Percy-L: Literary, Religious, Scientific, and Philosophical Discussion of Walker Percy

[RHONDA MCDONNELL <rhonda_mcdonnell AT msn.com>]

I hate to throw another monkey wrench into this conversation, but I have to take exception to one segment of Karey's otherwise fine argument. Karey wrote:
 
> Is it the characteristics of guilt, regret, redemption, joy, purpose,
> meaning - human psychological characteristics animals don't have? Humans
> obviously have that, animals don't. That's what Percy meant.

I've known dogs that clearly exhibit these emotions--perhaps not regret or redemption, but certainly the others.  When my childhood pet became elderly, she also, like lots of elderly folks, had a bit of a problem with incontinence.  Her posture, position of her tail, and _expression_ were indicative of the guilt she felt from having violated the rules that housebroken dogs follow. Anyone with a dog understands the joy that dogs can express.  Furthermore, if we pay attention to the dogs that make their way into Percy's novels, he, too, attributes such emotions to dogs.  Allie's dog in THE SECOND COMING looks away from Will in what Percy describes as embarrassment. So, I don't think that it's emotions that Percy was thinking about. At least, not simpler emotions.
 
If only I were in my office at work, I'd look this quote up. Since I'm not, I'll try my hand at paraphrasing. In MESSAGE IN THE BOTTLE, maybe in "The Delta Factor," he asserts that what sets humans apart is the ability to symbolize--he coins a term "homo symbolificus" or something similar. That we explain the world metaphorically and create art and believe in that which can't be seen and use language to communicate it all makes us different from animals. So it is the nature, the content, of our communication that differs. I agree with this, based on my informal observations of the world, putting me in the qualitative camp. Thinking it over, though, there's also a quantitative aspect to this type of communication. We don't shut up.
 
Percy also reference Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," which poses some interesting and highly controversial theories regarding the development of the modern human brain, which Jaynes asserts happened sometime between the writing of THE ILLIAD and the writing of THE ODESSY. I wish I remembered more of Jaynes theory, but it was read in a dissertation haze. Has anyone else read this? Any thoughts in regard to Percy's language theory?
 
I haven't seen evidence that animals feel more complex, higher order, if you will, emotions. For example, sehnsucht, the longing that Percy focuses on, particularly in the Will Barrett novels, or the despair that Kierkegaard notes in THE SICKNESS UNTO DEATH seem to be particularly human emotions. Both of those emotions are religious in their origin. So in the end, perhaps it is our relationship with God that most clearly separates us from the rest of creation. This too, however, may not prove to be the case. Karey's pointed out that animals seem to be more in tune with the spiritual dimension of existence. Perhaps they are also in tune with evidence of God that humans cannot perceive.

--Rhonda

"You live in a deranged age, more deranged than usual, because in spite of great scientific and technological advances, man has not the faintest idea of who he is or what he is doing."
  
                                    Walker Percy

---

> From: karey1 AT charter.net
> To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:05:45 -0400
> Subject: [percy-l] FW: Middle creature
>
> Yes. Great quote. For Percy it was qualitative difference, not
> quantitative.
>
> However, the comment....:
>
> "Which is all to say that language is not likely to be some evolutionary
> breakthrough but rather a design feature in a unique creature, a creature
> whose nature must accommodate two realms: those of both matter and spirit.
> Language, for Percy, was a clue and ultimately a proof for the spiritual
> order; and because it is rooted in the material world, I think he thought he
> had something that even the rationalist-naturalist
> intelligentsia would have to acknowledge."
>
> .... is problematic. Because it doesn't get rid of Cartesian dualism, which
> was Percy's goal. There are still two separate and distinct realms here,
> matter and spirit. He's trying to resolve that dilemma. I think Percy was
> a bit confused by it himself. And that a material thing shows a spiritual
> presence doesn't do that job of resolving the split between the two (though
> it does do Percy's Christian apologist duties of showing the presence of
> spiritual world).
>
> Middle creature is unclear on how we are middle - both matter and spirit
> existing separate but equal within us (Cartesian dualism - and no word on
> how they can interact) - or some amalgam of the two completely mixed and
> losing the original identity of both. Or something else. Percy himself
> never resolved the split and it plagued him his whole life.
>
> We also need to define "spiritual" - I do think animals have perception of a
> spiritual world - don't laugh (ahem). Dogs, cats, other animals have a
> perception where they sense the presence of ghosts, etc., before humans. So
> the "spiritual realm" or "spiritual order" needs to be defined.
>
> Is it the characteristics of guilt, regret, redemption, joy, purpose,
> meaning - human psychological characteristics animals don't have? Humans
> obviously have that, animals don't. That's what Percy meant.
>
> Is it the presence of a world of spirits - angels, demons, ghosts (or
> whatever it is that exists in the non-material world). Animals have that
> sense, better than humans. That doesn't seem to be what Percy was referring
> to.
>
> That's why I think we really need to take a step back and define our terms,
> including "consciousness", "matter", "spirit", "middle" - etc. etc. I also
> don't' think it'll get resolved here or any time soon by anyone. It's far
> more complex when examined it's all it's depth.
>
> Karey
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Michael Larson
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 4:43 PM
> To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [percy-l] Middle creature
>
> This discussion was reminding me of something I couldn't quite place.
> Then I remembered that passage from THE MESSAGE IN THE BOTTLE in which
> Percy addresses the implications of language for distinguishing between
> man and the animals. Then I remembered that I made a post about that
> very thing last May. So I went back to the archives and found it, and
> I've pasted it in (unedited) below. For whatever it's worth...
>
> Mike Larson
>
>
> *****
>
> This is from "The Mystery of Language," THE MESSAGE IN THE BOTTLE (p.
> 158):
>
> "An awareness of the nature of language must have the greatest possible
> consequences for our minimal concept of man. For one thing it must
> reveal the ordinary secular concept of man held in the West as not
> merely inadequate but quite simply mistaken. I do not refer to the
> Christian idea of man as a composite of body and soul, a belief which is
> professed by some and given lip service by many but which can hardly be
> said to be a working assumption of secular learning. We see man--when I
> say we, I mean 95 per cent of those who attended American high schools
> and universities--as the highest of the organisms: He stands erect, he
> apposes thumb and forefinger, his language is far more complex than that
> of the most advanced Cebus azarae. But the difference is quantitative,
> not qualitative. Man is a higher organism, standing in direct continuity
> with rocks, soil, fungi, protozoa, and mammals.
>
> This happens not to be true, however, and in a way it is unfortunate. I
> say unfortunate because it means the shattering of the old dream of the
> Enlightenment--that an objective-explanatory-causal science can discover
> and set forth all the knowledge of which man is capable. The dream is
> drawing to a close. The existentialists have taught us that what man is
> cannot be grasped by the sciences of man. The case is rather that man's
> science is one of the things that man does, a mode of existence. Another
> mode is speech. Man is not merely a higher organism responding to and
> controlling his environment. He is, in Heidegger's words, that being in
> the world whose calling it is to find a name for Being, to give
> testimony to it, and to provide for it a clearing."
>
>
> So Percy argues here, as he does in many places, that the human capacity
> for language is what separates us from the animals. The Christian
> philosophers, to whose work he makes implicit reference here, would say
> that the animals are of an entirely material (thus, dyadic) order and
> that God and the angels are of an entirely spiritual (non-material)
> order. But man is a middle creature, both material and spiritual (the
> highest of the former and the lowest of the latter), and the triadic
> nature of language is both a material clue for this reality and the
> means by which this composite creature (man) has access to that which is
> higher. Language itself is always material--whether written or
> spoken--but it allows by way of signification for consciousness and
> contemplation, which is of the spiritual order. And by a mere sleight of
> words, Percy gets an existentialist, Heidegger, to describe in grand
> terms, what Aquinas had fulfilled centuries earlier, in the high Middle
> Ages, long before "the old dream of the Enlightenment" was even born.
>
> Which is all to say that language is not likely to be some evolutionary
> breakthrough but rather a design feature in a unique creature, a
> creature whose nature must accommodate two realms: those of both matter
> and spirit. Language, for Percy, was a clue and ultimately a proof for
> the spiritual order; and because it is rooted in the material world, I
> think he thought he had something that even the rationalist-naturalist
> intelligentsia would have to acknowledge.
>
> *****
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of
> percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:10 PM
> To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Percy-L Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6
>
> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to
> percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> percy-l-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> percy-l-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Chimp is a challenge (RHONDA MCDONNELL)
> 2. Re: Chimp is a challenge (Karey Perkins)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:34:02 -0700
> From: RHONDA MCDONNELL <rhonda_mcdonnell AT msn.com>
> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge
> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
> <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY116-W252272E2D265BD8BF4338CE4FC0 AT phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Another question: Can you know something (beyond survival impulses)
> without having the language to articulate it?
> --Rhonda "You live in a deranged age, more deranged than usual, because
> in spite of great scientific and technological advances, man has not the
> faintest idea of who he is or what he is doing."
> Walker Percy
>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:50:08 -0400> To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> From: armstron AT ohiou.edu> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge> >
> Question: Do you know something without knowing that you know?> > Ken A>
> > At 09:32 AM 3/25/2008, you wrote:> >List,> >> > I've always wondered
> why, in this age old debate, more has not been made > > of the degree of
> quantitative difference.> >> >Even without getting to the question of
> qualitative difference, one must > >admit that the difference in
> quantity is huge--orders of magnitude. Apes > >in the wild may have a
> few dozen symbols. Human symbols number in the > >hundreds of thousands
> at least.> >> >The extent of the difference in quantity suggests, though
> certainly does > >not prove, a qualitative difference.> >> >I don't have
> Langer in front of me, but I recall one thing she wrote in > >_New
> Key_--> >"Between the clearest animal call of love or warning or anger,
> and man's > >least, trivial word, there lies a whole day of Creati
> on--or in modern > >phrase, a whole chapter of evolution." (NY: Mentor
> Books) p.83.> >> > Robert> >> >> >> >----- Original Message ----->
> >From: Karey Perkins <karey1 AT charter.net>> >Date: Monday, March 24, 2008
> 6:48> >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge> >To: "'Percy-L:
> Literary and Philosophical Discussion'" > ><percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>>
> >> > > Rhonda,> > >> > >> > >> > > Of course, Nikki knows more about
> what Walker said personally, but> > > in his> > > writings he always
> maintained that chimps and other animals could> > > communicate
> dyadically - but their sign language and other> > > communicationnever
> rose above the "sign" level to symbol. He> > > seemed pretty adamant
> about> > > that, even though it was not written in stone in the general>
> > > field, as Nikki> > > says. Interestingly, Susanne Langer, his mentor
> in symbol (of> > > sorts), felt> > > otherwise - that higher primates
> were capable of rudimentary> > > symbol, and> > > gives examples in her
> "Philoso
> phy in a New Key." For Walker it> > > seems to be> > > a qualitative
> difference; for Langer, it was quantitative.> > >> > >> > >> > > Karey>
> > >> > >> > >> > > _____> > >> > > From:
> percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org> > >
> [mailto:percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of RHONDA> > >
> MCDONNELLSent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:21 AM> > > To: Percy-L:
> Literary and Philosophical Discussion> > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp
> is a challenge> > >> > >> > >> > > Nikki--> > >> > > Can you elaborate a
> little on the debate you refer to? Was Walker> > > absolutein his
> stance, or did he recognize that dyadic> > > communication exists
> between> > > the "lower orders"? I'm wondering if it was triadic
> communication> > > that was> > > the sticking point for him, and
> therefore the true point of argument?> > >> > >> > >> > > --Rhonda> > >>
> > > "You live in a deranged age, more deranged than usual, because in> >
> > spite of> > > great scientific and technological advances, man has not
> the> > >
> faintest idea> > > of who he is or what he is doing."> > >> > > Walker
> Percy> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > _____> > >> > >> > > From:
> Nikkibar AT aol.com> > > Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:43:24 -0400> > > To:
> percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org> > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a
> challenge> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Dear Marcus,> > >> > >> > >> > > You
> bring up with painful nostalgia, a long running argument that> > > i
> carried> > > on with Walker for a great many years. He always asserted
> that> > > animals of> > > the "lower orders" were unable to communicate
> -- not only with us> > > but with> > > one another, while I held to the
> view that 1) he was probably> > > wrong and or> > > 2) that in any event
> we could never be certain but 3) that it was> > > a measure> > > of our
> hubris to deny the possibility. As times have gone forward> > > since
> his> > > death, the empirical jury is still out in my view, but I think
> my> > > positiongrows stronger day by day.> > >> > >> > >> > > Nikki> >
> >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > >> > > _____> > >> > >> > > Create a Home Theater Like
> the Pros. Watch> > > <http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-> >
> > stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001> the video on AOL Home.> >
> >> > >> > >> > > _____> > >> > > Test your Star IQ Play now!> > >
> <http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR>> >
> >> > >> >--> >An archive of all list discussion is available at >
> >https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/> >> >Visit the Walker Percy
> Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy> > --> An archive of all list
> discussion is available at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/>
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
> _________________________________________________________________
> Test your Star IQ
> http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/attachments/20080325/5d459870
> /attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:09:49 -0400
> From: "Karey Perkins" <karey1 AT charter.net>
> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge
> To: "'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'"
> <percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <002d01c88ea3$6acc5a90$6401a8c0@Karey>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Good point. Percy said language was necessary for consciousness.
> That's
> something I've been trying to decipher. What exactly is he meaning by
> consciousness? Are my cats not conscious? They definitely feel. Are
> they
> only conscious to the point of survival impulses, instinct, and the
> emotions
> related to the two? I think if we interpret Percy's claim, it has got
> to
> mean that you can't know something beyond survival impulses unless you
> have
> language. You can't be aware of the inevitable arrival of death, and so
> can't experience "the denial of death" and the anxiety of death and the
> need
> for a causa sui (cf. Ernest Becker) - or other human emotions, such as
> guilt
> and regret and redemption. (I'm quite certain my cats don't feel
> guilt.)
> Is that what he means by consciousness?
>
>
>
> The huge evolutionary gap that Langer speaks of, that Robert points out,
> might explain why Percy continually insisted on a qualitative difference
> -
> it really seems that way if the quantitative difference is so big.
> Though
> if it's really quantitative, there's a whole separate set of
> implications
> about who man is and how he differs from other creatures - that are
> belied
> if it's qualitative.
>
>
>
> Karey
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of RHONDA MCDONNELL
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 1:34 PM
> To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge
>
>
>
> Another question: Can you know something (beyond survival impulses)
> without
> having the language to articulate it?
>
> --Rhonda
>
> "You live in a deranged age, more deranged than usual, because in spite
> of
> great scientific and technological advances, man has not the faintest
> idea
> of who he is or what he is doing."
>
> Walker Percy
>
>
>
> _____
>
> > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:50:08 -0400
> > To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > From: armstron AT ohiou.edu
> > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge
> >
> > Question: Do you know something without knowing that you know?
> >
> > Ken A
> >
> > At 09:32 AM 3/25/2008, you wrote:
> > >List,
> > >
> > > I've always wondered why, in this age old debate, more has not been
> made
>
> > > of the degree of quantitative difference.
> > >
> > >Even without getting to the question of qualitative difference, one
> must
> > >admit that the difference in quantity is huge--orders of magnitude.
> Apes
> > >in the wild may have a few dozen symbols. Human symbols number in the
>
> > >hundreds of thousands at least.
> > >
> > >The extent of the difference in quantity suggests, though certainly
> does
> > >not prove, a qualitative difference.
> > >
> > >I don't have Langer in front of me, but I recall one thing she wrote
> in
> > >_New Key_--
> > >"Between the clearest animal call of love or warning or anger, and
> man's
> > >least, trivial word, there lies a whole day of Creation--or in modern
>
> > >phrase, a whole chapter of evolution." (NY: Mentor Books) p.83.
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Karey Perkins <karey1 AT charter.net>
> > >Date: Monday, March 24, 2008 6:48
> > >Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge
> > >To: "'Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion'"
> > ><percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > >
> > > > Rhonda,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course, Nikki knows more about what Walker said personally, but
> > > > in his
> > > > writings he always maintained that chimps and other animals could
> > > > communicate dyadically - but their sign language and other
> > > > communicationnever rose above the "sign" level to symbol. He
> > > > seemed pretty adamant about
> > > > that, even though it was not written in stone in the general
> > > > field, as Nikki
> > > > says. Interestingly, Susanne Langer, his mentor in symbol (of
> > > > sorts), felt
> > > > otherwise - that higher primates were capable of rudimentary
> > > > symbol, and
> > > > gives examples in her "Philosophy in a New Key." For Walker it
> > > > seems to be
> > > > a qualitative difference; for Langer, it was quantitative.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Karey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > From: percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > [mailto:percy-l-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of RHONDA
> > > > MCDONNELLSent: Monday, March 24, 2008 12:21 AM
> > > > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
> > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nikki--
> > > >
> > > > Can you elaborate a little on the debate you refer to? Was Walker
> > > > absolutein his stance, or did he recognize that dyadic
> > > > communication exists between
> > > > the "lower orders"? I'm wondering if it was triadic communication
> > > > that was
> > > > the sticking point for him, and therefore the true point of
> argument?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --Rhonda
> > > >
> > > > "You live in a deranged age, more deranged than usual, because in
> > > > spite of
> > > > great scientific and technological advances, man has not the
> > > > faintest idea
> > > > of who he is or what he is doing."
> > > >
> > > > Walker Percy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Nikkibar AT aol.com
> > > > Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:43:24 -0400
> > > > To: percy-l AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Chimp is a challenge
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Marcus,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You bring up with painful nostalgia, a long running argument that
> > > > i carried
> > > > on with Walker for a great many years. He always asserted that
> > > > animals of
> > > > the "lower orders" were unable to communicate -- not only with us
> > > > but with
> > > > one another, while I held to the view that 1) he was probably
> > > > wrong and or
> > > > 2) that in any event we could never be certain but 3) that it was
> > > > a measure
> > > > of our hubris to deny the possibility. As times have gone forward
> > > > since his
> > > > death, the empirical jury is still out in my view, but I think my
> > > > positiongrows stronger day by day.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nikki
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch
> > > > <http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric->
> > > stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001> the video on AOL Home.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > > Test your Star IQ Play now!
> > > >
> <http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >--
> > >An archive of all list discussion is available at
> > >https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/
> > >
> > >Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
> >
> > --
> > An archive of all list discussion is available at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/
> >
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
>
> _____
>
> Test your Star IQ Play now!
> <http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/attachments/20080325/57e8e371
> /attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Percy-L mailing list
> Percy-L AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
>
>
> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6
> **************************************
> --
> An archive of all list discussion is available at
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/percy-l/
>
> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
>
> --
> An archive of all list discussion is available at http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/
>
> Visit the Walker Percy Project at http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy

---

How well do you know your celebrity gossip? Talk celebrity smackdowns here.