spirituality > usually entails ethical actions). You referred to the "Thanatos > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters cavorting about engaging in all > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that that's unethical that is > the problem with this -- but that it shows the absence of spirituality -- > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should be a spiritual act. In TS, > the water is tampered with to make a happy society on a physical plane, but > there's no purpose to the happiness, no transcendent meaning related to > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is very closely related to > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in theme.) > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" work) has a great little > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > though that might not be the first edition). In it he says the middle ages > was an era in which man saw himself as a creature of God, as a creature with > a soul, and his place in the world was determined by the state of his soul > and relationship with God. So the middle ages was "Man with a soul," which > became usurped in the Renaissance by mind, science, and intellect -- man was > "Man with a mind," and in the 20th century, we no longer view our place in > the world as defined by soul or mind, but by body. We are physical > creatures, and that is the end of that. > > So, what's wrong with making society productive on a physical plane > (certainly what the Nazis wanted -- Hitler was a Utopian) and people happy > through physical inducement? It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, > and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It > (the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. > > Karey > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Earthrise Press > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > "Wade Riddick" wrote: > > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. > > I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest > in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a > "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: > > Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: > > "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well > as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... > > "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision > of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, > which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also > ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." > > What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? > Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy > a quotation to prompt comment? > > Frederick Glaysher > > Earthrise Press > P. O. Box 81842 > Rochester, MI 48308-1842 > Voice: 248-651-3380 > FAX: 248-608-6424 > EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net > www.fglaysher.com > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Tue Dec 3 13:25:54 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:25:54 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <003a01c29aee$d3737b90$0301000a@AFAC955012> <001c01c29af5$f98e1ae0$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> <00b101c29af8$10219b40$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <00c601c29af9$6a86d270$0301000a@AFAC955012> http://www.godulike.co.uk/ http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/ Frederick -- These two links above were at the bottom of that page -- and THAT if anything testifies to what religion is now. Rather than guiding us to something transcendant that we should serve, in the postmodern world, religion is here to serve us (rate your compatibility with the various world religions, find the God YOU like). That makes humans the god, rather than God. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings A great link! But...wouldn't it testify to Percy's point that we don't have direction in this society (and Huxley's -- John the Savage twirling from a rope, having hung himself in the lighthouse at the end of the novel like a directionless compass -- no direction in our world). Spirituality is not how our overarching culture defines us. There are many sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and a whole lot of my students are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly viewing themselves with a meaning, and defining themselves and their place and purpose in the world as spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no less -- but this is a sub-culture and they have just traveled only 50-100 miles from their hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and at work I suppose as well) with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think they're living a fairy tale. Humans are spiritual creatures and will, to a greater or lesser extent, look for some sort of spirituality to grasp onto -- but the dominant culture no longer guides and directs us in that, and hence we have all sorts of religious permutations -- sort of a grab bag -- take what suits you in the moment. If that is so, it kinda makes one think that if any of them will do, then none of them will do. Which is right? All? Some? None? A loss of universals, and hence, the postmodern world of physical "particulars," and "K-Mart Realism" (brand names) in literature taking the place of spiritual universal truths. ----- Original Message ----- From: Earthrise Press To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Karey wrote: >It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, >and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It >(the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. Are you sure? What do you make of THIS: http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/ Frederick Glaysher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this time. I keep forgetting. > > KP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Karey L. Perkins > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were all going to pot. An essay > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were killed in the Civil War > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical level, the 20th century wasn't > any worse than other centuries... On a material level, our lives are > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than they have been ever (at > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy and the wars that are > following it are tragedies of course -- but no worse than those that came > before and actually far less I would say. > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why we're here, or who we > are -- THIS is what's different about our century. > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this century is no better or > worse than any others... We can still learn to be "ethical" in this > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern society -- ethical implies a > statement about our behavior in the physical world, and the laws of nature > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't work, you won't produce and > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become motivated to work. If > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent you, abandon you, and > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If you cheat and lie, you will > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. Being unethical just > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the structure of the universe will > ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically to succeed, or not learn > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will eventually fail." There are > exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- THE world -- works that > way. > > However, ethics is different from spirituality -- though the two are related > more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense of meaning and purpose > behind our actions. Spirituality implies something that is transcendent of > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. for Percy, something > human -- different from the animals -- and entails such concepts and > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" and a "dark night" and > "pattern" and "purpose." > > In other words, I can act ethically for the physical rewards/benefits of > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at all (though spirituality > usually entails ethical actions). You referred to the "Thanatos > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters cavorting about engaging in all > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that that's unethical that is > the problem with this -- but that it shows the absence of spirituality -- > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should be a spiritual act. In TS, > the water is tampered with to make a happy society on a physical plane, but > there's no purpose to the happiness, no transcendent meaning related to > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is very closely related to > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in theme.) > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" work) has a great little > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > though that might not be the first edition). In it he says the middle ages > was an era in which man saw himself as a creature of God, as a creature with > a soul, and his place in the world was determined by the state of his soul > and relationship with God. So the middle ages was "Man with a soul," which > became usurped in the Renaissance by mind, science, and intellect -- man was > "Man with a mind," and in the 20th century, we no longer view our place in > the world as defined by soul or mind, but by body. We are physical > creatures, and that is the end of that. > > So, what's wrong with making society productive on a physical plane > (certainly what the Nazis wanted -- Hitler was a Utopian) and people happy > through physical inducement? It lacks any connection to meaning, purpose, > and man's place in the world as it relates to anything transcendent. It > (the postmodern age) lacks a spirituality. > > Karey > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Earthrise Press > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:07 AM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > "Wade Riddick" wrote: > > Well, the list appears to have gone dark, which isn't surprising what with > > the increasing corporate ownership of media and all. > > I've been occasionally lurking around for some months out of interest > in Percy's work, surfing the website too. How about attempting a > "revival" with one of my favorite quotations from Percy: > > Sign Posts in a Strange Land, 309: > > "The old modern age has ended. We live in a post-modern as well > as a post-Christian age which as yet has no name.... > > "It is post-modern because the Age of Enlightenment with its vision > of man as a rational creature, naturally good and part of the cosmos, > which itself is understandable by natural science--this age has also > ended. It ended with the catastrophes of the twentieth century." > > What are we to make of the catastrophes of the 21st Century? > Not off to an especially good start, are we?! Or too gloomy > a quotation to prompt comment? > > Frederick Glaysher > > Earthrise Press > P. O. Box 81842 > Rochester, MI 48308-1842 > Voice: 248-651-3380 > FAX: 248-608-6424 > EarthrisePress at Comcast.Net > www.fglaysher.com > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 14:04:44 2002 From: gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com (Jim Wesson) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 11:04:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings In-Reply-To: <00b101c29af8$10219b40$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <20021203190444.42036.qmail@web10805.mail.yahoo.com> > defines us. There are many > sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and a > whole lot of my students > are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly viewing > themselves with a > meaning, and defining themselves and their place and > purpose in the world as > spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no less > -- but this is a > sub-culture and they have just traveled only 50-100 > miles from their > hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and at > work I suppose as well) > with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think > they're living a fairy > tale. > >hi, well, i am not religious but you may have this all wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! peace, jim > > > > > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this > time. I keep forgetting. > > > > KP > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Karey L. Perkins > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > Largely Unrelated, Based > on > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were > all going to pot. An > essay > > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were > killed in the Civil War > > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical > level, the 20th century > wasn't > > any worse than other centuries... On a material > level, our lives are > > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than > they have been ever (at > > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy > and the wars that are > > following it are tragedies of course -- but no > worse than those that came > > before and actually far less I would say. > > > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why > we're here, or who we > > are -- THIS is what's different about our century. > > > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this > century is no better or > > worse than any others... We can still learn to be > "ethical" in this > > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern > society -- ethical implies a > > statement about our behavior in the physical > world, and the laws of nature > > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't > work, you won't produce and > > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become > motivated to work. If > > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent > you, abandon you, and > > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If > you cheat and lie, you > will > > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. > Being unethical just > > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the > structure of the universe will > > ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically > to succeed, or not > learn > > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will > eventually fail." There > are > > exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- > THE world -- works that > > way. > > > > However, ethics is different from spirituality -- > though the two are > related > > more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense > of meaning and purpose > > behind our actions. Spirituality implies > something that is transcendent > of > > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. > for Percy, something > > human -- different from the animals -- and entails > such concepts and > > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" > and a "dark night" and > > "pattern" and "purpose." > > > > In other words, I can act ethically for the > physical rewards/benefits of > > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at > all (though spirituality > > usually entails ethical actions). You referred to > the "Thanatos > > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters > cavorting about engaging in all > > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that > that's unethical that is > > the problem with this -- but that it shows the > absence of spirituality -- > > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should > be a spiritual act. In > TS, > > the water is tampered with to make a happy society > on a physical plane, > but > > there's no purpose to the happiness, no > transcendent meaning related to > > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is > very closely related to > > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in > theme.) > > > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" > work) has a great > little > > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the > Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > > though that might not be the first edition). In > it he says the middle > ages > > was an era in which man saw himself as a creature > of God, as a creature > with > > a soul, and his place in the world was determined > by the state of his soul > > and relationship with God. So the middle ages was > "Man with a soul," > which > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From RGray at montreat.edu Tue Dec 3 09:42:49 2002 From: RGray at montreat.edu (Gray, Rich) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:42:49 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Stephen Lawhead's novels Message-ID: Has anyone read Stephen Lawhead's novels? Does he approach fiction like Percy does? Rich Gray From karey at charter.net Tue Dec 3 19:52:38 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:52:38 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <20021203190444.42036.qmail@web10805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c29b2f$716aad60$0301000a@AFAC955012> Well, if you do figure it out, let me know! I had a literary theory professor once -- young, largely liberal leftist, Marxist, atheist (as is often found in the academy these days) -- who refused to debate Percy with me, saying, "I would be hostile to your point of view" (since he knew Percy's stance before we even began). I was sorely disappointed, as I thought his thoughts would inform mine -- especially since we began from different premises. Either I would discover flaws in my arguments, or new points to consider, or change it slightly or entirely, or, in the end, find it confirmed and strengthened -- or all of the above in some way. Anyway, perhaps the important consideration here is: what did Percy think about it? Didn't he think that the 20th century culture (on the whole) lacked spirituality? Wasn't that one of his primary messages? ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Wesson To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings > defines us. There are many > sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and a > whole lot of my students > are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly viewing > themselves with a > meaning, and defining themselves and their place and > purpose in the world as > spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no less > -- but this is a > sub-culture and they have just traveled only 50-100 > miles from their > hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and at > work I suppose as well) > with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think > they're living a fairy > tale. > >hi, well, i am not religious but you may have this all wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! peace, jim > > > > > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this > time. I keep forgetting. > > > > KP > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Karey L. Perkins > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > Largely Unrelated, Based > on > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were > all going to pot. An > essay > > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were > killed in the Civil War > > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical > level, the 20th century > wasn't > > any worse than other centuries... On a material > level, our lives are > > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than > they have been ever (at > > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy > and the wars that are > > following it are tragedies of course -- but no > worse than those that came > > before and actually far less I would say. > > > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why > we're here, or who we > > are -- THIS is what's different about our century. > > > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this > century is no better or > > worse than any others... We can still learn to be > "ethical" in this > > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern > society -- ethical implies a > > statement about our behavior in the physical > world, and the laws of nature > > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't > work, you won't produce and > > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become > motivated to work. If > > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent > you, abandon you, and > > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If > you cheat and lie, you > will > > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. > Being unethical just > > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the > structure of the universe will > > ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically > to succeed, or not > learn > > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will > eventually fail." There > are > > exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- > THE world -- works that > > way. > > > > However, ethics is different from spirituality -- > though the two are > related > > more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense > of meaning and purpose > > behind our actions. Spirituality implies > something that is transcendent > of > > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. > for Percy, something > > human -- different from the animals -- and entails > such concepts and > > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" > and a "dark night" and > > "pattern" and "purpose." > > > > In other words, I can act ethically for the > physical rewards/benefits of > > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at > all (though spirituality > > usually entails ethical actions). You referred to > the "Thanatos > > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters > cavorting about engaging in all > > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that > that's unethical that is > > the problem with this -- but that it shows the > absence of spirituality -- > > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should > be a spiritual act. In > TS, > > the water is tampered with to make a happy society > on a physical plane, > but > > there's no purpose to the happiness, no > transcendent meaning related to > > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is > very closely related to > > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in > theme.) > > > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" > work) has a great > little > > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the > Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > > though that might not be the first edition). In > it he says the middle > ages > > was an era in which man saw himself as a creature > of God, as a creature > with > > a soul, and his place in the world was determined > by the state of his soul > > and relationship with God. So the middle ages was > "Man with a soul," > which > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 20:53:00 2002 From: gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com (Jim Wesson) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:53:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings In-Reply-To: <001101c29b2f$716aad60$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <20021204015300.42965.qmail@web10802.mail.yahoo.com> well, it has more to do with the way you put down others like your'good ole southern baptist students,and people who belive in JC(no less. and people who believe in fairy tales. it is just a rather mean spitited attack on people really doing you no harm just because they think differently than you. has nothing to di with literary theory,marx,atheists or stuff like that. i think Percy thought it was ok to respect others thoughts.he even might have been 'the last gentleman' peace, jim --- "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > Well, if you do figure it out, let me know! I had > a literary theory > professor once -- young, largely liberal leftist, > Marxist, atheist (as is > often found in the academy these days) -- who > refused to debate Percy with > me, saying, "I would be hostile to your point of > view" (since he knew > Percy's stance before we even began). I was sorely > disappointed, as I > thought his thoughts would inform mine -- especially > since we began from > different premises. Either I would discover flaws > in my arguments, or new > points to consider, or change it slightly or > entirely, or, in the end, find > it confirmed and strengthened -- or all of the above > in some way. Anyway, > perhaps the important consideration here is: what > did Percy think about it? > Didn't he think that the 20th century culture (on > the whole) lacked > spirituality? Wasn't that one of his primary > messages? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Wesson > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > defines us. There are many > > sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and > a > > whole lot of my students > > are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly > viewing > > themselves with a > > meaning, and defining themselves and their place > and > > purpose in the world as > > spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no > less > > -- but this is a > > sub-culture and they have just traveled only > 50-100 > > miles from their > > hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and > at > > work I suppose as well) > > with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think > > they're living a fairy > > tale. > > > >hi, > > well, i am not religious but you may have this all > wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! > peace, > jim > > > > > > > > > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this > > time. I keep forgetting. > > > > > > KP > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Karey L. Perkins > > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > > Largely Unrelated, Based > > on > > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were > > all going to pot. An > > essay > > > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men > were > > killed in the Civil War > > > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical > > level, the 20th century > > wasn't > > > any worse than other centuries... On a material > > level, our lives are > > > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than > > they have been ever (at > > > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 > tragedy > > and the wars that are > > > following it are tragedies of course -- but no > > worse than those that came > > > before and actually far less I would say. > > > > > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why > > we're here, or who we > > > are -- THIS is what's different about our > century. > > > > > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say > this > > century is no better or > > > worse than any others... We can still learn to > be > > "ethical" in this > > > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern > > society -- ethical implies a > > > statement about our behavior in the physical > > world, and the laws of nature > > > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't > > work, you won't produce and > > > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and > become > > motivated to work. If > > > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent > > you, abandon you, and > > > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If > > you cheat and lie, you > > will > > > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. > > Being unethical just > > > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the > > structure of the universe will > > > ensure that we learn our lessons and act > ethically > > to succeed, or not > > learn > > > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will > > eventually fail." There > > are > > > exceptions, of course, but generally our world > -- > > THE world -- works that > > > way. > > > > > > However, ethics is different from spirituality > -- > > though the two are > > related > > > more often than not. Spirituality implies a > sense > > of meaning and purpose > > > behind our actions. Spirituality implies > > something that is transcendent > > of > > > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. > > for Percy, something > > > human -- different from the animals -- and > entails > > such concepts and > > > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a > "soul" > > and a "dark night" and > > > "pattern" and "purpose." > > > > > > In other words, I can act ethically for the > > physical rewards/benefits of > > > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at > > all (though spirituality > > > usually entails ethical actions). You referred > to > > the "Thanatos > > > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters > > cavorting about engaging in all > > > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not > that > > that's unethical that is > > > the problem with this -- but that it shows the > > absence of spirituality -- > > > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should > > be a spiritual act. In > > TS, > > > the water is tampered with to make a happy > society > > on a physical plane, > > but > > > there's no purpose to the happiness, no > > transcendent meaning related to > > > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is > > very closely related to > > > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in > > theme.) > > > > > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World > Religions" > > work) has a great > > little > > > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the > > Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > > > though that might not be the first edition). In > > it he says the middle > > ages > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From karey at charter.net Tue Dec 3 21:11:24 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:11:24 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <20021204015300.42965.qmail@web10802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005a01c29b3a$72716e00$0301000a@AFAC955012> Jim -- I wasn't trying to put down Southern Baptists, or those who believe in JC, or those who don't, or those who think they're "fairy tales" (or even liberal literary theorists). Sorry if it came out that way. The point that I was trying to make is that NONE of these stances is a given any more -- the person sitting next to you could just as easily believe in Buddha, Mohammad, Christ, or be an atheist, or something else entirely. The person on the other side of you believes something completely different. There are no universal spiritual truths that are agreed upon any more. That doesn't mean that there might not actually be universal spiritual truths (I personally happen to believe there are, as I believe did Percy) just that the 20th century didn't make that easy to find...it obscured such things, and often, denied such things. But people need this and as a result we have existential loneliness and alienation of our times. That's the problem with the century -- but also the gift of the century. If society doesn't give a spirituality to you, then you have to search for the truth that really is there. KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Wesson To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings well, it has more to do with the way you put down others like your'good ole southern baptist students,and people who belive in JC(no less. and people who believe in fairy tales. it is just a rather mean spitited attack on people really doing you no harm just because they think differently than you. has nothing to di with literary theory,marx,atheists or stuff like that. i think Percy thought it was ok to respect others thoughts.he even might have been 'the last gentleman' peace, jim --- "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > Well, if you do figure it out, let me know! I had > a literary theory > professor once -- young, largely liberal leftist, > Marxist, atheist (as is > often found in the academy these days) -- who > refused to debate Percy with > me, saying, "I would be hostile to your point of > view" (since he knew > Percy's stance before we even began). I was sorely > disappointed, as I > thought his thoughts would inform mine -- especially > since we began from > different premises. Either I would discover flaws > in my arguments, or new > points to consider, or change it slightly or > entirely, or, in the end, find > it confirmed and strengthened -- or all of the above > in some way. Anyway, > perhaps the important consideration here is: what > did Percy think about it? > Didn't he think that the 20th century culture (on > the whole) lacked > spirituality? Wasn't that one of his primary > messages? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Wesson > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > defines us. There are many > > sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and > a > > whole lot of my students > > are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly > viewing > > themselves with a > > meaning, and defining themselves and their place > and > > purpose in the world as > > spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no > less > > -- but this is a > > sub-culture and they have just traveled only > 50-100 > > miles from their > > hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and > at > > work I suppose as well) > > with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think > > they're living a fairy > > tale. > > > >hi, > > well, i am not religious but you may have this all > wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! > peace, > jim > > > > > > > > > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this > > time. I keep forgetting. > > > > > > KP > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Karey L. Perkins > > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > > Largely Unrelated, Based > > on > > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were > > all going to pot. An > > essay > > > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men > were > > killed in the Civil War > > > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical > > level, the 20th century > > wasn't > > > any worse than other centuries... On a material > > level, our lives are > > > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than > > they have been ever (at > > > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 > tragedy > > and the wars that are > > > following it are tragedies of course -- but no > > worse than those that came > > > before and actually far less I would say. > > > > > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why > > we're here, or who we > > > are -- THIS is what's different about our > century. > > > > > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say > this > > century is no better or > > > worse than any others... We can still learn to > be > > "ethical" in this > > > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern > > society -- ethical implies a > > > statement about our behavior in the physical > > world, and the laws of nature > > > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't > > work, you won't produce and > > > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and > become > > motivated to work. If > > > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent > > you, abandon you, and > > > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If > > you cheat and lie, you > > will > > > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. > > Being unethical just > > > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the > > structure of the universe will > > > ensure that we learn our lessons and act > ethically > > to succeed, or not > > learn > > > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will > > eventually fail." There > > are > > > exceptions, of course, but generally our world > -- > > THE world -- works that > > > way. > > > > > > However, ethics is different from spirituality > -- > > though the two are > > related > > > more often than not. Spirituality implies a > sense > > of meaning and purpose > > > behind our actions. Spirituality implies > > something that is transcendent > > of > > > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. > > for Percy, something > > > human -- different from the animals -- and > entails > > such concepts and > > > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a > "soul" > > and a "dark night" and > > > "pattern" and "purpose." > > > > > > In other words, I can act ethically for the > > physical rewards/benefits of > > > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at > > all (though spirituality > > > usually entails ethical actions). You referred > to > > the "Thanatos > > > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters > > cavorting about engaging in all > > > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not > that > > that's unethical that is > > > the problem with this -- but that it shows the > > absence of spirituality -- > > > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should > > be a spiritual act. In > > TS, > > > the water is tampered with to make a happy > society > > on a physical plane, > > but > > > there's no purpose to the happiness, no > > transcendent meaning related to > > > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is > > very closely related to > > > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in > > theme.) > > > > > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World > Religions" > > work) has a great > > little > > > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the > > Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > > > though that might not be the first edition). In > > it he says the middle > > ages > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From dabeck at iupui.edu Wed Dec 4 08:42:10 2002 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:42:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings In-Reply-To: <005a01c29b3a$72716e00$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: Karey/Jim, I have to agree with Karey on this one. I didn't see any attack on Southern Baptists or anyone for that matter. Jim's message surprised me so I went back and read the thread again, and still didn't see it. I think that Karey's explanation below is exactly how I interpreted her remarks. I also think they are quite accurate. I remember a discussion I had with a RC friend. She was saying that we should be thankful that we live in a time when Christians aren't being persecuted (in the U.S.). I replied that what perhaps shakes the faith more than overt persecution (which seems to have the opposite effect of bolstering one's faith) is the mere apathy that one meets when discussing or explaining one's beliefs. To say I'm Orthodox, RC, or protestant is met with a collective shrug of the shoulders, as if none alone is "right" but just a choice among any particular belief system. This reaction has a way of producing doubt about one's belief, since it is treated as so subjective, as if there is no possibility of a universal truth. At least if a gun is pointed to your head because of your faith, you know that it is powerful enough to be seen as a threat. In our moral/spiritual climate today, we have no common spiritual heritage that is shared by the majority. Each "sect" is a minority, as are Jim's Baptist students. But for the most part, these believers face no real hostility, but just the yawn of indifference. And I do think that this situation was of interest to Percy (read some of Lance's rants or the "sermons" in Thanatos). (Ah, the percylist lives again--in the words of Colin Clive: "It's alive! It's alive!") On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Karey L. Perkins wrote: > Jim -- I wasn't trying to put down Southern Baptists, or those who believe > in JC, or those who don't, or those who think they're "fairy tales" (or even > liberal literary theorists). Sorry if it came out that way. The point > that I was trying to make is that NONE of these stances is a given any > more -- the person sitting next to you could just as easily believe in > Buddha, Mohammad, Christ, or be an atheist, or something else entirely. The > person on the other side of you believes something completely different. > There are no universal spiritual truths that are agreed upon any more. That > doesn't mean that there might not actually be universal spiritual truths (I > personally happen to believe there are, as I believe did Percy) just that > the 20th century didn't make that easy to find...it obscured such things, > and often, denied such things. But people need this and as a result we have > existential loneliness and alienation of our times. That's the problem with > the century -- but also the gift of the century. If society doesn't give a > spirituality to you, then you have to search for the truth that really is > there. > > KP > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Wesson > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:53 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > well, it has more to do with the way you put down > others like your'good ole southern baptist > students,and people who belive in JC(no less. and > people who believe in fairy tales. it is just a > rather mean spitited attack on people really doing you > no harm just because they think differently than you. > has nothing to di with literary theory,marx,atheists > or stuff like that. > i think Percy thought it was ok to respect others > thoughts.he even might have been > 'the last gentleman' > peace, > jim > > > > > > > --- "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > > Well, if you do figure it out, let me know! I had > > a literary theory > > professor once -- young, largely liberal leftist, > > Marxist, atheist (as is > > often found in the academy these days) -- who > > refused to debate Percy with > > me, saying, "I would be hostile to your point of > > view" (since he knew > > Percy's stance before we even began). I was sorely > > disappointed, as I > > thought his thoughts would inform mine -- especially > > since we began from > > different premises. Either I would discover flaws > > in my arguments, or new > > points to consider, or change it slightly or > > entirely, or, in the end, find > > it confirmed and strengthened -- or all of the above > > in some way. Anyway, > > perhaps the important consideration here is: what > > did Percy think about it? > > Didn't he think that the 20th century culture (on > > the whole) lacked > > spirituality? Wasn't that one of his primary > > messages? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jim Wesson > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:04 PM > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > > Largely Unrelated, Based on > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > > > > defines us. There are many > > > sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and > > a > > > whole lot of my students > > > are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly > > viewing > > > themselves with a > > > meaning, and defining themselves and their place > > and > > > purpose in the world as > > > spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no > > less > > > -- but this is a > > > sub-culture and they have just traveled only > > 50-100 > > > miles from their > > > hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and > > at > > > work I suppose as well) > > > with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think > > > they're living a fairy > > > tale. > > > > > >hi, > > > > well, i am not religious but you may have this all > > wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! > > peace, > > jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this > > > time. I keep forgetting. > > > > > > > > KP > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Karey L. Perkins > > > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > > > Largely Unrelated, Based > > > on > > > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > > > > > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were > > > all going to pot. An > > > essay > > > > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men > > were > > > killed in the Civil War > > > > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical > > > level, the 20th century > > > wasn't > > > > any worse than other centuries... On a material > > > level, our lives are > > > > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than > > > they have been ever (at > > > > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 > > tragedy > > > and the wars that are > > > > following it are tragedies of course -- but no > > > worse than those that came > > > > before and actually far less I would say. > > > > > > > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why > > > we're here, or who we > > > > are -- THIS is what's different about our > > century. > > > > > > > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say > > this > > > century is no better or > > > > worse than any others... We can still learn to > > be > > > "ethical" in this > > > > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern > > > society -- ethical implies a > > > > statement about our behavior in the physical > > > world, and the laws of nature > > > > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't > > > work, you won't produce and > > > > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and > > become > > > motivated to work. If > > > > you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent > > > you, abandon you, and > > > > you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If > > > you cheat and lie, you > > > will > > > > (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. > > > Being unethical just > > > > doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the > > > structure of the universe will > > > > ensure that we learn our lessons and act > > ethically > > > to succeed, or not > > > learn > > > > our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will > > > eventually fail." There > > > are > > > > exceptions, of course, but generally our world > > -- > > > THE world -- works that > > > > way. > > > > > > > > However, ethics is different from spirituality > > -- > > > though the two are > > > related > > > > more often than not. Spirituality implies a > > sense > > > of meaning and purpose > > > > behind our actions. Spirituality implies > > > something that is transcendent > > > of > > > > the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. > > > for Percy, something > > > > human -- different from the animals -- and > > entails > > > such concepts and > > > > experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a > > "soul" > > > and a "dark night" and > > > > "pattern" and "purpose." > > > > > > > > In other words, I can act ethically for the > > > physical rewards/benefits of > > > > that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at > > > all (though spirituality > > > > usually entails ethical actions). You referred > > to > > > the "Thanatos > > > > Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters > > > cavorting about engaging in all > > > > sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not > > that > > > that's unethical that is > > > > the problem with this -- but that it shows the > > > absence of spirituality -- > > > > there's no meaning or purpose behind what should > > > be a spiritual act. In > > > TS, > > > > the water is tampered with to make a happy > > society > > > on a physical plane, > > > but > > > > there's no purpose to the happiness, no > > > transcendent meaning related to > > > > that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is > > > very closely related to > > > > Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in > > > theme.) > > > > > > > > Huston Smith (best known for his "World > > Religions" > > > work) has a great > > > little > > > > book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the > > > Post-Modern Mind" (1989? > > > > though that might not be the first edition). In > > > it he says the middle > > > ages > > > === message truncated === > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > David Beck "Eternity is in the present. Eternity is in the palm of the hand. Eternity is a seed of fire, whose sudden roots break barriers that keep my heart from being an abyss." - Thomas Merton From gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 4 08:26:24 2002 From: gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com (Jim Wesson) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 05:26:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings In-Reply-To: <005a01c29b3a$72716e00$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <20021204132625.27614.qmail@web10801.mail.yahoo.com> yes, and keep on searching. i think Camus found it. i haven't had a drink in a long time along with about 3 million others and we seem to get by quite nicely with a very simple spititual program. spirituality is all around us. and here in williamsburg,va. churches are springing up all over the place.the catholic church,st.bedes, just started building a new church to handle their overflow of over 8,000. so it looks like lots and lots are going to church. nice chatting, peace, jim > and as a result we have > existential loneliness and alienation of our times. > That's the problem with > the century -- but also the gift of the century. If > society doesn't give a > spirituality to you, then you have to search for the > truth that really is > there. > > KP > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jim Wesson > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:53 PM > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > Largely Unrelated, Based on > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > well, it has more to do with the way you put down > others like your'good ole southern baptist > students,and people who belive in JC(no less. and > people who believe in fairy tales. it is just a > rather mean spitited attack on people really doing > you > no harm just because they think differently than > you. > has nothing to di with literary theory,marx,atheists > or stuff like that. > i think Percy thought it was ok to respect others > thoughts.he even might have been > 'the last gentleman' > peace, > jim > > > > > > > --- "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > > Well, if you do figure it out, let me know! I > had > > a literary theory > > professor once -- young, largely liberal leftist, > > Marxist, atheist (as is > > often found in the academy these days) -- who > > refused to debate Percy with > > me, saying, "I would be hostile to your point of > > view" (since he knew > > Percy's stance before we even began). I was > sorely > > disappointed, as I > > thought his thoughts would inform mine -- > especially > > since we began from > > different premises. Either I would discover flaws > > in my arguments, or new > > points to consider, or change it slightly or > > entirely, or, in the end, find > > it confirmed and strengthened -- or all of the > above > > in some way. Anyway, > > perhaps the important consideration here is: what > > did Percy think about it? > > Didn't he think that the 20th century culture (on > > the whole) lacked > > spirituality? Wasn't that one of his primary > > messages? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jim Wesson > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:04 PM > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, > > Largely Unrelated, Based on > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > > > > defines us. There are many > > > sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, > and > > a > > > whole lot of my students > > > are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly > > viewing > > > themselves with a > > > meaning, and defining themselves and their place > > and > > > purpose in the world as > > > spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no > > less > > > -- but this is a > > > sub-culture and they have just traveled only > > 50-100 > > > miles from their > > > hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and > > at > > > work I suppose as well) > > > with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think > > > they're living a fairy > > > tale. > > > > > >hi, > > > > well, i am not religious but you may have this > all > > wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! > > peace, > > jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format > this > > > time. I keep forgetting. > > > > > > > > KP > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Karey L. Perkins > > > > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random > Thoughts, > > > Largely Unrelated, Based > > > on > > > > Previous Discussions and Readings > > > > > > > > > > > > Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day > were > > > all going to pot. An > > > essay > > > > in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men > > were > > > killed in the Civil War > > > > than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical > > > level, the 20th century > > > wasn't > > > > any worse than other centuries... On a > material > > > level, our lives are > > > > terrific (Percy would agree) and far better > than > > > they have been ever (at > > > > least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 > > tragedy > > > and the wars that are > > > > following it are tragedies of course -- but no > > > worse than those that came > > > > before and actually far less I would say. > > > > > > > > However, on a spiritual level, we don't know > why > > > we're here, or who we > > > > are -- THIS is what's different about our > > century. > > > > > > > > On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say > > this > > > century is no better or > > > > worse than any others... We can still learn > to > > be > > > "ethical" in this > > > > transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern > > > society -- ethical implies a > > > > statement about our behavior in the physical > > > world, and the laws of nature > > > > still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't > > > work, you won't produce and > > > > hence you will be fired, become hungry, and > > become > > > motivated to work. If > > > > you're a freeloader, people will know it, > resent > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From earthrisepress at comcast.net Wed Dec 4 07:54:11 2002 From: earthrisepress at comcast.net (Earthrise Press) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 07:54:11 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <003a01c29aee$d3737b90$0301000a@AFAC955012> <001c01c29af5$f98e1ae0$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> <00b101c29af8$10219b40$0301000a@AFAC955012> <00c601c29af9$6a86d270$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <001a01c29b94$3dfdbf20$c1895544@rocsth01.mi.comcast.net> Karey, Walker Percy, in his 1990 essay I quoted, could not experience the plethora of human consciousness in quite the same way as can millions of people, in several languages, who regularly google.... In The Thanatos Syndrome Percy could include a few characters logging on to various databases and downloading and so on all to great literary effect, but it now seems quaint compared to what has become possible in only a little over a decade. By the way, if God is a democrat, Christianity "wins"! http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/ Christianity (76650) Frederick Glaysher ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings > http://www.godulike.co.uk/ > http://www.selectsmart.com/RELIGION/ > > Frederick -- These two links above were at the bottom of that page -- and > THAT if anything testifies to what religion is now. Rather than guiding us > to something transcendant that we should serve, in the postmodern world, > religion is here to serve us (rate your compatibility with the various world > religions, find the God YOU like). That makes humans the god, rather than > God. > > Karey > > From mfrentz at bbn.com Thu Dec 5 11:52:46 2002 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:52:46 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <20021204015300.42965.qmail@web10802.mail.yahoo.com> <005a01c29b3a$72716e00$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <3DEF845E.60601@bbn.com> Karey, I largely agree with your thoughts. But I have to say your commentary also struck me a bit curiously (it struck me almost as representative of an observer of a world rather than a participant in the world..). One of the obvious byproducts seemingly symptomatic of our end of the twentieth century perspective is the notion of "political correctness" -- that is our (now pervasive) habit as a society of only saying what is considered socially acceptable rather than what is true, in order to avoid being rude. Consider the difference between the statements: "I believe there are universal truths" vs. "There are universal truths" What is the purpose of the first statement, other than to indicate that I believe that there is a truth however I don't believe it strongly enough that you should also believe it? There are universal spiritual truths, but they never were (and will never be) entirely agreed upon. There will always be the unenlightened.. This really isn't new relative to anywhere or anytime that I am aware of. I think what is new (from an American perspective, at least) is that the Judeo-Christian principles upon which American society (and Western Civilization, for that matter) were built are no longer being predominantly held in our society as being valid to the point that *all* members of that society must either acknowledge them to be true or to risk incurring the societal view that the philosophy they subscribe to is inferior. Case in point: this whole 10 Commandments controversy in Alabama -- this would have been considered frivolous fifty years ago. One of the key factors of the twentieth century to my thinking (borrowed from Percy) is that it destroyed the heretofore assumed/purported innocence of post-Enlightenment thinking. Having more people murdered during the twentieth century than the number that cumulatively existed throughout the history of the world, and in the vast majority of cases, by initially "well-meaning" philosophies that nevertheless displaced God by man as the supreme being (Blackmun, Stalin, Hitler..) Without God, a society will not stay "good" (yet our American educational system denies His very existence to the point where children cannot acknowledge that fact without fear of retribution by authorities). That is the true "gift" (the German meaning is even more apt..) of the twentieth century. All genuine religions aren't true, but all genuine religions ARE good, and each contains some fraction of truth (but only one contains the fullness of truth, by definition, if you acknowledge that the Truth exists, and also believe that God isn't incredibly perverse). Luckily, that religion teaches that your theology doesn't need to be perfect, the important thing is that you as an individual are striving for Truth, and given enough instruction, mentoring, searching (and lifetime), you will eventually find that Truth. It is there. And that is what we will be judged on (i.e. having Christ in your heart even if you've never heard His name). That doesn't make all religions the same in terms of equivalency, but good nonetheless, for those true of heart. Not everyone can eat steak. Pablum is also good food for the spiritually immature. I agree with you, in terms of spirituality being more of a "do it yourself" project in these times. I think this is abetted strongly by the overt expulsion of God from publicly supported institutions; these institutions which, in turn, strongly influence a society (the more Godless the society, the more pervasive these institutions seem to become, as well). It is ironic that the more information that is available, the more lost people become. The most educated society in the history of the world is, in many ways, the most clueless. You might be interested in the book "Chance or Dance" by Thomas Howard (Ignatius). Peter Kreeft describes it as the best book on the medieval mind he has ever read. Hearkening back to your earlier comment, I don't think the Renaissance was at all incompatible with the Middle Ages -- it was more the Reformation with its subsequent Enlightenment that caused God to be expelled from polite society rather than the Renaissance. Science and religion aren't nearly as incompatible as many of us were lead to believe (the Galileo debacle notwithstanding..) Mike Christianity is doubly offensive becasue it claims ... that God became one man, He and no other. One cannot imagine any statement more offensive to the present-day scientific set of mind. Accordingly, Hinduism and Buddhism, which have no scientific tradition... are far less offensive to the present-day scientic set of mind, are in fact quite compatible." (Signposts, p. 312) P.S. I also saw no offense in your Baptist, et al comments.. Karey L. Perkins wrote: >Jim -- I wasn't trying to put down Southern Baptists, or those who believe >in JC, or those who don't, or those who think they're "fairy tales" (or even >liberal literary theorists). Sorry if it came out that way. The point >that I was trying to make is that NONE of these stances is a given any >more -- the person sitting next to you could just as easily believe in >Buddha, Mohammad, Christ, or be an atheist, or something else entirely. The >person on the other side of you believes something completely different. >There are no universal spiritual truths that are agreed upon any more. That >doesn't mean that there might not actually be universal spiritual truths (I >personally happen to believe there are, as I believe did Percy) just that >the 20th century didn't make that easy to find...it obscured such things, >and often, denied such things. But people need this and as a result we have >existential loneliness and alienation of our times. That's the problem with >the century -- but also the gift of the century. If society doesn't give a >spirituality to you, then you have to search for the truth that really is >there. > >KP >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jim Wesson >To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:53 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on >Previous Discussions and Readings > > >well, it has more to do with the way you put down >others like your'good ole southern baptist >students,and people who belive in JC(no less. and >people who believe in fairy tales. it is just a >rather mean spitited attack on people really doing you >no harm just because they think differently than you. >has nothing to di with literary theory,marx,atheists >or stuff like that. > i think Percy thought it was ok to respect others >thoughts.he even might have been > 'the last gentleman' >peace, > jim > > > > > > >--- "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: > > >>Well, if you do figure it out, let me know! I had >>a literary theory >>professor once -- young, largely liberal leftist, >>Marxist, atheist (as is >>often found in the academy these days) -- who >>refused to debate Percy with >>me, saying, "I would be hostile to your point of >>view" (since he knew >>Percy's stance before we even began). I was sorely >>disappointed, as I >>thought his thoughts would inform mine -- especially >>since we began from >>different premises. Either I would discover flaws >>in my arguments, or new >>points to consider, or change it slightly or >>entirely, or, in the end, find >>it confirmed and strengthened -- or all of the above >>in some way. Anyway, >>perhaps the important consideration here is: what >>did Percy think about it? >>Didn't he think that the 20th century culture (on >>the whole) lacked >>spirituality? Wasn't that one of his primary >>messages? >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Jim Wesson >>To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >>Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:04 PM >>Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, >>Largely Unrelated, Based on >>Previous Discussions and Readings >> >> >> >> >> >>>defines us. There are many >>>sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and >>> >>> >>a >> >> >>>whole lot of my students >>>are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly >>> >>> >>viewing >> >> >>>themselves with a >>>meaning, and defining themselves and their place >>> >>> >>and >> >> >>>purpose in the world as >>>spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no >>> >>> >>less >> >> >>>-- but this is a >>>sub-culture and they have just traveled only >>> >>> >>50-100 >> >> >>>miles from their >>>hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and >>> >>> >>at >> >> >>>work I suppose as well) >>>with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think >>>they're living a fairy >>>tale. >>> >>>hi, >>> >>> >> well, i am not religious but you may have this all >>wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! >> peace, >> jim >> >> >>> >>> >>>>Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this >>>> >>>> >>>time. I keep forgetting. >>> >>> >>>>KP >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: Karey L. Perkins >>>>To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM >>>>Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, >>>> >>>> >>>Largely Unrelated, Based >>>on >>> >>> >>>>Previous Discussions and Readings >>>> >>>> >>>>Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were >>>> >>>> >>>all going to pot. An >>>essay >>> >>> >>>>in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men >>>> >>>> >>were >> >> >>>killed in the Civil War >>> >>> >>>>than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical >>>> >>>> >>>level, the 20th century >>>wasn't >>> >>> >>>>any worse than other centuries... On a material >>>> >>>> >>>level, our lives are >>> >>> >>>>terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than >>>> >>>> >>>they have been ever (at >>> >>> >>>>least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 >>>> >>>> >>tragedy >> >> >>>and the wars that are >>> >>> >>>>following it are tragedies of course -- but no >>>> >>>> >>>worse than those that came >>> >>> >>>>before and actually far less I would say. >>>> >>>>However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why >>>> >>>> >>>we're here, or who we >>> >>> >>>>are -- THIS is what's different about our >>>> >>>> >>century. >> >> >>>>On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say >>>> >>>> >>this >> >> >>>century is no better or >>> >>> >>>>worse than any others... We can still learn to >>>> >>>> >>be >> >> >>>"ethical" in this >>> >>> >>>>transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern >>>> >>>> >>>society -- ethical implies a >>> >>> >>>>statement about our behavior in the physical >>>> >>>> >>>world, and the laws of nature >>> >>> >>>>still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't >>>> >>>> >>>work, you won't produce and >>> >>> >>>>hence you will be fired, become hungry, and >>>> >>>> >>become >> >> >>>motivated to work. If >>> >>> >>>>you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent >>>> >>>> >>>you, abandon you, and >>> >>> >>>>you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If >>>> >>>> >>>you cheat and lie, you >>>will >>> >>> >>>>(eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. >>>> >>>> >>>Being unethical just >>> >>> >>>>doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the >>>> >>>> >>>structure of the universe will >>> >>> >>>>ensure that we learn our lessons and act >>>> >>>> >>ethically >> >> >>>to succeed, or not >>>learn >>> >>> >>>>our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will >>>> >>>> >>>eventually fail." There >>>are >>> >>> >>>>exceptions, of course, but generally our world >>>> >>>> >>-- >> >> >>>THE world -- works that >>> >>> >>>>way. >>>> >>>>However, ethics is different from spirituality >>>> >>>> >>-- >> >> >>>though the two are >>>related >>> >>> >>>>more often than not. Spirituality implies a >>>> >>>> >>sense >> >> >>>of meaning and purpose >>> >>> >>>>behind our actions. Spirituality implies >>>> >>>> >>>something that is transcendent >>>of >>> >>> >>>>the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. >>>> >>>> >>>for Percy, something >>> >>> >>>>human -- different from the animals -- and >>>> >>>> >>entails >> >> >>>such concepts and >>> >>> >>>>experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a >>>> >>>> >>"soul" >> >> >>>and a "dark night" and >>> >>> >>>>"pattern" and "purpose." >>>> >>>>In other words, I can act ethically for the >>>> >>>> >>>physical rewards/benefits of >>> >>> >>>>that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at >>>> >>>> >>>all (though spirituality >>> >>> >>>>usually entails ethical actions). You referred >>>> >>>> >>to >> >> >>>the "Thanatos >>> >>> >>>>Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters >>>> >>>> >>>cavorting about engaging in all >>> >>> >>>>sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not >>>> >>>> >>that >> >> >>>that's unethical that is >>> >>> >>>>the problem with this -- but that it shows the >>>> >>>> >>>absence of spirituality -- >>> >>> >>>>there's no meaning or purpose behind what should >>>> >>>> >>>be a spiritual act. In >>>TS, >>> >>> >>>>the water is tampered with to make a happy >>>> >>>> >>society >> >> >>>on a physical plane, >>>but >>> >>> >>>>there's no purpose to the happiness, no >>>> >>>> >>>transcendent meaning related to >>> >>> >>>>that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is >>>> >>>> >>>very closely related to >>> >>> >>>>Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in >>>> >>>> >>>theme.) >>> >>> >>>>Huston Smith (best known for his "World >>>> >>>> >>Religions" >> >> >>>work) has a great >>>little >>> >>> >>>>book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the >>>> >>>> >>>Post-Modern Mind" (1989? >>> >>> >>>>though that might not be the first edition). In >>>> >>>> >>>it he says the middle >>>ages >>> >>> >=== message truncated === > > >__________________________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. >http://mailplus.yahoo.com >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sldye at bluegrass.org Thu Dec 5 12:22:19 2002 From: sldye at bluegrass.org (Steve Dye) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:22:19 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings References: <20021204015300.42965.qmail@web10802.mail.yahoo.com> <005a01c29b3a$72716e00$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3DEF845E.60601@bbn.com> Message-ID: <024401c29c82$de3211a0$e512a8c0@d247006> Related to this discussion, there was an essay in a recent issue of Harper's Magazine titled something to the effect of "The Poverty of Unbelief" - dont remember the author's name but will find it and send out. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Frentz To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Karey, I largely agree with your thoughts. But I have to say your commentary also struck me a bit curiously (it struck me almost as representative of an observer of a world rather than a participant in the world..). One of the obvious byproducts seemingly symptomatic of our end of the twentieth century perspective is the notion of "political correctness" -- that is our (now pervasive) habit as a society of only saying what is considered socially acceptable rather than what is true, in order to avoid being rude. Consider the difference between the statements: "I believe there are universal truths" vs. "There are universal truths" What is the purpose of the first statement, other than to indicate that I believe that there is a truth however I don't believe it strongly enough that you should also believe it? There are universal spiritual truths, but they never were (and will never be) entirely agreed upon. There will always be the unenlightened.. This really isn't new relative to anywhere or anytime that I am aware of. I think what is new (from an American perspective, at least) is that the Judeo-Christian principles upon which American society (and Western Civilization, for that matter) were built are no longer being predominantly held in our society as being valid to the point that *all* members of that society must either acknowledge them to be true or to risk incurring the societal view that the philosophy they subscribe to is inferior. Case in point: this whole 10 Commandments controversy in Alabama -- this would have been considered frivolous fifty years ago. One of the key factors of the twentieth century to my thinking (borrowed from Percy) is that it destroyed the heretofore assumed/purported innocence of post-Enlightenment thinking. Having more people murdered during the twentieth century than the number that cumulatively existed throughout the history of the world, and in the vast majority of cases, by initially "well-meaning" philosophies that nevertheless displaced God by man as the supreme being (Blackmun, Stalin, Hitler..) Without God, a society will not stay "good" (yet our American educational system denies His very existence to the point where children cannot acknowledge that fact without fear of retribution by authorities). That is the true "gift" (the German meaning is even more apt..) of the twentieth century. All genuine religions aren't true, but all genuine religions ARE good, and each contains some fraction of truth (but only one contains the fullness of truth, by definition, if you acknowledge that the Truth exists, and also believe that God isn't incredibly perverse). Luckily, that religion teaches that your theology doesn't need to be perfect, the important thing is that you as an individual are striving for Truth, and given enough instruction, mentoring, searching (and lifetime), you will eventually find that Truth. It is there. And that is what we will be judged on (i.e. having Christ in your heart even if you've never heard His name). That doesn't make all religions the same in terms of equivalency, but good nonetheless, for those true of heart. Not everyone can eat steak. Pablum is also good food for the spiritually immature. I agree with you, in terms of spirituality being more of a "do it yourself" project in these times. I think this is abetted strongly by the overt expulsion of God from publicly supported institutions; these institutions which, in turn, strongly influence a society (the more Godless the society, the more pervasive these institutions seem to become, as well). It is ironic that the more information that is available, the more lost people become. The most educated society in the history of the world is, in many ways, the most clueless. You might be interested in the book "Chance or Dance" by Thomas Howard (Ignatius). Peter Kreeft describes it as the best book on the medieval mind he has ever read. Hearkening back to your earlier comment, I don't think the Renaissance was at all incompatible with the Middle Ages -- it was more the Reformation with its subsequent Enlightenment that caused God to be expelled from polite society rather than the Renaissance. Science and religion aren't nearly as incompatible as many of us were lead to believe (the Galileo debacle notwithstanding..) Mike Christianity is doubly offensive becasue it claims ... that God became one man, He and no other. One cannot imagine any statement more offensive to the present-day scientific set of mind. Accordingly, Hinduism and Buddhism, which have no scientific tradition... are far less offensive to the present-day scientic set of mind, are in fact quite compatible." (Signposts, p. 312) P.S. I also saw no offense in your Baptist, et al comments.. Karey L. Perkins wrote: Jim -- I wasn't trying to put down Southern Baptists, or those who believe in JC, or those who don't, or those who think they're "fairy tales" (or even liberal literary theorists). Sorry if it came out that way. The point that I was trying to make is that NONE of these stances is a given any more -- the person sitting next to you could just as easily believe in Buddha, Mohammad, Christ, or be an atheist, or something else entirely. The person on the other side of you believes something completely different. There are no universal spiritual truths that are agreed upon any more. That doesn't mean that there might not actually be universal spiritual truths (I personally happen to believe there are, as I believe did Percy) just that the 20th century didn't make that easy to find...it obscured such things, and often, denied such things. But people need this and as a result we have existential loneliness and alienation of our times. That's the problem with the century -- but also the gift of the century. If society doesn't give a spirituality to you, then you have to search for the truth that really is there. KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Wesson To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings well, it has more to do with the way you put down others like your'good ole southern baptist students,and people who belive in JC(no less. and people who believe in fairy tales. it is just a rather mean spitited attack on people really doing you no harm just because they think differently than you. has nothing to di with literary theory,marx,atheists or stuff like that. i think Percy thought it was ok to respect others thoughts.he even might have been 'the last gentleman' peace, jim --- "Karey L. Perkins" wrote: Well, if you do figure it out, let me know! I had a literary theory professor once -- young, largely liberal leftist, Marxist, atheist (as is often found in the academy these days) -- who refused to debate Percy with me, saying, "I would be hostile to your point of view" (since he knew Percy's stance before we even began). I was sorely disappointed, as I thought his thoughts would inform mine -- especially since we began from different premises. Either I would discover flaws in my arguments, or new points to consider, or change it slightly or entirely, or, in the end, find it confirmed and strengthened -- or all of the above in some way. Anyway, perhaps the important consideration here is: what did Percy think about it? Didn't he think that the 20th century culture (on the whole) lacked spirituality? Wasn't that one of his primary messages? ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Wesson To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings defines us. There are many sub-cultures that do so -- I live in Atlanta, and a whole lot of my students are good ole South Georgia Baptists, firmly viewing themselves with a meaning, and defining themselves and their place and purpose in the world as spiritual creatures -- saved by Jesus Christ no less -- but this is a sub-culture and they have just traveled only 50-100 miles from their hometown to sit side by side in a classroom (and at work I suppose as well) with others -- the majority I'd say -- who think they're living a fairy tale. hi, well, i am not religious but you may have this all wrong and i can not even explain what i mean! peace, jim Oops -- same message, but Plain Text format this time. I keep forgetting. KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings Aristotle thought the teenagers of his day were all going to pot. An essay in Percy's Signposts says more (American) men were killed in the Civil War than WWI and WWII put together. On a physical level, the 20th century wasn't any worse than other centuries... On a material level, our lives are terrific (Percy would agree) and far better than they have been ever (at least the Northern Hemisphere). The 9/11 tragedy and the wars that are following it are tragedies of course -- but no worse than those that came before and actually far less I would say. However, on a spiritual level, we don't know why we're here, or who we are -- THIS is what's different about our century. On an ETHICAL level, however, I'd have to say this century is no better or worse than any others... We can still learn to be "ethical" in this transient, anonymous, capitalist, postmodern society -- ethical implies a statement about our behavior in the physical world, and the laws of nature still apply. I.E.: If you're lazy and don't work, you won't produce and hence you will be fired, become hungry, and become motivated to work. If you're a freeloader, people will know it, resent you, abandon you, and you'll soon lose people to freeload off of. If you cheat and lie, you will (eventually) be found out. Enron and WorldCom. Being unethical just doesn't work -- in the long run -- and the structure of the universe will ensure that we learn our lessons and act ethically to succeed, or not learn our lessons and fail. "What doesn't work will eventually fail." There are exceptions, of course, but generally our world -- THE world -- works that way. However, ethics is different from spirituality -- though the two are related more often than not. Spirituality implies a sense of meaning and purpose behind our actions. Spirituality implies something that is transcendent of the physical world. Spirituality implies, esp. for Percy, something human -- different from the animals -- and entails such concepts and experiences of "joy" and "alienation" and a "soul" and a "dark night" and "pattern" and "purpose." In other words, I can act ethically for the physical rewards/benefits of that and have no spiritual purpose behind it at all (though spirituality usually entails ethical actions). You referred to the "Thanatos Syndrome" -- in it you have the characters cavorting about engaging in all sorts of meaningless sexual acts -- it's not that that's unethical that is the problem with this -- but that it shows the absence of spirituality -- there's no meaning or purpose behind what should be a spiritual act. In TS, the water is tampered with to make a happy society on a physical plane, but there's no purpose to the happiness, no transcendent meaning related to that. (In this way, to me, Thanatos Syndrome is very closely related to Huxley's Brave New World -- in events and in theme.) Huston Smith (best known for his "World Religions" work) has a great little book, a pretty quick read, called "Beyond the Post-Modern Mind" (1989? though that might not be the first edition). In it he says the middle ages === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 5 18:27:46 2002 From: gypsyjimmy1 at yahoo.com (Jim Wesson) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 15:27:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [percy-l] 2 sides to the coin Message-ID: <20021205232746.16935.qmail@web10801.mail.yahoo.com> i wonder if there is a school of thought that says that even though many terrible things happened last century,there were also more good things that happened than ever before.i mean, how can you not bring into account all the millions of people who go to work every day and in their small(or large) way make the world a little better? and they are everywhere! peace, jim __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From dabeck at iupui.edu Thu Dec 5 20:23:31 2002 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 20:23:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] 2 sides to the coin In-Reply-To: <20021205232746.16935.qmail@web10801.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Of course there is such a school of thought. That school thought is found, among others, in Percy. What about Tom More trying to get his "practice" on track, going to mass, etc. (or before, when he and his daughter went together to church on Sunday morning)? Or Will Barrett trying to make Jamie's last days better, etc.? I guess I'm not seeing the negativity that you are seeing in this thread. Of course there are two sides to the coin. While, for some (myself included,), we live in a world (or a country) where we are somewhat spiritually numb (probably due to the endless choices of "spirituality" that are out there). But the beauty of existence is found in just what you said: the everyday person, getting up, facing another day, and pushing on. The belief that each day might be the day that we discover more of the mystery of existence in each person we meet, each living plant we see, each living thing "both great and small". To approach the world like Robinson Crusoe on a strange island or Binx Bolling noticing the man leaving church with ashes on his forehead, that what it's all about, isn't it? Searching and looking for signs of live (and they are out there!). I don't think any "school of thought" is worth anything if it doesn't include the other side of the coin. That's why I'm drawn to Percy, Marcel, Levinas, and Bakhtin. Each encounter we have has the potential of being a life-changing experience. In fact, maybe each encounter is a live-changing experience but we fail to notice because of our hurries and worries. (Sorry for the sermon!--and all of the fragments.) On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Jim Wesson wrote: > > i wonder if there is a school of thought that says > that even though many terrible things happened last > century,there were also more good things that happened > than ever before.i mean, how can you not bring into > account all the millions of people who go to work > every day and in their small(or large) way make the > world a little better? and they are everywhere! > peace, > jim > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > David Beck "Eternity is in the present. Eternity is in the palm of the hand. Eternity is a seed of fire, whose sudden roots break barriers that keep my heart from being an abyss." - Thomas Merton From PALawler at aol.com Fri Dec 6 12:20:00 2002 From: PALawler at aol.com (PALawler at aol.com) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:20:00 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] postmodernism (fwd) Message-ID: <3E15550E.142F34E0.0073B0F8@aol.com> Dear Mr. Beck and the others, I don't check my aol that often so I just discovered your message. Thanks for plugging my POSTMODERNISM, which has 2 long chapters on Percy--including on THE THANATOS SYNDROME. But not only that! My new ALIENS IN AMERICA: THE STRANGE TRUTH ABOUT OUR SOULS has a chapter on Percy and Carl Sagan and another on Percy, Tocqueville, William Alexander Percy on aristocracy and democracy in America. If anyone wants to discuss any of this, I would be glad to respond. Please excuse this shameless self-promotion. Peter Lawler From dabeck at iupui.edu Fri Dec 6 16:38:18 2002 From: dabeck at iupui.edu (David Alan Beck) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:38:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [percy-l] postmodernism (fwd) In-Reply-To: <3E15550E.142F34E0.0073B0F8@aol.com> Message-ID: I, for one, would like to hear/read a synopsis of both books. The postmodern book is in my shopping cart at amazon. I haven't checked on your new book. Can you give us a nutshell version of both? Thanks. -David On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 PALawler at aol.com wrote: > Dear Mr. Beck and the others, > I don't check my aol that often so I just discovered your message. Thanks for plugging my POSTMODERNISM, which has 2 > long chapters on Percy--including on THE THANATOS SYNDROME. But not only that! My new ALIENS IN AMERICA: THE STRANGE TRUTH ABOUT OUR SOULS has a chapter on Percy and Carl Sagan and another on Percy, Tocqueville, William Alexander Percy on aristocracy and democracy in America. If anyone wants to discuss any of this, I would be glad to respond. > > Please excuse this shameless self-promotion. > Peter Lawler > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > > David Beck "Eternity is in the present. Eternity is in the palm of the hand. Eternity is a seed of fire, whose sudden roots break barriers that keep my heart from being an abyss." - Thomas Merton From wriddick at usa.net Sun Dec 8 00:52:06 2002 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 23:52:06 -0600 Subject: [percy-l] Re: Some Random Thoughts, Largely Unrelated, Based on Previous Discussions and Readings In-Reply-To: <024401c29c82$de3211a0$e512a8c0@d247006> References: <20021204015300.42965.qmail@web10802.mail.yahoo.com> <005a01c29b3a$72716e00$0301000a@AFAC955012> <3DEF845E.60601@bbn.com> Message-ID: What's going on in post-Christian society? Well, I've written about this extensively in the past, if memory serves, so I won't try to rehash too many old arguments. Go back and look for references to Louis Hartz in the archive if you wish. Aside from transforming the mark of grace into the mark of profit, there's all sorts of Calvinist foreordination and Manichean dualism which remain in American history. It's alive and well today in the "axis of evil." In a strange way, I guess you could call it almost Gnostic - a reduction of moral complexity completely to the physical plane, where stuff is no longer just stuff and people no longer just people. http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/333/oped/The_problem_at_the_root_of_US_Europea n_discord+.shtml In DeJulio is to be believed, on the right we now have "Mayberry Machiavellis" catering to right wing "Christian" hopes that a nuclear war in Israel will herald the Rapture. This is not your Eisenhower's party. It's a right wing with remarkably little capacity for self-assessment or introspection. On the other side of the aisle, we have Jesus Christ refusing to drive an SUV - which, I suppose, adds fresh meaning to the occasional exclamation of "Jesus Christ on a bike!" I used to hear growing up. We definitely have more of this on the right than the left today - more money, more self-indulgent outrage, more self-obsessed piety. I have a feeling the longer the tilt goes on, you're going to see more of this crop back up on the left. While my mercury poisoning came from amalgams, I don't think the families of autistics were too happy to see legal protections for Eli Lilly put into the Homeland Security bill. I've also gotta worry about the extra mercury Bush's coal-burning plants will belch out under his "voluntary" pollution guidelines. Isn't this what the Manicheans always get? If someone can become the devil incarnate, then can't someone on our side become a god - a holy man, unable to be questioned, correct in his every utterance? Suffice it to say, our founding fathers were definitely quite pragmatic in their judgments about their fellow man - but then they'd paid their dues under monarchical absolutism already. Where's today's Harry Truman or Henry V upbraiding his troops not to celebrate in the suffering of his enemies? Isn't this immanence and transcendence? Sorry to take so long to respond, but it's taken me over a year to figure out I have glucocorticoid insensitivity - not that any doctor helped me find this out, mind you. Oh yeah, anybody with teenage acne's had it too. They reported this last week. Thought some of you might like to know how the American diet is doing you in. From karey at charter.net Thu Dec 12 13:45:48 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:45:48 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness Message-ID: <004501c2a20e$b065ab10$0301000a@AFAC955012> This conversation about ethics and spirituality in a postmodern world is fascinating -- but I would like to bring up a different subject....since my dissertation is on Percy's language theory primarily, which is fairly dense and complex, that's what I'm trying to tackle and make sense of at the moment.... I know that some of you (I do seem to remember Nikki mentioned something about this) don't completely agree, or don't know if you agree, on Percy's take that the animals do not have consciousness. I'm having a conversation with a friend at the moment who is convinced that animals have consciousness, that their communication is only quantitatively different (due to lesser mental capacity) rather than qualitatively different from human communication. And, he is sure that Percy's arguments (or perhaps just my summary of Percy's arguments) fail to make the point that human language is any different than that of the animals (to that end, he's sent many articles on animal communication and one is included below.) Here is my response (below) to his response -- my questions to the Percy listserv are: (1) Is this what Percy would say? Is this really what his language theory says? and (2) Do you agree or disagree with Percy's points on animal communication and consciousness, and why? (If I have indeed conveyed Percy's points accurately and effectively.) Thanks for any feedback!! Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: ken denney Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:30 PM Subject: Re: latest version Ken -- thanks for the article, and I will check out the links you sent before this. However, it still does not address or refute what Percy is saying -- please let me know your response to this so I can continue to process it: Percy is NOT saying animals don't communicate -- they do. All of these articles are just that animals communicate. He is saying the NATURE of animal communication is different. I've not quite gotten the entire picture yet that Percy wants to convey, but here's at least one difference that I think he's saying: Animals communicate by instinct and for survival. In other words, all the examples you've given me are so the animals can eat, or mate, or some such. But animals don't communicate to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the world -- unless it's for survival. But they don't want to know WHY. They don't want a MEANING for what they are doing -- they're doing it because that's how, biologically, they are programmed. Even when Bob, my wonderful cat who does have feelings, is loving to me, it's instinct, but there's no sense of ego in what he does and no sense of purpose, he does it because that's part of what a cat does. He doesn't question, "who am I?" or "who is this other cat or who is this human being?" He interacts with those things -- yes, and communicates with those things -- yes. But he will only gather information about that person for his own survival (i.e.: this other animal is a dog who wishes to eat me so I will avoid it) but not because he wonders about the nature of the dog ethically, or the meaning of that dog's presence in his world and his life. Bob does not wonder about a dog or himself even with the kind of [meta-] awareness, or self-awareness that a human being has. It's a QUALITATIVE difference in communication not quantitative -- animals communicate by instinct for survival, humans communicate for different reasons -- sometimes for survival, but other times to know and understand and come up with reasons for our existence. So I think Percy's definition of consciousness is different from having feelings (whether physical or emotional feelings) about things. It's a kind of over-and-above awareness. It's not just interacting biologically with the environment to survive (which can include communication with humans and other animals) but it is awareness that one is interacting with the environment, and wondering about the nature of why we interact, the nature of the world, and the nature of our selves in that we do such things -- and constructing reasons and paradigms and myths and meanings for that -- our pets don't wonder why they are loving or why they seek to eat -- they just do it. Let me know what you think!!! KP ----- Original Message ----- From: ken denney To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:24 PM Subject: Re: latest version This transcript of a program I heard four years ago on NPR will BLOW YOU AWAY: SHOW: WEEKLY EDITION: THE BEST OF NPR NEWS (3:00 PM ET) November 13, 1999, Saturday LENGTH: 2749 words HEADLINE: INSECT COMMUNICATIONS ANCHORS: NEAL CONAN REPORTERS: ALEX CHADWICK BODY: NEAL CONAN, host: This is NPR's WEEKLY EDITION. I'm Neal Conan. Over the years, Radio Expeditions has taken us to an assortment of exotic locales. These NPR-National Geographic co-productions have visited places as distant and diverse as Midway Island, Madagascar and Malaysia, and those are just some of the M's. This past week, though, NPR's Alex Chadwick took Dorothy's advice from "The Wizard of Oz," clicked his ruby slippers three times and said, 'There's no place like home.' (Soundbite of "The Wizard of Oz") Ms. JUDY GARLAND ("Dorothy Gale"): If I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own back yard. ALEX CHADWICK reporting: Never mind heart's desire, I'll simply tell you this. Any ordinary back yard holds fantastic creatures we have barely begun to know. That's what made me think of Oz, and this is why. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: We're walking a long gravel drive near Leesburg, Virginia, about 20 miles from where my brother and I spent boyhood years. I think there's nothing in these woods I don't already know. Dr. REX COCROFT (Research Biologist): All right. Well, let's check a couple small trees over there. CHADWICK: OK. Dr. COCROFT: And let's check over on the other side of that road. CHADWICK: I'm following a research biologist named Rex Cocroft across his family's dozen acres of country land. We're looking for a black locust tree, the kind favored by a particular species of insect, something called a treehopper. Dr. COCROFT: OK. So here we are. There's ants running around... CHADWICK: Oh, yeah. Dr. COCROFT: ...and lo and behold, here's an aggregation of about eight treehoppers. When you first look at it, it almost looks like there are 50 insects there, but it's just because they're covered with ants. CHADWICK: You'd barely notice them, just a small cluster of dark shapes along one side of a slender step. Dr. COCROFT: Oh, here's a few more, maybe. Ten treehoppers in this stretch. CHADWICK: And if we put the accelerometers on the stem, we would hear those things. They're calling now, you think? Dr. COCROFT: Probably. CHADWICK: Scientists have known for years that insects call to each other in ways that we cannot normally hear. They use twigs and branches like a local phone line. Dr. Cocroft has learned how to tap in, even though for a while he didn't think it would be worth the bother. Dr. COCROFT: I thought, 'Well, those signals are--oh, they're just gonna be boring and little wispy tappings,' and then the first time I listened to these treehoppers, especially which seemed to have particularly bizarre signals, it completely expanded my concept of insect sound. And I could never go back to thinking of insect sounds as just like crickets or katydids do. I love those sounds. I love listening to them. But these are completely different. CHADWICK: They are completely different in every way, beginning with the process of listening to them. It will take us hours to get things right. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: All sound is vibration. That's what your ears detect, a trembling in the air. But many insects send vibrations through the stems of plants. The bugs are very small, and moving air would actually take more energy. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: In order to listen, we have to sense the vibrations and turn them into something our ears can hear. A phonograph needle will do it or a small instrument called an accelerometer. That's what Rex is sticking onto a branch. (Soundbite of music) Dr. COCROFT: These sounds are transmitted along the stem as what are called bending waves, so that the stem itself is actually flexing minutely and that this flexure is traveling along the stem. So, in that sense, it's very different from sound. It's sound, but we are not set up to hear it. Our ears are firmly in the middle of this three-dimensional medium air, and we have no way of listening to a sound traveling through a stem. CHADWICK: The black locust sapling looks like a nuisance shrub going in for an EKG, two thin wires dangling from the branches of rangy scraggle. Dr. COCROFT: Let's just try this. CHADWICK: It's a warm September afternoon by a small barn at the edge of a field. This is the world we normally hear. (Soundbite of insects and birds) CHADWICK: This is the world through the headset that's connected to those wires. (Soundbite of vibrations) Dr. COCROFT: OK. I'm also hearing wind right now. CHADWICK: Wow. Dr. COCROFT: Yeah, it's a tremendous amount of noise. It's all through the whole plant. CHADWICK: Then the air around us grows still. Watching the treehoppers inches away, I can't see any change, but this is what I hear. (Soundbite of treehopper calls) CHADWICK: These are male treehopper calls, Dr. Cocroft explained. And mostly they all call for the same thing, to interest female treehoppers. (Soundbite of treehopper calls) Dr. COCROFT: This is their advertisement calls, so the females are set to respond to that with another call, but the other little... (Soundbite of Cocroft imitating a female treehopper call) Dr. COCROFT: ...sound is from either two males meet each other on the branch or a male sitting in a little group and another male comes up. They'll give little signals. How it works and why the males would pay attention to it, I don't know. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: That's modesty. Rex Cocroft knows better how it works than anyone who is not already a treehopper. Still, the big questions remain: What are the rules for insect communication? How did they evolve? The answers may lead to insights about many creatures, and insects are much easier to study than other subjects. Whales are famously social and vocal, for instance, but very difficult to follow around. Dr. COCROFT: But with something like insects, at least these kinds of insects, we can watch them in the fields. Their scale is small enough that we can be quite close by and watch them without disturbing their behavior. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: In Costa Rica, he shot video of a wasp attacking a treehopper colony and watched the young call for help, and their mother rushed to save them, kicking the wasp until it flew away. Dr. COCROFT: They're completely fearless, these females, and if you walk up to one, put your finger next to her, she'll come up and kick you. And here you are, this huge, lumbering thing beyond all concept of size for her. CHADWICK: We think of them as little robots, Dr. Cocroft says, but in some ways, many insects are like little mammals. They're like us. I had no idea that an insect young could call to its mother and say, 'Hey, there's a bully over here picking on me. Come and do something about it.' Dr. COCROFT: Well, I didn't either. In fact, these studies of treehoppers are really the first time we've had a detailed look at any insects for communication between the parents and offspring. CHADWICK: We set off through a lower field, sweeping the stem tops before us with butterfly nets, collecting the small creatures in the waist-high brush; treehoppers among them. They are small pea-size. Dr. COCROFT: They're beautiful looking, at least, very strange-looking animals. And what really, I think, enchants me about treehoppers is that not only do they turn out to have these really fascinating communication systems that are fascinating from an intellectual standpoint, but their calls are just so abundantly wonderful that you can't help liking an animal that provides you with this incredible lifelong entertainment of going out in the field and recording unheard sound after unheard sound. CHADWICK: Barns, fields, dogs, even the Cocroft stone house, 200 years old. It's ordinary enough for Virginia. An ordinary yard and ordinary bugs with idle uninteresting lives, I had thought. I was wrong. They are full of mystery and romance and drama. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: The insects stopped calling after dark. I left Leesburg, not expecting to see Rex Cocroft again for a while, and I was wrong about that, too. CONAN: Both Alex Chadwick and Dr. Cocroft were about to learn that the world of insect sounds was even richer than they'd thought. CHADWICK: Here's some insects you'll like. These were recorded by Dr. Randy Hunt at the University of Indiana-Southeast. They're arithranera aclas(ph), but in the notes he sent, he identified them as The Three Stooges Bugs(ph). (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: He didn't say anything about this next group. I think of them as Stooges fans. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: More like Stooges cult worshipers, huh? (Soundbite of dog barking) CHADWICK: A couple of days after we first recorded Rex Cocroft's treehoppers, he called to invite us back to his place. He said he'd been trying out some equipment that NPR engineers had made for him, just walking around, randomly clipping these special microphones onto bushes and stems. Dr. COCROFT: I was very surprised. In fact, I was completely enchanted with them as when I just first got into this and first heard sounds. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: Scientists don't do this often enough, none of us does, wander around outside with no purpose. Rex usually spends all day in a lab with his insects, where it's much easier to see exactly what he's studying. (Soundbite of insects; piano music) CHADWICK: How does a scientist begin to listen to insects, trying to understand the world through what they have to say? Dr. Cocroft didn't begin as a scientist at all. He studied piano at college, and for a while he thought about life as a musician. (Soundbite of Cocroft playing the piano) CHADWICK: That's Rex playing Chopin. But eventually he was drawn back to an earlier interest in biology. He went to graduate school in the natural sciences. He never lost his ear, though. He just learned new things. (Soundbite of piano music; insects) Dr. COCROFT: I used to be able to swat flies, until I took a course in insect morphology and studied all the little pieces of the skeleton to which muscles attached involved in flight and in controlling the angle of the wings. And after that, I'd look at a fly and, 'God, that's amazing.' You know, it was kind of hard to understand how it all worked. Once you figured it out, you know, it'd be like swatting something... CHADWICK: Destroying the "Mona Lisa." Dr. COCROFT: Yeah. CHADWICK: Ants were too fast and nervous to study, unsuited to his own disposition. Treehoppers were more interesting communicators and more contemplative. He might have studied mammals or birds or fish, but he likes how insects, so alien, allow for imagination. Dr. COCROFT: A lot of the insights about what's important in this is it comes from just sitting there and watching them with your mind kind of a blank slate, just simply sitting and watching without necessarily thinking about life. But once you kind of start to put yourself in the animal's world, you begin to get a lot of ideas you might have missed otherwise. So there is also a very useful purpose to this act of kind of putting yourself in the animal's shoes, if you will. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: He is leaving Virginia and Cornell and the State University of New York at Binghamton, where he's been. He's taken a new position teaching and researching at the University of Missouri. He's writing a little for science magazines. He's got the cover on the most recent Natural History magazine, a story about insect sound. His plans are to go to the tropics and study treehopper communication. And probably now, on some afternoons, he'll just wander around, listening to the kinds of things you can find pretty much anywhere, even in a back yard. (Soundbite of leafhopper) CHADWICK: That's agramanelon niger(ph) frogs, a leafhopper in lawns all over the Eastern US. (Soundbite of treehopper) CHADWICK: Enchenopa binotata, a treehopper partial to red bud trees. (Soundbite of treehopper) CHADWICK: And that is vandusia arquatta(ph), one of Rex Cocroft's treehoppers, a small brown creature the size of a pea and with a voice you could never imagine. Dr. COCROFT: It's actually really strange because we're playing these sounds out into this little quiet part of the Virginia countryside in a way that begins to almost give you an idea of what our environments would sound like if somehow we were able to perceive all these signals traveling through plants. And this is just one plant. So if we somehow had all the plants in our environment wired up and were playing it, then we'd be hearing this incredible cacophony of strange sounds. And, you know, experience of just walking out and taking a walk out on the lane... CHADWICK: Yeah. Dr. COCROFT: ...or walking through a meadow would be completely different. (Soundbite of insect) CHADWICK: For Radio Expeditions, this is Alex Chadwick, NPR News. CONAN: Radio Expeditions is a co-production of NPR and the National Geographic Society. That one was produced by Carolyn Jensen with technical director Chuck Thompson. And thanks also to NPR engineers Dennis Byrnes, Bob Butcher, Terry Knight and Dr. Randy Hunt of Indiana University. From armstron at ohiou.edu Thu Dec 12 14:48:26 2002 From: armstron at ohiou.edu (Ken Armstrong) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 14:48:26 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness In-Reply-To: <004501c2a20e$b065ab10$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021212143102.01b42420@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> Karey, I'm with you. It was Percy's take on language that first attracted my attention to him Percy's example of the young child just learning to speak, who points at a ball and say's, face lighting up with recognition, "Ball!", really says it all. Human beings don't just know; they know that they know. This is a huge difference between us and animals. We take delight in knowing and speaking and we know that we do that. Walter Ong points out that baby human beings don't exactly have to be taught language (tho most parents encourage that process); rather, it takes a concerted effort to prevent a (healthy) human child from learning language, which is symbolic in nature, not a system of signs (despite the confusion our printed words visit on us). Percy understood the significance of our symbolic language. Those who want to equate animal communication with human speech haven't made that discovery, i.e. it is not just animal communication that they don't grasp. Ken Armstrong From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Dec 12 15:15:57 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:15:57 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C07@exchangeserver.culver.org> What's amazing about this sort of discussion is the insistence from the science world that we [humans] are not unique. Every attempt is made to impose human-like qualities (ie. consciousness) into animal/insect communication. The good doctor even says as much when he speaks of "putting yourself in the animal's shoes" to "get ideas". Well sure. Why not? But here's the rub, and it's a howling irony. There are no animal scientists, or animal poets, or philosophers, or theologians. We are unique for that reason alone! Animals don't put themselves in our "pads". Animals don't do that to understand us! They can't. That's just it. They can only react to an environment; they don't have a "world". This is the distinction. And, as Percy rightly states, the distinction is infinitely more vast than comparing a simple lifeless space rock to a complex living chimp. Consciousness is the thing. There is no consciousness in a dyadic relation. We can descend to "put [ourselves] in the animal's "world", sure enough, and while we are there we can impose humorous likenesses of the Stooges on them. We can name our cats Bob. We can use metaphors to discuss apparent interactions and relationships. But, animals can't do the reverse. Cats don't have their own pets named Bob. Cat's don't discuss with other cats the "love" that their pets show them when they come in after a bad hunt. And, they don't write grant proposals to study other creatures by using complex technology to find out whether they have language in the same way they do. Language is more than just an exchange of sounds or signs that represent things. In fact, most of what happens in language happens when no signs or sounds are made at all. As we all know, the apparatus of language, the signs and the sounds, always fail us when we are really trying to get at something we are fully conscious of. Words and strings of words can only approximate what we know. How many times have we said, "I am speechless"; "I can't find the words to describe it"; "It defies explanation"; I know what I want to say, but the words aren't there, etc. Cat's don't do this. Treehoppers don't do this. Whales don't do this. Chimps don't do this. Chimps have no more to say to us after learning sign language than they did before learning sign language. Animals communicate, of course, but they aren't searching for the right word. They aren't holding long theorizing debates with other animals about whether homo sapiens sapiens has language or not. They don't engage in online debates and imagine what it must be like to walk around on two legs, sleep in beds, prey to a creator, drink veuve cliquo, play racketball, write love poems. And, they don't do research or construct theories or write theses just for the sake of expanding their own knowledge of the world. They don't have a "world" in which to exist. They have an "environment" to which they react. Steve Parlin Please keep this discussion alive. I'm going to be teaching a class about this very topic next term. Any new insights will be welcomed. -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:46 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness This conversation about ethics and spirituality in a postmodern world is fascinating -- but I would like to bring up a different subject....since my dissertation is on Percy's language theory primarily, which is fairly dense and complex, that's what I'm trying to tackle and make sense of at the moment.... I know that some of you (I do seem to remember Nikki mentioned something about this) don't completely agree, or don't know if you agree, on Percy's take that the animals do not have consciousness. I'm having a conversation with a friend at the moment who is convinced that animals have consciousness, that their communication is only quantitatively different (due to lesser mental capacity) rather than qualitatively different from human communication. And, he is sure that Percy's arguments (or perhaps just my summary of Percy's arguments) fail to make the point that human language is any different than that of the animals (to that end, he's sent many articles on animal communication and one is included below.) Here is my response (below) to his response -- my questions to the Percy listserv are: (1) Is this what Percy would say? Is this really what his language theory says? and (2) Do you agree or disagree with Percy's points on animal communication and consciousness, and why? (If I have indeed conveyed Percy's points accurately and effectively.) Thanks for any feedback!! Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: ken denney Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 1:30 PM Subject: Re: latest version Ken -- thanks for the article, and I will check out the links you sent before this. However, it still does not address or refute what Percy is saying -- please let me know your response to this so I can continue to process it: Percy is NOT saying animals don't communicate -- they do. All of these articles are just that animals communicate. He is saying the NATURE of animal communication is different. I've not quite gotten the entire picture yet that Percy wants to convey, but here's at least one difference that I think he's saying: Animals communicate by instinct and for survival. In other words, all the examples you've given me are so the animals can eat, or mate, or some such. But animals don't communicate to KNOW and UNDERSTAND the world -- unless it's for survival. But they don't want to know WHY. They don't want a MEANING for what they are doing -- they're doing it because that's how, biologically, they are programmed. Even when Bob, my wonderful cat who does have feelings, is loving to me, it's instinct, but there's no sense of ego in what he does and no sense of purpose, he does it because that's part of what a cat does. He doesn't question, "who am I?" or "who is this other cat or who is this human being?" He interacts with those things -- yes, and communicates with those things -- yes. But he will only gather information about that person for his own survival (i.e.: this other animal is a dog who wishes to eat me so I will avoid it) but not because he wonders about the nature of the dog ethically, or the meaning of that dog's presence in his world and his life. Bob does not wonder about a dog or himself even with the kind of [meta-] awareness, or self-awareness that a human being has. It's a QUALITATIVE difference in communication not quantitative -- animals communicate by instinct for survival, humans communicate for different reasons -- sometimes for survival, but other times to know and understand and come up with reasons for our existence. So I think Percy's definition of consciousness is different from having feelings (whether physical or emotional feelings) about things. It's a kind of over-and-above awareness. It's not just interacting biologically with the environment to survive (which can include communication with humans and other animals) but it is awareness that one is interacting with the environment, and wondering about the nature of why we interact, the nature of the world, and the nature of our selves in that we do such things -- and constructing reasons and paradigms and myths and meanings for that -- our pets don't wonder why they are loving or why they seek to eat -- they just do it. Let me know what you think!!! KP ----- Original Message ----- From: ken denney To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:24 PM Subject: Re: latest version This transcript of a program I heard four years ago on NPR will BLOW YOU AWAY: SHOW: WEEKLY EDITION: THE BEST OF NPR NEWS (3:00 PM ET) November 13, 1999, Saturday LENGTH: 2749 words HEADLINE: INSECT COMMUNICATIONS ANCHORS: NEAL CONAN REPORTERS: ALEX CHADWICK BODY: NEAL CONAN, host: This is NPR's WEEKLY EDITION. I'm Neal Conan. Over the years, Radio Expeditions has taken us to an assortment of exotic locales. These NPR-National Geographic co-productions have visited places as distant and diverse as Midway Island, Madagascar and Malaysia, and those are just some of the M's. This past week, though, NPR's Alex Chadwick took Dorothy's advice from "The Wizard of Oz," clicked his ruby slippers three times and said, 'There's no place like home.' (Soundbite of "The Wizard of Oz") Ms. JUDY GARLAND ("Dorothy Gale"): If I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own back yard. ALEX CHADWICK reporting: Never mind heart's desire, I'll simply tell you this. Any ordinary back yard holds fantastic creatures we have barely begun to know. That's what made me think of Oz, and this is why. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: We're walking a long gravel drive near Leesburg, Virginia, about 20 miles from where my brother and I spent boyhood years. I think there's nothing in these woods I don't already know. Dr. REX COCROFT (Research Biologist): All right. Well, let's check a couple small trees over there. CHADWICK: OK. Dr. COCROFT: And let's check over on the other side of that road. CHADWICK: I'm following a research biologist named Rex Cocroft across his family's dozen acres of country land. We're looking for a black locust tree, the kind favored by a particular species of insect, something called a treehopper. Dr. COCROFT: OK. So here we are. There's ants running around... CHADWICK: Oh, yeah. Dr. COCROFT: ...and lo and behold, here's an aggregation of about eight treehoppers. When you first look at it, it almost looks like there are 50 insects there, but it's just because they're covered with ants. CHADWICK: You'd barely notice them, just a small cluster of dark shapes along one side of a slender step. Dr. COCROFT: Oh, here's a few more, maybe. Ten treehoppers in this stretch. CHADWICK: And if we put the accelerometers on the stem, we would hear those things. They're calling now, you think? Dr. COCROFT: Probably. CHADWICK: Scientists have known for years that insects call to each other in ways that we cannot normally hear. They use twigs and branches like a local phone line. Dr. Cocroft has learned how to tap in, even though for a while he didn't think it would be worth the bother. Dr. COCROFT: I thought, 'Well, those signals are--oh, they're just gonna be boring and little wispy tappings,' and then the first time I listened to these treehoppers, especially which seemed to have particularly bizarre signals, it completely expanded my concept of insect sound. And I could never go back to thinking of insect sounds as just like crickets or katydids do. I love those sounds. I love listening to them. But these are completely different. CHADWICK: They are completely different in every way, beginning with the process of listening to them. It will take us hours to get things right. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: All sound is vibration. That's what your ears detect, a trembling in the air. But many insects send vibrations through the stems of plants. The bugs are very small, and moving air would actually take more energy. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: In order to listen, we have to sense the vibrations and turn them into something our ears can hear. A phonograph needle will do it or a small instrument called an accelerometer. That's what Rex is sticking onto a branch. (Soundbite of music) Dr. COCROFT: These sounds are transmitted along the stem as what are called bending waves, so that the stem itself is actually flexing minutely and that this flexure is traveling along the stem. So, in that sense, it's very different from sound. It's sound, but we are not set up to hear it. Our ears are firmly in the middle of this three-dimensional medium air, and we have no way of listening to a sound traveling through a stem. CHADWICK: The black locust sapling looks like a nuisance shrub going in for an EKG, two thin wires dangling from the branches of rangy scraggle. Dr. COCROFT: Let's just try this. CHADWICK: It's a warm September afternoon by a small barn at the edge of a field. This is the world we normally hear. (Soundbite of insects and birds) CHADWICK: This is the world through the headset that's connected to those wires. (Soundbite of vibrations) Dr. COCROFT: OK. I'm also hearing wind right now. CHADWICK: Wow. Dr. COCROFT: Yeah, it's a tremendous amount of noise. It's all through the whole plant. CHADWICK: Then the air around us grows still. Watching the treehoppers inches away, I can't see any change, but this is what I hear. (Soundbite of treehopper calls) CHADWICK: These are male treehopper calls, Dr. Cocroft explained. And mostly they all call for the same thing, to interest female treehoppers. (Soundbite of treehopper calls) Dr. COCROFT: This is their advertisement calls, so the females are set to respond to that with another call, but the other little... (Soundbite of Cocroft imitating a female treehopper call) Dr. COCROFT: ...sound is from either two males meet each other on the branch or a male sitting in a little group and another male comes up. They'll give little signals. How it works and why the males would pay attention to it, I don't know. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: That's modesty. Rex Cocroft knows better how it works than anyone who is not already a treehopper. Still, the big questions remain: What are the rules for insect communication? How did they evolve? The answers may lead to insights about many creatures, and insects are much easier to study than other subjects. Whales are famously social and vocal, for instance, but very difficult to follow around. Dr. COCROFT: But with something like insects, at least these kinds of insects, we can watch them in the fields. Their scale is small enough that we can be quite close by and watch them without disturbing their behavior. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: In Costa Rica, he shot video of a wasp attacking a treehopper colony and watched the young call for help, and their mother rushed to save them, kicking the wasp until it flew away. Dr. COCROFT: They're completely fearless, these females, and if you walk up to one, put your finger next to her, she'll come up and kick you. And here you are, this huge, lumbering thing beyond all concept of size for her. CHADWICK: We think of them as little robots, Dr. Cocroft says, but in some ways, many insects are like little mammals. They're like us. I had no idea that an insect young could call to its mother and say, 'Hey, there's a bully over here picking on me. Come and do something about it.' Dr. COCROFT: Well, I didn't either. In fact, these studies of treehoppers are really the first time we've had a detailed look at any insects for communication between the parents and offspring. CHADWICK: We set off through a lower field, sweeping the stem tops before us with butterfly nets, collecting the small creatures in the waist-high brush; treehoppers among them. They are small pea-size. Dr. COCROFT: They're beautiful looking, at least, very strange-looking animals. And what really, I think, enchants me about treehoppers is that not only do they turn out to have these really fascinating communication systems that are fascinating from an intellectual standpoint, but their calls are just so abundantly wonderful that you can't help liking an animal that provides you with this incredible lifelong entertainment of going out in the field and recording unheard sound after unheard sound. CHADWICK: Barns, fields, dogs, even the Cocroft stone house, 200 years old. It's ordinary enough for Virginia. An ordinary yard and ordinary bugs with idle uninteresting lives, I had thought. I was wrong. They are full of mystery and romance and drama. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: The insects stopped calling after dark. I left Leesburg, not expecting to see Rex Cocroft again for a while, and I was wrong about that, too. CONAN: Both Alex Chadwick and Dr. Cocroft were about to learn that the world of insect sounds was even richer than they'd thought. CHADWICK: Here's some insects you'll like. These were recorded by Dr. Randy Hunt at the University of Indiana-Southeast. They're arithranera aclas(ph), but in the notes he sent, he identified them as The Three Stooges Bugs(ph). (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: He didn't say anything about this next group. I think of them as Stooges fans. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: More like Stooges cult worshipers, huh? (Soundbite of dog barking) CHADWICK: A couple of days after we first recorded Rex Cocroft's treehoppers, he called to invite us back to his place. He said he'd been trying out some equipment that NPR engineers had made for him, just walking around, randomly clipping these special microphones onto bushes and stems. Dr. COCROFT: I was very surprised. In fact, I was completely enchanted with them as when I just first got into this and first heard sounds. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: Scientists don't do this often enough, none of us does, wander around outside with no purpose. Rex usually spends all day in a lab with his insects, where it's much easier to see exactly what he's studying. (Soundbite of insects; piano music) CHADWICK: How does a scientist begin to listen to insects, trying to understand the world through what they have to say? Dr. Cocroft didn't begin as a scientist at all. He studied piano at college, and for a while he thought about life as a musician. (Soundbite of Cocroft playing the piano) CHADWICK: That's Rex playing Chopin. But eventually he was drawn back to an earlier interest in biology. He went to graduate school in the natural sciences. He never lost his ear, though. He just learned new things. (Soundbite of piano music; insects) Dr. COCROFT: I used to be able to swat flies, until I took a course in insect morphology and studied all the little pieces of the skeleton to which muscles attached involved in flight and in controlling the angle of the wings. And after that, I'd look at a fly and, 'God, that's amazing.' You know, it was kind of hard to understand how it all worked. Once you figured it out, you know, it'd be like swatting something... CHADWICK: Destroying the "Mona Lisa." Dr. COCROFT: Yeah. CHADWICK: Ants were too fast and nervous to study, unsuited to his own disposition. Treehoppers were more interesting communicators and more contemplative. He might have studied mammals or birds or fish, but he likes how insects, so alien, allow for imagination. Dr. COCROFT: A lot of the insights about what's important in this is it comes from just sitting there and watching them with your mind kind of a blank slate, just simply sitting and watching without necessarily thinking about life. But once you kind of start to put yourself in the animal's world, you begin to get a lot of ideas you might have missed otherwise. So there is also a very useful purpose to this act of kind of putting yourself in the animal's shoes, if you will. (Soundbite of insects) CHADWICK: He is leaving Virginia and Cornell and the State University of New York at Binghamton, where he's been. He's taken a new position teaching and researching at the University of Missouri. He's writing a little for science magazines. He's got the cover on the most recent Natural History magazine, a story about insect sound. His plans are to go to the tropics and study treehopper communication. And probably now, on some afternoons, he'll just wander around, listening to the kinds of things you can find pretty much anywhere, even in a back yard. (Soundbite of leafhopper) CHADWICK: That's agramanelon niger(ph) frogs, a leafhopper in lawns all over the Eastern US. (Soundbite of treehopper) CHADWICK: Enchenopa binotata, a treehopper partial to red bud trees. (Soundbite of treehopper) CHADWICK: And that is vandusia arquatta(ph), one of Rex Cocroft's treehoppers, a small brown creature the size of a pea and with a voice you could never imagine. Dr. COCROFT: It's actually really strange because we're playing these sounds out into this little quiet part of the Virginia countryside in a way that begins to almost give you an idea of what our environments would sound like if somehow we were able to perceive all these signals traveling through plants. And this is just one plant. So if we somehow had all the plants in our environment wired up and were playing it, then we'd be hearing this incredible cacophony of strange sounds. And, you know, experience of just walking out and taking a walk out on the lane... CHADWICK: Yeah. Dr. COCROFT: ...or walking through a meadow would be completely different. (Soundbite of insect) CHADWICK: For Radio Expeditions, this is Alex Chadwick, NPR News. CONAN: Radio Expeditions is a co-production of NPR and the National Geographic Society. That one was produced by Carolyn Jensen with technical director Chuck Thompson. And thanks also to NPR engineers Dennis Byrnes, Bob Butcher, Terry Knight and Dr. Randy Hunt of Indiana University. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 12 15:19:53 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:19:53 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness References: <004501c2a20e$b065ab10$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <000c01c2a21b$d4fecbc0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Karey, I believe Percy does view human language as qualitatively distinct from the communication and signaling of other animals. And as you suggest he seems to view non human signalling as essentially mechanistic and man's language as emanating from a non material or spiritual realm. I think he might say that one distinguishing example of the difference is that non human animals do not use language to name. I agree with your view (which I think was Percy's as well) that non human animals probably do not have a consciousness of existance itself. I believes this stems from the likelihood that they are not capable storing a sufficiently complex signaling system to create an abstract notion of existence or even of present vs absent (although I believe they are capable of recalling absent objects). I realize much is made by Percy and Peirce of the presumed correspondence of so called mechanistic or scientific accounts of behavior with dyadic relations and purpose and human language with triadic relations but personally I can not follow how either Percy or Peirce reduce S-R psychology or scientific theories of man to what they are calling dyadic relations. Seems to me all that goes on in the world is purposeful and triadic in the Peircean sense -- including non human communication and the interaction of billiad balls. Thanks for your comments on this subject. I enjoyed them. Jim Piat From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 12 15:26:07 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:26:07 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021212143102.01b42420@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> Message-ID: <001201c2a21c$b36e9cf0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> >> Human beings don't just know; they know that they know. This is a huge > difference between us and animals. Dear Ken-- Neat way to put the matter -- How might one demonstrate that one knows something and in particular that one knows that he knows it? Or that an non human knows something but not that he knows he knows it? I'm not trying to be a smart alec -- I think you've got to the crux of what may be the big distinction between human and non human language or communication (be it qualitative or merely a matter of degree and I'm wondering how we might pin this down a bit more objectively or operationally. Jim Piat We take delight in knowing and speaking > and we know that we do that. Walter Ong points out that baby human beings > don't exactly have to be taught language (tho most parents encourage that > process); rather, it takes a concerted effort to prevent a (healthy) human > child from learning language, which is symbolic in nature, not a system of > signs (despite the confusion our printed words visit on us). Percy > understood the significance of our symbolic language. Those who want to > equate animal communication with human speech haven't made that discovery, > i.e. it is not just animal communication that they don't grasp. > > Ken Armstrong > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Dec 12 15:26:48 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:26:48 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C08@exchangeserver.culver.org> Jim, I was just about to leave the office, but I wanted to offer a quick reply. Consciousness, it seems to me, is not contingent upon being able to create an abstract notion of existence. Existence is. Consciousness of existence is. Language, the signs and sounds we use, is merely a vehicle for providing an incarnate and thus shared form to our consciousness. I am currently working out a theory about God's consciousness made sacramental in Christ, the first incarnate word. In the beginning was the word sort of stuff. I'm sure I'm not the first to hit upon this, but it's a fun discovery exercise. Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:20 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness Dear Karey, I believe Percy does view human language as qualitatively distinct from the communication and signaling of other animals. And as you suggest he seems to view non human signalling as essentially mechanistic and man's language as emanating from a non material or spiritual realm. I think he might say that one distinguishing example of the difference is that non human animals do not use language to name. I agree with your view (which I think was Percy's as well) that non human animals probably do not have a consciousness of existance itself. I believes this stems from the likelihood that they are not capable storing a sufficiently complex signaling system to create an abstract notion of existence or even of present vs absent (although I believe they are capable of recalling absent objects). I realize much is made by Percy and Peirce of the presumed correspondence of so called mechanistic or scientific accounts of behavior with dyadic relations and purpose and human language with triadic relations but personally I can not follow how either Percy or Peirce reduce S-R psychology or scientific theories of man to what they are calling dyadic relations. Seems to me all that goes on in the world is purposeful and triadic in the Peircean sense -- including non human communication and the interaction of billiad balls. Thanks for your comments on this subject. I enjoyed them. Jim Piat -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 12 15:36:11 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:36:11 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C07@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <001a01c2a21e$1bd5cbf0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> > > They don't have a "world" in which to exist. They have an "environment" to > which they react. > Dear Steven, Yes, I think it is the abstract notion of existence itself that non human animals may lack. Both humans and animals can react to various tangible objects but it takes a more powerful brain to store and process abstract notions - and especially this most abstract of all notions existence or being itself. I think the story of the garden of Eden when man became of aware of good and evil (as existing) is an attempt to address this watershed moment in man's existence when he became of aware of the word itself. Truly the beginning of man as man. Just some thoughts--- Jim Piat From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Dec 12 15:34:33 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:34:33 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C09@exchangeserver.culver.org> They don't study themselves. Humans do. I don't want to be too simplistic, but I think the answer is startlingly simple. It's clear that animals don't know that they "know" because they aren't studying themselves, constructing theories about themselves, or about their knowledge, or about their origins, or about their fate. (Although, we can't really say animals "know" anything at all for knowing is depending upon whether the knower knows it is knowing) -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:26 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness >> Human beings don't just know; they know that they know. This is a huge > difference between us and animals. Dear Ken-- Neat way to put the matter -- How might one demonstrate that one knows something and in particular that one knows that he knows it? Or that an non human knows something but not that he knows he knows it? I'm not trying to be a smart alec -- I think you've got to the crux of what may be the big distinction between human and non human language or communication (be it qualitative or merely a matter of degree and I'm wondering how we might pin this down a bit more objectively or operationally. Jim Piat We take delight in knowing and speaking > and we know that we do that. Walter Ong points out that baby human beings > don't exactly have to be taught language (tho most parents encourage that > process); rather, it takes a concerted effort to prevent a (healthy) human > child from learning language, which is symbolic in nature, not a system of > signs (despite the confusion our printed words visit on us). Percy > understood the significance of our symbolic language. Those who want to > equate animal communication with human speech haven't made that discovery, > i.e. it is not just animal communication that they don't grasp. > > Ken Armstrong > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 12 15:41:39 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:41:39 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C08@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <002001c2a21e$df37a640$0101a8c0@D68RS511> > Jim, > > I was just about to leave the office, but I wanted to offer a quick reply. > Consciousness, it seems to me, is not contingent upon being able to create > an abstract notion of existence. Existence is. Consciousness of existence > is. Language, the signs and sounds we use, is merely a vehicle for providing > an incarnate and thus shared form to our consciousness. I am currently > working out a theory about God's consciousness made sacramental in Christ, > the first incarnate word. In the beginning was the word sort of stuff. I'm > sure I'm not the first to hit upon this, but it's a fun discovery exercise. > > Steve I think you are much in line with how Percy would describe the matter. However I think a case can also be made that the discovery of the abstract notion of existence was the seminal event from which consciousness sprang and not vice versa. But whatever may be the case, I'm delighted to hear your take on this and look forward to your further thoughts. Jim Piat From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 12 15:47:02 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:47:02 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C09@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <002601c2a21f$9fa82d00$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Steven, Well it's not so clear to me. I think it would be helpful to see if we can get real clear about what we mean by knowing or studying. What in its most basic form is the essence of these terms. Otherwise I think the issue we are discussing will always get lost or escape our grasp. And yes I too am please we are giving this central Percy concern another look. Jim -- I'll shut up for a while now! > They don't study themselves. Humans do. I don't want to be too simplistic, > but I think the answer is startlingly simple. It's clear that animals don't > know that they "know" because they aren't studying themselves, constructing > theories about themselves, or about their knowledge, or about their origins, > or about their fate. (Although, we can't really say animals "know" anything > at all for knowing is depending upon whether the knower knows it is knowing) > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:26 PM > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: Re: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness > > >> Human beings don't just know; they know that they know. This is a huge > > difference between us and animals. > > Dear Ken-- > > Neat way to put the matter -- How might one demonstrate that one knows > something and in particular that one knows that he knows it? Or that an non > human knows something but not that he knows he knows it? > > I'm not trying to be a smart alec -- I think you've got to the crux of what > may be the big distinction between human and non human language or > communication (be it qualitative or merely a matter of degree and I'm > wondering how we might pin this down a bit more objectively or > operationally. > > Jim Piat > > We take delight in knowing and speaking > > and we know that we do that. Walter Ong points out that baby human beings > > don't exactly have to be taught language (tho most parents encourage that > > process); rather, it takes a concerted effort to prevent a (healthy) human > > child from learning language, which is symbolic in nature, not a system of > > signs (despite the confusion our printed words visit on us). Percy > > understood the significance of our symbolic language. Those who want to > > equate animal communication with human speech haven't made that discovery, > > i.e. it is not just animal communication that they don't grasp. > > > > Ken Armstrong > > > > > > -- > > > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Thu Dec 12 16:00:59 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:00:59 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C0A@exchangeserver.culver.org> Dear Jim (I apologize for the previous informalities. Too much in a hurry to get my ideas out there) Thanks for the feedback and interesting ideas. All due respect though, I'm not sure what you mean by "the discovery of the abstract notion existence". Doesn't this imply that the notion existed before its "discovery"? If so, doesn't that mean that the "thing" is not contingent upon our constructing ideas about it? That consciousness was something that existed prior to our notions of it and was made available to us, either by grace or evolution, and not something that sprang forth? Hmmm. I have to chew on that for awhile. But, I think I hold to my first contention that language attempts to get at the consciousness we participate in, instead of consciousness being a manifestation of a language we use. Interesting stuff. -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:42 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness > Jim, > > I was just about to leave the office, but I wanted to offer a quick reply. > Consciousness, it seems to me, is not contingent upon being able to create > an abstract notion of existence. Existence is. Consciousness of existence > is. Language, the signs and sounds we use, is merely a vehicle for providing > an incarnate and thus shared form to our consciousness. I am currently > working out a theory about God's consciousness made sacramental in Christ, > the first incarnate word. In the beginning was the word sort of stuff. I'm > sure I'm not the first to hit upon this, but it's a fun discovery exercise. > > Steve I think you are much in line with how Percy would describe the matter. However I think a case can also be made that the discovery of the abstract notion of existence was the seminal event from which consciousness sprang and not vice versa. But whatever may be the case, I'm delighted to hear your take on this and look forward to your further thoughts. Jim Piat -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From karey at charter.net Thu Dec 12 16:32:09 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:32:09 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] an opposing viewpoint Message-ID: <017401c2a225$ef389e30$0301000a@AFAC955012> Here is my friend Ken's response to my first e-mail on animal communication and consciousness that I had just forwarded to you all -- I've not read it yet, except to see that my argument was not convincing, and I have only briefly perused the other responses from the list which I'll look at a little later in more detail. Ken gave me permission to post this to the list; I'm curious as to any counterpoints that might be made? What do you all think? Are you swayed by the argument below, or is there a crucial understanding that is missing? Ken is also responding in part to my paper at: http://www.atl.devry.edu/kperkins/papers/genesis.html -- Caveat: it is no great or original intellectual work, just my own personal attempt to summarize my understanding of Percy's language theory as I proceed forward in working with it. Clearly, I've not succeeded in making a convincing argument for Percy's language theory!!! Can anyone else, or do we all err? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: kdenney at mindspring.com To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:56 PM Subject: Re: latest version The question before us is Percy's thesis that "a theory of language is a theory of man." Thus, to address the issue of language you must first come up with an understanding of what sort of creature man is -- something he maintains people are not intersted in. The essence of your thesis, however, is that people are becoming interested in the nature of man because people evolve from stage to stage; they are, at this stage of post-modernism, detaching themselves from the dualistic concept that has held sway since the Enlightenment and evolving into a new "stage"; a state in which they are more spiritually centered. Your issue, then, is whether Percy's concept of man -- which he grudgingly gives in the "interview" you cite -- supports your thesis. As you point out, Percy does support that thesis because his concept of man is that of a creature "more than an organism in an environment, more than an integrated personality .. etc." Percy's proof of mankind as more-than-an-organism is that man uses language in a way unique among animals. I say pish-posh. Percy's "proof" is, in fact, mere sophistry. He states a proposition and uses what are essentially self-evident facts to prove his proposition -- but ONLY those self-evident facts to prove the proposition. This is not a logical proof. I base my argument on three premises: 1) The earth is populated by animals. 2)All these animals have brains. 3)Animals are distinct from one another depending on how successful they have been in evolution. Foremost in my argument is the statement that man is an animal. He is species mammal, sub-species primate, genus homo sapiens, sub-genus homo sapiens sapiens (except, of course, for Republicans). He is the spawn of the earth and the special biological processes of the planet; he is not the cast-off gift of extraterrestials or forgetful gods. Man is the inevitable result of what happened billions of years ago when cosmic star-stuff began colliding. Had different permutations of collisions occurrec, I could be typing this essay with tentacles, or not at all. How do I know this to be true? Man has a brain, as well as other organs, whose functions are essentially the same as the other animals. As you point out, and as my hyperlinks suggest, animals do communicate and they communicate in highly complex ways. But they have differences to mankind that have nothing to do with their separation from a higher, spiritual entity. These differences have to do with evolution. Cats and dogs have a higher acuity in sight and sound than are capable by our senses. As such, they live in a world of sights and senses that we do not perceive and cannot experience unless we adapt our senses for theirs. While we are confined essentially to sight and sound, they experience the world in a third dimension -- scent -- and the trails of scents they follow, as well as the higher-pitched sounds and infra-red sights they experience -- are fundamental to how they experience the world. The same is true for insects with their distinctive sensory organs. Try to imagine the three-dimensional life that Bob leads. When you come home from the evening to a dark house, you see only the darkness and hear the rattling of your keys. Bob, however, sees everything as if it were day. He hears not only your keys but also the sounds of electric clocks and the ticking of the water heater as its temperature adjusts. He scents the grass on your shoes that you don't know is there and he smells the cat you petted last week, the last time you wore that coat. He lives life, in other words, in an environment far more rich in INFORMATION than we will ever know. How does he use that information? Well, like all mammals, Bob is a social creature so he lives in a society of other cats. Not just Sarah, but the cats who live in the neighborhood -- cats you've never seen and cat's Bob has never even seen. Wherever Bob goes he knows these cats are there and nearby and he communicates to them in the unique ways of his species. Here is where my third premise comes in. Man has evolved differently. Although his senses are less keen than the other animals, his mind is of a higher order, capable of greater cognitive skills. But these skills were not acquired spontaneously or by design. I stress, not by design. These cognitive skills evolved specically to make up for the deficit of his senses. Bob and Jimminy Cricket evolved differently because their senses evolved differently along with their skeletal structure and other aspects. Human beings, being animals, evolved as they did because of the original equipment they acquired during the evolutionary process. The urge of evolution is that all creatures, great and small, strive for dominance. Man found ways to attain that dominance not through his physical abilities but through his mental abilities. Man's brain functions in a way unique among the animals. That is obvious and a trueism. But is that uniqueness the result of man being especially favored among the animals --as by God -- or the result of a lucky break? The answer is that there is no answer -- because it is a question that need not be asked. It reflects, in fact, the very point of inquiry: man's brain functions uniquely. This is the most important part of my argument; it is very important, but admittedly hard to get. I will allow you a few moments to read the above paragraph again a couple of times. Let me put it this way. You can teach a dog a trick by getting him to repeat a physical action in response to a cue of some sort. The dog associates the cue with the reward that comes after performing the act. The dog, as you say, is a simple animal, interested only in a few things bound up by issues of his survival, of which the reward - presumably food -- serves. Tht is the way a dog thinks and acts. It is the way all creatures think and act, mankind included, because that is the way their brains are wired. Man's brain, of course, is wired a bit differently because of the way he has evolved. His brain is wired close enough to that of other animals that we may draw analogies from their behavior to ours. But there is a chief difference that has allowed man's brain to evolve further than those of dogs or cats or non-myth-bearing chickens. It is a unique, utterly unique, inability to accept disorder. This is the key to our intelligence and it is the key to our language skills. There is something about the brain, as the latest scientific studies underscore, that will not accept a world that is chaotic. It is too chancy to survive in such a world. Brains have learned, through evolution, that by making sense and order of the world around them they will live longer and better than the brains in other animals. Let's look at Helen Keller. For a few years she lived a life like all of us, seeing and hearing and all of that. Suddenly, she gets ill and she loses the senses that gave her the ability to perceive objects in the world. If her parents picked her up, she only knew that she was one minute standing and the next minute her feet were off the floor and she was in the embrace of some creature the nature of which she could not imagine. She could not anticipate being suddenly swept up that way: she may have been intent on moving forward on some exploration when suddenly this unplanned, chaotic effect just happened to interrupt that exploration. When her parents decided to give her a bath, she could not anticipate being taken away from whatever she was doing to suddenly be subjected to warm clothes being taken off her by unseen beings and doused with hot or cold liquid. Helen Keller lived in utter chaos. She was the prisoner of that chaos, deprived of her senses -- those organs which separate humans from animals and the differences of which determined our evolutionary path. Helen could not make any sense of the world. Whatever she learned to do she found could be interrupted or changed because of physical events that she could not perceive. Then, one day, Anne Sullivan came to her house and after much kicking and screaming, Helen Keller learned that the shapes made in her hand represented something -- the water that also was flowing over her hand. The ASSOCIATION of the shapes in her hand with the substance of the water proved to her that sense could be made out of chaos. And if sense could be made of chaos, then she need not be the prisoner of chaos. Now it was possible to learn the ways of the world and to be more like the human being she was born to be. So now we come to the issue of language and whether man's use of language is really significantly different from the way animals use language. My answer is no. You and Percy base your assumption on "meaning." Words, you say, have a specific "meaning" to us that is unique from animals. Well, duh. This is not the answer, nor is it a proof. There is no distinction, I repeat, between "meaning" and "association." The only difference is that to a human brain "meaning" is an arbitrary assignation that helps the brain sift order from disorder. It is actually immaterial whether the "meaning" assigned to an object is not bound up by issues of survival, which you presume is the sole interest of animals in associative communication. I say that it makes no difference whatever, it is only one more thing that makes a human brain unique -- and not much more unique at that. Percy begins from the belief that man is a higher being connected to some spiritual mystery outside himself. He has no evidence to back it up, but it feels right to him. It makes sense, in other words. But in seeking proof of that, he fixates on the supposedly unique use of language and the alleged significance of "meaning" we impart to symbols used in our communication with other humans. This is not a proof, because it answers its own question. It takes facts that exist that support the conclusion already reached. The human brain, being of the earth, is a thing composed of atoms which form proteins and amino acids that shape themselves into neurons divided by synapses and collect in glumps of matter that collectively weighs about 3.5 pounds and swims in cerebral-spinal fluid encased by a skull that has similarly evolved to protect the preciousness at the top of the necks of people the brain calls Joe or Mary. In a sense, the brain is no different from any other such collection of atoms or primordial parts. Like all brains it evolved to drive the functions of a body that, in turn, support its life-needs. There is, therefore, ultimately nothing unique about the brain, in the sense that a brain is a common object, like a rock. It does, however, as I said possess one unique PROPERTY and that is its ability to sort order from disorder, and, having done so, it has made a evolutionary leap from the brains of other animals. This difference, however, is not a uniqueness. Some trees are taller than other trees, but that does not make them better trees. The evolutionary difference between human brains and animal brains, when seen from that perspective -- that is to say from a detached perspective -- is only a characteristic, not proof that it has a connection with something truly unique, specifically a spiritual entity that is the very definition of sense from disorder. Let's take another look at that paragraph above that I said was so important: "Man's brain functions in a way unique among the animals. That is obvious and a trueism. But is that uniqueness the result of man being especially favored among the animals --as by God -- or the result of a lucky break? The answer is that there is no answer -- because it is a question that need not be asked. It reflects, in fact, the very point of inquiry: man's brain functions uniquely." Percy's brain asks a question: is man more than just an organism? Is his nature more significant than just a being who eats, poops, writes books and occasionally lectures to university students? In other words, Percy's brain is seeking order from chaos. He/it wants to know if there is something unique about him, some MEANING that he has, that separates him from other creatures. Such a question is an artificial question. It can not have an answer because it begs the question. The brain of Walker Percy is OBVIOUSLY a unique one because it possesses the unique ability to ask such a question in the first place. Yet in the calm, clear evaluation of all of nature, the fact that one such brain can ask a question that a frog's brain cannot ask is immaterial. It is a property of the human brain that it seeks order and, in so doing, asks fundamentally unanswerable questions about itself. Other brains don't do that just as they don't use language in the same way. There are trees and there are rocks and there are dogs and there are people -- and all these things are made from the proto-atoms that combined to form the earth and all that there is in it millions of years ago. Each of these objects and things have different properties but the meaning of these properties depend wholly on the entity that beholds them and that is a subjective meaning based on that entity's physical properties. I hope that answers your question. My fingers are quite tired. KD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Tpmonaghan at aol.com Thu Dec 12 16:34:25 2002 From: Tpmonaghan at aol.com (Tpmonaghan at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:34:25 EST Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness Message-ID: <4f.282d8480.2b2a5ae1@aol.com> It has seemed to me that Percy was expounding on the following: In the begining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John1: 1, 14 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepth over the earth. Genesis 1: 26 and that Pierce and Chomsky were on to it and in Chomsky's case probably not that conscious of it. Academic careers do not take to Bible quoting. Pat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Thu Dec 12 16:35:37 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:35:37 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] an opposing viewpoint Message-ID: <018501c2a226$691bed10$0301000a@AFAC955012> Oops -- here is the plain text version -- I keep forgetting. -------------------------------------------- Here is my friend Ken's response to my first e-mail on animal communication and consciousness that I had just forwarded to you all -- I've not read it yet, except to see that my argument was not convincing, and I have only briefly perused the other responses from the list which I'll look at a little later in more detail. Ken gave me permission to post this to the list; I'm curious as to any counterpoints that might be made? What do you all think? Are you swayed by the argument below, or is there a crucial understanding that is missing? Ken is also responding in part to my paper at: http://www.atl.devry.edu/kperkins/papers/genesis.html -- Caveat: it is no great or original intellectual work, just my own personal attempt to summarize my understanding of Percy's language theory as I proceed forward in working with it. Clearly, I've not succeeded in making a convincing argument for Percy's language theory!!! Can anyone else, or do we all err? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: kdenney at mindspring.com To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:56 PM Subject: Re: latest version The question before us is Percy's thesis that "a theory of language is a theory of man." Thus, to address the issue of language you must first come up with an understanding of what sort of creature man is -- something he maintains people are not intersted in. The essence of your thesis, however, is that people are becoming interested in the nature of man because people evolve from stage to stage; they are, at this stage of post-modernism, detaching themselves from the dualistic concept that has held sway since the Enlightenment and evolving into a new "stage"; a state in which they are more spiritually centered. Your issue, then, is whether Percy's concept of man -- which he grudgingly gives in the "interview" you cite -- supports your thesis. As you point out, Percy does support that thesis because his concept of man is that of a creature "more than an organism in an environment, more than an integrated personality .. etc." Percy's proof of mankind as more-than-an-organism is that man uses language in a way unique among animals. I say pish-posh. Percy's "proof" is, in fact, mere sophistry. He states a proposition and uses what are essentially self-evident facts to prove his proposition -- but ONLY those self-evident facts to prove the proposition. This is not a logical proof. I base my argument on three premises: 1) The earth is populated by animals. 2)All these animals have brains. 3)Animals are distinct from one another depending on how successful they have been in evolution. Foremost in my argument is the statement that man is an animal. He is species mammal, sub-species primate, genus homo sapiens, sub-genus homo sapiens sapiens (except, of course, for Republicans). He is the spawn of the earth and the special biological processes of the planet; he is not the cast-off gift of extraterrestials or forgetful gods. Man is the inevitable result of what happened billions of years ago when cosmic star-stuff began colliding. Had different permutations of collisions occurrec, I could be typing this essay with tentacles, or not at all. How do I know this to be true? Man has a brain, as well as other organs, whose functions are essentially the same as the other animals. As you point out, and as my hyperlinks suggest, animals do communicate and they communicate in highly complex ways. But they have differences to mankind that have nothing to do with their separation from a higher, spiritual entity. These differences have to do with evolution. Cats and dogs have a higher acuity in sight and sound than are capable by our senses. As such, they live in a world of sights and senses that we do not perceive and cannot experience unless we adapt our senses for theirs. While we are confined essentially to sight and sound, they experience the world in a third dimension -- scent -- and the trails of scents they follow, as well as the higher-pitched sounds and infra-red sights they experience -- are fundamental to how they experience the world. The same is true for insects with their distinctive sensory organs. Try to imagine the three-dimensional life that Bob leads. When you come home from the evening to a dark house, you see only the darkness and hear the rattling of your keys. Bob, however, sees everything as if it were day. He hears not only your keys but also the sounds of electric clocks and the ticking of the water heater as its temperature adjusts. He scents the grass on your shoes that you don't know is there and he smells the cat you petted last week, the last time you wore that coat. He lives life, in other words, in an environment far more rich in INFORMATION than we will ever know. How does he use that information? Well, like all mammals, Bob is a social creature so he lives in a society of other cats. Not just Sarah, but the cats who live in the neighborhood -- cats you've never seen and cat's Bob has never even seen. Wherever Bob goes he knows these cats are there and nearby and he communicates to them in the unique ways of his species. Here is where my third premise comes in. Man has evolved differently. Although his senses are less keen than the other animals, his mind is of a higher order, capable of greater cognitive skills. But these skills were not acquired spontaneously or by design. I stress, not by design. These cognitive skills evolved specically to make up for the deficit of his senses. Bob and Jimminy Cricket evolved differently because their senses evolved differently along with their skeletal structure and other aspects. Human beings, being animals, evolved as they did because of the original equipment they acquired during the evolutionary process. The urge of evolution is that all creatures, great and small, strive for dominance. Man found ways to attain that dominance not through his physical abilities but through his mental abilities. Man's brain functions in a way unique among the animals. That is obvious and a trueism. But is that uniqueness the result of man being especially favored among the animals --as by God -- or the result of a lucky break? The answer is that there is no answer -- because it is a question that need not be asked. It reflects, in fact, the very point of inquiry: man's brain functions uniquely. This is the most important part of my argument; it is very important, but admittedly hard to get. I will allow you a few moments to read the above paragraph again a couple of times. Let me put it this way. You can teach a dog a trick by getting him to repeat a physical action in response to a cue of some sort. The dog associates the cue with the reward that comes after performing the act. The dog, as you say, is a simple animal, interested only in a few things bound up by issues of his survival, of which the reward - presumably food -- serves. Tht is the way a dog thinks and acts. It is the way all creatures think and act, mankind included, because that is the way their brains are wired. Man's brain, of course, is wired a bit differently because of the way he has evolved. His brain is wired close enough to that of other animals that we may draw analogies from their behavior to ours. But there is a chief difference that has allowed man's brain to evolve further than those of dogs or cats or non-myth-bearing chickens. It is a unique, utterly unique, inability to accept disorder. This is the key to our intelligence and it is the key to our language skills. There is something about the brain, as the latest scientific studies underscore, that will not accept a world that is chaotic. It is too chancy to survive in such a world. Brains have learned, through evolution, that by making sense and order of the world around them they will live longer and better than the brains in other animals. Let's look at Helen Keller. For a few years she lived a life like all of us, seeing and hearing and all of that. Suddenly, she gets ill and she loses the senses that gave her the ability to perceive objects in the world. If her parents picked her up, she only knew that she was one minute standing and the next minute her feet were off the floor and she was in the embrace of some creature the nature of which she could not imagine. She could not anticipate being suddenly swept up that way: she may have been intent on moving forward on some exploration when suddenly this unplanned, chaotic effect just happened to interrupt that exploration. When her parents decided to give her a bath, she could not anticipate being taken away from whatever she was doing to suddenly be subjected to warm clothes being taken off her by unseen beings and doused with hot or cold liquid. Helen Keller lived in utter chaos. She was the prisoner of that chaos, deprived of her senses -- those organs which separate humans from animals and the differences of which determined our evolutionary path. Helen could not make any sense of the world. Whatever she learned to do she found could be interrupted or changed because of physical events that she could not perceive. Then, one day, Anne Sullivan came to her house and after much kicking and screaming, Helen Keller learned that the shapes made in her hand represented something -- the water that also was flowing over her hand. The ASSOCIATION of the shapes in her hand with the substance of the water proved to her that sense could be made out of chaos. And if sense could be made of chaos, then she need not be the prisoner of chaos. Now it was possible to learn the ways of the world and to be more like the human being she was born to be. So now we come to the issue of language and whether man's use of language is really significantly different from the way animals use language. My answer is no. You and Percy base your assumption on "meaning." Words, you say, have a specific "meaning" to us that is unique from animals. Well, duh. This is not the answer, nor is it a proof. There is no distinction, I repeat, between "meaning" and "association." The only difference is that to a human brain "meaning" is an arbitrary assignation that helps the brain sift order from disorder. It is actually immaterial whether the "meaning" assigned to an object is not bound up by issues of survival, which you presume is the sole interest of animals in associative communication. I say that it makes no difference whatever, it is only one more thing that makes a human brain unique -- and not much more unique at that. Percy begins from the belief that man is a higher being connected to some spiritual mystery outside himself. He has no evidence to back it up, but it feels right to him. It makes sense, in other words. But in seeking proof of that, he fixates on the supposedly unique use of language and the alleged significance of "meaning" we impart to symbols used in our communication with other humans. This is not a proof, because it answers its own question. It takes facts that exist that support the conclusion already reached. The human brain, being of the earth, is a thing composed of atoms which form proteins and amino acids that shape themselves into neurons divided by synapses and collect in glumps of matter that collectively weighs about 3.5 pounds and swims in cerebral-spinal fluid encased by a skull that has similarly evolved to protect the preciousness at the top of the necks of people the brain calls Joe or Mary. In a sense, the brain is no different from any other such collection of atoms or primordial parts. Like all brains it evolved to drive the functions of a body that, in turn, support its life-needs. There is, therefore, ultimately nothing unique about the brain, in the sense that a brain is a common object, like a rock. It does, however, as I said possess one unique PROPERTY and that is its ability to sort order from disorder, and, having done so, it has made a evolutionary leap from the brains of other animals. This difference, however, is not a uniqueness. Some trees are taller than other trees, but that does not make them better trees. The evolutionary difference between human brains and animal brains, when seen from that perspective -- that is to say from a detached perspective -- is only a characteristic, not proof that it has a connection with something truly unique, specifically a spiritual entity that is the very definition of sense from disorder. Let's take another look at that paragraph above that I said was so important: "Man's brain functions in a way unique among the animals. That is obvious and a trueism. But is that uniqueness the result of man being especially favored among the animals --as by God -- or the result of a lucky break? The answer is that there is no answer -- because it is a question that need not be asked. It reflects, in fact, the very point of inquiry: man's brain functions uniquely." Percy's brain asks a question: is man more than just an organism? Is his nature more significant than just a being who eats, poops, writes books and occasionally lectures to university students? In other words, Percy's brain is seeking order from chaos. He/it wants to know if there is something unique about him, some MEANING that he has, that separates him from other creatures. Such a question is an artificial question. It can not have an answer because it begs the question. The brain of Walker Percy is OBVIOUSLY a unique one because it possesses the unique ability to ask such a question in the first place. Yet in the calm, clear evaluation of all of nature, the fact that one such brain can ask a question that a frog's brain cannot ask is immaterial. It is a property of the human brain that it seeks order and, in so doing, asks fundamentally unanswerable questions about itself. Other brains don't do that just as they don't use language in the same way. There are trees and there are rocks and there are dogs and there are people -- and all these things are made from the proto-atoms that combined to form the earth and all that there is in it millions of years ago. Each of these objects and things have different properties but the meaning of these properties depend wholly on the entity that beholds them and that is a subjective meaning based on that entity's physical properties. I hope that answers your question. My fingers are quite tired. KD From evopsych at hotmail.com Thu Dec 12 18:04:54 2002 From: evopsych at hotmail.com (Joseph Cimino) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 18:04:54 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 12 21:24:58 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:24:58 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? References: Message-ID: <006a01c2a24e$d5456980$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Joe, Personally I think play is an excellent example of the "as-if", ironic or representational stance which for me constitutes the crux of human language. I don't have a problem with the idea that non humans have language although I doubt they have as fully developed sense of context or existence as we do. I sometimes get the impression that Percy and others viewed language as something beyond "scientific" explanation and therefore in some way constituted a sort of informal proof of God's existence. For me animals themselves -- with or without language serve just as well. Jim Piat Many animals play. Especially chimps. They play a lot, and they're arguably the most intelligent non-human animals. And when they do play, it looks a lot like fighting, but its not. In the example of play, "fighting" is not fighting, but the opposite. The chimps understand that their actions, while seemingly violent, are actually affectionate. Isn't that enough symbolism to constitute consciousness - a "knowing" of a "world" in which they created through they're symbolic play-fight? And if these chimps are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, and we have language, and the they do not, then might play be a precursor to language? Or, perhaps even an example of language? Joe C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Thu Dec 12 21:27:27 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:27:27 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <004801c2a24f$2e27c6b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Ken, I've read your treatise, and thank you for the ideas, yet I still very much disagree -- i.e.: you and Percy both begin from separate unproven assumptions -- yours that man is a [higher order] animal, Percy that man is different. However, Percy makes the stronger argument by showing how language is qualitatively different from the animals. And you say this difference with the animals is merely a quantitative difference, but not qualititative....but I don't think it's convincingly proven any more than you say Percy's is...actually I find Percy is more convincing. I'll have to go back through and read again for a point by point discussion of that; however it's late at the moment and I'm tired, but to discuss a couple of other points... The "need for order" explanation is accurate and on target, but too simplistic and can't stand on it's own to explain man's difference from the animals -- i.e.: yes we have a need for order (clearly discussed in the other paper I referred you to -- the "Death of Reality"), but it's not only that -- otherwise we'd just be high level computers. We need REASONS and purpose. Do you ever wonder why you're here? Or the purpose of an event or how it affected you and those around you and the world? I believe this wondering who we are, why we are, is intimately and indissolubly tied up with the need for order out of chaos. Making this order out of chaos is more than just putting things into their appropriate categories, or knowing what sensory experience will occur to us next -- it's anticipating what sensory experience will occur to us on the basis of a world view, paradigm, pattern that we've worked that gives the world overall meaning and purpose. I've heard in psychoanalysis that we need a "story" for the events that happen to us. In other words, when we meet someone, fall in love, get married, psychologically we need a "story" for why and how that happened or it feels incomplete and unresolved. This is also true for less fortuitous occurrences as well, such as death of a loved one or divorce -- we emotionally and spiritually resolve that experience when we place it in a story context that we have developed that chooses to focus on certain of the sense experiences part of that that contributed to a meaning and purpose for that happening. In other words, there's order out of chaos, yes, but an integral part of that order is the finding out of "WHY" it happened -- the attibution of meaning and purpose to that happening (in fact, that's why we create the order in the first place). This idea of man's need for knowledge differentiating him from the animals is also the Genesis story the fall of man -- this view of man is explained in Genesis. The animals are still in the "Garden of Eden;" man however was expelled. Man ate of the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. i.e.: He now not only acts in the world, experiences the world, and categorizes (sets order -- mentally and physically) to the world, but he wonders and thinks about these actions -- are they good? are they evil? He stands over and above his existence and examines it as well as himself... Percy talks about this much, and man's "self-consciousness" of himself -- standing over and above himself and watching himself. This self-consciousness is part of The Fall Percy really does a terrific job of this in Lost in the Cosmos, I think, with the C1, C2, and C3 language analogy, as well as with the people in the desert examining the Indian ceremony, and most of the rest of the book. And he deals with it some also in Signposts and Message as well his other non-fiction. I think you could make an argument that some humans live their animals side more than their human side -- Flannery O'Connor does that in Wise Blood with the gorilla. That's her point entirely. Then you could have something like a quantitative scale, but animals can only get so high up (never make it to symbol) something like Joseph's post about animal "play" being a precursor to symbolic language -- humans however can sink pretty low, and many writers have said (and I think) that contemporary postmodern society encourages man to live out the animal side rather than the spiritual side (again, the loss of religion, etc.) (I think you got my thesis misinterpreted when you said I meant to say the 20th century is more spiritual -- I think the opposite.) It's a difficult and dense subject I think, and is almost like the free-will/determinism debate -- that is, the same evidence proves both sides so it remains unresolved to this day. But, in the end, does Percy fail or does he succeed in his argument? I think Percy does as good a job as any, using language. I would love to hear more thoughts on this! Karey From piat1 at bellsouth.net Thu Dec 12 21:41:13 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 21:41:13 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] animal communication and consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C0A@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <007001c2a251$1a316290$0101a8c0@D68RS511> > Dear Jim (I apologize for the previous informalities. Too much in a hurry to > get my ideas out there) Same here! > > Thanks for the feedback and interesting ideas. All due respect though, I'm > not sure what you mean by "the discovery of the abstract notion existence". > Doesn't this imply that the notion existed before its "discovery"? I'd say yes. > If so, > doesn't that mean that the "thing" is not contingent upon our constructing > ideas about it? Again, I'd say yes. That consciousness was something that existed prior to our > notions of it and was made available to us, either by grace or evolution, > and not something that sprang forth? Well if by this you mean consciousness and existence as well as consciousness of existence were not invented by man I would agree. But there may have particular time in history during which man discovered hem -- just as there was a specific point in history when man discovered that time was not fixed but relative. This latter discovery --momentus as it was- would pale in comparison to the discovery of context or existence itself. Maybe even discovery is too strong a word -- maybe realized through the grace of God is a better way to put the matter. Hmmm. I have to chew on that for > awhile. But, I think I hold to my first contention that language attempts to > get at the consciousness we participate in, instead of consciousness being a > manifestation of a language we use. Interesting stuff. > Well I'm puzzling over the same question -- but I think (if I understand you correctly) that we both agree that consciousness and or language is more akin to something we participate in than something we each individually responsible for creating or generating. Jim Piat From wriddick at usa.net Fri Dec 13 00:54:00 2002 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 23:54:00 -0600 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness In-Reply-To: <002001c2a21e$df37a640$0101a8c0@D68RS511> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C08@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: >I think you are much in line with how Percy would describe the matter. >However I think a case can also be made that the discovery of the abstract >notion of existence was the seminal event from which consciousness sprang >and not vice versa. Seminal events here are quite literally more important than one would otherwise think. I'm rather surprised by the relative lack of attention being paid to current science in this debate since it's changed so dramatically since Percy's lifetime. There is a preponderance of genetic evidence beginning to show up about exactly how *unique* - not common, but *unique* - man's ability to use language is in the animal kingdom. The old '60s approach of assuming animals - however intelligent and cunning - are in our same class has fallen by the wayside. You're attacking a straw man who doesn't exist any longer high up in the food chain of scientific research. At least one clear genetic mutation critical for language has already been identified, although no one's quite sure how it functions. There are a lot of supporting players in the human genome as well - especially our advanced immune system and larger cranial capacity. The human brain burns a huge amount of calories, making it a far more important organ in humans relative to other animals and a far larger drain on metabolism. That kind of development requires both dedication from parents raising children and extra time in the womb and extra resources from mom for the brain to develop. Human children are exceptionally vulnerable to the elements when born and require a great deal of care. That much everyone on the list probably understands. It's easy to see that, speaking in terms of evolution, sex is biologically one perk that keeps the parents together. Evolution has manipulated us to bond this way. The longer the parents are together, the better shot junior has. Extended social bonds are extremely important. There's even interesting work on the important role of maternal grandmothers. (At childbirth, no one exclaims, "Get this kid some genetic testing! I need to know who the mother is, stat!") What's more interesting is how sex itself seems to synchronize the parents' immune systems and how this influences brain development in the womb. Believe it or not, one of the crucial factors permitting the larger human brain seems to be sperm - particularly an inflammatory cytokine expressed in it called TGF-beta. If humans were like average mammals, they'd be kicked out of mom's comfortable abode by the fourth to fifth month. As human moms know, they're not that lucky. A human fetus is quite aggressive at going after the resources in mom's bloodstream needed for brain development. This quest for nutrients means if more stuff is coming in from mom, more stuff is going out from junior. To a degree I don't think is seen in other mammals, there's substantial transfer of genetic material across the placental barrier. Mothers can wind up with cells from their children scattered all over their bodies... and yet their immune systems don't reject it as foreign material. They have acquired some sort of immunity. (The relative leniency required of a woman's immune system may explain why women are far more likely to suffer from autoimmune problems like lupus. The immune system might not kill off defective cells inside her own body until they grow into a real menace and then she overreacts to all tissues of a given type.) How do mothers acquire this immunity? Sex. Oodles of sex. At least, that's what it's beginning to look like... and this is all relative to, say, a wombat... not that I'm a student of wombat love or anything. I mean, I'm sure it's great and all. It's just not for me. (There I go, projecting again.) Er, where was I? One of the ways a mother's body rejects her fetus is through preeclampsia. Women who engage in sex for a year prior to conception are noticeably less likely to suffer from preeclampsia. There's also a difference in preeclampsia rates for women who engage in oral sex during pregnancy, although these results will have to be verified with wider studies. The TGF-beta in sperm primes the vagina not to reject sperm as foreign material, otherwise inflammation and possibly allergy would result (which does sometimes happen). Beyond that, somewhere, somehow some sperm are ferried into the limbic system where the mother's friend or foe systems are told by TGF-B to recognize these codes as friendly. Once she's pregnant and these codes start invading her bloodstream, she doesn't respond as if she's being "infected." The baby's brain gets enough nutrients to fully develop and the world's smartest creature continues to produce offspring. (The cost? TGF-B is an inflammatory cytokine key to the growth of certain cancers. Most men experience prostate swelling in their life or even cancer. Maybe there's a connection.) Animals have feelings. They have some level of awareness, which varies. Dogs in particular have evolved to read and respond to human cues quite efficiently in the last ten thousand years. A few species are monogamous as a mating strategy. Animals even have some level of tool use. Until a Dr. Frankenstein intervenes, animal brains are still qualitatively different from ours. Animals have plenty of the sparks of consciousness here and there but none of the fire itself. In mankind, not only is the nature of communication different, so too is the nature of sexual attraction and what it means. Is it any wonder man discovers the upside (and downside) of sex and the fruits of the Tree in the same parable? Both words and sex are about reproducing oneself. The Garden of Eden brings us creation in a divine image, words with which to express ourselves (flowing from the Word itself), a partner with whom to reproduce and communicate, dominion over the earth, (pent?)ultimate knowledge and, of course, suffering and mortality (which the other tools allow us to escape). The one thing perhaps stripped from all this in the modern era is the responsibility and gratitude that's supposed to go with it. This is a summary of scientific material I've read in recent _Newsweek_, _Scientific American_ and _New York Times_ editions. I offer it to show you how much stranger the evolution of language is than any one of us would have thought ten years ago. You may be able to find abstracts to the original studies here in the PubMed abstract database: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi Run a search for "TGF-B sperm." My body has been overproducing cytokines for years now with adverse consequences for my neurons. Beyond carpal and cubital tunnel, at one point even my speaking skills were endangered by the swelling, so it was inevitable in my quest for better health I would come across these links. If you want me to tell you about ovarian cysts, prostate cancer and that soda machine in your high school, I can do that too. P.S. Republicans are homo sapiens too, though their knuckles have been dragging a bit of late. P.P.S. The goal of evolution isn't dominance, it's success; reproduction of our selfish genes. The issue here isn't the survival of an individual animal, but of a group of genes, which might well lead an animal to sacrifice itself for the good of the family. That makes all the difference in the economics of the problem. P.P.P.S. Saying that the process is not unique, therefore the product of some process is not unique is saying two very different things. It's not possible for us to know all the "initial conditions" of God's experiment, so determining the rules of the game doesn't necessarily rule out divine intervention. If a random mutation occurred a hundred thousand years ago and lead to the development of human language, what caused it? We'll go up and down the causal chain in endless circles finding multiple historical contingencies we can only guess about. The level of entropy is such that the system can never be completely represented by anything other than the system itself. Some things will always remain mysteries. Our comprehension of the universe will always remain incomplete.. P.P.P.P.S. As per information acquired from the Sci-Fi mini-series, _Taken_, I can now authoritatively state that Bert's space-baby is the source of rush hour traffic congestion. (Or was that _Soap_? I forget. One's funnier and they both make about as much sense.) I need to go now and get drunk and use my considerable psychic powers to make crop circles in a corn field with my flying saucer. 'Cause, you know, when you can traverse the galaxies on a whim, that's what you love to spend your time doing most: scribbling geometric nonsense on midwestern USDA welfare alfalfa to entertain the myth-less _Enquirer_ readers in search of myth. From piat1 at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 13 01:56:40 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 01:56:40 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C08@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <009901c2a274$c9a82060$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Wade, I've been reading accounts of the genetic basis of mental disorders for the past 30 years -- until one of them comes up with a passably interesting account of what a mental disorder is I will continue to dismiss them out of hand. Same goes for the so called genetic "explanations" of language -- until the geneticists demonstrate some understanding of what makes the study of language interesting I consider their research beside the point. How can they identify the genes for language when neither they or anyone else yet knows what language is or who has the capacity for it? Seems to me the nature and distribution of language ability (like that of so called mental disorders) is only self evident to those who understand it least. Jim Piat From PARLINS at culver.org Fri Dec 13 14:03:25 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:03:25 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C13@exchangeserver.culver.org> Cats play too, as do -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Cimino [mailto:evopsych at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:05 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Many animals play. Especially chimps. They play a lot, and they're arguably the most intelligent non-human animals. And when they do play, it looks a lot like fighting, but its not. In the example of play, "fighting" is not fighting, but the opposite. The chimps understand that their actions, while seemingly violent, are actually affectionate. Isn't that enough symbolism to constitute consciousness - a "knowing" of a "world" in which they created through they're symbolic play-fight? And if these chimps are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, and we have language, and the they do not, then might play be a precursor to language? Or, perhaps even an example of language? Joe C. _____ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Fri Dec 13 14:04:11 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:04:11 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C14@exchangeserver.culver.org> Ooops... not completed. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Parlin, Steven [mailto:PARLINS at culver.org] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:03 PM To: 'percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org' Subject: RE: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Cats play too, as do -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Cimino [mailto:evopsych at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:05 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Many animals play. Especially chimps. They play a lot, and they're arguably the most intelligent non-human animals. And when they do play, it looks a lot like fighting, but its not. In the example of play, "fighting" is not fighting, but the opposite. The chimps understand that their actions, while seemingly violent, are actually affectionate. Isn't that enough symbolism to constitute consciousness - a "knowing" of a "world" in which they created through they're symbolic play-fight? And if these chimps are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, and we have language, and the they do not, then might play be a precursor to language? Or, perhaps even an example of language? Joe C. _____ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Fri Dec 13 14:40:28 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:40:28 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C15@exchangeserver.culver.org> Dear Joseph: Isn't that enough symbolism to constitute consciousness - a "knowing" of a "world" in which they created through they're symbolic play-fight? Hmmmm... first I don't think I follow the use of the word "symbolism" in here. What are you suggesting is being symbolized? And, what is the "world" you refer to? Regardless, that a chimp or any animal (Cats play too, as do dogs, as do birds, as do any number of creatures) interacts or behaves in a variety of complex manners does not necessitate consciousness or the knowing of a world. Cats "know" (sort of) not to bite too hard when they are playing, but that sort of "knowing" is not qualitatively different than "knowing" not to leap from the roof or when to cross the street. Further, "worlds" are not created by symbols as if out of nothingness. If that were true, that worlds or consciousnesses were merely the sum total of our abstract representations, we could not think without words, which is absurd. We do it all the time. Respectfully, Steve Parlin -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Cimino [mailto:evopsych at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 6:05 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Many animals play. Especially chimps. They play a lot, and they're arguably the most intelligent non-human animals. And when they do play, it looks a lot like fighting, but its not. In the example of play, "fighting" is not fighting, but the opposite. The chimps understand that their actions, while seemingly violent, are actually affectionate. Isn't that enough symbolism to constitute consciousness - a "knowing" of a "world" in which they created through they're symbolic play-fight? And if these chimps are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, and we have language, and the they do not, then might play be a precursor to language? Or, perhaps even an example of language? Joe C. _____ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Fri Dec 13 15:20:36 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:20:36 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C16@exchangeserver.culver.org> Dear Wade, I agree with Jim on this. While it may be the case, and likely is the case, that there is a genetic component to consider, until we can point to language and say "There it is; that's language; and that's not", I am dubious about claims to a direct genetic link. Furthermore, I'm inclined to believe that the mind, and subsequently consciousness, is intractable; that it can't be understood strictly as a bio-chemical system of interactions. Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 1:57 AM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness Dear Wade, I've been reading accounts of the genetic basis of mental disorders for the past 30 years -- until one of them comes up with a passably interesting account of what a mental disorder is I will continue to dismiss them out of hand. Same goes for the so called genetic "explanations" of language -- until the geneticists demonstrate some understanding of what makes the study of language interesting I consider their research beside the point. How can they identify the genes for language when neither they or anyone else yet knows what language is or who has the capacity for it? Seems to me the nature and distribution of language ability (like that of so called mental disorders) is only self evident to those who understand it least. Jim Piat -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 13 15:26:40 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:26:40 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C13@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <00ee01c2a2e5$f1cdc4c0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> >>Cats play too, as do Hey, when did I ever let anyone complete a thought.. I was going to begin with a similar observation. I have cats. But I can't be sure the cats are playing (as in let's pretend we are fighting -- with all that implies as Joe Cimino I think rightly suggests) or whether they are just having a non lethal tussle among litter mates. Do they intend their activity as play or is it merely that I interpret it as play. But there are a couple of other important symbolic or representational activities (aside from so called verbal language) that are less ambiguous which I think are also worth considering. The first is tool using. Tools like symbols are "used" for something. Chimps, birds and I think some other animals as well are known to use tools. I think this is strong but not conclusive evidence that they have the ability to represent, symbolize or "use" objects for some purpose other than that which the object can achieve under it's own steam. Another non verbal symbolic behavior worth looking for (I think) is graphic art. I don't think non human animals stack up too well on this one. True we can interpret some of their activities as artisticly expressive, dancelike or musically expressive but I can't think of any animals that deliberately make pictures of objects. Nor for that matter do they seem all that intrigued by mirrors -- an interest which seems to me might be suggestive of symoblic activity. Finally of course there is the all that controversial data about chimp language from my old alma mater GSU -- which I for one find strongly suggestive of significant symbolic capacity among chimps. And Steve -- now having read you full message-- what on earth gave you the notion we think without symbols, abstract representations or words (they are all functionally equivalent are they not?). Or do you mean to suggest that neither animals nor humans think in any but a mechanistic way? Seems to me that when we think with pictures we are still thinking symbolically. After all we do not try to eat the image of what we are imagining -- we eat the actual object iself after our thinking (model, planning and testing with symbols) has helped us to actually achieve the food object itself. And, Steve and others, please forgive me if I'm coming acrosss as a self imagined know it all or smug. I'm not at all sure of what I'm saying. I'm just afraid if I expressed all my doubts and qualifications I'd never get to the end of any sentence. But be assured I have great respect for all that others have to say (including those geneticists I made such an ass of myself lambasting)-- I'm just thrilled we are having this discussion again and hoping this time I'll understand it all better. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Fri Dec 13 15:54:01 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:54:01 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C13@exchangeserver.culver.org> <00ee01c2a2e5$f1cdc4c0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Message-ID: <007c01c2a2e9$c3d7e1a0$0301000a@AFAC955012> >>>what on earth gave you the notion we think without symbols, abstract representations or words (they are all functionally equivalent are they not?). Or do you mean to suggest that neither animals nor humans think in any but a mechanistic way? Seems to me that when we think with pictures we are still thinking symbolically. After all we do not try to eat the image of what we are imagining -- we eat the actual object iself after our thinking (model, planning and testing with symbols) has helped us to actually achieve the food object itself. <<<<< This relates to the Time magazine autism article I referred to earlier -- autistic people, with limited language capacity, think in pictures and have to learn to use that to understand the world. They also exhibit other symptoms that may prove Percy's theory. From PARLINS at culver.org Fri Dec 13 16:13:18 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:13:18 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C18@exchangeserver.culver.org> And Steve -- now having read you full message-- what on earth gave you the notion we think without symbols, abstract representations or words (they are all functionally equivalent are they not?). Or do you mean to suggest that neither animals nor humans think in any but a mechanistic way? Seems to me that when we think with pictures we are still thinking symbolically. After all we do not try to eat the image of what we are imagining -- we eat the actual object itself after our thinking (model, planning and testing with symbols) has helped us to actually achieve the food object itself. Dear Jim, I must not have made my point clear enough. I certainly wasn't suggesting mechanical thinking. Eeegads. Nor was I suggesting that we don't use symbols for thinking. I was, however, proposing that our thinking, we humans, is not limited to what we can represent, e.g. words, pictures, symbols, etc. Knowing and consciousness are not contingent upon whether our thoughts can be represented. We frequently find ourselves in situations that defy language or representation. But, its our relational need that compels us to find and create symbolic form for our thoughts. We want to share our thoughts. In fact, new paintings, new dances, news sculptures, new music, new words would not be possible at all if thought did not precede the representation of it. Poetry in particular is the finest example. In poetry we use words to get at something we know, but had no way of communicating until we caged it with a phrase. It happens all the time. And, it happens to us when we see a new phrase that someone else effectively coined. The phrase didn't tell us something new; instead we recognize in it what we knew but had not yet named ourselves. You can't name something unless it exists. Thought exists before we name it. It's a little like the Trinity (a consistency I like very much since we were created in "his image"). God's existence is not contingent upon the incarnation; the word was with God BEFORE he became incarnate. After the incarnation he was not only God, but a "representative" of God, the word made flesh, the Son. I think our language works like this. Our knowledge of a thing precedes our naming it; it is formless and therefore uncommunicabe and unrelational. However, it's in the naming that we give form to the formlessness of it, as God did when he spoke and creation was. Then, in a more particular way, God becomes flesh. But, God does not depend on the flesh. Becoming flesh, becoming sacrament, was a relational need, not an existential need. In the same way, in our own Genesis, we create symbols not because our consciousness is dependent upon it, but because we have a relational need (perhaps even a relational need with our own self). Maybe I've really mucked it up, but I just can't seem to find the words for something I know I want to say. Cheers, Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 3:27 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? >>Cats play too, as do Hey, when did I ever let anyone complete a thought.. I was going to begin with a similar observation. I have cats. But I can't be sure the cats are playing (as in let's pretend we are fighting -- with all that implies as Joe Cimino I think rightly suggests) or whether they are just having a non lethal tussle among litter mates. Do they intend their activity as play or is it merely that I interpret it as play. But there are a couple of other important symbolic or representational activities (aside from so called verbal language) that are less ambiguous which I think are also worth considering. The first is tool using. Tools like symbols are "used" for something. Chimps, birds and I think some other animals as well are known to use tools. I think this is strong but not conclusive evidence that they have the ability to represent, symbolize or "use" objects for some purpose other than that which the object can achieve under it's own steam. Another non verbal symbolic behavior worth looking for (I think) is graphic art. I don't think non human animals stack up too well on this one. True we can interpret some of their activities as artisticly expressive, dancelike or musically expressive but I can't think of any animals that deliberately make pictures of objects. Nor for that matter do they seem all that intrigued by mirrors -- an interest which seems to me might be suggestive of symoblic activity. Finally of course there is the all that controversial data about chimp language from my old alma mater GSU -- which I for one find strongly suggestive of significant symbolic capacity among chimps. And Steve -- now having read you full message-- what on earth gave you the notion we think without symbols, abstract representations or words (they are all functionally equivalent are they not?). Or do you mean to suggest that neither animals nor humans think in any but a mechanistic way? Seems to me that when we think with pictures we are still thinking symbolically. After all we do not try to eat the image of what we are imagining -- we eat the actual object iself after our thinking (model, planning and testing with symbols) has helped us to actually achieve the food object itself. And, Steve and others, please forgive me if I'm coming acrosss as a self imagined know it all or smug. I'm not at all sure of what I'm saying. I'm just afraid if I expressed all my doubts and qualifications I'd never get to the end of any sentence. But be assured I have great respect for all that others have to say (including those geneticists I made such an ass of myself lambasting)-- I'm just thrilled we are having this discussion again and hoping this time I'll understand it all better. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karey at charter.net Fri Dec 13 17:13:57 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:13:57 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man References: <004801c2a24f$2e27c6b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <004301c2a261$20b2a060$0f21fea9@j8d0t8> Message-ID: <009601c2a2f4$ee6b8920$0301000a@AFAC955012> To Ken and interested listeners -- First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- it's not important whether man is better or worse than the animals -- I'm not sure that Percy actually makes that point, and if he does, it is immaterial to his argument. He is trying to describe the nature of man, not to compare man to the animals to see who is better or worse. But concepts often can be understood in terms of contrast (Derrida) therefore the animals come up in his argument but they really aren't what the argument is all about -- it is about understanding the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. (To digress: I happen to believe man is more advanced, just as angels and God are more advanced than man -- but only insofar as say a teenager is older and more advanced than a toddler...though perhaps that comparison is misleading as well because the toddler will eventually grow to be a teenager. Here I am just speaking for myself, not Percy, so this sidebar comment is not about my argument for Percy's thought per se.) Secondly, half of your argument is devoted to evolution and that that's how man's language capacity arose -- but that's not Percy's topic at all. He doesn't posit HOW language arose -- or if he does, I've missed it, so he certainly doesn't dwell on it, and his real claim is not based in the means by which man acquired language capacity and man didn't. His claim is WHAT language is. As far as I see it, both you and Percy are saying that animal communication and human communication differ, you just say it is the (a) ordering of experience that makes the difference, whereas Percy says it is (b) symbol-mongering that makes it different. Ordering of experience is a subset of symbol-mongering. In other words, you've got it partially right, you see part of the picture but it's more that. To see the whole picture, you must understand Percy's triadic theory. Of course, he has three book length non-fiction treatises on this, and I had to read all three to kind of get this idea, so I'm certainly not going successfully convey it here. To attempt a brief summary, a behaviorist and animal language theory is one that is sign-based -- association-based as you want to call it -- and looks like this Object Balloon ---------------> Word "Balloon" in the animal, it goes like this: if his master says "Fetch," the pet (assuming it's a trained dog) will "Fetch." It also works in reverse, as in, your cat makes some pawing motion to you for food (stimulus) this results in him obtaining food (response). Yes, yes, yes, communication is taking place, but no, no, no, it does not have to do with SYMBOL-mongering. Percy's comment that "If you say 'James' to a dog, he will look for James. If you say James to a human, he will wonder about James" ("Message in the Bottle") conveys this perfectly. This wondering is not merely to "order" the world, but it is to know and understand the world -- not just for mere survival (avoidance of chaos), as you say. It has something to do with what is described in Genesis: Man ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and realized he was NAKED. What is this but self-awareness? Before he did not realize that, or anything, about himself. This is a "META-" ability -- the ability to rise over and above the thing itself (in this case, man himself) and examine it. So "Knowledge of Good and Evil" bestowed by eating the fruit means that man can now examine his actions, his life, himself, others actions, the human species, and evaluate any of them as good, evil, or something inbetween -- and he can do far more than that, I think; the idea of good and evil just barely encompasses this "meta-" ability man has to perceive and assess his life, the world and his own actions, in a way that the animals don't. Self awareness gives us, as Steve says, the ability to reflect on self which gives us art, theology, history, literature -- all of that is man reflecting on the nature of man, the world, and everything else, something he couldn't do before. Animals don't have that -- they can't reflect on themselves. (And so, they are at peace with themselves!) Man also does other things the animals don't -- what animal commits suicide, unless for a practical reasons such as to save another's life? Animals don't get depressed. They may get frustrated when their needs aren't being met or their living environemnt is for. Animals don't "sin." Percy calls this a C1 state in "Lost in the Cosmos." Man is in C2 state. (Read "Lost in the Cosmos") (By the way, by my use of Genesis please understand I am not making an argument for or against the physcial reality of the Genesis story OR for or against evolution -- Percy talks about this in "Lost in the Cosmos" and I really couldn't figure out his stance, just that he kind of made fun of ALL takes of the Genesis/evolution debate. I am using Genesis here because I think it illustrates perfectly what Percy was trying to say (or rather, vice versa!) As Pat said, Percy and Chomsky were on to this, just that with Chomsky, he wasn't conscious of it.) So ordering is just the ability to interact with the environment and make sense so things aren't chaotic, as you say and I agree. But this "meta-" ability is not only man's ability to order the environment, it also is his ability to REFLECT on the environment and wonder why about it -- but even more than that, it is the ability to reflect on HIMSELF (as an individual human and a species as a whole). Seeking meaning, purpose, why am I here, why does this thing/person/animal do such and such, and as Steve says, creating poetry, art, history -- animals do not do this. This is not just order -- again the need for order is a subset of what this is. This is the human being reflecting on himself and life. Art is a reflection on/of life. Literature is. History is. Theology is. Philosophy REALLY is. There are no animal philosohers -- no chicken philosophers as Percy might say. This ability takes us out of stimulus-response mode, living merely for survival and need satisfaction, to another level. Or if you want, you might say what Susanne Langer says, (with whom Percy agrees on this point) that we are still satisfying a need, but a new need, the need to "know." (Again, the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil.) For Percy, human language looks like this: Object "Balloon"-------------------> Word "Balloon" Human Being (I can't draw the lines in e-mail, but there is a dotted line between object and word, and solid between object and human, and human and word.) That means there is only an apparent relationship between object and word, but really, the real relationship is between object and human, human and word...and the real language event, the uniting of the two external things, occurs within the human himself...the human is the "coupler" as Percy would say.) What happens with language does NOT happen in the environment, but it happens inside the human -- rather than cause-effect (two events, object and word, or word and object, following each other in related succession in time), it is a PAIRING, and a SIMULTANEOUS pairing at that -- in other words, the two become one in the human being's mind. THAT is where the real language event is taking place. It is not about sense perceptions outside the human. That is only, as Percy says, a "quasi-relationship". Of course that's just the basis but there's much more -- the idea of "world" and meaning and myth and magic that Percy discusses, but let's start there. A brain and a mind (also: consciousness) are two different things. (First principle you learn in Philosophy of Mind courses). Physicalists (Eliminative Materialists at the extreme end) will reduce consciousness to brain matter and brain states, but no other. But this is not a given; this is just one theory among many, and can't hold water among those who don't believe it -- in other words, just because there is a physical brain doesn't mean that's all there is -- it just means that there IS a physical brain. However, this "physical brain" has self awareness, the ability to reflect on itself. That is Percy's point over and over again -- that those scientists who say we are nothing but atoms and particles bombarding against each other are forgetting that they are engaging in the act of self-reflection. One of the issues in this debate is: upon whom lies the burden of proof. There are many arguments, scientifically based, that consciousness is separate from brain states. (Almeder's "Death and Personal Survival" for one.) However, that's not for me to debate here -- suffice it to say that the burden of proof is then on you if you use that (consciousness being equivalent to or a product of brain states or evolution) as the reason for discounting Percy's theory -- rather than finding flaws within the theory itself. The burden of proof is on Percy to convince you that the language event is different, and that it involves "symbol" which is more than -- far beyond -- just "ordering" and is awareness, meaning, myth...that is, ontological rather than epistemological or biological. His description of the language event is not a nature-of-the-brain based argument -- he freely acknowledges that he doesn't know WHAT the coupler is within man, just that it occurs. In your conclusion you ask Percy to come up with something that is separate from "the brain" (not brain based) and if by brain you mean human perception, then that is impossible for anyone -- all thought is human perception. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: ken denney To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:35 PM Subject: Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man No, Percy FAILS in his argument because it proceeds from a false premise. Man is not "better" or "worse" than animals because he has a more sublime capacity of language. The false premise is that there is a material difference within human beings that makes them special. Percy certainly thinks there is, but how does he prove it? He simply comes up with an argument that fulfills his conclusion. He points to certain "uniquenesses" in the human ability of language and from that point alone claims to prove his thesis. That uniqueness is a desire for "meaning." But he is wrong about "meaning." The concept of meaning, I maintain, is an artificial construct of a mind seeking order from chaos, which, I repeat, is a characteristic of man's mind (not a uniqueness) forged as an essential tool for survival by the process of evolution. You ask "Do you (I) ever wonder why you're here? Or the purpose of an event or how it affected you (me) and those around you (me) and the world?" Of course I have, but the fact that I ask those questions -- indeed am capable of formulating them, or of seeking such answers -- does NOT mark me as a separate being touched by a special spiritual connectivity with the essense of the universe. The fact that I ask these questions is simply a function of my very ordinary brain, made up of physical components that are of the earth. Asking the question "why am I here" is only another way of seeking order from disorder, but on a more philosophical level reflecting centuries of human evolution. Like Helen Keller, our primordial ancestors found themselves in a world of chaos. Imagine the first human being on earth. He would see a bright light in the sky and find it warm and comforting. But the light moved and eventually disappeared, leaving him cold and uncomfortable. In these first hours of life, when sunlight was steady, he had come to rely on it. Now, for reasons he could not possibly understand, it was gone. He shivered through the night, wrapped in the mysteries of the darkness. Then, some time later, the sun reappeared. Hosanah! When man realized that certain physical phenomenon was predictable -- that there would be seasons, that sharp stones could cut flesh, etc., then he was able to begin to make order out of chaos. He could build societies with technology that made life easier and eventually indulge his cognitive skills in backstabbing people at work or writing philosophical treatises. Now let's step back once more and look again at that first human being who first beheld the sun. At that specific moment in time he was an animal no different from all the other animals. Yet there was something physically different about him. His brain had the physical property to remember things that his senses perceived and TO SEE PATTERNS. The first time the sun reappeared after disappearing might have been an accident. The second time it reappeared, there was basis to believe that it might reappear again. When it did, then man realized that that he could expect the reappearance of the sun every day and make plans to wash the wheel or whatever during the day and sleep soundly at night knowing the sun would bring another day. From the incremental discovery of predictable events, man built his civilization. Eventually it led him to ask such questions as "why am I here?" So now we get to the crux of the argument: from whence comes that property in man's brain that allows him to find order from disorder and to eventually be able to ask "why am I here?" I say that this ability was a natural progression of evolution. I say that animals were evolving toward the state of being able to find patterns in chaos and thus discern order from disorder. The simple answer to your question of me is this: The human brain asks philosophical questions about its existence BECAUSE IT CAN. That's the answer, no more, no less. The human brain seeks such answers because it is an organ that has evolved consciousness (the end result of discerning patterns) because consciousness gives it an edge over the other animals in the fight for survival. The brain is a physical structure, locked within a physical being that is on the earth and like all other such creatures is trying to survive. Percy looks at human beings and he feels that there must be some purpose to them, some reason that they are able to reason and he decides -- arbitrarily -- that there is an external force in the universe that makes it so. This is false logic. It is equally possible that his brain, seeking order, creates the anticipation of the external force simply because that would be an answer that satisfies him. If you consider an ordinary rock trying to figure out its rockness, then you would have an idea of what I am trying to say. The human brain is a piece of matter that behaves according to the physical laws of this earth. It is also subject to evolution, being a living organism. Evolution forces organisms to adapt survival tools. The the ability to cogitate patterns is simply a tool that the human brain has adopted. The gift might have gone to some other animal's brain. A rock given such a tool might decide that it exists because the tree that stands over it wished it to exist. A rock given the need to find reason for its existence might conceive of any number of reasons for its existence,all of which would be as valid as the next. None of them would be real, however, because the need to find a reason for existence is only the byproduct of an effective tool for survival produced through evolution. Ultimately, Percy thinks that man's ability to ask questions that seek meaning in the universe makes him unique. I believe that only through the accidents of evolution that human brains developed the ability to ask such questions. Yet to ask such questions in search of meaning in the universe is ultimately pointless. The brain, because it needs answers, will create answers for itself. In other words, the brain is an unreliable tool for resolving the question of whether man is more than an organism. The brain, formed of matter, evolved from nature, has characteristics, one of which is to seek for patterns in chaos. When I look at a cloud, my brain my see the shape of a rabbit. When you look at the very same cloud you may see the shape of a 1938 Buick Roadmaster. There is neither a flying rabbit or a Buick; it is simply water vapor condensed into a chaotic shape. It is useless to find meaning in the shape of a cloud, but our brains are wired to do so. If you want to prove that man is different from animals in the way Percy wants, you are going to have to come up with a proof that does not rely on anything having to do with the brain -- and that includes language and faith. KD From piat1 at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 13 17:18:47 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:18:47 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C18@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <011e01c2a2f5$9b1c3700$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Steve and fellow discussants Steve, you express yourself very well far as I can tell. I must confess that despite the inherent complexity of our subject I couldn't resist teasing you a bit. I understood full well that you were not intending to suggest that human thinking is mechanistic. But I was being a smart alec and trying to suggest that whether you it intended it or not -- "thinking" that is mechanistic is the logical implication of non symbolic "thinking". IOWs that is (at least by my lights) what non symbolic activity is -- mechanistic. I do not agree with your view below that thought precedes representation. That representation is perhaps just a vehicle for conveying our thought to others. On the contrary I think representation is the very essence of thought. It's what divides (triadic) thought from mere (dyadic)mechanistic re-action. OTOH I find your notion that the desire for relationship drives our behavior (thinking, feeling and doing) an interesting and compelling one. I think our natural state is one of communion and relatedness. Community in dynamic equilibrium is I believe the most stable natural state; and, moreover, representation or thought is I believe a manifestation of both the means and the end of this natural or God given state. Why must thought precede representation or vice versa -- why can't they be the same thing? I'm not convinced poetic words are just the vehicles of thought -- I think they are the thought itself -- though with you I am content to attribute the impulse to thought/representation to something outside the thought itself --such as a desire to relate. Now -- as to the question of how we recognize the meaning of poetry if in fact it we did not know what the poetry symbolized before it was put in words. I do not deny that some acquaintance with non symbolic objects is necessary in order to represent them. What I am arguing is that it is the act of representing that gives us the kind of acquaintance we call "awareness of" the existence of the object. As opposed to pre-symbolic acquaintance which I would describe as mere reactive acquaintance. Moreover in my view we do not choose to symbolize objects (how could we -- we don't know they exist until we symbolize them) instead we exist in a world where everything is already symbolized. We awaken to this world -- we don't create it. It's existence precedes us as individuals. It is part and parcel of the community of which we are a part and in which we exist. I don't know how we as humans discovered existence, became aware of it or awakened to it. I think the Biblical account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is an attempt to explain the matter but I'm not sure. In the largest sense I think all of creation including the so called lower animals may swim in the same symbolical purposeful continuum. So -- I guess I've come full circle Steve and in some important sense agree with you --even if I clothed the thought in slightly different words. Hey -- why conclude on a note of disagreement ---especially when I'm not sure what I'm talking about to begin with! It's OK to keep switching sides I suppose. Else why even have the discussion, eh. Thanks- Jim Dear Jim, I must not have made my point clear enough. I certainly wasn't suggesting mechanical thinking. Eeegads. Nor was I suggesting that we don't use symbols for thinking. I was, however, proposing that our thinking, we humans, is not limited to what we can represent, e.g. words, pictures, symbols, etc. Knowing and consciousness are not contingent upon whether our thoughts can be represented. We frequently find ourselves in situations that defy language or representation. But, its our relational need that compels us to find and create symbolic form for our thoughts. We want to share our thoughts. In fact, new paintings, new dances, news sculptures, new music, new words would not be possible at all if thought did not precede the representation of it. Poetry in particular is the finest example. In poetry we use words to get at something we know, but had no way of communicating until we caged it with a phrase. It happens all the time. And, it happens to us when we see a new phrase that someone else effectively coined. The phrase didn't tell us something new; instead we recognize in it what we knew but had not yet named ourselves. You can't name something unless it exists. Thought exists before we name it. It's a little like the Trinity (a consistency I like very much since we were created in "his image"). God's existence is not contingent upon the incarnation; the word was with God BEFORE he became incarnate. After the incarnation he was not only God, but a "representative" of God, the word made flesh, the Son. I think our language works like this. Our knowledge of a thing precedes our naming it; it is formless and therefore uncommunicabe and unrelational. However, it's in the naming that we give form to the formlessness of it, as God did when he spoke and creation was. Then, in a more particular way, God becomes flesh. But, God does not depend on the flesh. Becoming flesh, becoming sacrament, was a relational need, not an existential need. In the same way, in our own Genesis, we create symbols not because our consciousness is dependent upon it, but because we have a relational need (perhaps even a relational need with our own self). Maybe I've really mucked it up, but I just can't seem to find the words for something I know I want to say. Cheers, Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 3:27 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Play As A Precursor To Language? >>Cats play too, as do Hey, when did I ever let anyone complete a thought.. I was going to begin with a similar observation. I have cats. But I can't be sure the cats are playing (as in let's pretend we are fighting -- with all that implies as Joe Cimino I think rightly suggests) or whether they are just having a non lethal tussle among litter mates. Do they intend their activity as play or is it merely that I interpret it as play. But there are a couple of other important symbolic or representational activities (aside from so called verbal language) that are less ambiguous which I think are also worth considering. The first is tool using. Tools like symbols are "used" for something. Chimps, birds and I think some other animals as well are known to use tools. I think this is strong but not conclusive evidence that they have the ability to represent, symbolize or "use" objects for some purpose other than that which the object can achieve under it's own steam. Another non verbal symbolic behavior worth looking for (I think) is graphic art. I don't think non human animals stack up too well on this one. True we can interpret some of their activities as artisticly expressive, dancelike or musically expressive but I can't think of any animals that deliberately make pictures of objects. Nor for that matter do they seem all that intrigued by mirrors -- an interest which seems to me might be suggestive of symoblic activity. Finally of course there is the all that controversial data about chimp language from my old alma mater GSU -- which I for one find strongly suggestive of significant symbolic capacity among chimps. And Steve -- now having read you full message-- what on earth gave you the notion we think without symbols, abstract representations or words (they are all functionally equivalent are they not?). Or do you mean to suggest that neither animals nor humans think in any but a mechanistic way? Seems to me that when we think with pictures we are still thinking symbolically. After all we do not try to eat the image of what we are imagining -- we eat the actual object iself after our thinking (model, planning and testing with symbols) has helped us to actually achieve the food object itself. And, Steve and others, please forgive me if I'm coming acrosss as a self imagined know it all or smug. I'm not at all sure of what I'm saying. I'm just afraid if I expressed all my doubts and qualifications I'd never get to the end of any sentence. But be assured I have great respect for all that others have to say (including those geneticists I made such an ass of myself lambasting)-- I'm just thrilled we are having this discussion again and hoping this time I'll understand it all better. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 13 17:42:06 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:42:06 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man References: <004801c2a24f$2e27c6b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <004301c2a261$20b2a060$0f21fea9@j8d0t8> <009601c2a2f4$ee6b8920$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <012401c2a2f8$dd173530$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Karey, I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just kidding of course. Jim Piat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" > To Ken and interested listeners -- > > First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are > disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- (snip) > the animals come up in his argument but they > really aren't what the argument is all about (snip) -- it is about understanding > the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. From karey at charter.net Fri Dec 13 17:58:36 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 17:58:36 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man References: <004801c2a24f$2e27c6b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <004301c2a261$20b2a060$0f21fea9@j8d0t8> <009601c2a2f4$ee6b8920$0301000a@AFAC955012> <012401c2a2f8$dd173530$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Message-ID: <017001c2a2fb$2b26f6a0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Hi Jim... This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for discussing religious beliefs? To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Dear Karey, I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just kidding of course. Jim Piat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" > To Ken and interested listeners -- > > First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are > disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- (snip) > the animals come up in his argument but they > really aren't what the argument is all about (snip) -- it is about understanding > the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From karey at charter.net Fri Dec 13 18:01:39 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 18:01:39 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man References: <004801c2a24f$2e27c6b0$0301000a@AFAC955012> <004301c2a261$20b2a060$0f21fea9@j8d0t8> <009601c2a2f4$ee6b8920$0301000a@AFAC955012> <012401c2a2f8$dd173530$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <017001c2a2fb$2b26f6a0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <018701c2a2fb$98c7b0f0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Ah! We re-find it through "The Word!" KP ----- Original Message ----- From: Karey L. Perkins To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Jim... This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for discussing religious beliefs? To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Dear Karey, I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just kidding of course. Jim Piat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" > To Ken and interested listeners -- > > First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are > disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- (snip) > the animals come up in his argument but they > really aren't what the argument is all about (snip) -- it is about understanding > the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From marcus at loyno.edu Fri Dec 13 20:21:13 2002 From: marcus at loyno.edu (marcus at loyno.edu) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 19:21:13 -0600 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <3dfa8789.51804e.0@loyno.edu> I agree that this has been an energetic discussion. But are we being too rapsodic? Even Gnostic? Humans may be unique in their having "the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world." But we also fall "down." We can and do use words and symbols to lie. As far as I know, that is also a sign of our uniqueness. Marcus Smith PS Thomas Sebeok once argued--and Percy was in the audience--that some insects use symbols to deceive (a spider that makes a fake insect offering to distract the female for mating purposes), but I wasn't persuaded and neither was Percy. Maybe he changed his mind after the summer in Toronto, but I never heard him say so. Maybe Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? >Hi Jim... > >This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate >count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my >dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift >through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and >contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our >investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have >sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) > >Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more >depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a >question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this >next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you >teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for >discussing religious beliefs? > >To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's >thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and >lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far >more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native >American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at >living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, >self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the >FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him >from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the >rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that >world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we >re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? > >Karey > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: James Piat >To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and >The Fall of Man > > >Dear Karey, > >I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is >and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- >but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human >animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the >world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me >even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just >kidding of course. > >Jim Piat > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Karey L. Perkins" > > >> To Ken and interested listeners -- >> >> First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are >> disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- > >(snip) >> the animals come up in his argument but they >> really aren't what the argument is all about > >(snip) >-- it is about understanding >> the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. > > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > From piat1 at bellsouth.net Fri Dec 13 21:20:13 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:20:13 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man References: <3dfa8789.51804e.0@loyno.edu> Message-ID: <014901c2a317$55eebdc0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Marcus, There are countless examples of non human animals using deception for purposes of mating, escape, hunting and the like. Some seem so elaborate, flexible and contrived that it's hard to imagine that they are not examples of conscious, deliberate deception employing symbols. Others, of course, appear effective but clearly fixed, instinctive and neither conscious nor deliberate. I'm wondering what any of us might take as the definitive test for determining if any given behavior is intentionally symbolic. IOWs is there any definitive way we can determine if another (whose consciousness we can not directly access) is engaging in symbolic behavior or using objects as symbols. This is the main reason that I think symbolic ability and consciousness are intimately related -- it seems to me consciousness is the only direct and convincing (albeit subjective) evidence we have of symbolic activity. Perhaps there can be no objective evidence of symbol se -- that one can always choose to interpret behavior as either symbolic or mechanistic. Ah something just occurs to me. Maybe I'm using the wrong unit of analysis. Maybe the test is not whether some individual member of a species or class is capable of symbolic activity but whether the species itself is capable. IOWs symbolization is inherently interpersonal behavior and can not occur or be objectively tested for without considering more that an individual member of a community. Perhaps a behavior is symbolic if it is taken by other members of the community as such. Behavior is symbolic if other members respond in such a way that it is clear that they perceive the act as standing for and communicating something other than the direct consequences of the behavior itself (that is to say the consequences of the behavior which follow only from the behavior itself as distinct from those consequence which depend upon others interpreting the behavior as symbolizing something other than itself) Perhaps this offers some hope of an objective test for symbolic activity -- or at least a direction in which to seek one. But Marcus -- I'm curious, what criteria (informal or otherwise) did you use to reject Seabeok example as not a genuine instance of symbolic behavior. And what if anything (short of direct conscious access) would you take as evidence of symbolic intention or interpretation. I don't mean this as a challenge -- I'm simply interested in your further thoughts on the matter. I find your comments on symbols as forms of deception helpful in getting a better handle on this fascinating phenomenon. Jim Piat > > But we also fall "down." We can and do use words and symbols to lie. As > far as I know, that is also a sign of our uniqueness. > > Marcus Smith > > PS Thomas Sebeok once argued--and Percy was in the audience--that some > insects use symbols to deceive From karey at charter.net Fri Dec 13 22:46:07 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:46:07 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <002401c2a323$55da06d0$0301000a@AFAC955012> Marcus, I don't disagree -- if you remember in Lost in the Cosmos, humans, due to C2 consciousness (the Fall), were rejected by the aliens who refused to let them land on their planet lest havoc result. The idea of Fall "up" is a theological approach that means the Fall was a "growth" or development of man -- but once expelled from the Garden, the journey has to continue, 40 years in the desert, and of course far more, and eventually to the Tree of Life (Christ) (or - the Word as in John of the bible). The Fall doesn't mean we've arrived, it means the journey has begun. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: marcus at loyno.edu To: karey at charter.net ; percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 8:21 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man I agree that this has been an energetic discussion. But are we being too rapsodic? Even Gnostic? Humans may be unique in their having "the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world." But we also fall "down." We can and do use words and symbols to lie. As far as I know, that is also a sign of our uniqueness. Marcus Smith PS Thomas Sebeok once argued--and Percy was in the audience--that some insects use symbols to deceive (a spider that makes a fake insect offering to distract the female for mating purposes), but I wasn't persuaded and neither was Percy. Maybe he changed his mind after the summer in Toronto, but I never heard him say so. Maybe Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? >Hi Jim... > >This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate >count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my >dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift >through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and >contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our >investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have >sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) > >Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more >depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a >question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this >next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you >teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for >discussing religious beliefs? > >To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's >thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and >lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far >more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native >American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at >living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, >self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the >FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him >from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the >rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that >world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we >re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? > >Karey > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: James Piat >To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org >Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and >The Fall of Man > > >Dear Karey, > >I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is >and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- >but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human >animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the >world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me >even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just >kidding of course. > >Jim Piat > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Karey L. Perkins" > > >> To Ken and interested listeners -- >> >> First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are >> disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- > >(snip) >> the animals come up in his argument but they >> really aren't what the argument is all about > >(snip) >-- it is about understanding >> the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. > > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at >http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > >-- > >An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Sat Dec 14 12:34:39 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:34:39 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C1A@exchangeserver.culver.org> Hi Karey, t The name of the course I'll be teaching is Language play and will revolve around Yule's text, The Study of Language. Only a part of the course will be devoted to this topic. The rest of it will cover the standard fare of language inquiry. No, I don't teach at a parochial school, but it is a private school and religious beliefs are not checked at the door. BTW: If you include any of my blatherings about how I think language works like the Trinity in your dissertation, I'd appreciate a respectful nod in my direction (a citation). I've been working on this idea for a few years now, and it may eventually become my own dissertation, or at least a funny book. Cheers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:59 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Jim... This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for discussing religious beliefs? To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Dear Karey, I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just kidding of course. Jim Piat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" > To Ken and interested listeners -- > > First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are > disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- (snip) > the animals come up in his argument but they > really aren't what the argument is all about (snip) -- it is about understanding > the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Sat Dec 14 12:39:40 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:39:40 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C1B@exchangeserver.culver.org> Now that I sent that I realize it sounds selfish and arrogant. Geesh. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of the Trinity connection to language. Yada Yada Yada. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Parlin, Steven [mailto:PARLINS at culver.org] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 12:35 PM To: 'percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org' Subject: RE: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Karey, t The name of the course I'll be teaching is Language play and will revolve around Yule's text, The Study of Language. Only a part of the course will be devoted to this topic. The rest of it will cover the standard fare of language inquiry. No, I don't teach at a parochial school, but it is a private school and religious beliefs are not checked at the door. BTW: If you include any of my blatherings about how I think language works like the Trinity in your dissertation, I'd appreciate a respectful nod in my direction (a citation). I've been working on this idea for a few years now, and it may eventually become my own dissertation, or at least a funny book. Cheers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:59 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Jim... This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for discussing religious beliefs? To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Dear Karey, I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just kidding of course. Jim Piat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" > To Ken and interested listeners -- > > First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are > disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- (snip) > the animals come up in his argument but they > really aren't what the argument is all about (snip) -- it is about understanding > the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Sat Dec 14 12:55:53 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 12:55:53 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C1C@exchangeserver.culver.org> Jim, It wasn't addressed to me, but to Marcus, but I'd still like to comment on the following: "Perhaps there can be no objective evidence of symbol se -- that one can always choose to interpret behavior as either symbolic or mechanistic." Come, Jim, there is abundant evidence. This is the first time in the history of the cosmos that the above sentence, your sentence, has ever been uttered. It is entirely new and unique. And, (unless you quote yourself again and again and again) it will never be repeated in exactly the same way, ever. It is that way for all of us when we use language. This fact, it seems to me, is objective evidence of symbol use (and, much to my delight, it is also evidence that your thinking preceded its use! :)). No finite mechanism could produce an infinite variety of forms. All deference to Noam on this one. Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:20 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Dear Marcus, There are countless examples of non human animals using deception for purposes of mating, escape, hunting and the like. Some seem so elaborate, flexible and contrived that it's hard to imagine that they are not examples of conscious, deliberate deception employing symbols. Others, of course, appear effective but clearly fixed, instinctive and neither conscious nor deliberate. I'm wondering what any of us might take as the definitive test for determining if any given behavior is intentionally symbolic. IOWs is there any definitive way we can determine if another (whose consciousness we can not directly access) is engaging in symbolic behavior or using objects as symbols. This is the main reason that I think symbolic ability and consciousness are intimately related -- it seems to me consciousness is the only direct and convincing (albeit subjective) evidence we have of symbolic activity. Ah something just occurs to me. Maybe I'm using the wrong unit of analysis. Maybe the test is not whether some individual member of a species or class is capable of symbolic activity but whether the species itself is capable. IOWs symbolization is inherently interpersonal behavior and can not occur or be objectively tested for without considering more that an individual member of a community. Perhaps a behavior is symbolic if it is taken by other members of the community as such. Behavior is symbolic if other members respond in such a way that it is clear that they perceive the act as standing for and communicating something other than the direct consequences of the behavior itself (that is to say the consequences of the behavior which follow only from the behavior itself as distinct from those consequence which depend upon others interpreting the behavior as symbolizing something other than itself) Perhaps this offers some hope of an objective test for symbolic activity -- or at least a direction in which to seek one. But Marcus -- I'm curious, what criteria (informal or otherwise) did you use to reject Seabeok example as not a genuine instance of symbolic behavior. And what if anything (short of direct conscious access) would you take as evidence of symbolic intention or interpretation. I don't mean this as a challenge -- I'm simply interested in your further thoughts on the matter. I find your comments on symbols as forms of deception helpful in getting a better handle on this fascinating phenomenon. Jim Piat > > But we also fall "down." We can and do use words and symbols to lie. As > far as I know, that is also a sign of our uniqueness. > > Marcus Smith > > PS Thomas Sebeok once argued-and Percy was in the audience-that some > insects use symbols to deceive -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Sat Dec 14 14:14:17 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 14:14:17 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C1C@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <004f01c2a3a4$ff4a0400$0101a8c0@D68RS511> > "Perhaps there can be no objective evidence of symbol se -- that one can > always choose to interpret behavior as either symbolic or mechanistic." > > Come, Jim, there is abundant evidence. This is the first time in the history > of the cosmos that the above sentence, your sentence, has ever been uttered. > It is entirely new and unique. And, (unless you quote yourself again and > again and again) it will never be repeated in exactly the same way, ever. Or unless you quote me or unless. . . >It > is that way for all of us when we use language. This fact, it seems to me, > is objective evidence of symbol use (and, much to my delight, it is also > evidence that your thinking preceded its use! :)). No finite mechanism could > produce an infinite variety of forms. All deference to Noam on this one. > > Steve > Dear Steve, I don't think the infinite ways in which experience can be symbolized is objective evidence that human gestures are symbolic and that chimpanzee gesture like movements are not. Seems to me that so called non symbolic behavior of non human animals is as infinitely varied as our symbolic behavior. In fact if all of nature were not itself infinitely varied how could our symbolic representation of it be? Also I think there are many examples of infinite variety being generated from finite algorithms -- pi, for example. Indeed it's not the unpredicable irregularies of the world that are wondrous and exceptional but rather it's relatively rare regularities. I'm not arguing against the notion that symoblization is a wonderous, mysterious thing as indeed I find all of God's creation to be. What I'm questioning is the opinion that symbolization is a uniquely human activity. And what I'm calling for is some way to operationally or objectively define what we mean by symobolization so that we can agree when or when not an instance of it has occurred. I don't think it is a sacrilege to think non human animals (or even communities of rocks) are capable of symbolization -- nor do I think it is an act of piety to think only humans can use symbols. And, Steve -- here's one to ponder while you repeat your mantra that thought precedes its verbal expression. Some folks have done some experiments that demonstrate that the part of the brain that "lights up" when folks are making choices (such as which button to press when given a particular stimulus) lights up after the finger moves to press the button. IOWs the movement occurs BEFORE the thought! So maybe, just maybe, you haven't taken your speculation far enough --- maybe mechanistic behavior even precedes the thought! Maybe thought is just a vehicle for making us aware after the fact of what we are mechanically doing in the same way that you apparently view symbolization or language use as merely or mostly a vehicle for making others aware of our thoughts after the fact of them. And for all I know this might actually be the case but I've been kind of hoping that symbolization and consciousness are something different. That maybe they result from a top down (community to individual) type of causality rather than a reductionistic bottom up kind of causality. The trick, as I see it, is to find a way to answer these questions that appeals to objective evidence. Steve -- thanks for your thoughts and insights on all this. I'm arguing but mostly I'm learning from you and others and enjoying all the contributions immensely. And, btw, I don't think you come across as one bit arrogant and I hope I don't either. Jim From karey at charter.net Sat Dec 14 15:02:35 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:02:35 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C1A@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <011801c2a3ab$bee1cf40$0301000a@AFAC955012> Steve, Of course, a citation is definitely in order!! I think you are on to something, there, and I'd be interested in reading the final product... The course sounds interesting; I'll check out the text you mentioned. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org' Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 12:34 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Karey, t The name of the course I'll be teaching is Language play and will revolve around Yule's text, The Study of Language. Only a part of the course will be devoted to this topic. The rest of it will cover the standard fare of language inquiry. No, I don't teach at a parochial school, but it is a private school and religious beliefs are not checked at the door. BTW: If you include any of my blatherings about how I think language works like the Trinity in your dissertation, I'd appreciate a respectful nod in my direction (a citation). I've been working on this idea for a few years now, and it may eventually become my own dissertation, or at least a funny book. Cheers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:59 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Jim... This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for discussing religious beliefs? To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Dear Karey, I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just kidding of course. Jim Piat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" > To Ken and interested listeners -- > > First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are > disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- (snip) > the animals come up in his argument but they > really aren't what the argument is all about (snip) -- it is about understanding > the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From karey at charter.net Sat Dec 14 15:23:11 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 15:23:11 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Fw: More pertinent articles Message-ID: <01b701c2a3ae$9fb08d20$0301000a@AFAC955012> Here are some more articles regarding perception and language and it's acquisition that Ken sent -- for those of you who are interested in the subject! K ----- Original Message ----- From: kdenney at mindspring.com To: Karey L. Perkins Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 9:07 AM Subject: More pertinent articles Here are some more pertinent articles than the ones I have heretofore cited: http://www.apa.org/monitor/perception.html http://www.rochester.edu/pr/News/NewsReleases/scitech/fiser-infant.html (Don't operate heavy machinery while reading this one:) http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Aboitiz/Referees/ And finally: Young Baby Brain Already Primed to Learn Language Thu Dec 5, 5:31 PM ET . By Alison McCook NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - New research shows that babies' brains are primed to learn language long before they utter or understand their first words. Dr. Ghislaine Dehaene-Lambertz of the Center National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris and her colleagues found that while 3-month-old babies are read to in their native language, they show brain activity in some of the regions of the adult brain that specialize in language. Much of that activity disappears when sentences are read to the babies backwards, the authors report in the December 6th issue of the journal Science. These findings indicate that babies' brains are gearing up to learn and understand language at a very young age, Dehaene-Lambertz told Reuters Health. "Babies are doing things very early," she said. Dehaene-Lambertz and her colleagues obtained their findings from imaging scans of 3-month-old babies' brains as they listened to sentences read in their own language, and as the speech was pronounced backwards. Dehaene-Lambertz explained to Reuters Health that backward speech has many similarities to forward speech, but lacks certain overall cues babies likely use to determine whether the words are in their own language or not, such as dips at the end of sentences and other qualities. The authors found that babies showed more activity in brain regions associated with speech in adults when hearing words in their own language than when the words were read backwards. In an interview with Reuters Health, Dehaene-Lambertz explained that one of the baby brain regions active during speech is the left angular gyrus, which, in adults, is more active when people listen to words than to non-words. The other region active in baby brains is the right prefrontal region, an area that shows more activity in adults when they hear words that had been said to them moments before, but not when listening to other words. A long-standing debate exists in the field of childhood language development, Dehaene-Lambertz noted. Some experts argue that babies are born already primed to process language, while others believe that babies are born as a blank slate, and all of the techniques used by the brain to understand language are learned by experience, she explained. While the current study does not answer that question, Dehaene-Lambertz said that she believed no research study ever would--for who can state, for certain, when babies begin to have experience with language, when they can hear inside the womb. However, she noted that at 3 months, baby brains are already quite specialized, indicating that if experience is at work, it had to work fast. "If they have learned, they have learned very fast," she said. She added that while many brain regions focus on language, the brain is highly adaptable; so even if babies experience brain damage in one of the areas normally used to process language, it can be overcome. "Everything is plastic," Dehaene-Lambertz said.. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wpercy1 at mail.ibiblio.org Sun Dec 15 11:51:14 2002 From: wpercy1 at mail.ibiblio.org (Henry P. Mills) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:51:14 -0600 Subject: [percy-l] FW: Percy citation query In-Reply-To: <200212141142.AA291504752@lynchburg.net> Message-ID: Dear Percy-L: Can anyone help Mr. Kukla find the essay he seeks? Henry Mills ---------- > From: "kukla" > Reply-To: > Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 11:42:42 -0500 > To: > Subject: Percy citation query > > I have misplaced my photocopy of and citation to a Walker Percy essay, perhaps > in The Nation in the 40s or 50s, in which he describes New Orleans's relation > to its southern environs. > He comments about New Orleans as a city of 'minor virtues.' > He describes visitors driving across the wetlands into the city and > confronting 'more nuns and naked women' than they've ever seen. > > If anyone can supply the citation, I would be grateful. > > > -- > Jon Kukla ....................... Executive Vice-President > 1250 Red Hill Road ........ Patrick Henry Memorial Foundation > Brookneal, VA 24528 .... www.redhill.org .... 434 376-2044 > Home 434 376-4172 ...... Office email: RedHill at lynchburg.net > -- From PARLINS at culver.org Sun Dec 15 12:47:09 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 12:47:09 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C1D@exchangeserver.culver.org> Thanks Karey, Another thought occurred to me at Mass this morning during the Nicene Creed. Christ -THE word-- was "begotten, not made". Maybe, since we are created in his likeness, our words (and other symbols) work like this also. That is, we "conceive" them like children. Concepts, names for things, are born in our minds; they are begotten, not made. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 3:03 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Steve, Of course, a citation is definitely in order!! I think you are on to something, there, and I'd be interested in reading the final product... The course sounds interesting; I'll check out the text you mentioned. Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: Parlin, Steven To: 'percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org' Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 12:34 PM Subject: RE: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Karey, t The name of the course I'll be teaching is Language play and will revolve around Yule's text, The Study of Language. Only a part of the course will be devoted to this topic. The rest of it will cover the standard fare of language inquiry. No, I don't teach at a parochial school, but it is a private school and religious beliefs are not checked at the door. BTW: If you include any of my blatherings about how I think language works like the Trinity in your dissertation, I'd appreciate a respectful nod in my direction (a citation). I've been working on this idea for a few years now, and it may eventually become my own dissertation, or at least a funny book. Cheers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:59 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Hi Jim... This has been a wonderful discussion!! In my quick and probably inaccurate count, 28 e-mails were generated in two days and all on the very topic of my dissertation, so thanks to everyone!! However, I have only had time to sift through some of them (too much to handle on such short notice) so far, and contrary to Ken Ketner's exhortation that we be objective as possible in our investigations, with our hypotheses always open to modification, I have sought only those that support my/Percy's argument! : ) Really, I plan to sort through all of these later and examine them in more depth (and then subject my hypotheses to modification). I do have a question for Steve though, who said that he was teaching a course on this next semester -- What is the name and the nature of the course? And, do you teach at a parochial institution or how much leeway is allowed for discussing religious beliefs? To address your thought below, Jim, I do think the universe is "God's thought" if you will, in that it is creation and lives that creation and lives the presence of God by being itself -- for example, trees have far more "consciousness" than Westerners believe, and such people as Native American understood this. If anything, humans are the ones that fail at living "God's thought." However, humans have the ability for wonder, self-awareness, and symbolization (a word?) that rocks don't...this is the FALL of man (a fall "up" according to some theologians) that separates him from the rest of the world. Not only in terms of man's difference from the rest of the world, but his ability to be comfortable and at peace with that world -- that's something we have to "re-find" and the animals don't. Do we re-find it through language? The "joy" of naming? Karey ----- Original Message ----- From: James Piat To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:42 PM Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Dear Karey, I half agree with you. I like your positive account of what language is and I agree that your friend Ken has not adequately addressed this issue -- but I think you are mistaken (along with Percy) in the view that non human animals (and indeed even so called inanimate rocks) don't participate in the world of symbolic thought -- God's thought. Course if you had quoted me even once I'd have forgone this quibble, but under the circumstances --just kidding of course. Jim Piat ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karey L. Perkins" > To Ken and interested listeners -- > > First of all, in both the e-mail below and previously, you (Ken D.)are > disagreeing with Percy on the wrong grounds -- (snip) > the animals come up in his argument but they > really aren't what the argument is all about (snip) -- it is about understanding > the nature of language, and hence, the nature of man. -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Sun Dec 15 16:59:27 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:59:27 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C21@exchangeserver.culver.org> Jim, yes, I misstated the infinite variety out of a finite mechanism idea. What I meant was that language is not mechanistic, not mere stimulus-response. We don't have a library of sentences in their head to choose from when we need to respond. We can generate an infinite variety of expressions using a finite set of words (the opposite of what I said earlier...I was in a hurry). Chimps can't do this. They don't. How do we know? We taught them signs to use (the teaching is an important component; humans do not need to be taught, but acquire language naturally). With those signs, they've never been able to generate original "sentences", "questions", or other new "words". The objective evidence was clear enough to Darwin: No other animal creates art in any form; which also means that no other animal uses symbols. The burden rests on them to demonstrate otherwise. (Unless you have a broader notion of symbol than this. I think the conversation may be getting muddled a bit by meanings of words like symbol, signs, thought, consciousness, etc. Which is hugely ironic: There could be no misunderstanding if the meaning of the word was, as you suggest, the word itself. We all have to agree on the meaning of a word in order for it to be useful. Hence, meaning is independent of the representation of it). Communities of rocks, Jim? All is sustained in its being in the mind of God, sure enough, but I protest. Rocks are rocks. No consciousness there. Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 2:14 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re: animals, order, symbol, self-consciousness, and The Fall of Man > "Perhaps there can be no objective evidence of symbol se -- that one can > always choose to interpret behavior as either symbolic or mechanistic." > > Come, Jim, there is abundant evidence. This is the first time in the history > of the cosmos that the above sentence, your sentence, has ever been uttered. > It is entirely new and unique. And, (unless you quote yourself again and > again and again) it will never be repeated in exactly the same way, ever. Or unless you quote me or unless. . . >It > is that way for all of us when we use language. This fact, it seems to me, > is objective evidence of symbol use (and, much to my delight, it is also > evidence that your thinking preceded its use! :)). No finite mechanism could > produce an infinite variety of forms. All deference to Noam on this one. > > Steve > Dear Steve, I don't think the infinite ways in which experience can be symbolized is objective evidence that human gestures are symbolic and that chimpanzee gesture like movements are not. Seems to me that so called non symbolic behavior of non human animals is as infinitely varied as our symbolic behavior. In fact if all of nature were not itself infinitely varied how could our symbolic representation of it be? Also I think there are many examples of infinite variety being generated from finite algorithms -- pi, for example. Indeed it's not the unpredicable irregularies of the world that are wondrous and exceptional but rather it's relatively rare regularities. I'm not arguing against the notion that symoblization is a wonderous, mysterious thing as indeed I find all of God's creation to be. What I'm questioning is the opinion that symbolization is a uniquely human activity. And what I'm calling for is some way to operationally or objectively define what we mean by symobolization so that we can agree when or when not an instance of it has occurred. I don't think it is a sacrilege to think non human animals (or even communities of rocks) are capable of symbolization -- nor do I think it is an act of piety to think only humans can use symbols. And, Steve -- here's one to ponder while you repeat your mantra that thought precedes its verbal expression. Some folks have done some experiments that demonstrate that the part of the brain that "lights up" when folks are making choices (such as which button to press when given a particular stimulus) lights up after the finger moves to press the button. IOWs the movement occurs BEFORE the thought! So maybe, just maybe, you haven't taken your speculation far enough --- maybe mechanistic behavior even precedes the thought! Maybe thought is just a vehicle for making us aware after the fact of what we are mechanically doing in the same way that you apparently view symbolization or language use as merely or mostly a vehicle for making others aware of our thoughts after the fact of them. And for all I know this might actually be the case but I've been kind of hoping that symbolization and consciousness are something different. That maybe they result from a top down (community to individual) type of causality rather than a reductionistic bottom up kind of causality. The trick, as I see it, is to find a way to answer these questions that appeals to objective evidence. Steve -- thanks for your thoughts and insights on all this. I'm arguing but mostly I'm learning from you and others and enjoying all the contributions immensely. And, btw, I don't think you come across as one bit arrogant and I hope I don't either. Jim -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From wriddick at usa.net Sun Dec 15 22:37:53 2002 From: wriddick at usa.net (Wade Riddick) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:37:53 -0600 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness In-Reply-To: <009901c2a274$c9a82060$0101a8c0@D68RS511> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C08@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: >Dear Wade, > >I've been reading accounts of the genetic basis of mental disorders for the >past 30 years -- until one of them comes up with a passably interesting >account of what a mental disorder is I will continue to dismiss them out of >hand. Same goes for the so called genetic "explanations" of language -- >until the geneticists demonstrate some understanding of what makes the study >of language interesting I consider their research beside the point. How can >they identify the genes for language when neither they or anyone else yet >knows what language is or who has the capacity for it? Seems to me the >nature and distribution of language ability (like that of so called mental >disorders) is only self evident to those who understand it least. I have to agree with Marcus that we're venturing into gnostic territory here. Saying that there's a mechanistic basis which allows for language doesn't explain anything about the origins of language. I don't think we'll ever understand exactly which genes do what to make language, but by studying families who all lack the same gene or possess a specific mutation, you can begin to get an idea. If I'm remembering it correctly, the British family discussed in the NYT article had one mutation different from normal humans whereas chimps have two and they had a facility for language somewhere between chimps and regular people. Using knockout mice that, say, lack the gene for iNOS or some other molecular messenger has advanced the knowledge of how important these various genes are and what role they play. What's surprising is that life is pretty resilient. Even lacking certain genes thought to be crucial some of these mice still manage to survive. While I don't think it would ever be ethical to put in/knock out human brain genes in rodents, mutations are part of the human reproductive process and sometimes cases like the British family do crop up (men are a far greater source of genetic risk here, but as women keep having children later and later in life, their share of error is increasing). Schizophrenia and autism are much more complex in terms of what's going wrong. There are genetic components to schizophrenia. Autism in particular appears to be an apoptotic disease of too many connections among the neurons. As we learn, we clip unnecessary associations among neurons. If your mother says "apple" while holding an apple, it doesn't matter that a plane is taking off nearby and rattling the house - although for an autistic who can't stop his brain from being overstimulated, it does. He doesn't know to distinguish "apple" from a roaring jet engine and he gets confused whenever he hears one but not the other. This is why autistics have brains 1-3% larger than normal. There are too many connections. Autistics don't necessarily think in terms of pictures, they just have to whittle it down to one sense so that they can think at all. The NYT recently ran an article on an autistic boy who had no trouble talking and responding to speech - provided he could ignore everything else going on and get his other senses to "calm down." While babies come primed for receiving language, these genetic discoveries can never explain what words they receive or how they are affected by language. It merely gives them the facility. The things we see and hear affect our brain development in ways that will always remain difficult to analyze. Saying something has its roots in a mechanistic process does not limit the thing. The things we read throughout our lives are always altering our neurological connections. What genetics does is simply explain how the basis for that action may differ in important ways from the rest of the animal kingdom. Good. So what? If someone loses some ability to use language, we want to restore it right? Whether it was through stroke, neurotoxin or edema, right? If someone loses his ability to speak or to write or read or even large portions of his experience drop out of thought, does he lose who he is? If he loses part of his language, does he lose part of himself? What is it we're all saying here? From karey at charter.net Mon Dec 16 13:50:20 2002 From: karey at charter.net (Karey L. Perkins) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:50:20 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C08@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <00ed01c2a533$fbdf5d70$0301000a@AFAC955012> I'm behind on reading and answering these e-mails -- it's midterms for me and Christmas is hectic -- but I wanted to respond briefly if incompletely: I'm not sure what either Marcus or Wade mean by the word Gnostic -- could you clarify? If by Gnostic you mean "out there" or too "abstract" in all of this relationship of language to the Bible and creed, I would disagree. I think the truths in the Bible are beyond what we normally perceive on the surface: i.e.: examine it more deeply and it has profound clues as to the nature of man, the world, God, and life (Percy's radical anthroplogy). The ancients were on to very many truths that we have now forgotten or that the Enlightenment has marginalized or that just don't fit in our paradigms -- but that doesn't mean they don't work or aren't true. At the very least the exploration of that can be an illumination into what the Biblical writers were intending to say, whether or not you believe it is a material import to the nature of the world. Wade: >>>>>>>If someone loses his ability to speak or to write or read or even large portions of his experience drop out of thought, does he lose who he is? If he loses part of his language, does he lose part of himself? What is it we're all saying here?<<<<<<<<< Percy said it was "symbol-mongering" that really defined the difference between man and the animals: "The truth is that man's capacity for symbol-mongering in general and language in particular is.intimately part and parcel of his being human, of his perceiving and knowing, of his very consciousness." (Message 29) He also says later that art, etc. is symbol mongering, as Steve and others have pointed out. So language is just an example of this symbol mongering, and losing language is not losing self, or what it is that makes one human. Language is just the platform Percy used to study symbol mongering. I think the real issue is, does losing "symbol-mongering" result in losing "self" or a more human way of thinking, or a "soul" or whatever it is that differentiates man from animal, or whatever it is Percy meant? For Percy, I DO think he is saying that without the capacity for symbol-mongering, you do not have "consciousness" in the way that other humans do. And to Steve and Jim's discussion on which came first, chicken or egg, cited partially below: >>>>>>Further, "worlds" are not created by symbols as if out of nothingness. If that were true, that worlds or consciousnesses were merely the sum total of our abstract representations, we could not think without words, which is absurd. We do it all the time. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>Knowing and consciousness are not contingent upon whether our thoughts can be represented. We frequently find ourselves in situations that defy language or representation. But, its our relational need that compels us to find and create symbolic form for our thoughts. We want to share our thoughts. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>The phrase didn't tell us something new; instead we recognize in it what we knew but had not yet named ourselves. You can't name something unless it exists. Thought exists before we name it. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>Our knowledge of a thing precedes our naming it; it is formless and therefore uncommunicabe and unrelational. However, it's in the naming that we give form to the formlessness of it, as God did when he spoke and creation was.(Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>In the same way, in our own Genesis, we create symbols not because our consciousness is dependent upon it, but because we have a relational need (perhaps even a relational need with our own self (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>I do not agree with your view below that thought precedes representation. That representation is perhaps just a vehicle for conveying our thought to others. On the contrary I think representation is the very essence of thought. It's what divides (triadic) thought from mere (dyadic)mechanistic re-action.(JIM)<<<<<<<< It seems from my reading Percy and Jim agree: In fact, we can only "know" the world, on a conscious level, through the naming/language act. If we cannot name a thing, we cannot know it except as it relates to our instinctual nature and physical survival (This is all over Percy's works, but see especially Signposts 261, 274, 282). And also, he says symbolization is the "very condition of our knowing anything" (Signposts 132). And, Percy says: symbol is what enables us to know "being," to KNOW the things we name, since we cannot know it directly. We must, instead, "sidle up to it" through symbolization (Message 264). So for Percy, symbol was not an event that happens so we can RELATE, but an event that happens so we can KNOW. (Although later, the triadic theory becomes tetradic, and Percy says that we must know within community -- that we can only symbolize and know if there is another person there -- and at one point I think he does offer that that can be talking to yourself, but I don't have the reference to that right now.) So relating IS very important. But it seems that KNOWING comes first, and also the need to know is first, before the relating need: Percy and Susanne Langer, insist that humans NEED to symbolize; in fact, it is THE basic human need (Message 288-296). But is this need to symbolize the need to relate or the need to know? Percy says it is "ontological" not "biological" -- When I ask what is this strange flower, I am more satisfied to be given a name, even though the name may mean nothing, than to be given a classification. If I see a strange bird, ask my bird-watcher friend what it is, and he tells me it is blue-gray gnatcatcher, I am obscurely disappointed. I cannot help thinking he is telling me something ABOUT the bird-that its color is blue-gray and that it catches gnats - and what I really want to know is what it IS. He will tell me that I am only falling victim to primitive word-magic.[but] there is another reason for my satisfaction. It has to do with the new orientation which has come about as the result of naming. The orientation is no longer biological; it is ontological. (Signposts 133-134) Ontological has to do with "being" -- which could mean we understand (even create?) the essence of that thing by naming. Definitely, the essence of the thing for YOU is created when you name, though it exists in the outer environment. But you know it only insofar as you perceive it through the word. So all of our knowledge of the external world is mediated by symbol -- by our "world" or paradigm. As for me personally, I'm still trying to figure out this concept in many different ways. One of the things I'm trying to figure out, besides what kind of need is being met, or which came first, the thought or symbol, is: What's going on? That is, what's going on inside the human, inside the coupler, or inside the "Language Acquisition Device" for which Percy had these final words in "Message in a Bottle": "The apex of the triangle, the coupler, is a complete mystery. What it is, an 'I,' a 'self,' or some neurophysiological correlate thereof, I could not begin to say" (Message 327). Does he solve it in later writings? I don't know. I'd be curious to see what Ken Ketner had to say about what is going on in the "coupler" or the "human" when symbols happen there. >>>>>>>>>>Why must thought precede representation or vice versa -- why can't they be the same thing? I'm not convinced poetic words are just the vehicles of thought -- I think they are the thought itself (Jim) <<<<<<<<< This is the big issue. Of course, all of us Percyians agree, language is not dyadic, it is not stimulus-response, and language is not two events separated by space and time in the external world. Those two events are interacting inside the human, the coupler, and that's where language occurs. But what IS occurring, now that we agree on what is NOT occurring? At one point, I had thought that symbol was a UNION of these two -- the object and the word. Somehow, they become one. Then I thought not quite that -- but almost (kind of like consubstantiation instead of transsubstantiation.) Percy says that: The use of symbol is a "pairing [as opposed to a succession], a laying of symbol alongside thing" (Signposts 134) which imples two things, side by side. But then he goes on to say: It is "intentional relation of identity" (Signposts 134). Which implies they are one? Or almost one? inside the human. Any thoughts or insights on: What Percy thought was happening in the human? What anyone else things is happening in the human? Also Steve, I was wondering if you could clarify the "begotten not made" and how that relates to the topic... Karey From PARLINS at culver.org Mon Dec 16 15:01:48 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:01:48 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C27@exchangeserver.culver.org> Karey, I think you misunderstand me on at least two counts: First, the word consciousness; second the word knowing. I'll address "knowing" first because it segues into my discussion of consciousness. You said, "So for Percy, symbol was not an event that happens so we can RELATE, but an event that happens so we can KNOW." But, I don't think this is entirely accurate. Know and relate: You make a mutually exclusive distinction here, but I don't think these words are unrelated. For they are getting at the same thing. It's no coincidence that the words "know" and "relate" are used interchangeably in some instances, particularly in the scriptures. A fitting example for the season: Mary emphatically questions, "How can this be when I have not known man." She of course, means that she hasn't had sexual relations with any men -the most corporeal form of intersubjectivity of inter-knowing, of inter-relating. She did not relate (sexually) with man. She did not know man, so she could not "conceive". (Though, she did conceive the Word, because she knew God in a very particular way). Knowing precedes "conceiving", or arriving at a "concept". (See how I worked that back in:)). Percy was primarily interested in the role of symbols in "intersubjectivity" -in other words, relating. The knowing can only be understood in the relating. As I said in a previous email, "There could be no misunderstanding [in our discussion] if the meaning of the word was, as you suggest, the word itself. We all have to agree on the meaning of a word in order for it to be useful. Hence, meaning is independent of the representation of it. It can only be achieved in the context of relationship." That concept is worth repeating: "meaning is independent of the representation of it". I say it is worth repeating because I think we are actually DEMONSTRATING this principle in this discussion. I'm fairly certain that you are not fully understanding my point, and I don't think it's completely the fault of my inability to write. You see, I think we are mostly in agreement about what it is we are trying to get at here, even Jim with his rocks, but the "thing" still keeps evading us, and has evaded the most salient minds of our species, and I'm willing to wager will continue to evade us. Yet we know its there. No words to capture it, but its there. The "thing" (which may very well be unnamable) that is at the center of our discussion is something we are attempting to reveal to each other -relation. We use words like awareness, consciousness, thought, sense, knowing, etc. However, I don't think any of these words adequately name what it is we (at least I) are trying to describe. Nevertheless, something is there and we are trying to reveal it to each other. In other words, we KNOW, its there, we SENSE its there, its our THOUGHT, our CONSCIOUSNESS, our AWARENESS. Its there even though these words are insufficient to name it. The meaning precedes, and is independent of, our attempts to represent it. Naturally... it's God. Yahweh. The unnamable (Old testament). That which cannot be named. (I-Ching). I am still working this stuff out, and so I am certain that I have failed again to make my point (not MY point really). Have to run. Cheers! Steve Thanks Karey, Another thought occurred to me at Mass this morning during the Nicene Creed. Christ -THE word-was "begotten, not made". Maybe, since we are created in his likeness, our words (and other symbols) work like this also. That is, we "conceive" them like children. Concepts, names for things, are born in our minds; they are begotten, not made. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 1:50 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness I'm behind on reading and answering these e-mails-it's midterms for me and Christmas is hectic-but I wanted to respond briefly if incompletely: I'm not sure what either Marcus or Wade mean by the word Gnostic-could you clarify? If by Gnostic you mean "out there" or too "abstract" in all of this relationship of language to the Bible and creed, I would disagree. I think the truths in the Bible are beyond what we normally perceive on the surface: i.e.: examine it more deeply and it has profound clues as to the nature of man, the world, God, and life (Percy's radical anthroplogy). The ancients were on to very many truths that we have now forgotten or that the Enlightenment has marginalized or that just don't fit in our paradigms- but that doesn't mean they don't work or aren't true. At the very least the exploration of that can be an illumination into what the Biblical writers were intending to say, whether or not you believe it is a material import to the nature of the world. Wade: >>>>>>>If someone loses his ability to speak or to write or read or even large portions of his experience drop out of thought, does he lose who he is? If he loses part of his language, does he lose part of himself? What is it we're all saying here?<<<<<<<<< Percy said it was "symbol-mongering" that really defined the difference between man and the animals: "The truth is that man's capacity for symbol-mongering in general and language in particular is.intimately part and parcel of his being human, of his perceiving and knowing, of his very consciousness." (Message 29) He also says later that art, etc. is symbol mongering, as Steve and others have pointed out. So language is just an example of this symbol mongering, and losing language is not losing self, or what it is that makes one human. Language is just the platform Percy used to study symbol mongering. I think the real issue is, does losing "symbol-mongering" result in losing "self" or a more human way of thinking, or a "soul" or whatever it is that differentiates man from animal, or whatever it is Percy meant? For Percy, I DO think he is saying that without the capacity for symbol-mongering, you do not have "consciousness" in the way that other humans do. And to Steve and Jim's discussion on which came first, chicken or egg, cited partially below: >>>>>>Further, "worlds" are not created by symbols as if out of nothingness. If that were true, that worlds or consciousnesses were merely the sum total of our abstract representations, we could not think without words, which is absurd. We do it all the time. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>Knowing and consciousness are not contingent upon whether our thoughts can be represented. We frequently find ourselves in situations that defy language or representation. But, its our relational need that compels us to find and create symbolic form for our thoughts. We want to share our thoughts. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>The phrase didn't tell us something new; instead we recognize in it what we knew but had not yet named ourselves. You can't name something unless it exists. Thought exists before we name it. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>Our knowledge of a thing precedes our naming it; it is formless and therefore uncommunicabe and unrelational. However, it's in the naming that we give form to the formlessness of it, as God did when he spoke and creation was.(Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>In the same way, in our own Genesis, we create symbols not because our consciousness is dependent upon it, but because we have a relational need (perhaps even a relational need with our own self (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>I do not agree with your view below that thought precedes representation. That representation is perhaps just a vehicle for conveying our thought to others. On the contrary I think representation is the very essence of thought. It's what divides (triadic) thought from mere (dyadic)mechanistic re-action.(JIM)<<<<<<<< It seems from my reading Percy and Jim agree: In fact, we can only "know" the world, on a conscious level, through the naming/language act. If we cannot name a thing, we cannot know it except as it relates to our instinctual nature and physical survival (This is all over Percy's works, but see especially Signposts 261, 274, 282). And also, he says symbolization is the "very condition of our knowing anything" (Signposts 132). And, Percy says: symbol is what enables us to know "being," to KNOW the things we name, since we cannot know it directly. We must, instead, "sidle up to it" through symbolization (Message 264). So for Percy, symbol was not an event that happens so we can RELATE, but an event that happens so we can KNOW. (Although later, the triadic theory becomes tetradic, and Percy says that we must know within community-that we can only symbolize and know if there is another person there-and at one point I think he does offer that that can be talking to yourself, but I don't have the reference to that right now.) So relating IS very important. But it seems that KNOWING comes first, and also the need to know is first, before the relating need: Percy and Susanne Langer, insist that humans NEED to symbolize; in fact, it is THE basic human need (Message 288-296). But is this need to symbolize the need to relate or the need to know? Percy says it is "ontological" not "biological"- When I ask what is this strange flower, I am more satisfied to be given a name, even though the name may mean nothing, than to be given a classification. If I see a strange bird, ask my bird-watcher friend what it is, and he tells me it is blue-gray gnatcatcher, I am obscurely disappointed. I cannot help thinking he is telling me something ABOUT the bird-that its color is blue-gray and that it catches gnats - and what I really want to know is what it IS. He will tell me that I am only falling victim to primitive word-magic.[but] there is another reason for my satisfaction. It has to do with the new orientation which has come about as the result of naming. The orientation is no longer biological; it is ontological. (Signposts 133-134) Ontological has to do with "being"-which could mean we understand (even create?) the essence of that thing by naming. Definitely, the essence of the thing for YOU is created when you name, though it exists in the outer environment. But you know it only insofar as you perceive it through the word. So all of our knowledge of the external world is mediated by symbol-by our "world" or paradigm. As for me personally, I'm still trying to figure out this concept in many different ways. One of the things I'm trying to figure out, besides what kind of need is being met, or which came first, the thought or symbol, is: What's going on? That is, what's going on inside the human, inside the coupler, or inside the "Language Acquisition Device" for which Percy had these final words in "Message in a Bottle": "The apex of the triangle, the coupler, is a complete mystery. What it is, an 'I,' a 'self,' or some neurophysiological correlate thereof, I could not begin to say" (Message 327). Does he solve it in later writings? I don't know. I'd be curious to see what Ken Ketner had to say about what is going on in the "coupler" or the "human" when symbols happen there. >>>>>>>>>>Why must thought precede representation or vice versa -- why can't they be the same thing? I'm not convinced poetic words are just the vehicles of thought -- I think they are the thought itself (Jim) <<<<<<<<< This is the big issue. Of course, all of us Percyians agree, language is not dyadic, it is not stimulus-response, and language is not two events separated by space and time in the external world. Those two events are interacting inside the human, the coupler, and that's where language occurs. But what IS occurring, now that we agree on what is NOT occurring? At one point, I had thought that symbol was a UNION of these two-the object and the word. Somehow, they become one. Then I thought not quite that-but almost (kind of like consubstantiation instead of transsubstantiation.) Percy says that: The use of symbol is a "pairing [as opposed to a succession], a laying of symbol alongside thing" (Signposts 134) which imples two things, side by side. But then he goes on to say: It is "intentional relation of identity" (Signposts 134). Which implies they are one? Or almost one? inside the human. Any thoughts or insights on: What Percy thought was happening in the human? What anyone else things is happening in the human? Also Steve, I was wondering if you could clarify the "begotten not made" and how that relates to the topic... Karey -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From piat1 at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 16 19:00:43 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:00:43 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C08@exchangeserver.culver.org> <00ed01c2a533$fbdf5d70$0301000a@AFAC955012> Message-ID: <004e01c2a55f$57e3fab0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Karey, Folks-- I think we are all to some degree misunderstanding one another as well as the subject at hand. I would say that part of the reason for misunderstanding one another as well as symbolization is because we have not yet discovered (or agreed upon) the nature of this nexus of concepts (knowing, relating, being, existing, meaning consciousness and symbolization or representation). Because the occurrance of these phenomena often overlap (perhaps always overlap) we suspect that there may be some common element or cause tieing them all together. I think Peirce's and Percy's triadic theories of the symbol are attempts to explain some of these relations. I think Percy held the process to be exclusively human but that Peirce (I believe, but I'm not at all sure) held that triadic relations could be found among crystals (hence the expression rocks in our heads;) > > This is the big issue. Of course, all of us Percyians agree, language is > not dyadic, it is not stimulus-response, and language is not two events Kerey, I don't even think stimulus-response psychology is dyadic --- I think that is a straw man. I think Percy misunderstood S-R psychology. > At one > point, I had thought that symbol was a UNION of these two -- the object and > the word. Somehow, they become one. Then I thought not quite that -- but > almost (kind of like consubstantiation instead of transsubstantiation.) > Percy says that: > > The use of symbol is a "pairing [as opposed to a succession], a laying > of symbol alongside thing" (Signposts 134) which imples two things, side by > side. > > But then he goes on to say: > > It is "intentional relation of identity" (Signposts 134). Which implies > they are one? Or almost one? inside the human. > > Any thoughts or insights on: What Percy thought was happening in the human? > What anyone else things is happening in the human? I think Percy believed that process uniquely shared by God and humanity is the only possible explantion for what is going on to explain the phenomenon of symbolization. I don't think Percy wanted to find non human instances of Peircean triadic relations. I think Percy was wanting to find evidence of God's special relation to man and was trying his best to explain and convince himself and others that symbolization was the key. But I think he was mistaken in supposing this to be the case. I think symbolization is the process whereby three things are related such that one thing is taken by another to stand for a third. And that this sort of process permeates all of God's creation and it may well be that not only man but other animals and someday computers are or will be capable of partaking of symbolization. The key I think will be in recognizing that a single human, animal or computer can not symbolize unless it is part of a community that coordinates and has a shared purpose against which to measure the consequence or meaning of events. Kery -- personally I don't think the process of symbolization can be properly described as going on inside any human. It is a process that occurs among humans as in comunity, communication and communion. (BTW, I would take talking to oneself as merely pretending to think in the same fashion that a public theatre play is pretending.) Just some more grist for the mill. Many thanks for all the relevant Percy quotes. I'm embarrassed to think what I might be rambling on about if you (and others) were not keeping the discussion on track. Jim Piat From piat1 at bellsouth.net Mon Dec 16 19:06:46 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 19:06:46 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C27@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <004f01c2a560$30357b50$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Steve, Folks-- > We all have to agree on the meaning of a word in order for it to be > useful. Hence, meaning is independent of the representation of it. It can > only be achieved in the context of relationship." > Steve, if I'm following you correctly you seem to be saying that we need to know and agree upon what something is in order to talk about it. Therefore if we are talking about something that something must not only exist but we must have some prior common knowledge of what it is we are talking about. Moreover you seem to be also saying that since what you are talking about is God it must follow that not only does God exist, and that we know God exists but that we are all talking about God -- else how could we be talking to you. Of course I may have completely misunderstood your position and I apologize for even suggesting it might be your position if that is the case. But what I mainly disagree with about the position that I have rightly or wrong attributed to you (and again my apologies if I've wrongly done so) is that I think the position underestimates the role of representation or symbolozation in the process of knowing. I think one can be aquainted with events in two ways . First one can have a merely reactive aquaintence. Objects colliding without any consciousness of the fact that they have collided would be an example of this sort of mechanical aquaintence. We as conscious observers may know they have collided but the objects themselves collided without any conscious knowledge of having done so on their part. Likewise sometimes we humans have been observed to do things by others of which we have no conscious knowledge of having done. Again, I would call this sort of unconscious reactive aquaintence with events mechanistic or non representational. OTOH, what I have been arguing is that conscious knowledge can not occur without representation or symbolization. That it is the act of symbolization that makes full human consciousness possible. In particular the symbolozation of existence or context itself. Granted the world may exist apart from our collective consciousness of it (indeed I believe probably does) but I don't think we can prove this and at a minimum I think there is an enormous difference between our unconscious experiences of events and our conscious experience of them. True we breathe whether we are aware of it or not -- but still awareness adds a whole new dimension (seemingly of choice and knowledge of good and evil). I have been trying to suggest that it is representation itself (symbolization) that provides the added dimension of awareness. That is what I think was partially meant by the old testament Garden of Eden parable and what the Jews and of course many others have been pondering the meaning of for over 4.000 years. I credit Percy with expressing this view in a very compelling way. Had he lived long enough I think he would have eventually come full circle and converted to Judaism but that is another story with a very long radius. Jim Piat and that this therefore demonstrates that if we are talking about something that is ipso facto proof that what we are talking about exists and that we know it exists. You then go on to say (if I am understanding you) that we since we are all talking with you we must all be talking about what you are talking about or else how could we all be talking to one another. And since you are talking about is God we must all be talking about God. > That concept is worth repeating: "meaning is independent of the > representation of it". I say it is worth repeating because I think we are > actually DEMONSTRATING this principle in this discussion. I'm fairly certain > that you are not fully understanding my point, and I don't think it's > completely the fault of my inability to write. You see, I think we are > mostly in agreement about what it is we are trying to get at here, even Jim > with his rocks, but the "thing" still keeps evading us, and has evaded the > most salient minds of our species, and I'm willing to wager will continue to > evade us. Yet we know its there. No words to capture it, but its there. > > The "thing" (which may very well be unnamable) that is at the center of our > discussion is something we are attempting to reveal to each other -relation. > We use words like awareness, consciousness, thought, sense, knowing, etc. > However, I don't think any of these words adequately name what it is we (at > least I) are trying to describe. Nevertheless, something is there and we are > trying to reveal it to each other. In other words, we KNOW, its there, we > SENSE its there, its our THOUGHT, our CONSCIOUSNESS, our AWARENESS. Its > there even though these words are insufficient to name it. The meaning > precedes, and is independent of, our attempts to represent it. Naturally... > it's God. Yahweh. The unnamable (Old testament). That which cannot be named. > (I-Ching). > > I am still working this stuff out, and so I am certain that I have failed > again to make my point (not MY point really). > > Have to run. > > Cheers! > Steve > > > > Thanks Karey, > > Another thought occurred to me at Mass this morning during the Nicene Creed. > Christ -THE word-was "begotten, not made". Maybe, since we are created in > his likeness, our words (and other symbols) work like this also. That is, we > "conceive" them like children. Concepts, names for things, are born in our > minds; they are begotten, not made. > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karey L. Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net] > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 1:50 PM > To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness > > I'm behind on reading and answering these e-mails-it's midterms for me and > Christmas is hectic-but I wanted to respond briefly if incompletely: > I'm not sure what either Marcus or Wade mean by the word Gnostic-could you > clarify? If by Gnostic you mean "out there" or too "abstract" in all of > this relationship of language to the Bible and creed, I would disagree. I > think the truths in the Bible are beyond what we normally perceive on the > surface: i.e.: examine it more deeply and it has profound clues as to the > nature of man, the world, God, and life (Percy's radical anthroplogy). The > ancients were on to very many truths that we have now forgotten or that the > Enlightenment has marginalized or that just don't fit in our paradigms- but > that doesn't mean they don't work or aren't true. At the very least the > exploration of that can be an illumination into what the Biblical writers > were intending to say, whether or not you believe it is a material import to > the nature of the world. > Wade: > >>>>>>>If someone loses his ability to speak or to write or read or even > large > portions of his experience drop out of thought, does he lose who he is? If > he loses part of his language, does he lose part of himself? What is it > we're all saying here?<<<<<<<<< > Percy said it was "symbol-mongering" that really defined the difference > between man and the animals: > "The truth is that man's capacity for symbol-mongering in general and > language in particular is.intimately part and parcel of his being human, of > his perceiving and knowing, of his very consciousness." (Message 29) > He also says later that art, etc. is symbol mongering, as Steve and others > have pointed out. So language is just an example of this symbol mongering, > and losing language is not losing self, or what it is that makes one human. > Language is just the platform Percy used to study symbol mongering. > I think the real issue is, does losing "symbol-mongering" result in losing > "self" or a more human way of thinking, or a "soul" or whatever it is that > differentiates man from animal, or whatever it is Percy meant? For Percy, I > DO think he is saying that without the capacity for symbol-mongering, you do > not have "consciousness" in the way that other humans do. > And to Steve and Jim's discussion on which came first, chicken or egg, cited > partially below: > >>>>>>Further, "worlds" are not created by symbols as if out of nothingness. > If that were true, that worlds or consciousnesses were merely the sum total > of our abstract representations, we could not think without words, which is > absurd. We do it all the time. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< > >>>>>>>Knowing and consciousness are not contingent upon whether our > thoughts can be represented. We frequently find ourselves in situations that > defy language or representation. But, its our relational need that compels > us to find and create symbolic form for our thoughts. We want to share our > thoughts. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< > >>>>>>>>The phrase didn't tell us something new; instead we recognize in it > what we knew but had not yet named ourselves. You can't name something > unless it exists. Thought exists before we name it. (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< > >>>>>>>Our knowledge of a thing precedes our naming it; it is formless and > therefore uncommunicabe and unrelational. However, it's in the naming that > we give form to the formlessness of it, as God did when he spoke and > creation was.(Steve)<<<<<<<<<<< > >>>>>>>>In the same way, in our own Genesis, we create symbols not because > our consciousness is dependent upon it, but because we have a relational > need (perhaps even a relational need with our own self (Steve)<<<<<<<<<<<< > >>>>>>>I do not agree with your view below that thought precedes > representation. That representation is perhaps just a vehicle for conveying > our thought to others. On the contrary I think representation is the very > essence of thought. It's what divides (triadic) thought from mere > (dyadic)mechanistic re-action.(JIM)<<<<<<<< > > It seems from my reading Percy and Jim agree: In fact, we can only "know" > the world, on a conscious level, through the naming/language act. If we > cannot name a thing, we cannot know it except as it relates to our > instinctual nature and physical survival (This is all over Percy's works, > but see especially Signposts 261, 274, 282). And also, he says > symbolization is the "very condition of our knowing anything" (Signposts > 132). And, Percy says: symbol is what enables us to know "being," to KNOW > the things we name, since we cannot know it directly. We must, instead, > "sidle up to it" through symbolization (Message 264). So for Percy, symbol > was not an event that happens so we can RELATE, but an event that happens so > we can KNOW. (Although later, the triadic theory becomes tetradic, and > Percy says that we must know within community-that we can only symbolize > and know if there is another person there-and at one point I think he > does offer that that can be talking to yourself, but I don't have the > reference to that right now.) > > So relating IS very important. But it seems that KNOWING comes first, and > also the need to know is first, before the relating need: Percy and Susanne > Langer, insist that humans NEED to symbolize; in fact, it is THE basic human > need (Message 288-296). But is this need to symbolize the need to relate or > the need to know? Percy says it is "ontological" not "biological"- > When I ask what is this strange flower, I am more satisfied to be given a > name, even though the name may mean nothing, than to be given a > classification. If I see a strange bird, ask my bird-watcher friend what it > is, and he tells me it is blue-gray gnatcatcher, I am obscurely > disappointed. I cannot help thinking he is telling me something ABOUT the > bird-that its color is blue-gray and that it catches gnats - and what I > really want to know is what it IS. He will tell me that I am only falling > victim to primitive word-magic.[but] there is another reason for my > satisfaction. It has to do with the new orientation which has come about as > the result of naming. The orientation is no longer biological; it is > ontological. (Signposts 133-134) > Ontological has to do with "being"-which could mean we understand (even > create?) the essence of that thing by naming. Definitely, the essence of > the thing for YOU is created when you name, though it exists in the outer > environment. But you know it only insofar as you perceive it through the > word. So all of our knowledge of the external world is mediated by > symbol-by our "world" or paradigm. > As for me personally, I'm still trying to figure out this concept in many > different ways. One of the things I'm trying to figure out, besides what > kind of need is being met, or which came first, the thought or symbol, is: > What's going on? That is, what's going on inside the human, inside the > coupler, or inside the "Language Acquisition Device" for which Percy had > these final words in "Message in a Bottle": > "The apex of the triangle, the coupler, is a complete mystery. What it is, > an 'I,' a 'self,' or some neurophysiological correlate thereof, I could not > begin to say" (Message 327). > Does he solve it in later writings? I don't know. I'd be curious to see > what Ken Ketner had to say about what is going on in the "coupler" or the > "human" when symbols happen there. > >>>>>>>>>>Why must thought precede representation or vice versa -- why > can't they be the same thing? I'm not convinced poetic words are just the > vehicles of thought -- I think they are the thought itself (Jim) <<<<<<<<< > This is the big issue. Of course, all of us Percyians agree, language is > not dyadic, it is not stimulus-response, and language is not two events > separated by space and time in the external world. Those two events are > interacting inside the human, the coupler, and that's where language occurs. > But what IS occurring, now that we agree on what is NOT occurring? At one > point, I had thought that symbol was a UNION of these two-the object and the > word. Somehow, they become one. Then I thought not quite that-but almost > (kind of like consubstantiation instead of transsubstantiation.) > Percy says that: > The use of symbol is a "pairing [as opposed to a succession], a laying of > symbol alongside thing" (Signposts 134) which imples two things, side by > side. > But then he goes on to say: > It is "intentional relation of identity" (Signposts 134). Which implies > they are one? Or almost one? inside the human. > Any thoughts or insights on: What Percy thought was happening in the human? > What anyone else things is happening in the human? > Also Steve, I was wondering if you could clarify the "begotten not made" and > how that relates to the topic... > Karey > > > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at > http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy > -- > > An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail > > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Dec 17 09:19:48 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:19:48 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C29@exchangeserver.culver.org> Dear Jim, You said "Granted the world may exist apart from our collective consciousness of it (indeed I believe probably does) but I don't think we can prove this and at a minimum I think there is an enormous difference between our unconscious experiences of events and our conscious experience of them." Yes. This is precisely my point. However, I think we can still demonstrate the nature of the thing. Take the following analogy: Light that is emitted from a source can't be used to illuminate the source of the light. In the same way, the words that we use can't be used to "illuminate" the "source" of the words. The source exists independently of the words and furthermore defies our attempts to render it in form. Again, I think poetry is the finest example of this. Poets, even the good ones, or perhaps especially the good ones, know that they are ultimately powerless to name. They know that the things most in need of naming can't be rendered in form. That is the tragic condition of the Poet. Poet's know they are trapped. You also said "I have been trying to suggest that it is representation itself (symbolization) that provides the added dimension of awareness." Yes, exactly. It does provide the added dimension of awareness. I don't think a FORMED or FORMULABLE awareness of the world is possible without symbols. Helen Keller comes to mind. And, like Percy I think there is a bootstrapping effect, i.e. the words provide a vessel for meaning, and meaning fills the vessel (This image of a vessel works nicely, I think, because Percy was also interested in how words can be "emptied out" or "evacuated" or "cracked and leaking". If they can be emptied, WHAT is being poured out?). My point is that there remain things that we want to say about the world that no symbol fully comprehends. In this way, the mind is ultimately intractable and unnamable. You said, " I credit Percy with expressing this view in a very compelling way. Had he lived long enough I think he would have eventually come full circle and converted to Judaism but that is another story with a very long radius". Hmmm. I dunno Jim. Percy couldn't really have converted to Judaism since he already considered himself Jewish. He was Catholic, yes, but he understood Catholicism, I think rightly, as the fulfillment of the Jewish drama, God's story. In converting to Catholicism, he converted to the whole story. "You then go on to say (if I am understanding you) that we since we are all talking with you we must all be talking about what you are talking about or else how could we all be talking to one another. And since you are talking about is God we must all be talking about God." You're close to my meaning, Jim, but your misunderstanding about what I mean by "God" only serves to further illustrate my point, and I think Percy's point. God is not limited in scope but infinite, and therefore ultimately unnamable. (Similarly, Saussure ultimately considered meaning "unrecoverable". Though, I wonder if he knew just how apt the word "unrecoverable" was in relation to the Fall; he sensed that something had been lost and needed recovering). So when we use the very word "God", we are referring to that incomprehensible infinity, that unfathomable nexus of being, thought, power, love, goodness, beauty, truth, justice, etc. This is the realm of consciousness (which literally means "to know together") that I am getting at. We know it. We try to name it. Our words ultimately fail. Trying to name God is a slippery thing. What I meant by God was the unnamable. Cheers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:07 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness Dear Steve, Folks-- > We all have to agree on the meaning of a word in order for it to be > useful. Hence, meaning is independent of the representation of it. It can > only be achieved in the context of relationship." > Steve, if I'm following you correctly you seem to be saying that we need to know and agree upon what something is in order to talk about it. Therefore if we are talking about something that something must not only exist but we must have some prior common knowledge of what it is we are talking about. Moreover you seem to be also saying that since what you are talking about is God it must follow that not only does God exist, and that we know God exists but that we are all talking about God -- else how could we be talking to you. Of course I may have completely misunderstood your position and I apologize for even suggesting it might be your position if that is the case. But what I mainly disagree with about the position that I have rightly or wrong attributed to you (and again my apologies if I've wrongly done so) is that I think the position underestimates the role of representation or symbolozation in the process of knowing. I think one can be aquainted with events in two ways . First one can have a merely reactive aquaintence. Objects colliding without any consciousness of the fact that they have collided would be an example of this sort of mechanical aquaintence. We as conscious observers may know they have collided but the objects themselves collided without any conscious knowledge of having done so on their part. Likewise sometimes we humans have been observed to do things by others of which we have no conscious knowledge of having done. Again, I would call this sort of unconscious reactive aquaintence with events mechanistic or non representational. OTOH, what I have been arguing is that conscious knowledge can not occur without representation or symbolization. That it is the act of symbolization that makes full human consciousness possible. In particular the symbolozation of existence or context itself. Granted the world may exist apart from our collective consciousness of it (indeed I believe probably does) but I don't think we can prove this and at a minimum I think there is an enormous difference between our unconscious experiences of events and our conscious experience of them. True we breathe whether we are aware of it or not -- but still awareness adds a whole new dimension (seemingly of choice and knowledge of good and evil). I have been trying to suggest that it is representation itself (symbolization) that provides the added dimension of awareness. That is what I think was partially meant by the old testament Garden of Eden parable and what the Jews and of course many others have been pondering the meaning of for over 4.000 years. I credit Percy with expressing this view in a very compelling way. Had he lived long enough I think he would have eventually come full circle and converted to Judaism but that is another story with a very long radius. Jim Piat and that this therefore demonstrates that if we are talking about something that is ipso facto proof that what we are talking about exists and that we know it exists. You then go on to say (if I am understanding you) that we since we are all talking with you we must all be talking about what you are talking about or else how could we all be talking to one another. And since you are talking about is God we must all be talking about God. > That concept is worth repeating: "meaning is independent of the > representation of it". I say it is worth repeating because I think we are > actually DEMONSTRATING this principle in this discussion. I'm fairly certain > that you are not fully understanding my point, and I don't think it's > completely the fault of my inability to write. You see, I think we are > mostly in agreement about what it is we are trying to get at here, even Jim > with his rocks, but the "thing" still keeps evading us, and has evaded the > most salient minds of our species, and I'm willing to wager will continue to > evade us. Yet we know its there. No words to capture it, but its there. > > The "thing" (which may very well be unnamable) that is at the center of our > discussion is something we are attempting to reveal to each other -relation. > We use words like awareness, consciousness, thought, sense, knowing, etc. > However, I don't think any of these words adequately name what it is we (at > least I) are trying to describe. Nevertheless, something is there and we are > trying to reveal it to each other. In other words, we KNOW, its there, we > SENSE its there, its our THOUGHT, our CONSCIOUSNESS, our AWARENESS. Its > there even though these words are insufficient to name it. The meaning > precedes, and is independent of, our attempts to represent it. Naturally... > it's God. Yahweh. The unnamable (Old testament). That which cannot be named. > (I-Ching). > > I am still working this stuff out, and so I am certain that I have failed > again to make my point (not MY point really). > > Have to run. > > Cheers! > Steve > > > > Thanks Karey, > > Another thought occurred to me at Mass this morning during the Nicene Creed. > Christ -THE word-was "begotten, not made". Maybe, since we are created in > his likeness, our words (and other symbols) work like this also. That is, we > "conceive" them like children. Concepts, names for things, are born in our > minds; they are begotten, not made. > Steve > From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 17 13:37:09 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:37:09 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C29@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <002b01c2a5fb$4eafbeb0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Dear Steve, You wrote: > You said "Granted the world may exist apart from our collective > consciousness of it (indeed I believe probably does) but I don't think we > can prove this and at a minimum I think there is an enormous difference > between our unconscious experiences of events and our conscious experience > of them." > > Yes. This is precisely my point. However, I think we can still demonstrate > the nature of the thing. Take the following analogy: Light that is emitted > from a source can't be used to illuminate the source of the light. In the > same way, the words that we use can't be used to "illuminate" the "source" > of the words. The source exists independently of the words and furthermore > defies our attempts to render it in form. I take the notion that things have a source or cause (or causes as Aristotle I think put the matter) to be a theory or perhaps an assumption. I do not take it to be an established fact. Also, seems to me that a light source can be used to illuminate it source. In fact I'd say light is the very best example of something that is self evident. But I think I may be using some key words (source, cause, etc) somewhat differently than you. Seems that when we or anyone else tries to communicate about things ultimate we quickly run up agains the limitations of language -- all of which makes me wonder if perhaps the notion of the ultimate may be one of those mistaken (albeit very popular) theories of how the world is. Again, I think poetry is the > finest example of this. Poets, even the good ones, or perhaps especially the > good ones, know that they are ultimately powerless to name. They know that > the things most in need of naming can't be rendered in form. That is the > tragic condition of the Poet. Poet's know they are trapped. Perhaps existence is circular and that ultimately all is one and everything is fully and exactly what it is without need for further explanation. > > You also said "I have been trying to suggest that it is representation > itself (symbolization) that provides the added dimension of awareness." > > Yes, exactly. It does provide the added dimension of awareness. I don't > think a FORMED or FORMULABLE awareness of the world is possible without > symbols. Helen Keller comes to mind. And, like Percy I think there is a > bootstrapping effect, i.e. the words provide a vessel for meaning, and > meaning fills the vessel (This image of a vessel works nicely, I think, > because Percy was also interested in how words can be "emptied out" or > "evacuated" or "cracked and leaking". If they can be emptied, WHAT is being > poured out?). My point is that there remain things that we want to say about > the world that no symbol fully comprehends. In this way, the mind is > ultimately intractable and unnamable. Yes, I think I follow what you are saying -- you are grappling with trying to expresss the ineffable or at least get the notion through my thick head. And I appreciate the effort and your patience with me. At times I am simply confused but at other times I am being the devil's advocate and I don't make clear or even know myself which I'm doing at the time so you are indeed a tolerant person to put up with me. But on this point of what it is we are trying to express when we have a feeling that we are trying to express the ineffable. Seems like some sort of paradox or self contradiction (unless of course we know our thoughts and it is only the putting of them into words that escapes us). Well I'd like to suggest that it is only the putting of experience into words that makes experience known to us in the form of thought. Thought and symbolism are in my view one and the same. (BTW, although I find what you say about God the un-nameable very interesting, I do intend what I am saying just now as commentary on your views concerning the nature of God. I am a much smaller point I want to explore for the moment). Perhaps what we experience as a vague and frustrating sense that we know something we can't express (a bit like the tip of the tongue phenonmena, but of course not quite) is better explained as resulting from the fact that we can't reproduce for others (in a way that they can recognize) the symbols we have in our minds eye or memory. IOWs the reason we feel we already "know" the ineffable is because in fact we have already symbolized it. The frustration and sense that it is ineffable arises from the fact that the symbols we are using to convey it to others are not eqaul in clarity to the symbols we have used to make the so called ineffable known to us in the first place. Bear in mind that anything can serve as a symbol. A feeling, a smell, a word, a sound, a hope or a whole constellation of things collectively can be used as a symbol. But when we try to find a word or even a picture, song or poem to capture and convey a complex symbolized experience we are often at a loss to do so. And so we say (as we sometimes do of pornography) "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it". This is to me a simple truism. And when we are trying to symbolize something as vast and abstract such -- well comparisons fail. But this does not mean, in my view, that thought precedes symbolization. Thought IS symbolization. But I think I've repeated myself enough on this subject so although I remain open to any comments or thoughts of yours I promise to shut up about this unless I really do have some pressing new idea that I think I simply must can get feedback on ;). > You said, " I credit Percy with expressing this view in a very compelling > way. Had he lived long enough I think he would have eventually come full > circle and converted to Judaism but that is another story with a very long > radius". > > > Hmmm. I dunno Jim. Percy couldn't really have converted to Judaism since he > already considered himself Jewish. He was Catholic, yes, but he understood > Catholicism, I think rightly, as the fulfillment of the Jewish drama, God's > story. In converting to Catholicism, he converted to the whole story. > Yes, I think this was Percy's view of the matter and one which I personally believe is one way of expressing the truth if truth there be. > "You then go on to say (if I am understanding you) that we since we are all > talking with you we must all be talking about what you are talking about or > else how could we all be talking to one another. And since you are talking > about is God we must all be talking about God." > > You're close to my meaning, Jim, but your misunderstanding about what I mean > by "God" only serves to further illustrate my point, and I think Percy's > point. God is not limited in scope but infinite, and therefore ultimately > unnamable. (Similarly, Saussure ultimately considered meaning > "unrecoverable". Though, I wonder if he knew just how apt the word > "unrecoverable" was in relation to the Fall; he sensed that something had > been lost and needed recovering). So when we use the very word "God", we are > referring to that incomprehensible infinity, that unfathomable nexus of > being, thought, power, love, goodness, beauty, truth, justice, etc. This is > the realm of consciousness (which literally means "to know together") that I > am getting at. We know it. We try to name it. Our words ultimately fail. > Trying to name God is a slippery thing. What I meant by God was the > unnamable. > > Cheers! > Steve I think I do follow you somewhat here, Steve. I hesitate to assert this too confidently because now we are speaking of God and almost by definition to reduce God to something that can be encompassed by a name or a concept is to miss the point. Still, I wish to respectfully register a bit of doubt or lack of certainty on my part. Perhaps the notion of the infinite is an illusion or in some way a logical, empirical, linguistic or philosophical error. Maybe the number series is not infinite, maybe the universe is not infinite -- maybe it's all just circles -- big and tiny loops --and everything that goes around comes around. Maybe we can't imagine the infinite because in fact there is no infinite and what we mean by the infinite is no more than that uneasy feeling that accompanies our hand waving when we are at a loss to make any more sense of what we started off talking about. Maybe. Thanks for the further thoughts -- Jim Piat From armstron at ohiou.edu Tue Dec 17 16:17:54 2002 From: armstron at ohiou.edu (Ken Armstrong) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:17:54 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness In-Reply-To: <002b01c2a5fb$4eafbeb0$0101a8c0@D68RS511> References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C29@exchangeserver.culver.org> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021217152655.01b6a6e8@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> At 01:37 PM 12/17/2002 -0500, James Piat wrote: >I take the notion that things have a source or cause (or causes as Aristotle >I think put the matter) to be a theory or perhaps an assumption. I do not >take it to be an established fact. Jim, I won't barge in on this over every point; I just can't resist saying something when I see "fact" being held up as a standard of judgement for all spheres of experience. What I would suggest is that there are "things" in existence that are unique, that cannot be duplicated or tested, and that trying to hold these essentially non-thingy "things" to a standard of fact is the same as trying to reduce them to a lower order of existence. There is no way to demonstrate that the duplicative way to knowledge---so-called fact---should be the standard against which all truths must be held. It is only, to use your word, an assumption (granted, an appealing and popular one in our culture), and one that does not hold up to logical analysis. It is not that I am trying to take facts out of the equation; I am trying to point out that there is no equation. Science is temporary; we're looking for what is not bound by time. Symbols as representation are symbols as signs, i.e. not really symbols. An understanding of "symbol" that does not include in the nature of symbols that they participate in what they "mean" misses symbolic function entirely. Symbols as signs, denatured symbols, can be appropriated to dogs, monkeys, etc. But symbols as symbols have no place in any but the human world. In the animal, vegetable, and mineral worlds, there is no film at 11. Ken Armstrong -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Dec 17 19:39:02 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:39:02 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C32@exchangeserver.culver.org> -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 at bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:37 PM To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness Dear Steve, You wrote: > You said "Granted the world may exist apart from our collective > consciousness of it (indeed I believe probably does) but I don't think we > can prove this and at a minimum I think there is an enormous difference > between our unconscious experiences of events and our conscious experience > of them." > > Yes. This is precisely my point. However, I think we can still demonstrate > the nature of the thing. Take the following analogy: Light that is emitted > from a source can't be used to illuminate the source of the light. In the > same way, the words that we use can't be used to "illuminate" the "source" > of the words. The source exists independently of the words and furthermore > defies our attempts to render it in form. I take the notion that things have a source or cause (or causes as Aristotle I think put the matter) to be a theory or perhaps an assumption. I do not take it to be an established fact. Also, seems to me that a light source can be used to illuminate it source. In fact I'd say light is the very best example of something that is self evident. But I think I may be using some key words (source, cause, etc) somewhat differently than you. Seems that when we or anyone else tries to communicate about things ultimate we quickly run up agains the limitations of language -- all of which makes me wonder if perhaps the notion of the ultimate may be one of those mistaken (albeit very popular) theories of how the world is. Again, I think poetry is the > finest example of this. Poets, even the good ones, or perhaps especially the > good ones, know that they are ultimately powerless to name. They know that > the things most in need of naming can't be rendered in form. That is the > tragic condition of the Poet. Poet's know they are trapped. Perhaps existence is circular and that ultimately all is one and everything is fully and exactly what it is without need for further explanation. > > You also said "I have been trying to suggest that it is representation > itself (symbolization) that provides the added dimension of awareness." > > Yes, exactly. It does provide the added dimension of awareness. I don't > think a FORMED or FORMULABLE awareness of the world is possible without > symbols. Helen Keller comes to mind. And, like Percy I think there is a > bootstrapping effect, i.e. the words provide a vessel for meaning, and > meaning fills the vessel (This image of a vessel works nicely, I think, > because Percy was also interested in how words can be "emptied out" or > "evacuated" or "cracked and leaking". If they can be emptied, WHAT is being > poured out?). My point is that there remain things that we want to say about > the world that no symbol fully comprehends. In this way, the mind is > ultimately intractable and unnamable. Yes, I think I follow what you are saying -- you are grappling with trying to expresss the ineffable or at least get the notion through my thick head. And I appreciate the effort and your patience with me. At times I am simply confused but at other times I am being the devil's advocate and I don't make clear or even know myself which I'm doing at the time so you are indeed a tolerant person to put up with me. But on this point of what it is we are trying to express when we have a feeling that we are trying to express the ineffable. Seems like some sort of paradox or self contradiction (unless of course we know our thoughts and it is only the putting of them into words that escapes us). Well I'd like to suggest that it is only the putting of experience into words that makes experience known to us in the form of thought. Thought and symbolism are in my view one and the same. (BTW, although I find what you say about God the un-nameable very interesting, I do intend what I am saying just now as commentary on your views concerning the nature of God. I am a much smaller point I want to explore for the moment). Perhaps what we experience as a vague and frustrating sense that we know something we can't express (a bit like the tip of the tongue phenonmena, but of course not quite) is better explained as resulting from the fact that we can't reproduce for others (in a way that they can recognize) the symbols we have in our minds eye or memory. IOWs the reason we feel we already "know" the ineffable is because in fact we have already symbolized it. The frustration and sense that it is ineffable arises from the fact that the symbols we are using to convey it to others are not eqaul in clarity to the symbols we have used to make the so called ineffable known to us in the first place. Bear in mind that anything can serve as a symbol. A feeling, a smell, a word, a sound, a hope or a whole constellation of things collectively can be used as a symbol. But when we try to find a word or even a picture, song or poem to capture and convey a complex symbolized experience we are often at a loss to do so. And so we say (as we sometimes do of pornography) "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it". This is to me a simple truism. And when we are trying to symbolize something as vast and abstract such -- well comparisons fail. But this does not mean, in my view, that thought precedes symbolization. Thought IS symbolization. But I think I've repeated myself enough on this subject so although I remain open to any comments or thoughts of yours I promise to shut up about this unless I really do have some pressing new idea that I think I simply must can get feedback on ;). > You said, " I credit Percy with expressing this view in a very compelling > way. Had he lived long enough I think he would have eventually come full > circle and converted to Judaism but that is another story with a very long > radius". > > > Hmmm. I dunno Jim. Percy couldn't really have converted to Judaism since he > already considered himself Jewish. He was Catholic, yes, but he understood > Catholicism, I think rightly, as the fulfillment of the Jewish drama, God's > story. In converting to Catholicism, he converted to the whole story. > Yes, I think this was Percy's view of the matter and one which I personally believe is one way of expressing the truth if truth there be. > "You then go on to say (if I am understanding you) that we since we are all > talking with you we must all be talking about what you are talking about or > else how could we all be talking to one another. And since you are talking > about is God we must all be talking about God." > > You're close to my meaning, Jim, but your misunderstanding about what I mean > by "God" only serves to further illustrate my point, and I think Percy's > point. God is not limited in scope but infinite, and therefore ultimately > unnamable. (Similarly, Saussure ultimately considered meaning > "unrecoverable". Though, I wonder if he knew just how apt the word > "unrecoverable" was in relation to the Fall; he sensed that something had > been lost and needed recovering). So when we use the very word "God", we are > referring to that incomprehensible infinity, that unfathomable nexus of > being, thought, power, love, goodness, beauty, truth, justice, etc. This is > the realm of consciousness (which literally means "to know together") that I > am getting at. We know it. We try to name it. Our words ultimately fail. > Trying to name God is a slippery thing. What I meant by God was the > unnamable. > > Cheers! > Steve I think I do follow you somewhat here, Steve. I hesitate to assert this too confidently because now we are speaking of God and almost by definition to reduce God to something that can be encompassed by a name or a concept is to miss the point. Still, I wish to respectfully register a bit of doubt or lack of certainty on my part. Perhaps the notion of the infinite is an illusion or in some way a logical, empirical, linguistic or philosophical error. Maybe the number series is not infinite, maybe the universe is not infinite -- maybe it's all just circles -- big and tiny loops --and everything that goes around comes around. Maybe we can't imagine the infinite because in fact there is no infinite and what we mean by the infinite is no more than that uneasy feeling that accompanies our hand waving when we are at a loss to make any more sense of what we started off talking about. Maybe. Thanks for the further thoughts -- Jim Piat -- An archive of all list discussion is available at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy From PARLINS at culver.org Tue Dec 17 19:44:20 2002 From: PARLINS at culver.org (Parlin, Steven) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:44:20 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] A budding writer Message-ID: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C33@exchangeserver.culver.org> To all on the list: I have a Catholic friend who has been writing for about 10 years now. He's one of the most brilliant men I know, but he is not a solicitor. His writings will never find an audience unless someone "discovers" him or helps him get discovered. I'm wondering if anyone on the list might have any suggestions. Where to begin? Steve From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 17 20:17:27 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:17:27 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C29@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20021217152655.01b6a6e8@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> Message-ID: <004c01c2a633$3a912990$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Ken Armstrong wrote: >> I won't barge in on this over every point; I just can't resist saying something when I see "fact" being held up as a standard of judgement for all spheres of experience. What I would suggest is that there are "things" in existence that are unique, that cannot be duplicated or tested, and that trying to hold these essentially non-thingy "things" to a standard of fact is the same as trying to reduce them to a lower order of existence. There is no way to demonstrate that the duplicative way to knowledge---so-called fact---should be the standard against which all truths must be held. It is only, to use your word, an assumption (granted, an appealing and popular one in our culture), and one that does not hold up to logical analysis. It is not that I am trying to take facts out of the equation; I am trying to point out that there is no equation. Science is temporary; we're looking for what is not bound by time.>> Dear Ken, I agree with what you say above. Thanks. I think I over stated the case for facts. Whether or not something is a fact (whatever that might be;) is not the only standard of interest for me either. But I'm not sure I've understood your point below: Ken wrote: >> Symbols as representation are symbols as signs, i.e. not really symbols. An understanding of "symbol" that does not include in the nature of symbols that they participate in what they "mean" misses symbolic function entirely. Symbols as signs, denatured symbols, can be appropriated to dogs, monkeys, etc. But symbols as symbols have no place in any but the human world. In the animal, vegetable, and mineral worlds, there is no film at 11.>> I'm not sure what you mean above, Ken. Peirce speaks of three kinds of triadic signs --icons, indexes and symbols. He speaks of all three as representations. He differentiates them partly on the basis of the type of association between the object and the sign. Icons are based upon a similarity between the object and the sign, indexes on a spatial temporal correlation between the object and sign and symbols upon a convention. Using Peirces classification of signs into icons idexes and symbols are you saying that only humans use symbols but that animals may use icons and indexes. Or do you want to go further and say that the comunnication signals that animals use are not triadic at all? Thay they are simply some sort of mechanical behvior that does not participate in what it means? If so, I would like to hear more of what you mean by symbols participating in what they mean. It sounds interesting to me Ken but I'm not sure what it means. And maybe a word or two about "meaning" itself. I take meaning to be the known consequences of behavior. By consequences I mean the effects the behavior has upon the ongoing goal directed behavior of the community of shared language users. Consequences are meaningful only to the extent that they are known. They have effects whether they are known or not -- but the effects don't "mean" anything to us unless we can conceive, symbolize or know them. Adam and Eve were certainly naked before the fall but being naked only meant embarrassment to them after they knew the consequences and implications of not having any clothes on. Ken, I am not hell bent on proving non humans can symbolize. Rather I'm trying to understand the nature of symbolization itself. I think examining whether non human's can symbolize might be a way of clarifying whatever it is that constitutes the essential nature of a symbol as opposed to signaling or whatever "symbol like communication" non human animals seem to employ. Clearly, as Steve and others have pointed out there are some classes of symbols or representations that non human animals do not seem to use -- for example art (although some mating displays might be construed as such depending upon the definition of a symbol). And it also seems clear that abstract ability of non humans is far more limited than humans. So we would expect their communication and use of symbols to be limited accordingly. I would not expect them to develop a symbol for very abstract conceptions such a s "being" or God for example. I guess my question to you and Steve is: Is there some logical or physical reason that non human animals or computers can not symbolize -- or is the reason theological or religious? IF we could some day in the future sit down and have a seemingly normal human like chat with a computer would this convince you computers can symbolize. Or is your position that no amount of evidence could ever persuade you that a computer is really symbolizing because such is Biblically or theologically impossible. I'm not saying such a position would be invalid but I would say it ignores what we call facts and therefore can not be defeated nor proven by an appeal to the facts. For my part I'm interested in both so called objective and subjective evidence. I am interested in Christian Biblical insights and teachings about symbolization as well as scientific approaches. For me they are both interesting and I do not find them in conflict -- but I think there is a danger that proponents of each might talk past one another (as I was perhaps doing with my one sided appeal to facts earlier) unless the issue is openly addressed. Your comment about facts has helped me realize this -- perhaps I need to focus more on understanding and listening and less on jumping so quickly to refute or challenge what others I saying. I'll try. Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brian at beachcitygas.com Sat Dec 28 19:40:18 2002 From: brian at beachcitygas.com (Brian N.) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 16:40:18 -0800 Subject: [percy-l] "I don't pay much attention to the right or the left. . ." Message-ID: <3E0E4472.4030001@beachcitygas.com> ". . . Students are, if the truth be known, a bad lot. En masse they're as fickle as a mob, manipulable by any professor who'll stoop to it. They have, moreover, an infinite capacity for repeating dull truths and old lies with all the insistence of self-discovery. Nothing is drearier than the ideology of students, left and right." That's on page 219 of Love In The Ruins. Sitting on an airplane for five hours en route to Kauai for Christmas holiday I worked my way through this three decade old book. But stuff like this quote makes it seem written yesterday. Or at least prescient of the university students here in Santa Cruz in the new century. Someone once said something to the effect that the only thing that doesn't change is the avant garde. Well, maybe we can add university groupthink to that as well. Why is the current out gassing from the ivory tower today hardly different than three decades ago? And I presume that what Percy wrote at that time had meaning because it was a reflection on the three decades or so prior to that. And, perhaps like WP was presaging, we now live in what can fairly be described as the post-civilization/post-human culture. There is lots of freedom here, thanks to the local meatheads: Safety free, prosperity free, civility free culture. Where was it I recently read that "libertinism is the final step before totalitarianism"? From Nikkibar at aol.com Tue Dec 31 16:12:41 2002 From: Nikkibar at aol.com (Nikkibar at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:12:41 EST Subject: [percy-l] Re: animals, symbols, Gnosticism, Judaaica etc Message-ID: <6f.33148d21.2b436249@aol.com> Dear Friends, I have been lurking about with an increasing Holiday headache for the last couple of weeks over the interesting discussion and have been unwilling to spoil the fun by getting doctrinaire and behaving like a prissy old fart; but now that things seem to be slowing up, let me provide a few biographical observations which I hope will not go so far as to become deconstructionist. The whole discussion about animals and symbols -- Chomsky, the Chimps in the household with the letter and icon boards, John Lilly and his dolphin language, etc. -- was something that Walker followed with eagerness and interest. We (Walker and I) constantly argued over the matter, Walker adopting with Aristotle and The Church the position that animals had no souls (and there was an end on't) and me adopting quite the contrary position which I had always associated with Theosophical Gnosticism, that the universe (or all-that-is) is in a state of both physical and spiritual evolution. And mixing into this lifelong debate was Walker's stout defense of the notion that animals can't use symbols (despite Chomsky and the household chimps, etc., and Lilly with his investigation of terciops truncatus' click language -- possibly indicating to the contrary). My own argument inevitably ran to the notion that the symbol as we and Peirce know it, is irrelevant to the debate and that communication and not symbolization is the more proper touch-stone to get one to the concept of evid ence of the kind of consciousness that would betoken the existence of animal-souls. Walker always felt that he prevailed in these contests because he could fall back on "show me the symbol-making ability) and that for me was the breakpoint, for while I couldn't show him a symbol emanating from an animal (although with enough funding and sufficiently sensitive and complex computers with enough RAM we may in time learn to talk to the dolphin or translate whale-song) I could always rejoin that he couldn't be certain that animals couldn't and didn't talk to each other; for our uncertainty is grounded in the notion that just because they may have little interest in talking to us, does not logically prove that they cannot talk to one another. In other words, in good lawyer-like fashion, I could always demonstrate that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. I can assure you, however that WP was head-over-heels in touch with the problem and took a long and lively interest in it. For those bewildered by Gnosticism and what it is, search our archives of about five years back using not only Gnostic as a word search tool but Elaine Pagels and to a lesser degree Harold Bloom, whose works we discussed thoroughly. At the end of that discussion I resolved never to get involved in that fight again, as it simply produces (on this channel at any rate) a good deal more heat than light. And the debate seemed fruitless to me for another reason: which was that the RC proponents of antiGnosticism knew a lot less about Gnosticism than I did (and do) about the Dogma and History of the Roman Catholic Church. What was interesting (and horrible to me) in the discussion was the virulence and mean-tempered attitude emanating at that time from the antiGnostic position, a latter day resurrection of the very same mortal combat which the church won with Valentinian and in winning the victory -- physically obliterated the ancient Gnostics. Pagels reflects with great eloquence on that fact of this victory and speculates over what the world might be like today, had the Gnostics prevailed at least to the point of remaining alive past the sixth century CE. An additional exploration might be taken up by anyone interested, by reading an enthralling novel on the subject published the last year entitled The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson (Bantam-Random House). An additional observation: in all my many discussions with Walker over these matters, he NEVER raised the slightest banner of mean-tempered virulence but was always the soul of interested courtesy. For further discussion of Gnosticism and what it is, I refer you to Bloom's speculatively intriguing American Gnosticism, but it is not nearly as informative at the basic level of defining terms as the works of Elaine Pagels (The Gnostic Gospels and Gnostic Paul). Google or Amazon will provide a useful bibliography complete with price lists. For a useful chapter on Gnosticism, specifically in the work of Percy (which may however leave you more puzzled after reading it than before) see Eddie DuPuy's book Autobiography in Walker Percy -- if you can find a copy. I am amused to the point of gentle mirth at the notion that Walker was a Jew ab initio through his conversion to Rome. That in my view is stretching the poetry of language just a little too far. (BTW Poets name things all the time. Just think of Edward Lear's toeless Pobble QED). What Walker would have said himself to this interesting error about boxing him in with the Jews, was that on the contrary he was not a Jew, but a reconstructed bad Presbyterian made over into a bad Roman Catholic. The wistful reverence for Jewry that he displays repeatedly in the novels was just that: very wistful and VERY reverent, which it occurs to me is roughly my own attitude toward Rome but that is BTW; it equals being an indifferent Episcopalian. A Parthian shot on the subject of the animals. Anyone watching the last season of The Sopranos (and who isn't?) may have some very interesting insights to draw over how Tony's conflicted Catholic attitude to the "Genesis dominion over the beasts" concept works in that most American of myths in its current HBO state of becoming. This agon may be the only thing that draws me back to it in its next season. I am suggesting that for us in the business of the aesthesis of words, myths and stories in the public mind, it's a pivot point well worth thinking about. One could assign grad school papers of 20 K words on it... It could enliven one's grading period to see what results. And a happy New Year to all. Nikki Barranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mfrentz at bbn.com Tue Dec 31 22:12:50 2002 From: mfrentz at bbn.com (Mike Frentz) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:12:50 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C29@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20021217152655.01b6a6e8@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> <004c01c2a633$3a912990$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Message-ID: <3E125CB2.2020504@bbn.com> Dear All, A belated chiming in. A reference that I found very illuminating on this topic is a book called "the Symbolic Species -- The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain" by Terrence Deacon, Norton 1997. Briefly, he gives a very lucid (and Peircean, no less..) breakout of symbolization as a hierarchy of indices and icons, that is key in his explanation some of the results/non-results of decades of language research (Deacon comes out strongly on the side of much of the animal "language" research (whether cetacean or primate) as being quixotic, at least in retrospect). Paraphrasing Deacon a bit: Symbolic relationships are different because words also represent other words. We do not lose the indexical associations of words because the possibility of this link is maintained implicitly in the stable associations between words. It is by virtue of this sort of dual reference - to objects and to other words - that a word conveys the information necessary to pick out objects of reference (sense and reference). Words point to objects (reference) and words point to other words (sense), but we use the sense to pick out the reference, not vice versa. I highly recommend this reference, FWIW. Happy New Year to All (to all following the Gregorian calendar, at least!) Mike James Piat wrote: > > > I'm not sure what you mean above, Ken. Peirce speaks of three kinds > of triadic signs --icons, indexes and symbols. He speaks of all > three as representations. He differentiates them partly on the basis > of the type of association between the object and the sign. Icons are > based upon a similarity between the object and the sign, indexes on a > spatial temporal correlation between the object and sign and symbols > upon a convention. Using Peirces classification of signs into icons > idexes and symbols are you saying that only humans use symbols but > that animals may use icons and indexes. Or do you want to go further > and say that the comunnication signals that animals use are not > triadic at all? Thay they are simply some sort of mechanical behvior > that does not participate in what it means? If so, I would like to > hear more of what you mean by symbols participating in what they > mean. It sounds interesting to me Ken but I'm not sure what it means. > > And maybe a word or two about "meaning" itself. I take meaning to be > the known consequences of behavior. By consequences I mean the > effects the behavior has upon the ongoing goal directed behavior of > the community of shared language users. Consequences are meaningful > only to the extent that they are known. They have effects whether > they are known or not -- but the effects don't "mean" anything to us > unless we can conceive, symbolize or know them. Adam and Eve were > certainly naked before the fall but being naked only meant > embarrassment to them after they knew the consequences and > implications of not having any clothes on. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From piat1 at bellsouth.net Tue Dec 31 22:54:56 2002 From: piat1 at bellsouth.net (James Piat) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 22:54:56 -0500 Subject: [percy-l] Re:Seminal events of consciousness References: <580A6654EC74D511B41600034779BEDE07058C29@exchangeserver.culver.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20021217152655.01b6a6e8@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> <004c01c2a633$3a912990$0101a8c0@D68RS511> <3E125CB2.2020504@bbn.com> Message-ID: <00c601c2b149$8c375280$0101a8c0@D68RS511> Mike Frentz wrote: >>(Deacon comes out strongly on the side of much of the animal "language" research (whether cetacean or primate) as being quixotic, at least in retrospect).>> Dear Mike, Folks-- True enough, but Deacon also concludes on page 454: "As we have seen, the symbolic threshold is not intrinsic to the human-nonhuman difference. It is probably crossable to some extent in many different ways by many species. This means that we are not the only species that could possess such a "pilgrim soul," to use William Butler Yeats's elegantly descriptive phrase. It was a Darwinian accident, or miracle, of nature that this ability arose once and persisted for so long; but it has provided each of us with the opportunity to participate in bringing new "souls" into the world, not by procreation, but by allowing our own symbolic selves to be shared by other human beings, and perhaps by other animals, or perhaps eventually even by artifacts of our own creation". Best wishes and Happy New Year too! Jim Piat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: