percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Walker Percy
List archive
- From: "Karey Perkins" <karey AT charter.net>
- To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion" <percy-l AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Conscious Will
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:16:45 -0400
| As one of my many 
elective courses for the philosophy minor, I had to take "Philosophy of 
Mind."  Just think, a whole semester of reading philosophers asking (and 
receiving various answers to) the very questions you ask below.  
What fun. There was no final 
conclusion, but to greatly simplify a complex topic, the views, if I can pull 
them up from my enfeebled absent-minded professor memory, were concerned with 
how MIND related to BODY: what is the action and relation of mind to our 
physical selves (are they one or separate? does one exist and not the other?), 
what is the substance of "mind" (must it be of biological origin or can an 
incredibly advanced computer mimic our brain processes to the extent that it 
gains "consciousness"?) and so forth (can "zombies" who look and act exactly 
like humans, but do not have consciousness, be considered "human"? also, various 
kinds of "robots" and "aliens" and "bats" (Nagel) and "qualia" (our perceptions) 
are hypothesized to refine and clarify their thoughts -- these philosopher of 
mind guys had great imaginations.) The views run the gamut 
from: **physicalism:  
(physical reductionist) Soul/spirit is reduced to psychology which is reduced to 
biology which is reduced to physico-chemical brain reactions.  IE:  
Depression is just "C-fibers" firing in the brain or some such -- take a pill 
for it (Prozac solves all our problems).   The logical positivists 
cited earlier said something of this sort...though they didn't necessarily do 
away with psychology, etc., just said it was "meaningless." **materialism 
(various kinds) **functionalism 
(various kinds) **behaviorism 
 **dualism (various 
types) but basically:  Mind and Body both exist but are completely separate 
substances (Descartes is the father of this...but it is largely "out" today in 
philosophical circles) **idealism: opposite 
of physicalism -- the only real substance is mind, or ideals, and physical 
manifestations are an illusion (Plato)  Again, this is largely "out" 
today. You may wonder why I chose not to elucidate some of the 
views above...simply, I don't know the exact explanation (this course was two 
years ago and I made a (ahem) "C" in it...)  I basically learned enough to 
know this is a really hard topic and I need to study it more.  Perhaps some 
others of you can help out here? However, all of this is a very prominent topic of 
Percy's.  I have just finished reading all of Percy's fiction, and it was 
quite clear from each of his novels that he is most certainly against the 
first:  Physical reductionism -- and that this is a major theme of 
his.    He laments our current postmodern society's tendency to 
physicalism, at the sacrifice and neglect of our spirit and soul.  This is 
a handicap of the residents of the 20th (and 21st) century that those in 
centuries before us did not have to face.  It is not good for any of 
us...in other words, while we live in the "best of times" (having a wonderful 
life on a physical level), we also live in the "worst of times" (spiritually 
--little acknowledgement or attention to this very real side of us is given in 
our society). But, what I didn't pick up until I started on his 
non-fiction (which is slower going than the fiction, I'm still on "Signposts in 
a Strange Land" and haven't made it to the others yet), is that he is also NOT a 
dualist!  Of course it's obvious after the fact (Love in the Ruins and Tom 
More's lapsometer measuring the physical/spiritual split; the "San Andreas 
fault"...).  This also relates to our 
immanence/transcendence discussion -- what Percy's saying is he's not a 
dualist. So what is he? Karey  -----Original Message----- From: James Piat [mailto:piat1 AT bellsouth.net] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 6:09 AM To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion Subject: [percy-l] Re: Conscious Will Dear Folks-  Seems to me that the drive to be conscious is the strongest 
drive of all. Consciousness is like going to the movies only better  --it's 
our own life that is being shown.  Being conscious of our motives and 
actions does not in my view necessarily mean we are freely choosing them.  
Nor do I understand how consciousness would be necessary for free choice to 
occur.   I'm not even sure what consciousness is. How does consciousness differ 
from mere responding? I think consciousness may depend upon the ability to 
represent experience.  That perhaps the two are somehow intimately 
connected and responsible for producing the sense of life occurring on two 
levels  --the mental spiritual and the physical material.  What can a 
conscious person do that an unconscious person can not do?  Is language the 
answer?  Is there such a thing as unconscious language?  I suppose 
there is such a thing as mindless chatter --and perhaps this is an example 
of it.  But my question is could we have the word 
(as representation) without consciousness and/or vice versa.  Perhaps it is 
true that in the beginning (of aware life) was the word and it occurred in the 
garden of Eden.  Best, 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>. | 
- 
            
            Uncanny Parallels between The Moviegoer and Up in the Air,
            Henry P. Mills, 04/20/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- 
            
            Re: Uncanny Parallels between The Moviegoer and Up in the Air,
            Nikkibar, 04/21/2002
- 
            
            Re: Uncanny Parallels between The Moviegoer and  Up in the Air,
            Ken Armstrong, 04/21/2002
- 
            
            Re: Uncanny Parallels between The Moviegoer and Up     in the Air,
            Henry P. Mills, 04/22/2002
- 
            
            Conscious Will,
            Ken Armstrong, 04/26/2002
- 
            
            Re: Conscious Will,
            Brian Neuschwander, 04/26/2002
- 
            
            Re: Conscious Will,
            Ken Armstrong, 04/26/2002
- Re: Conscious Will, tbassett, 04/26/2002
 
 
- 
            
            Re: Conscious Will,
            Ken Armstrong, 04/26/2002
- 
            
            Re: Conscious Will,
            James Piat, 04/26/2002
- 
        Re: Conscious Will,
        Karey Perkins, 04/26/2002
- Re: Conscious Will, James Piat, 04/26/2002
- Re: Conscious Will, Karey Perkins, 04/26/2002
 
 
- 
        Re: Conscious Will,
        Karey Perkins, 04/26/2002
- 
            
            Re: Conscious Will,
            Ken Armstrong, 04/29/2002
- Re: Conscious Will, James Piat, 04/29/2002
- Re: Conscious Will, Ken Armstrong, 04/30/2002
- Re: Conscious Will, James Piat, 04/30/2002
 
 
- 
            
            Re: Conscious Will,
            Brian Neuschwander, 04/26/2002
 
- 
            
            Conscious Will,
            Ken Armstrong, 04/26/2002
 
- 
            
            Re: Uncanny Parallels between The Moviegoer and Up     in the Air,
            Henry P. Mills, 04/22/2002
 
- 
            
            Re: Uncanny Parallels between The Moviegoer and  Up in the Air,
            Ken Armstrong, 04/21/2002
 
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.
