Thursday, March 28, 2013

Discussion: Damasio and Scarry

DESCARTES' ERROR
We had a good discussion tonight about this text.  I think most people enjoyed it and found it contained much to think about.  The discussion ranged over many different - but interconnected - topics. We spent alot of time discussing the concept of free will and trying to define free will vs personal responsibility, how does upbringing, brain damage, substance or other abuse etc affect this.  We had a good discussion on the value judgments made about brain issues vs other issues.  If you have cancer or diabetes or a broken leg there is usually no blame to the person, no negative judgments of their character, no blame whereas with many mental illnesses, we are uncomfortable with this, we may blame them for their illness, for their lack of "willpower".  A few people in the class deal with people with mental illnesses through their work, two through social services and one through the prison system and it was good to hear their perspective on these issues.

We also discussed sick cultures and what Damasio might have been referring to in the 1990s when it spoke about sick sectors of American culture.  One aspect might have been violence, video games, issues with sexuality etc.  Damasio didn't really elaborate on what he had in mind when he included the comment in his book.

We spoke a little about the effects of civilization on humankind and whether we are progressing (continuing to evolve) or whether we are just cycling through variations in human nature.

I didn't take alot of notes as I was guiding the discussion but I thought there was so much scope in this book, especially coming as it does after we've worked our way through the centuries of thinkers who have been wondering about the various roles of passion and reason, our place in the world.



ON BEAUTY AND BEING JUST - by Elaine Scarry
Roberta was scheduled to lead the discussion and had sent out a detailed list of questions she wanted us to consider and how she wanted us to consider them.  Unfortunately she didn't make it to the class and so Stephen led the discussion on the areas of the book he wanted to explore.  This is the 1st year that the book has been included in the GLS curriculum and everyone found it challenging.  It's a deceptively thin book, looks very pretty with its smooth cover, thick coloured end papers and textured paper.  I think that most people, especially after having read the very scientific Descartes' Error, were looking forward to a book discussing beauty and its role in human existence.  This book didn't really do this adequately for most of us.  It was interesting but since none of us have a background in aesthetics or have done any reading in it (except maybe Stephen?) we had trouble with the conceptual level Scarry was writing from.

PART II
Scarry says Beauty was banished from academic world for 2 decades.  Political critique was based on:

  1. distracts us from important stuff like suffering, "wrong social arrangements"
  2. when we make beauty an object of sustained regard, our act is destructive to the object
It's not that beauty wasn't appreciated but rather that it wasn't considered a good enough reason by itself to value something academically.  The class didn't agree with a) Scarry's statement or b) that her reasons for this valid.  The 3 in the class who had just finished an undergraduate degree did say that they found that universities or faculties tended to become very entrenched on a specific way to do things and all the other ways are denigrated each time a new "fad" comes along - which is not to say that new fads are adopted frequently or easily but rather that academic thinking tends to be quite prescriptive and proscriptive in how their field of study should be studied, discussed and written about.

Our view of beauty may be changing based on changes in the world such as ability to reproduce much beauty much more easily.  When you can find images of great works of art on the Internet or buy a decent quality reproduction of art you've seen in any museum shop, it's not as rare as it used to be.

Steve brought up the Pidgin Restaurant in Vancouver's Eastside and the protests against it, protesting against gentrification.  He said this fits in with what Scarry said: that the wealthy diners will be gazing out at the suffering poor and this could be harmful to them (destructive); and the beauty of the restaurant and the food may distract society from the 'wrong social arrangements'.  The whole argument seems a stretch to me but again, I probably have to think about it a bit more.

"No detailed argument or description is ever brought forward to justify this generalization, yet the generalization has worked to silence conversations about beauty.  If this critique or the other critiques against beauty were crisply formulated as edicts or treatises with sustained arguments and examples, the incoherence would be more starkly visible and the influence correspondingly diminished.  They exist instead as semi-articulate but deeply held convictions that - like snow in a winter sky that keeps materializing in the air yet never falls or accumulates on the ground - make their daily way into otherwise essays, articles, exams, conversations.  Suddenly out of the blue, someone begins to speak about the way a poet is reifying the hillside or painting or flower she seems to be so carefully regarding.

Stephen said that the Heisenberg principle, interpreted to mean that the gaze of a viewer affects the observed object, was adopted by the humanities to say that people's gazes whether this is the male gaze harming a female or whatever, have an effect on what they are observing and that this effect likely is not benign or is actually harmful - at the very least there is an effect.
Elaine Scarry would have spent much time in university environments that constrained value judgments of what is beautiful by wanting to apply notions of patriarchy, prejudice etc

We then moved on to discussions of 'lateral disregard' and how Scarry proposed that when we put our notice to something beautiful, we bring less attention to other related objects.  This can lead to problems with over-specialization or fixations about things we admire, find beautiful.  This concept carried more weight that some of Scarry's other arguments or propositions.

It was interesting to consider Scarry's references to Simone Weil who was "always deeply somatic: what happens, happens to our body." pg 111 Damasio would, I think, agree with this.

The essentialist who believes beauty remains constant over the centuries and the historicist or social constructionist who believes that even the deepest structures of the soul are susceptible to cultural shaping have no need, when confronting the present puzzle, to quarrel with one another.  For either our responses to beauty endure unaltered over centuries, or our responses to beauty are alterable, culturally shaped.  And if they are subject to our willful alteration, then we are at liberty to make of beauty what we wish.  pg 74
Kant is an essentialist and Hume is a historicist, Hume felt that rights and wrongs change over time, according to conditions, externals.  I don't think there is an intrinsic beauty or rather, I think that beauty is very much affected by the viewer (their background, culture, experience, education, mood etc).  I think there are some qualities that humans tend to find beautiful such as symmetry etc but the range of things we find beautiful is so wide and varied and the effect beautiful things have on us is also so varied that I can't conceive of beauty being constant.

The discussion made me consider about beauty from the perspective of non-humans.  It seems a very human concept and while animals can be interested in many things in all my observations of them I can't think of any time I've thought they noticed or had a any notion of beauty.  This thought seems to lead me straight to next week's text which is "The Animal that Therefore I am" which I'm looking forward to reading.



Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Damasio: Descartes' Error

Damasio, Antonio: Descartes' Error; Penguin Books, London, 2005


I'm leading this discussion for the class and I'm also very interested in this book so this blog entry is going to be pretty long.  I've been looking forward to this book for several reasons.  One reason is the science aspect and including something in our exploration from a modern scientific perspective.  The second reason is based on where in our reading list this book is placed - towards the end where we are trying to synthesize what we have been reading and thinking about. It's a big jump from Freud in the early 20th century to Damasio at the end of the century and to Phillips in this millennium but it's great to read works by thinkers who are considering what has come before them and where we are now.

I hadn't heard of this book, nor Antonio Damasio before.  The book was written in the mid-1990s and Damasio is a neuroscientist.  Born in Lisbon in 1944 but living and working in the USA most of his career.  His wife, Hanna Damasio, is also a neuroscientist, and they have frequently collaborated together in their work.

Damasio's premise for this book is that the brain, and more particularly the mind, is not an organ or entity separate from the body but rather intimately connected to and dependent on the body for its integrity.  Where some previous thinkers, most notably Rene "cogito ergo sum" Descartes, have felt that the self belongs outside the body proper (either to the mind or to the spirit), Damasio argues that the self is very much a product of brain and body; that the integrity and persistence of the self rely on the integrity of both brain and body and the ongoing communications between the two; and that "mental activity, from its simplest aspect to its most sublime, requires both brain and body proper."[pg xxi)

In his introduction, Damasio states that both “high-level” and “low-level” brain regions, from the pre-frontal cortices to the hypothalamus and brain stem, cooperate in the making of reason.  But where we have long thought that reason is separate from passion and feelings (though affected by them, usually adversely), feelings are an important component and tool in rational decision-making.
Feelings, along with the emotions they come from, are not a luxury. [...] Feelings are neither intangible nor elusive.  Contrary to traditional scientific opinion, feelings are just as cognitive as other percepts.  They are the result of a most curious physiological arrangement that has turned the brain into the body's captive audience.
[...] Were it not for the possibility of sensing body states that are inherently ordained to be painful or pleasurable, there would be no suffering or bliss, no longing or mercy, no tragedy or glory in the human condition. (pg xvii)
 Damasio goes on to state that "Feelings are the base for what humans have described for millennia as the human soul or spirit." pg xx  He asks the series of questions that have engaged mankind (I use 'mankind' deliberately here) for millennia:
How is it that we are conscious of the world around us,
that we know what we know,
and that we know that we know?  pg xxi

[I couldn't help but think of Donald Rumsfeld's infamous quote on the topic of 'what we know we know', when he spoke at NATO; not that different from Damasio's but which seemed to confirm a reputation for cloudy political double-speak: "There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."]

I liked Damasio's view on the limits of science:
I am sceptical of science's presumption of objectivity and definitiveness.  I have a difficult time seeing scientific results, especially in neurobiology, as anything but provisional approximations, to be enjoyed for a while and discarded as soon as better accounts become available.  pg xxii
I agree with this but what I really agree with is that his follow up statement that this doesn't mean that science is not useful, that where we are now in the state of our knowledge is not of value even though where we [ideally] end up will be somewhere else.  As Damasio put it, this scepticism doesn't mean he is not enthusiastic about attempts to improve these provisional approximations.

Damasio begins his text by recounting the story of Phineas Gage, a railway foreman in 1848 who suffers a severe linear brain injury (from a long narrow metal rod driven through his head from under his left cheekbone and up and out through the top of his skull, travelling dorso-medially and anteriorly).  He survived his injury and once he had recovered from the hemorrhage and infection he seemed miraculously intact: could walk, speak, function etc.  It was only after his physical recovery that severe and debilitating changes in his personality, his reasoning, his self became apparent and not only apparent but a severe problem for his functioning in society.  It appeared that an area of his brain had been damaged that was responsible for very specific functions to do with reasoning and "in particular to the personal and social dimensions of reasoning." (pg 10).  Damasio uses this case, and Hanna Damasio's computer reconstruction of which brain areas might have been damaged, as well as modern day cases of patients with similar symptoms to hypothesize what might be going on in several specific sectors of the brain and what this implies for concepts of reason, self, ethics etc
Gage's example indicated that something in the brain was concerned specifically with unique human properties.  pg 10
Among these unique human properties, Damasio lists: "the ability to anticipate the future and plan accordingly within a complex social environment; the sense of responsibility toward the self and others; and the ability to orchestrate one's survival deliberately, at the command of one's free will. " The case Damasio makes for the information we can derive from Gage's situation is compelling, though I gather not non-controversial.  I found an article online by Malcolm Macmillan in The Psychologist - UK [Article on Phineas Gage and Descartes' Error - The Psychologist ] which emphatically did not agree with Damasio's assumptions about Gage's injury.  If we disregard this aspect, Damasio does go on to discuss patients he has seen and other medical reports from more modern times regarding patients with similar areas of damage or similar symptoms and I do consider he makes a good case - or provisional assumption - about certain areas and functions of the brain.


Damasio makes mention of phrenology, which topic has come up occasionally amongst our 19th century authors.  I didn't know much about it other than it involved bumps on the head but Damasio explains more in an aside on page 14.  He describes it as "a curious mix of early psychology, early neuroscience, and practical philosophy" and was especially influential on the humanities in the 19th c.  It's founder, Franz Joseph Gall, had an amazing conception that there were areas of specialization in the brain and he went against the established dualist thinking that separated mind and body.  What phrenology has become more known for is the erroneous assertion that there are specific single brain centres for each function and that the power of the function was related to the size of the centre (and which could be assessed via telltale bumps on the skull).  A phrenologist travelling through Massachussett in later years wrote about Phineas Gage's accident and concluded in 1882 that the iron rod had passed "in the neighbourhood of Benevolence and Veneration.  [...] His organ of Veneration seemed to have been injured..."  Much more evocative than ventromedial prefrontal area or cytoarchitectonic areas 3, 1, 2 and Area S2.

While individual areas are important for the various functions of the mind, these functions cannot usually be localized to one single specific site.  Most (if not all) brain functions are a result of the interaction of multiple specific areas and systems of the brain.  "The mind results from the operation of each of the separate components, and from the concerted operation of the multiple systems constituted by these separate components." pg 15

One characteristic of the patients that Damasio describes is that their brain injury has impaired their ability to make good decisions (which is evident in themselves but even more striking when compared to their personalities, decision-making and rationality before their brain damage).  Interestingly, Damasio comments about one patient that these changes seen were not "consequent to a former weakness of character, and they certainly were not controlled willfully by the patient." pg 37  He does not discuss much about other brain diseases or types of injury (other than direct trauma due to direct force or due to stroke) other than glancing references to injury from drugs/alcohol as well as genetic and social influences on the brain but thoughts of fetal alcohol syndrome and child abuse did come to mind. For Damasio's patients, after their brain injury "the machinery for [their] decision making was so flawed that [they] could no longer be an effective social being."  He describes patients that are now unable to learn from their mistakes.  "It is appropriate to say that his free will had been compromised." pg 38  Later on Damasio refers to the work of Francis Crick and his thoughts about a 'neural substrate for free will' in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul.  [pg 73] Interestingly these patients, though completely unable to function in society, can have normal IQ tests and function normally on many cognitive tests.

Damasio speaks about diseases of the brain (epilepsy, brain tumour, stroke) vs diseases of the mind (manic-depression or schizophrenia) and the value judgements our culture places on them, where
diseases of the brain are seen as tragedies visited on people who cannot be blamed for their condition, while diseases of the mind, especially those that affect conduct and emotion, are seen as social inconveniences for which sufferers have much to answer. Individuals are to be blamed for their character flaws, defective emotional modulation, and so on; lack of willpower is supposed to be the primary problem.  pg 40

Emotion has long thought to affect reasoning, usually in a negative way, interfering in 'good' decision making.  "As a result, we usually conceive of emotion as a supernumerary mental faculty, an unsolicited, nature-ordained accompaniment to our rational thinking.  If emotion is pleasurable, we enjoy it as a luxury; if it is painful, we suffer it as an unwelcome intrusion."  [pg 52]  This is not to say that emotions can't cause biases that can lead to irrational decisions - where would advertising be if this were not the case?

Damasio discusses the complexity of the human organism (and of the mammalian class as a whole) and how this would have required a more complex brain than one based on simple sensory organs and simple reflexes.  What gives us a 'mind' is the ability 'to display images internally and to order those images in a process called thought."  [pg 89]  Images are not only visual but could be olfactory, auditory or tactile.
My view then is that having a mind means that an organism forms neural representations which can become images, be manipulated in a process called thought, and eventually influence behaviour by helping predict the future, plan accordingly, and choose the next action. pg pg 90
This is where Damasio starts to part company from Descartes.
The overall function of the brain is to be well informed about what goes on in the rest of the body, the body proper; about what goes on in itself; and about the  environment surrounding the organism, so that suitable, survivable accommodations can be achieved between organism and environment.  from an evolutionary perspective, it is not the other way around. If there had been no body, there would have been no brain.  pg 90
Damasio gives us just a hint of the complexity of the mammalian nervous system and asks "what does all that complexity buy us?" [pg 93]  It allows us to acquire strategies for reasoning and thus for decision making.  One concept that Damasio relies on is the concept of "dispositional representations".  These are the repositories of "facts and strategies" in each our brains of both innate and acquired knowledge about ourselves and our environment. [pg 94]

One odd little item that Damasio brought up again and again was a visual concept for the brain's functional regions of a homunculus or human figure distorted based on the relative "richness" of the area (ie: area connected to lip sensation would be bigger than mid-leg).  He ascribes this concept to Canadian Wilder Penfield [pg 72] and brings it up again and again - obviously an early 'provisional approximation' of how the brain works that really bugs Damasio.  However he seems to get this quite confused with a concept of a homunculus as a "little person inside our brain perceiving and thinking about the images the brain forms" [pg 99] a concept which has nothing to do with Wilder's surgical neuro-mapping.  Damasio quite rightly notes that for this intra-brain homunculus to be true, we would have to conceive of an endless nest of Russian Dolls with each brain containing a little human whose brain contains an even smaller human whose brain contains an even smaller ...




Damasio makes a strong case for the importance of the sensory aspects of each organism in their mental functioning and this holds true in humans for their cognitive ability and consciousness.  He emphasizes that the innate drives and neural circuits in the brain "intervene not just in bodily regulation but also in the development and adult activity of the evolutionarily modern structures of the brain." pg 110  He is speaking of the experience-driven sections of the brain which are evolutionarily more modern than the "reptile brain" (limbic system and brainstem).  We are born with innate sectors of our nervous system responsible for basic life processes necessary for homeostatic regulation such as breathing, thermoregulation, immune system, endocrine system etc.  Though these areas are genetically provided to us that doesn't mean they are not influenced by outside factors: environment, nutrition, experiences etc.  More than that, these innate drives have important effects on the experiential parts of our brain.  This influence is carried out by modulator neurons in the brainstem and basal forebrain over cerebral cortex and subcortical areas.  For Damasio it looks a bit like this (pg 111):

  1. the innate regulatory circuits are involved in the business of organism survival and because of that they are privy to what is happening in the more modern sectors of the brain;
  2. the goodness and badness of situations is regularly signalled to them; and
  3. they express their inherent reaction to goodness and badness by influencing how the rest of the brain is shaped, so that it can assist survival in the most efficacious way.
Damasio is firmly against the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory of the brain, that the brain begins with no innate preferences or abilities and that all develops based on environment and learning (nurture vs nature).  He supports the idea that we are born with a set of drives and instincts (the least controversial of these being appetite, procreation, care of kin, shelter seeking etc).  He also considers that emotions and feelings are central to rationality and are a powerful manifestation of drives and instincts. pg 115
Many of these basic drives are covert and we are not even aware of them but Damasio considers that instincts which "are slightly more complex regulatory mechanisms, involving overt behaviours, let you know about their existence indirectly, when they drive you to perform (or not) in a particular way.  pg 116  This could be via a body state (hunger or thirst) or emotion (fear or anger).  As our environments become more complex, our survival strategies also had to evolve (and have to evolve) to become more complex.  These 'suprainstinctual' survival strategies, the control of "animal inclination by thought, reason, and the will was what made us human, according to Descartes Passion of the Soul." pg 124  For Freud it was the superego (which would "accommodate instincts to social dictates").
For most ethical rules and social conventions, regardless of how elevated their goal, I believe one can envision a meaningful link to simpler goals and to drives and instincts. Why should this be so?  Because the consequences of achieving or not achieving a rarefied social goal contribute (or are perceived as contributing), albeit indirectly, to survival and to the quality of that survival.  pg 125
For those who feel that this debases altruism, love, compassion, free will, by trying to reduce them to neurobiological regulation, Damasio replies that "the partial explanation of complexity by something less complex does not signify debasement."[pg 126]  He is postulating
an organism that comes to life with automatic survival mechanisms, and to which education and acculturation add a set of socially permissible and desirable decision-making strategies that, in turn, enhance survival, remarkably improve the quality of survival, and save as the basis for constructing a person.  [...]  The neural mechanisms that support the supra instinctual repertoire may be similar in their overall formal design to those governing biological drives, and may be constrained by them.  Yet they require the intervention of society to become whatever they become, and thus are related as much to a given culture as to general neurobiology.  Moreover out of that dual constraint, supra instinctual survival strategies generate something probably unique to humans: a moral point of view that, on occasion, can transcend the interests of the immediate group and even the species.  pg 126
 Damasio also departs from some mainstream thinking in his differentiation between emotions and feelings.  For Damasio emotions are the body's responses, changes in "body state" connected to particular mental images that have activated a particular body system (viscera, skin, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, endocrine).  Feelings are the continuous monitoring of body changes and "the experience of such changes in juxtaposition to the mental images that initiated the cycle.  The substrate of a feeling is completed by the changes in cognitive processes that are simultaneously induced by neurochemical substances.  pg 146  It is the juxtaposition of "the ongoing representation of the body with the neural representations constituting the self." pg 146  Damasio writes about the three different types of feelings:

  1. those based on basic universal emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust) and which cause our attention to be allocated to body signals 
  2. those based on emotions that are subtle variations of the basic universal ones: euphoria and ecstasy (variations on happiness), melancholy and wistfulness (sadness), panic and shyness (fear), remorse, guilt, embarrassment, vindication etc.  These are tuned by experience
  3. Background feelings - the body state prevailing between emotions, related somewhat to mood.
A composite, ongoing representation of current body states is distributed over a large number of brain structures (pg 151).  There are "on-line, dynamic body maps as well as more stable "off-line maps of general body structure that are dispositional.  The background body state monitoring is usually not a focus of attention or even perceived but it contributes to our sense of how we feel and it can move to the forefront of our attention when needed (i.e.: asthmatic attack, visceral pain etc).  The right hemisphere is more significant or involved in this monitoring than the left side though regions from both sides of the brain are involved.  Studies of patients with injuries involving the sectors of the brain concerned with this continuous monitoring show cognitive defects that suggest that "what does not come naturally and automatically through the primacy of feeling cannot be maintained in the mind."[pg 154]  This is another interesting comment of Damasio's, that feelings and sensory inputs are not only necessary for the body state information they provide which is used for rational decision-making but that this afferent information and processing is also important for maintaining this focus and knowledge.  Our sense of self is dependent on continuous feedback mechanisms about our pre-existing and current body states.  For Damasio, "feelings are just as cognitive as any other perceptual image, and just as dependent on cerebral cortex processing as any other image."  
I see feelings as having a truly privileged status.[...] Because of their inextricable ties to the body, they come first in development and retain a primacy that subtly pervades our mental life. pg 159
He also touches on superstition.  It's a necessary thing for us to make causal links between people and events and certain feelings but sometimes we make the wrong links.  "Superstition is based on this sort of spurious causal association" pg 162  This is a really significant weakness in human rationality, our propensity to assign cause to things - to NEED to assign a cause to things - without critical thought.  I see this all the time with testimonial-based claims (vs evidence based medicine), with people wanting to blame illness on the water, on something that happened years ago, on rare diseases that do not commonly occur locally.

REASONING

Que chacun examine ses pensées, il les trouvera toutes occupées au passé et à l'avenir. Nous ne pensons point au présent ; et, nous y pensons, ce n'est que pour en prendre la lumière pour disposer de l'avenir.
  Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 1670 (fragment 172)

The purpose of reasoning is deciding and the essence of deciding is selecting a response option. Phillip Johnson Laird put it [pg 165] :
"In order to decide what to do, judge; in order to judge, reason; in order to reason, decide."
Some decisions are instinctual such as jumping out of harm's way, ducking your head from an incoming baseball.  Others are exceeding complex involving challenging assessment, moral evaluations and competing interests, judgements of short term and longterm gains as well as probabilities.  Descartes separated them into 2 camps: "one outside the body, as a hallmark of the human spirit, while the other remained inside, the hallmark of animal spirits, so separate that one stands for clarity of thought, deductive competence, algorithmicity, while the other connotes murkiness and the less disciplined life of the passions."  pg 168  Damasio came up with a somatic marker theory to explain how humans reason out these complex decisions.  He suggests that the brain can create stored connections that connect an instinctual response (good and bad) to scenarios or situations.  The neural system involved in these markers is "the pre-frontal cortices, which is also coextensive with the system critical for secondary emotions." [pg 180] These somatic markers help us winnow down on possible response options when faced with complex decisions but quickly eliminating several "bad" options from the possible responses, actions or decisions. pg 173.  It would also apply to:
the choice of actions whose immediate consequences are negative, but which generate positive future outcomes. [...]  Willpower draws on the evaluation of a prospect, and that evaluation may not take place if attention is not properly driven to both the immediate trouble and the future payoff, to both the suffering now and the future gratification. [...] Willpower is just another name for the idea of choosing according to long-term outcomes rather than short-term ones." pg 175
This discussion extended into a discussion of altruism which could be explained by benefits such as self-esteem, social validation, exaltation and avoidance of guilt and shame. pg 176
Some sublime human achievements come from rejecting what biology or culture propels individuals to do.  Such achievements are the affirmation of a new level of being in which one can invent new artifacts and forge more just ways of existing.  Under certain circumstances, however, freedom from biological and cultural constraints can also be a hallmark of madness and can nourish the ideas and acts of the insane.  pg 177 
He also discusses intuition, which is merely a covert preselection winnowing down possible options through a biological mechanism, for decisions primarily in the personal and social domains. pg 187-189
Another area Damasio touched on but did not explore to any great extent was the effect of "sick cultures" on normal adult systems of reasoning.  He uses the examples of Nazi Germany, Russia (one assumes during the purges) and the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia but then makes a vague mention of "sizable sectors of Western society are gradually becoming other tragic counterexamples." pg 179

Damasio discusses some of the neuroanatomy underpinning his hypotheses.
The prefrontal sectors are indeed in a privileged position among other brain systems.  Their cortices receive signals about existing and incoming factual knowledge related to the external world; about innate biological regulatory preferences; and about previous and current body state as continuously modified by that knowledge and those preferences. pg 181
Categorization is important to humans in their efforts to organize and prioritize information (experiential). The dispositional representations we create are stored in convergence zones in the prefrontal cortices.  These contingencies are what make up our individual experience.  Bioregulatory and social knowledge tends to be stored in the ventromedial sector while knowledge of the external world (objects, people, space-time, language, mathematics) tends to be located in the dorsolateral regions. pg 182-183  This somatic marker system develops as we age and experience and comes to include symbols of somatic states and what Damasio calls "as-if" loops, circuits that occur solely in the brain (through image generation, representations) rather than a body-brain loop. pg 184

Damasio also evaluated decision-making from an evolutionary perspective pg 191.

  1. oldest decision-making device pertains to basic biological regulation
  2. the next oldest decision-making device pertains to the personal and social realm;
  3. the most recent decision-making process pertains to a collection of abstract-symbolic operations under which we can find artistic and scientific reasoning, utilitatian-engineering reasoning, and the developments of language and mathematics.
It's a great system but it doesn't work perfectly.  We don't always make rational decisions, in fact we probably often make irrational decisions.  We are easily manipulated by our emotions and our desire to assign a cause to events.
But even if our reasoning strategies were perfectly tuned, it appears, they would  not cope well with the uncertainty and complexity of personal and social problems. pg 191
Damasio blames some of this irrationality on the influence of biological drives such as obedience, conformity, the desire to preserve self-esteem.  Decision-making also requires working memory and attention.  He posits that the somatic markers also act as "a booster for continued working memory and attention," [pg 198] saying that the proceedings are energized by signs the process is actually being evaluated, or is progressing.  I certainly find this.  If I am working on something and I feel like progress is either being made or at least possible, then I'm motivated to keep working.  However f I am working at something and feel there is no hope of succeeding, then I lose interest, focus and energy. "Somatic markers which arise out of activating a particular contingency boost attention and working memory throughout the cognitive system. " pg 198
Cognitive reasoning processes working at both the subconscious and the conscious level are both necessary for reasoning.
It seems to take both types of processing for the well-tempered decision-making brain to operate. pg 214  
The mind derives from the entire organism as an ensemble. pg 225  It depends on mind-body interactions.  The body contributes information that is part of the workings of the normal mind. pg 226  Some of this information is what Damasio terms "primordial representations" (bioregulatory information, visceral, skin and musculoskeletal information including proprioception and place in space,.  This is the information about the body proper. pg 229  Though these are important (especially evolutionarily), what now dominates are the non-body images.  Some of the patients that Damasio discusses suffer from anosognomia, where they are paralyzed but due to the areas of the brain affected, they do not have awareness or cognition of what is going on with their bodies.  He postulates that this is because they are relying on old information about their bodies (since the source of new, continuous ongoing information about their body states have been cut off.) pg 237  For Damasio, the self is rooted in a relatively stable, endlessly repeated biological state. pg 238  Our sense of self comes from autobiographical information, ongoing information about our body states, categorized facts about ourselves, our preferences, dispositional memories of recent events, plans ("a memory of a possible future").  The self consists of 2 sets of representations: Dispositional
The endless reactivation of updated images about our identity (a combination of memories of the past and of the planned future) constitutes a sizeable part of the state of self... pg 239
as well as the primordial representations  (what the body has been like lately - the background body state and the emotional state).
At each moment the state of self is constructed, from the ground up.  It is an evanescent reference state.  pg 240
I got bogged down in his descriptions of the metaself pg 241-243 but when he says that " the neural basis of consciousness, namely the acknowledgement of a biological self imbued with value" pg 244 makes sense to me.
Damasio  brings passion and reason together in Chapter 11 towards the end of his book.  Feelings depend on a multi-component system dependent on biological regulation.  Reason depends on specific brain systems some of which process feelings as well.  This seems to connect reason, feelings and the body.
It is as if we are possessed for a passion for reason, a drive that originates in the brain core, permeates other levels of the nervous system, and emerges as either feelings or nonconscious biases to guide decision making.  pg 245
He then refers to the Faustian contract that has brought progress to humanity.  pg 246  One of Damasio's concerns in figuring out the neurobiological basis for feelings is our current "culture of complaint" which pervades the social discourse and also leads to attempts to correct personal and social problems with medical and non-medical drugs.  Again he briefly touches on issues of education and children's overexposure and desensitization to violence and its consequences and how it downgrades the value of emotions, but he doesn't go any further on these topics. pg 246

Descartes error was in thinking that the brain was the repository of self, exclusive of the body, in separating the body from the brain.  I think therefore I am.  Cogito ergo sum.  Damasio rephrases this as
We are, and then we think, and we think only inasmuch as we are.  pg 248
He brings this back to western medicine in its study and treatment of disease; with its divisions or lack of awareness and acknowledgement of the min-body connection.  He posits that this is likely a main driver behind the push toward alternative medicines.  pg 251

Damasio adds a postscriptum with some comments on Ethics and survival.  The evolution of ethics would have required several things [pg 261]:

  1. A large capacity to memorize categories of objects and events.
  2. A large capacity to manipulate the components of those memorized representations and fashioning new creations by novel combinations.
  3. A large capacity to memorize those new creations (anticipated outcomes, plans, the "memories of the future")
Pain and pleasure are the basic drives, the innate drives but they can be modified by education (experience, learning).  Pain + annoyance = suffering.  The evolutionary advantage of suffering is a a heightened attention and focus on action to avoid negative consequences. 

Scarry: On Beauty and Being Just

Scarry, Elaine: On Beauty and Being Just;


I was looking forward to this book.  I read Damasio's "Descartes' Error" 1st, a book that deals with the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological basis for reasoning as well as some thoughts on the origin of self.  It was very scientific based yet was dealing with subjects such as emotion, altruism, irrational decisions etc.  As I read it I was thinking that reading "On Beauty" right afterward was going to be really interesting.

I didn't love this book - much of the time I found it frustrating but this has often been a good starting point for me reaching a better understanding of some concept.  It may be that the book is meant for readers more versed in an academic discussion of beauty but I found myself disagreeing with most of Scarry's propositions or rather her causal connections.  She starts out by stating that beauty requires replication which compels distribution which in turn causes people to alter their location to gaze at beauty longer.  At this point I wasn't "feeling the love" about her analysis but it seemed reasonable enough to trust her and continue with her for a bit.  Scarry then makes a jump to "willingness continually to revise one's location" being the basic impulse underlying education.  "One submits oneself to other minds (teachers) in order to increase the chance that one will be looking in the right direction when a comet makes its sweep through a certain patch of sky."  p 7  Scarry agrees with Simone Weil that one of the world's 'precious things' is education, "the pure and authentic achievements of art and sciences." pg 8  Education as a means to see beauty is something I'll have to think more about.

Scarry makes a good point that beauty is often disparaged on the basis of imperfect or misguided attempts to respond to beauty (material greed, unbeautiful imitations or causing a "contagion of imitation" as Scarry says on pg 6).  I had trouble with her section on people being able to recall "an error they have made about beauty" whereas they are often unable to think of an intellectual error they have made (that is they know they have made one but can't think of any details).  This may just reflect the calibre of Scarry's friends and the quality of their conversations vs my circle but with neither question does a detailed answer pop into my mind.  The only things I could think of were mundane (for beauty: not liking a song or book upon 1st exposure but then loving it with further attention; for intellectual : much of my education and especially the readings this academic year, jump to mind - where I think I have an understanding upon 1st exposure but find after further work that I had erred.)

Scarry uses a lot of unfamiliar terminology.  I don't know whether her phrases are common ones in her field or whether she has coined them herself (I know the word neologism is used when a new word is coined but I don't know what the equivalent would be for a phrase).  Scarry uses "the error of overcrediting", "the error of undercrediting", "clear discernibility", "lateral disregard."  One of the sections I had the most difficulty with was the one on the 3 key features of beauty:

  • beauty is sacred
  • beauty is unprecedented
  • beauty is lifesaving
I don't quibble that beauty is sacred.  It's not the word I would use for myself but it efficiently sums up the needs that beauty satisfies in the individual.  I don't agree with one of the other features.  I don't find beauty unprecedented, nor do I need it to be to find it beautiful.  I can be mesmerized by the sky or the ocean without feeling that it is the most beautiful sky/ocean I have ever seen.  Things that I find beautiful, I can look at over and over again.  With groups of things I find beautiful, I can be enthralled with a specific instance that may not be the most beautiful iteration I have seen.  She goes on to say that when we encounter beauty our minds immediately search for precedents.  I'll have to think about this as it doesn't immediately resonate with me.  As far as beauty  being lifesaving, while an instance of beauty would not save my life, if my life had no hope of beauty in it, what would be the point, so yes, I agree that beauty is lifesaving.

Scarry speaks about beauty as "greeting," citing Plato, Aquinas, Plotinus, Dante etc as having described it thus, pg 25.  Again I'm not sure I agree.  This disagreement, on a personal level, goes along with my objection to Scarry's description of having committed an error against beauty, where she says that people tend to remember these because there is such a strong sensory announcement of an error in beauty.  This is probably another instance of me living an unexamined life but I don't find that beauty's presence in my life has had such overt and loud notifications.  I know that some people have very strong visceral/emotional reactions to beauty.  I do feel my reactions to beauty within my body but they don't sweep through me nor overcome me.  For me it is often more about becoming quiet and letting beauty suffuse through me, to fill the empty spaces and warm me, quietly exalt me, renew me.  I don't know that beauty greets me - I think it is there and I become aware of it or allow myself to become aware of it.  

Scarry then postulates a 4th key feature of beauty, "it incites deliberation," and mentions how our reaction to beauty, how it commands our attention, can thus injure other beautiful things by removing or diverting that attention from them.   She doesn't discuss this much but instead moves quickly from this feature, which she calls an error, to saying that "The experience of 'being in error' so inevitably accompanies the perception of beauty that it begins to seem one of its abiding structural features." pg 28


My argumentative side was continually exercised by this book.  Scarry writes about how beauty causes us to gape and suspend all thought. pg 29 I don't know that I agree.  If I thought about the experience of beauty - which I have to admit I have not given much thought to before - I would consider that when I am experiencing beauty, I am thinking but not in the same way as if I am trying to diagnose a medical case or understand the instructions on how to put an easel together or rewire an electrical circuit.  I do not for a moment think my mind is blank, that my thought is suspended when I am  in the presence of beauty.

Scarry speaks about "the temptation against plenitude" pg 50, which is the "temptation to scorn the innocent object for ceasing to be beautiful" pg 49.  I'm not sure this represents the feelings I have or would have if something I formerly considered beautiful no longer seemed beautiful.  This is a section I'll have to reread and think about.

The second part of Scarry's book is devoted to the relationship between beauty and justice.  Earlier Scarry had jumped from beauty prompting the mind to search backwards for precedents, to the mind eventually reaching "something that has no precedent, which may very well be the immortal" and then, for me, she makes a precarious leap to truth because "what is beautiful is in league with what is true because truth abides in the immortal sphere."  It's leaps like these that make me frustrated because I'm not convinced.  I've found this year though that when I'm frustrated by some thing I've read (by an intelligent, thoughtful writer or philosopher) it's because I'm looking for the quick, easy answer.  I'm so used to being able to understand things quickly (not because of any great intelligence on my part but because of the world we have constructed for ourselves in western society) and if I don't agree right away, if I don't get it right away, then I feel frustrated and usually either skip past the sections that bother me, or else abandon the book as not worth my time.  What I've had to do in this course is to persevere through these texts, think about them and then, in these journal entries, try to make some sense of them in my own words.  This has forced me to go back and try to understand what the writer is saying and often I've achieved better understanding and often agreement once I've done that.  What I haven't had enough time to do this year because of the workload and other life commitments, is to go back slowly and thoroughly and often enough to REALLY understand what the writer wanted to communicate.  I hope I can do some of that this summer and in the years to come.

The 2nd reason that beauty and truth are connected is that beauty "provides by its compelling 'clear discernibility' an introduction (perhaps even our first introduction) to the state of certainty yet does not itself satiate our desire for certainty since beauty, sooner or later, brings us into contact with our own capacity for making errors."  Scarry equates truth with the "mental event of conviction" which is pleasurable enough to make us willing to struggle "to locate what is true." pg 31

Scarry calls this mental state of conviction, 'hymn' and our consciousness of error she calls 'palinode' for short (because we injure the beautiful when we turn our attention to another thing of beauty) - and she says that both hymn and palinode "reside in most daily acts of encountering something beautiful."  At this point I'm not convinced but I'm intrigued enough to plan to reread "On Beauty" this summer and try to work through these sections.

Scarry notes (pg 48) that even if one does not believe in the sacred, beauty still leads the perceiver "to a more capacious regard for the world.  She put into words what I felt but could not articulate earlier where I agreed with her contention that beauty is sacred without feeling that sacred was the word I would use personally.

Scarry says that beauty does not always equal truth.  Beauty "ignites the desire for truth by [according to Scarry] giving us [...] the experience of conviction and the experience, as well, of error." pg 52  I'm not yet convinced.

In Part II Scarry comments that conversation about the beauty of things (poems, films, essays etc) has been banished from the humanities for the last two decades.  She says that the criticisms of beauty come from 2 arguments:

  1. That beauty distracts us from 'wrong social arrangements'
  2. That when we stare at something beautiful, our sustained regard harms it
Scarry calls these arguments incoherent and I would agree.  The second one is only somewhat true for a small percentage of beautiful objects (human form).  Scarry speaks about reifying that which we look at, a term I had never heard before (Make (something abstract) more concrete or real).  Scarry comes back here to "the problem of lateral disregard" which she had introduced (though not by this phrase) back in her initial discussion about the attribute's of beauty.  This is a problem where a benefit is thought to accrue to an object of beauty through "its being the focus of our attention" but these benefits are "not being equally enjoyed by nearby objects in the same class." pg 65-66.  If you like to gaze at palm trees and find them beautiful, you are potentially harming other trees by not noticing them and so not potentially finding them beautiful (Scarry reverses this example where she errs in not initially finding palm trees beautiful being so wrapped up in the local beauty of sycamores etc). pg 17-18.
Scarry moves on, in her argument, to claim that when we find something beautiful and worthy of care, we extend that care to other objects in the same category.  She calls this "the pressure beauty exerts toward the distributional." pg 67, 80, 91

Scarry says that "we look at beautiful persons and things without wishing ourselves beautiful" - and I don't know that I agree - and says that this "is one of the key ways in which [...] beauty prepares us for justice." pg 78  This seems to contradict her discussion of "lateral disregard" in the same incoherent way that argument #1 contradicts argument # 2.  Either our attention diminishes or harms beauty or it enhances or protects it.  I can follow when she claims that beauty can function as small "wake-up calls" to our perception and that this in turn can help us be more aware in general, to pay more attention. pg 81 This is where she feels beauty connects to justice, that we will be more aware of injustice through this increased perception and alertness.  She speaks of Plato requiring that "we move from eros , in which we are seized by the beauty of one person, to 'caritas', in which our care is extended to all people."pg 81.

Scarry moves on to discuss 'the sublime.'  She notes that Kant and Burke divided the aesthetic realm into the sublime and the beautiful. The sublime is male, the beautiful, female.  She discusses this duality as set out in Kant's work "Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime" where everything is divided into male or female (night and day, great and small; principled, noble, righteous vs compassionate and good-hearted - guess which ones are male and which female?) pg 84  Beauty was almost always the diminutive item of the pair.  Scarry calls the sublime "an aesthetic of power" and says this categorization cuts beauty off from the meta-physical. pg 85

Scarry loses me again when she discusses beauty as a pact between the beautiful thing and the perceiver, each conferring on the other the gift of life.  pg 90  She writes about both beauty and justice being connected to fairness. pg 93  Interestingly, she discusses how justice is not "ordinarily sensorially available [...] because it is dispersed out over too large a field [...] and because it consists of innumerable actions, almost none of which are occurring simultaneously." pg 101  "It is the very exigencies of materiality, the susceptibility of the world to injury, that require justice, yet justice itself is outside the compass of our sensory powers." pg 102  She goes into an interesting summary of the conditions under which democracy was born in Athens.  She then moves on to discuss guarantees of peace, the current most workable being "that whatever means of force exist be equally divided among us all, a distribution of force that has often been called the "palladium of civil rights," for it enables each person to stand guard over and secure the nature of the whole." pg 107

Scarry ends by setting out how the live action of perceiving and the act of creation (two of the 5 sites of beauty, the others being: symmetry, sensory availability and pressure against lateral disregard) "reveal the pressure beauty exerts toward ethical equality." pg 109  According to Simone Weil, "at the moment we see something beautiful, we undergo a radical decentering. [...] Beauty ... requires us to give up our imaginary position as the centre." Beautiful things "form ladders reaching toward the beauty of the world."  Iris Murdoch called this "unselfing."pg 112-113  Scarry goes on to say that the aesthetic fairness that beauty promotes (by this 'unselfing') assists an 'ethical fairness', or justice.  Her connection of justice to the site of beauty of creation is more tenuous for me.  "Because beauty repeatedly brings us face-to-face with our own powers to create, we know where and how to locate those powers when a situation of injustice calls on us to create." pg 115

It was a thought-provoking (and sometimes just provoking) book to read but I think it is worth rereading when I have some time - and seeing what more I can get out of it.