Sociology
It seems inevitable after the fact. With an entire planet functioning as one great feedback loop, creating an abundant variety of life, there was bound to come a species whose individuals could encompass a feedback loop entirely in themselves. It started with brains that had the capacity to communicate in non-symbolic ways. Eventually, these brains caught onto rudimentary tools. Then finally brains became big enough and complex enough to internalize the feedback loop and create symbols.
The key point to understand here is that for consciousness to bloom it was never enough for a creature to react to another creature by exhibiting instinctive or conditioned behaviors. The interaction also needed to exist fully in the creature’s own imagination. That is, the creature had to become more than just itself. It had to also become that with which it wished to communicate. At the moment cognitive self-awareness first came to an Earth creature, that feedback loop created imagination and the capacity to communicate symbolically. Then, a new feedback loop could be ignited between one creature and another, and from that loop would emerge true consciousness.
There is no psychology, then, without sociology. All minds are born in the feedback loop that is symbolic interaction. There is no solitary human being without there first being two. And insofar as thinking is a conversation with oneself, there does always seem to be at least two inside one’s skull, even when it appears there is only one.
The great sociologist Carl Couch demonstrated that the foundation of human life is cooperation. Cooperation emerges from the feedback loop between two human minds. You anticipate what I’m going to do, but I’m anticipating what you’re anticipating I’m going to do, so you’re anticipating what I’m anticipating you’re anticipating I’m going to do, and so on. Sometimes, in the plunging regress, we stand and stare at each other, as when two people stand at a door, each waiting for the other to open it. But most of the time, we move as one unit and make something happen that’s greater than the sum of what we could accomplish separately. One very important example of this is when adult humans cooperate with the objective of bringing their own offspring into full consciousness.
And with the emergence of human consciousness, the cosmic feedback loop is closed. For modern physics teaches us that the fundamental level of reality is changed by our observation of it.
And so this does seem to be the governing principle of the universe: one great loop consisting of loops consisting of loops consisting of loops… Or, since the loops are always progressing upwards or downwards, perhaps a better image is that of spirals consisting of spirals consisting of spirals… going on into infinity whether you zoom in or out of the picture.
Grandpappy always liked to talk about this governing principle, actually, although I’ll admit He never spoke of it in such terms. But consider for a moment that the ultimate expression of the governing principle in humanity, and perhaps in the cosmos, is cooperation. Cooperation is defined by sociology as the act of two human beings deeply anticipating one another’s desires and intentions and using those insights to act as a single unit. But isn’t that the same thing Grandpappy talked about when He said that all the rules and proclamations of the prophets boiled down to "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"? I doubt it’s any coincidence that this was the same sentiment expressed by Confucius 500 years earlier as he espoused the same governing principal. (Grandpappy was a gentleman, AND a scholar!) Still, Grandpappy, Confucius, and just about every other spiritual thinker throughout human history, really, were more comfortable calling that governing principle something other than "feedback loops".
They all called it Love.
No solitary human being
Heh, that's interesting. I think a somewhat related book is "Metaphors We Live By". According to them, the way we think what we experience, and what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor, thusly metaphors "profoundly" set up the expectations that determine what life will be for us in the future. And I just find it interesting comparing that to Johnson's recent research into infant psychology - and how the body generates meaning even before self-consciousness has fully developed.
Metaphors - a poetic device
In relation to the definition of cooperation in the post, I thought this excerpt from the book beautifully incorporated the act of 'anticipating one another's desires and intentions and using those insights to act as a single unit.' Here's an extract from the book that totally took the words right out of my mouth.
"Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they were doing "arguing."
It's a wonderful thing... like passionately dancing with words.
Metaphors--the mind-body connection
This piece was talking about how metaphoric connections of the abstract to the concrete might actually be how we think--a structure of the human brain which shows that we "think with our bodies": "abstract reasoning is in fact a sometimes awkward piggybacking onto the mental tools we have developed to govern our body’s interactions with its physical environment."
Work by Lakoff and Johnson was featured, especially work with very basic metaphors like "warmth" as a feature of temperament as well as temperature or "weight" as a measure of seriousness.
Passionately dancing with words
Passionately dancing with words
*blush*
Not without the association of my lovely, lovely contemporaries. ![]()
"Dancing with words" - that assertion should be an active endeavor. (see corresponding email from last night) ![]()
co-responsive e-mails
Amazing how much flexibility there is in this here straitjacket we been sharin'--must be how the escape artists get out. Mebbe now that the new year's here though we should give it a good wash 'cause I think it might start dancing on its own soon. Hmmm, wonder how we can do that without actually taking it off... co-responsive e-mails
Jazhulkster, I think the jacket's already dancing on it's own! How long have we been sharin' the thing?? Yeaaaah. That needs to be figured out... you know... how to wash it without taking it off. After we figure that out, we can hang dry until midnight tonight so we enter the new year cleansed and reborn baby!

delicious
digg
No solitary human being
I'm reading a book called "The Meaning of the Body" by Mark Johnson and just finished a chapter about infancy that is describing how our sense of self emerges from our physical interaction with our parents, and really it's amazing to read about the ways in which this starts happening almost from the moment of birth. For instance, Johnson cites data that infants imitate adult actions like tongue protrusion, mouth opening and finger movement when they are less than an hour old. (And explains to me why all babies love the blowing raspberries interaction
.) "There appears to be an intrinsic relatedness between the seen bodily acts of others and the internal states of oneself (the sensing and representation of one's own movements.)" Apparently also the first distinction babies make is between human and anything else. "the basic cut infants impose on the world of objects is neither self-initiated movement vserus moved by a seen force, nor animate vs. inanimate, nor even people vs. things. The aboriginal distinction may be something closer to human acts versus other events....no matter what our ontological categories might be, or turn out in the future to be, they are not built into the nature of some allegedly mind-independent world. Our realism...is 'realism with a human face.' "
So it's not just the "self" that is constructed out of this interaction but also our ability to conceptualize--to make sense of the world. "We are not solitary, autonomous creatures who individually and singly construct models of our world in out head....We inhabit a shared world, and we share meaning from the start, even if we are completely unaware of this while we are infants. In other words, body-based intersubjectivity--our being with others via bodily expression, gesture, imitation, and interaction--is constitutive of our very identity from our earliest days, and it is the birthplace of meaning."
Just another way of saying that who we are emerges from Love. (It's pretty cool that I got this book from my son as a Christmas present.
)