“Stream System- The Collected Short Fiction” by Gerald Murnane

This is a collection of short stories written by Murnane over the past fifty years. Some stories are as short as five pages while the longest span around a hundred. What connects them all is Murnane’s use of imbedded stories within stories. “Somewhere today in a suburb of Melbourne is a man who calls himself a writer of fiction but who writes, in fact, a sort of diary of the man he wishes he could be.” He constantly mines the territory of his home state of Victoria, Australia. “I admired him, for one thing, because he preferred to look at his land rather than farm it.” He also returns to themes of writing, reading, and a relationship with books in general. “The writing of fiction was something that a certain sort of person had to do in order to explain himself or herself to an imagined parent or an imagined loved one or an imagined god.” Many of his stories involve the narrator describing the act of writing the very story Murnane is himself writing. Yet the narrator is not identical to Murnane. Or not quite. “I wrote fiction in order to learn the meaning of certain images in my mind.” Murnane again and again goes back to the craft of writing and the mind as the grounds for imagination. “I have always been interested in what is usually called the world but only insofar as it provides me with evidence for the existence of another world.” He is constantly plumbing the depths of the mind for both images and feelings. “A diagram of my mind would resemble a vast and intricate map with images for its small towns and with feelings for the roads through the grassy countryside between the towns.” Like in his novels, it is hard to decipher what comes from the facts of his real life and what details are made up whole cloth. “Even to his wife and children he had sometimes said that Sunday afternoon was the saddest time of the week: the time when you had to admit that you were no more than the person you were. To himself he would have added that Sunday afternoon was the time when he tried to understand how he had come to be who he was and where he was rather than someone else in some other place.” His nested stories and asides often seem more important and real than the original thread of his story. “I have trusted for many years that I will remember from every text that I read the few words or phrases that I need to remember.” His digressions into the recesses of his mind are so vivid and illuminating that one forgets where one is while reading his words. “Or I might finish this piece of fiction by mentioning that I have always been drawn to writers who have felt their minds threatened.”

“The Master and His Emissary- The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World” by Iain McGilchrist

McGilchrist is a former psychiatrist, neuroimaging researcher, and professor of English at Oxford. He believes that the left and the right sides of the human brain, while exhibiting signs of plasticity, do have unique capabilities. The thesis of his book is that “for us as human beings there are two fundamentally opposed realities, two different modes of experience; that each is of ultimate importance in bringing about the recognizably human world; and that their difference is rooted in the bihemispheric structure of the brain. It follows that the hemispheres need to co-operate, but I believe they are in fact involved in a sort of power struggle, and that this explains many aspects of contemporary Western culture.” This thesis is at once simple and revolutionary. McGilchrist begins by pointing out some hard biology. “The corpus callosum contains an estimated 300-800 million fibres connecting topologically similar areas in each hemisphere. Yet only 2 per cent of cortical neurons are connected by this tract.” That is, most of our brain’s neurons are not connected by the only pathway that links our right and left hemispheres. Furthermore, when comparing various animals, the bigger the brain size, the less interconnected the hemispheres are.

McGilchrist points out that “lateralisation brings evolutionary advantages, particularly in carrying out dual-attention tasks…. The right hemisphere appears to be deeply involved in social functioning…. Where there is divided attention, and both hemispheres appear to be involved, it seems probable that the right hemisphere plays the primary role…. More specifically there is evidence of left-hemisphere dominance for local, narrowly focussed attention and right-hemisphere dominance for broad, global, and flexible attention…. What is new must first be present in the right hemisphere, before it can come into focus for the left…. Only the right hemisphere can direct attention to what comes to us from the edges of awareness…. The right hemisphere understands from indirect contextual clues, not only from explicit statement…. The right hemisphere takes whatever is said within its entire context. It is specialised in pragmatics, the art of contextual understanding of meaning, and in using metaphor. It is the right hemisphere which processes the non-literal aspects of language…. The left hemisphere is the hemisphere of abstraction, which, as the world itself tells us, is the process of wresting things from their context. This, and its related capacity to categorise things once they have been abstracted, are the foundations of its intellectual power…. The left hemisphere operates an abstract visual-form system, storing information that remains relatively invariant across specific instances, producing abstracted types or classes of things; whereas the right hemisphere is aware of and remembers what it is that distinguishes specific instances of a type, one from another…. The right temporal lobe deals preferentially with memory of a personal or emotionally charged nature, what is called episodic memory, where the left temporal lobe is more concerned with memory for facts that are ‘in the public domain’…. Not only does the right hemisphere have an affinity with whatever is living, but the left hemisphere has an equal affinity for what is mechanical. The left hemisphere’s principal concern is utility. It is interested in what it has made, and in the world as a resource to be used. It is therefore natural that it has a particular affinity for words and concepts for tools, man-made things, mechanisms and whatever is not alive…. Self-awareness, empathy, identification with others, and more generally inter-subjective processes, are largely dependent upon…. right hemisphere resources…. The right hemisphere plays an important role in what is known as ‘theory of mind’, a capacity to put oneself in another’s position and see what is going on in that person’s mind…. It is a capacity that children do not acquire fully until the age of four…. The right hemisphere is the locus of interpretation, not only of facial expression, but of prosody (vocal intonation) and gesture…. The left hemisphere reads emotions by interpreting the lower part of the face…. The right hemisphere alone seems to be capable of understanding the more subtle information that comes from the eyes…. It is the right hemisphere that understands the emotional or the humorous aspect of narrative…. It is the right hemisphere that mediates spontaneous facial expressions in reaction to humour or other emotions, including smiling and laughter. It is also the right hemisphere that is responsible for the peculiarly human ability to express sadness through tears…. The left hemisphere has a much more extensive vocabulary than the right, and more subtle and complex syntax. It extends vastly our power to map the world and to explore the complexities of the causal relationships between things…. The superiority of language stems from its nature as the hemisphere of representation, in which signs are substituted for experience…. The right hemisphere plays a vital part in language, too. It uses language not in order to manipulate ideas or things, but to understand what others mean…. It is therefore particularly important whenever non-literal meaning needs to be understood - practically everywhere, therefore, in human discourse, and particularly where irony, humour, indirection or sarcasm are involved…. The right hemisphere represents objects as having volume and depth in space, as they are experienced; the left hemisphere tends to represent the visual world schematically, abstractly, geometrically, with a lack of realistic detail, and even in one plane…. The left hemisphere exhibits a strong tendency to confabulate: it thinks it knows something, recognises something, which it doesn’t, a tendency that may be linked to its lack of ability to discriminate unique cases from the generalised categories into which it places them…. The left hemisphere needs certainty and needs to be right. The right hemisphere makes it possible to hold several ambiguous possibilities in suspension together without premature closure on one outcome. The right prefrontal cortex is essential for dealing with incomplete information and has a critical role to play in reasoning about incompletely specified situations…. The self as intrinsically, empathically inseparable from the world in which it stands in relation to others, and the continuous sense of self, are more dependent on the right hemisphere, whereas the objectified self, and the self as an expression of will, is generally more dependent on the left hemisphere…. The unconscious, while not identical with, is certainly more strongly associated with, the right hemisphere.” The right and left side might work in conjunction with each other, but there is a clear tension between the two hemispheres in each human brain.

After sketching the basic functions, McGilchrist continues by exploring how each hemisphere interacts with language, music, and truth. He suggests that music has ancient origins, even predating language. In prehistoric society, music played an integral role in religion, ritual, celebration, and in uniting the community. It was not passively experienced, but as shared-performance, binded the people in a single experience. Poetry also evolved before prose. “Most forms of imagination, for example, or of innovation, intuitive problem solving, spiritual thinking or artistic creativity require us to transcend language.” Words influence our perceptions, but thinking evolved prior to language. “What language contributes is to firm up certain particular ways of seeing the world and give fixity to them…. Language may not, after all, have originated in a drive to communicate - that came later - but as a means of mapping the world…. It is a means of manipulating the world…. Language enables the left hemisphere to represent the world ‘off-line’, a conceptual version, distinct from the world of experience, and shielded from the immediate environment, with its insistent impressions, feelings, and demands, abstracted from the body, no longer dealing with what is concrete, specific, individual, unrepeatable, and constantly changing, but with a disembodied representation of the world, abstracted, central, not particularised in time and place, generally applicable, clear and fixed. Isolating things artificially from their context brings the advantage of enabling us to focus intently on a particular aspect of reality and how it can be modeled, so that it can be grasped and controlled.” The right hemisphere plays with metaphor. “Everything has to be expressed in terms of something else, and those something elses eventually have to come back to the body…. Metaphor embodies thought and places it in a living context…. Language originates as an embodied expression of emotion.”

McGilchrist begins to show how the functions of each hemisphere have consequences for how humans interact with the outside world. “Attention is a moral act: it creates, brings aspects of things into being, but in doing so makes others recede.” He posits that philosophy in the Western tradition is a left hemisphere process. “It is verbal and analytic, requiring abstracted, decontextualised, disembodied thinking, dealing in categories, concerning itself with the nature of the general rather than the particular, and adopting a sequential, linear approach to truth…. [After all,] manipulation and use require clarity and fixity, and clarity and fixity require separation and division…. According to the left hemisphere, understanding is built up from the parts; one starts from one certainty, places another next to it, and advances…. It conceives that there is objective evidence of truth for a part outside the context of the whole it goes to constitute. According to the right hemisphere, understanding is derived from the whole, since it is only in light of the whole that one can truly understand the nature of the parts…. The left hemisphere is always engaged in a purpose: it always has an end in view, and downgrades whatever has no instrumental purpose in sight. The right hemisphere, by contrast, has no designs on anything. It is vigilant for whatever is, without preconceptions, without predefined purpose…. The right hemisphere is the primary mediator of experience, from which the conceptualised, re-presented world of the left hemisphere derives, and on which it depends…. The left hemisphere does not itself have life…. The means of argument - the three Ls, language, logic and linearity - are all ultimately under left-hemisphere control…. Its point of view is always easily defensible, because analytic…. The left hemisphere builds systems, where the right does not. It therefore allows elaboration of its own working over time into systemic thought which gives it permanence and solidity…. The existence of a system of thought dependent on language automatically devalues whatever cannot be expressed in language…. The left hemisphere is not keen on taking responsibility. If the defect might reflect on the self, it does not accept it. But if something or someone else can be made to take responsibility - if it is a ‘victim’ of someone else’s wrongdoing, in other words - it is prepared to do so.” Imitation is the function of the right hemisphere. Only humans imitate means as well as ends when trying to achieve a goal. Imitation is at root escaping one’s own experience to enter the mind of another. “More empathic people mimic the facial expressions of those they are with more than others…. The process of mimesis is one of intention, aspiration, attraction and empathy, drawing heavily on the right hemisphere, whereas copying is the following of disembodied procedures and algorithms, and is left-hemisphere-based.”

Through the rest of his book McGilchrist posits that, in the Western world, there has been a historical battle between the two hemispheres that has ebbed and flowed through the ages. At first, the right hemisphere was ascendent. “In the Homeric era, the sense of self is intimately bound up with ‘interpersonal and communal dialogue’ in a shared ethical life…. The hiddenness or necessarily implicit quality of Nature requires a particularly alert flexibility on the part of those who go to approach her. ‘Hidden structure is superior to manifest structure’; and openness is required by the seeker of wisdom.” Heraclitus’ philosophy did not turn inward, but sought to carefully study the phenomenal world. “Opposites define one another and bring one another into existence.” However, soon after, the left hemisphere would gain sway. Plato’s “legacy includes the (left-hemisphere-congruent) beliefs that truth is in principle knowable, that it is knowable through reason alone, and that all truths are consistent with one another…. Plato’s belief that knowledge must be unfailing and general led to the position that we cannot know things that are changing or particular.” The ideal forms were all that were worth knowing and striving towards. Ideas about things were prized over the things themselves. Plato particularly disdained poetry, putting in Socrates’ mouth, “all the poets from Homer downwards have no grasp of reality but merely give us superficial representation.” Hans Peter L’Orange writes that this trend away from nuance continued in the traditions of the Roman Empire where “there is a movement away from the complex towards the simple, from the mobile towards the static, from the dialectic and relative towards the dogmatic and the authoritarian, from the empirical towards theology and theosophy.” McGilchrist posits this trend furthered with the early Christians, whose “passion is for control, for fixity, for certainty; and that comes not with religion alone, but with a certain cast of mind, the cast of the left hemisphere.”

McGilchrist suggests that in the Renaissance priority begins to shift back to the right hemisphere. Giotto, in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, is the first painter to employ perspective. “Perspective mediates a view of the world from an individual standpoint.” The Renaissance ushered in an age of more cultural tolerance and plurality. Melancholy was co-mingled with wit and intelligence. Sadness and pleasure were intertwined. This growth in nuance was, to a large degree, countered by Luther’s Protestant Reformation. “The outer world was in itself empty, and therefore the only authenticity lay in the inner world alone…. The Reformation is the first great expression of the search for certainty in modern times.” The literal Word replaced metaphors in the quest for human understanding. This need for certainty continued with the Enlightenment, which replaced Luther’s religion with a secular science of positivism. Rationality imposes an either/or mentality on life. “Whereas reason respects the implicit, the ambiguous, the unresolved, rationality demands the explicit, the clear and the complete.” This trend was in opposition with artistic creation and this tension grew into the Romantic movement. “Art is by its nature implicit and ambiguous. It is also embodied: it produces embodied creations which speak to us through the senses, even if their medium is language, and which have effects on us physically as embodied beings in the lived world.” Max Scheler stated, “For this reason poets, and all makers of language having the ‘god-given power to tell of what they suffer’ [Goethe, Marienbader Elegie], fulfill a far higher function than that of giving noble and beautiful expression to their experiences and thereby making them recognizable to the reader, by reference to his own past experience of this kind. For by creating new forms of expression, the poets soar above the prevailing network of ideas in which our experience is confined, as it were, by ordinary language; they enable the rest of us to see, for the first time, in our own experience, something which may answer to these new and richer forms of expression, and by doing so they actually extend the scope of our possible self-awareness. They effect a real enlargement of the kingdom of the mind…. That indeed is the mission of all true art: not to reproduce what is already given (which would be superfluous), nor to create something in the pure play of subjective fancy (which can only be transitory and must necessarily be a matter of complete indifference to other people), but to press forward into the whole of the external world and the soul.” The Romantic movement was a move back towards the incompatible. Goethe emphasized, “we are, and ought to be, obscure to ourselves, turned outwards, and working upon the world which surrounds us.” McGilchrist suggests the Romantics returned to the theme of childhood again and again as “childhood represents innocence, not in some moral sense, but in the sense of offering what the phenomenologists thought of as the pre-conceptual immediacy of experience (the world before the left-hemisphere has deadened it to familiarity). It was this authentic ‘presencing’ of the world that Romantic poetry aimed to recapture.” Goethe stressed the impermanence of reality when he stated, “the phenomenon must never be thought of as finished or complete, but rather as evolving, growing, and in many ways as something yet to be determined.” Shelley suggested, “poetry lifts the veil from the hidden beauty of the world, and makes familiar objects be as if they were not familiar…. It creates anew the universe, after it has been annihilated in our minds by the recurrence of impressions blunted by reiteration.” The familiar is the realm of the left hemisphere, whereas the unique and particular of the right.

Industrialization, modernity, and post-modernity were each turns back towards the primacy of the left hemisphere. “The world is either robbed of its substantiality, its ‘otherness’, its ontological status as an entity having an independence from the perceiving subject; or alternatively seen as alien, devoid of human resonance or significance…. The more we rely on the left hemisphere alone, the more self-conscious we become; the intuitive, unconscious unspoken elements of experience are relatively discounted, and the interpreter begins to interpret - itself. The world it puts into words for us is the world that words themselves (the left hemisphere’s building blocks) have created…. [We become] modern man as homo consumens: concerned with things more than people, property more than life, capital more than work…. Socialism and capitalism are both essentially materialist, just different ways of approaching the lifeless world of matter and deciding how to share the spoils.” Modern man becomes passive to the world. “An admiration for what is powerful rather than beautiful, a sense of alienated objectivity rather than engagement or empathy, and an almost dogmatic trampling on all taboos, lies at the heart of the modernist enterprise.” There is novelty and shock, as opposed to newness- seeing afresh what one once thought of as familiar. The explicit reigns over implicit meanings. “Originality as an artist (as opposed to as a celebrity or a showman) can only exist within a tradition, not for the facile reason that it must have something by ‘contrast’ with which to be original, but because the roots of any work of art have to be intuitive, implicit, still coming out of the body and the imagination, not starting in (though they may perhaps later avail themselves of) individualistic cerebral striving…. Language makes the uncommon common. It can never create experience of something we do not know - only release something in us that is already there.” In modern society, knowledge has become professionalized. “Expertise, which is what actually makes an expert (Latin expertus, ‘one who is experienced’) would be replaced by ‘expert’ knowledge that would have in fact to be based on theory, and in general one would expect a tendency increasingly to replace the concrete with the theoretical or abstract.” Measurability and quantification become the standards of knowledge. Context could be neglected for general rules. Uniformity and equality become the overriding goals. In art, “metaphor and myth have been replaced by the symbolic, or worse, by a concept.” The world is seen as a collection of objects. However, “certainty is the greatest of all illusions: whatever kind of fundamentalism it may underwrite, that of religion or of science, it is what the ancients meant by hubris.”

“Surfing Uncertainty” by Andy Clark

Clark is a philosopher who specializes in logic and metaphysics. However, this book combines neuroscience and embodied cognition to give a theory of the predictive brain. Clark has coined this process predictive processing and it relies heavily on Bayesian logic. “It is the kind of automatically deployed, deeply probabilistic, non-conscious guessing that occurs as part of the complex neural processing routines that underpin and unify perception and action…. Brains like ours…. are predictive engines, constantly trying to guess at the structure of the incoming sensory array. Such brains are incessantly pro-active, restlessly seeking to generate the sensory data for themselves using the incoming signal (in a surprising inversion of much traditional wisdom) mostly as a means of checking and correcting their best top-down guessing. Crucially, however, the shape and flow of all that inner guessing is flexibly modulated by changing estimations of the relative uncertainty of (hence our confidence in) different aspects of the incoming signal. The upshot is a dynamic, self-organizing system in which the inner (and outer) flow of information is constantly reconfigured according to the demands of the task and the changing details of the internal (interoceptively sensed) and external context.” Our brains are constantly in action, making top-down guesses about the sensory data to learn about our external world. The brain is creating models and then slowly modulating them, based on past experience, to improve future predictions. Crucially, the brain is not a passive system. Action plays a critical role in predictive processing. “Our massed recurrent neuronal ensembles are not just buzzing away constantly trying to predict the sensory stream. They are constantly bringing about the sensory stream by causing bodily movements that selectively harvest new sensory stimulations. Perception and action are thus locked in a kind of endless circular embrace…. [The brain is able to] use action upon the world to reduce the complexity of its own inner processing, selecting frugal, efficient routines that trade movement and environmental structure against costly computation.”

The brain is constantly learning as it is constantly predicting everything that will happen to the body in the next moment, in an ever-rolling cascade. Perception is very near-term top-down prediction modified by the senses. “Prediction error [is] a kind of proxy for any as-yet-unexplained sensory information. Prediction error here reports the ‘surprise’ induced by mismatch between the sensory signals encountered and those predicted…. Perception is indeed a process in which we (or rather, various parts of our brains) try to guess what is out there, using the incoming signal more as a means of tuning and nuancing the guessing rather than as a rich (and bandwidth-costly) encoding of the state of the world.” It is actually our expectations, to a large extent, that determine what we see, smell, and hear. A prediction does not create our sensory world, but it does focus our attention. “Brains like ours are constantly trying to use what they already know so as to predict the current sensory signal, using the incoming signal to select and constrain those predictions, and sometimes using prior knowledge to ‘trump’ certain aspects of the incoming sensory signal itself. Such trumping makes good adaptive sense, as the capacity to use what you know to outweigh some of what the incoming signal seems to be saying can be hugely beneficial when the sensory data is noisy, ambiguous, or incomplete.” Again, the non-passive nature of the brain is crucial. “Action is not so much a ‘response to an input’ as a neat and efficient way of selecting the next input, driving a rolling cycle. These hyperactive systems are constantly predicting their own upcoming states and actively moving about as to bring some of them into being.”

Each percept is constructed with the help of the brain’s priors. These priors influence future expectations in a probabilistic manner. The brain then combines the likelihood of these priors with raw sensory data. “Attention, thus construed, is a means of variably balancing the potent interactions between top-down and bottom-up influences by factoring in their so-called ‘precision’, where this is a measure of their estimated certainty or reliability.” When evaluating sensations, the brain is constantly separating the signal from the noise, using prior knowledge. This process happens through hierarchical Bayesian inference based on precision-weighted guesses at every level. These predictions then influence future action in a proactive fashion. Memory is also crucial in predicting our future. Fernyhough suggests, “if memory is fallible and prone to reconstructive errors, that may be because it is oriented towards the future at least as much as towards the past…. similar neural systems are involved in both autobiographical memory and future thinking, and both rely on a form of imagination.” In the end, perception is the brain’s best guess as to reality. “Perception (rich, world-revealing perception) occurs when the probabilistic residue of past experience meets the incoming sensory signal with matching prediction.”

Prediction allows our bodies to live in the present. As Franklin and Wolpert assert, “delays are present in all stages of sensorimotor system, from the delay in receiving afferent sensory information, to the delay in our muscles responding to efferent motor commands…. we effectively live in the past, with the control systems having access to out-of-date information about the world and our own bodies.” This is overcome by predictive processing. “Forward models provide a powerful and elegant solution to such problems, enabling us to live in the present and to control our bodies…. you treat the desired (goal) state as observed and perform Bayesian inference to find the actions that get you there…. Motor control is, in a certain sense, subjunctive. It involves predicting the non-actual proprioceptive trajectories that would ensue were we performing some desired action. Reducing prediction errors calculated against these non-actual states then serves…. to make them actual. We predict the proprioceptive consequences of our own action and this brings the action about….. ‘Active Inference’ then names the combined mechanism by which perceptual and motor systems conspire to reduce prediction error using the twin strategies of altering predictions to fit the world, and altering the world to fit the predictions.”

Frith makes the case that “our perceptions are fantasies that coincide with reality.” Hohwy suggests, “what we perceive is the brain’s best hypothesis, as embodied in a high-level generative model, about the causes in the outer world…. Conscious experience is like a fantasy or virtual reality constructed to keep the sensory input at bay.” Thus, the human brain is bounded by an external reality. “Prediction-driven learning delivers a grip upon affordances: the possibilities for action and intervention that the environment makes available to a given agent.” The brain is then constantly making its best guess as to what course will reduce prediction error. This might be by modifying its predictions or it might be through acting. This results in “‘affordance competition’ in which…. possible motor responses are being simultaneously prepared, and in which ‘the human brain does not wait for a decision to be completed before recruiting the motor system but instead passes partial information to prepare in a graded fashion for a probable action outcome’…. Such pro-active readiness, to be genuinely useful, must necessarily be multiple and graded. It must allow many possible responses to be simultaneously partially prepared, to degrees dependent upon the current balance of evidence.”

The world that humans perceive is “our world” in that it is the world best understood by humans. “What we perceive is (when all is going well) the structured external world itself. But this is not the world ‘as it is’, where that implies the problematic notion of a world represented independent of human concerns and human action repertoires. Rather, it is a world parsed according to our organism-specific needs and action repertoire.” Humans create and actively modify our own world. Through language “our own thoughts and ideas now become available, to ourselves and others, as potential objects for deliberate processes of attention…. Courtesy of all that material public vehicling in spoken words, written texts, diagrams, and pictures, our best predictive models of the world (unlike those of other creatures) have thus become stable, reinspectable objects apt for public critique and systemic, multi-agent, multi-generational test and refinement. Our best models of the world are thus able to serve as the basis for cumulative, communally distributed reasoning…. Our human-built worlds are not merely the arenas in which we live, work, and play. They also structure the life-long statistical immersions that build and rebuild the generative models that inform each agent’s repertoire for perception, action, and reason.”

“Modern Liberty and Its Discontents” by Pierre Manent

This is a collection of essays written by the French philosopher on the topics of modernity, politics, and religion. Manent was influenced both by Raymond Aron and Leo Strauss and while some essays deal specifically with their thoughts, others focus on the history of philosophy and sociology more broadly. All the essays are connected by the exploration of what it means to be an individual in modern society. Manent writes about the tension of “liberal democracy (necessarily caught between the promotion and the critique of representation, between the emancipation of the individual and the imposition of a uniform rule).” He teases out the dichotomy of liberty and equality that is at the heart of democracy. Man gradually becomes aware of the freedom and responsibilities than modernity brings. “In Tocqueville’s democracy the power of democracy is not the power of man over man, or the power of one party over another, or it is so only very secondarily and provisionally. It is rather the power of man over himself: more and more actions, more and more sentiments, more and more thoughts, come to live under the democratic regime.” One check to this impulse has naturally been the institution of religion. “By its origins and perhaps its essence, it is external to democracy; this is why it can regulate democracy. It says to democratic man’s liberty, to his envy, and to his disordered passions, you will not go any further!” As democratic man has become individuated he has lost his natural social bonds, for better and for worse. The separation of Church and State was not an equal divide. It is “founded on an essential inequality of consents, which gives a decisive advantage to the public institution over the private one. The inequality of the consents demanded or required translates into the essential superiority of the state over the churches in the regime of separation.” Through the social contract man has consented to be ruled by men.

Modernity tried to build a world ex novo. Manent quotes Charles Peguy, the modern State“ is opposed, it runs counter to all the ancient cultures, to all the anciens regimes, to all the ancient cities, to everything which is culture, to all that is a city.” The conception of the city, as either Platonic or Aristotelean ideal of community, no longer has purchase. Modernity has nothing to learn from the past. Or rather, it picks and chooses at its will and leisure. Manent reflects, “we no longer perceive the extraordinary audacity of the original project of establishing the human world on the narrow point of the human will.” Modern philosophy, starting with Machiavelli, became infatuated with the rational will and the science of what was possible. “It is precisely modern humanity that desires to be the sovereign over nature, creator of its own nature.” Democracy has severed itself from past humanity, from tradition, custom, and culture. “The man of the future, man par excellence, is a being without conscience.” Manent, reflecting on Aurel Kolnai, suggests that man would be better served by combining the moral absolutes of his own conscience with the traditions of conservatism. “We are born in and act in a world already structured by institutions, models, achievements, traditions- by traditions, moreover, which do not force us to be “traditionalists,” precisely because we have the good fortune to be heirs to the tradition of rationally criticizing tradition…. It is because there is a natural and necessary tension between the conscientious and the conservative attitudes that the prudent man has to learn how to combine them, to learn that the relative weight of each depends on circumstances and on the agent’s ability to compose and harmonize, judiciously and even stylishly, the various legitimate themes of free conduct. A conscience with a lively sensitivity to universal moral demands but also well aware of political constraints, of ambiguities and conflicts of values and the uncertainties attending action: a conscience which, when it is at odds with the world, does not hurry to condemn the world but takes time to weigh the adversary’s reasons.”

Individual man has often found himself lost at sea, alone, left to his own devices. He has demanded of the political authority that it acknowledges his consent. “The communities to which people belong in the democratic world no longer command them…. The past itself, understood as the community of those who are dead, has lost all authority to command, whether it be in the moral, social, political, or religious sphere, and is no more than a collection of “memorable places” thrown open to historical tourism.” History no longer advises and urges caution. The past is only studied for amusement. Tradition is quaint. “The only vocation that contemporary man recognizes is that of being an individual. Modern man aims to become ever more the author and artist of all his ties- to be always more un-obliged or disconnected.”

Throughout these essays, Manent is at heart a philosopher. “Philosophy is the endeavor, at once heroic and unobtrusive, to keep one’s distance, to refuse one’s adherence to all these interpretations by interposing between them and oneself the small question, What is?” Philosophy is a disposition. “Philosophy is essentially skeptical. It is therefore not a doctrine, system, or view of the world, but a way of life.” Socrates was the philosopher par excellence. “One must act morally, and not think morally.” More so than even romantic love, true friendship guides the path of the philosopher. in the past, the bonds of friendship were desired because they engendered the quest for a common truth in man. The ideal man sought “the life of reason, the life dedicated to understanding life… “The love of wisdom” (philosophy) is literally, and nonmetaphorically, the most erotic of the soul’s dispositions, the one that leads toward its highest possibility and that consequently is capable of forming the strongest human tie because it is the most genuine one…. Life is worthy of being loved because it is capable of being understood.” 

“The Consciousness Instinct” by Michael Gazzaniga

Gazzaniga is the director of the SAGE Center for the Study of Mind at UCSB. His book begins with a historical overview of various speculations on consciousness over the centuries, starting with the ancient Greeks and continuing through Freud and Schopenhauer, before ending with Gazzaniga’s own opinions on the nature of consciousness. Many of history’s earlier claims about consciousness are still relevant as they lay the foundations for modern controversies that still divide the neuroscience community today. Among the prominent theories Gazzaniga reviews are Descartes’ mind/body dualism, Locke’s tabula rasa (blank slate) formulation, which led to Skinner’s behaviorism, and Hume’s chains of perception. John von Neumann was to add to speculations on the workings of neural networks by proposing the idea of parallel organization, where different groups of neurons could run independently and simultaneously. Chomsky supposedly dealt behaviorism a fatal blow with his ideas on a universal grammar, innate in all humans. Gazzaniga and his mentor Robert Sperry were to conduct research on humans whose brains had been surgically split to ease epileptic seizures. Sperry recounted, “everything we have seen so far indicates that the surgery has left these people with two separate minds, that is, two separate spheres of consciousness.” This research laid waste to the idea that consciousness was located in any particular area of the brain or even, in fact, that each human had one unique conscious ‘self’ at all. Sperry felt that “consciousness may have real operational value, that is more than merely an overtone, a by-product, epiphenomenon, or a metaphysical parallel of the objective process.” Sperry leaned towards the idea of emergentism: that “consciousness emerges from unconscious matter once that matter achieves a certain level of complexity or organization.” This is in contrast to the other major materialist idea of panpsychism: that all matter has some type of consciousness within it, albeit with a wide range of both scale and scope. All modern consciousness researchers strive to get at what David Chalmers has labeled “the hard problem” or Thomas Nagel has described as “what it is like” to be something, subjectively. Nagel stated, “an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism.” These subjective characteristics of experience have sometimes been referred to as qualia. On the other hand, the philosopher Daniel Dennett disagreed that subjective experience was even a scientific problem/issue. He suggested it was all an ultra-realistic illusion and that the sensation of “‘having an experience’ is beyond the realm of the objective” and thus beyond the realm of science. Gazzaniga’s effort in the rest of his book aims to refute this “new dualism” and tries to fit consciousness within the modern research paradigm of the material brain.

Gazzaniga describes the brain as being separated by independent neural modules. “Modules are specialized and frequently localized networks of neurons that serve a specific function…. The perks of brain modularity are that it saves energy when resources are scarce, allows for specialized parallel cognitive processing when time is limited, makes it easier to alter functionality when new survival pressures arise, and allows us to learn a variety of new skills.” On top of this modular structure of the brain is a layered architecture. “Each layer in a system operates independently because each layer has its own specific protocols, the set of rules or specifications that stipulate the allowed interfaces, or interactions, both within and between layers.” This layered system allowed humans to evolve from simpler life forms, while keeping their lower-level structures and building on top of them, rather than beginning a unified functioning structure from scratch. Therefore, many of our bodily functions, from metabolism to replication, are formed using the same core-processes as that of simpler forms of life, such as bacteria, since we all share the same genomic sequences. This layered architecture evolved because it limits the effects of localized malfunctions, making repair or replacement easier, and making for a more robust, if less efficient, system. “Because each layer can provide a wide range of diverse functions, the system has greater flexibility as a whole, giving it a great advantage when facing a changing environment. This type of layout is ideal in an evolutionary sense because the number of vulnerabilities in the system is limited, while the opportunities for diversification are abundant.” Neural redundancy becomes a feature, not a bug, of this system. Therefore, “there may not be a specific modular hierarchy that allows consciousness to manifest itself in one way or another. Specific modules work relatively independently and, rather than being a neatly ordered queue of modular processing, the contents of our conscious experience may be the result of some kind of competition: some processing takes hold of your conscious landscape at a given moment in time…. The multitude of conscious-producing modules simply diversifies your conscious portfolio…. The modular brain makes consciousness resilient because of the plethora of possible paths that can lead to a conscious moment…. The brain operates in a modular fashion, but it also suggests that independent modules can each produce a unique form of consciousness.”

Gazzaniga feels that consciousness research could learn a great deal from quantum physics, particularly the idea of complementarity: that matter, such as electrons, can have both particle-like and wavelike properties. There is both the macro-world of Newtonian physics and the micro-world of quantum physics, in which the same matter behaves by different laws, all at once. Particular to quantum mechanics is the idea that the observer matters. He affects the system by his very observation of it. Any measurement requires an observer who is separate from the object measured. “The measurement itself may be precise and objective, but the process of measurement is subjective.” Gazzaniga suggests that “human consciousness was way too high a layer in the architecture of all living organisms to put the epistemic cut between the observer and the observed, between the subjective experience and the event itself.” The key to consciousness might begin with the difference between the living and the lifeless. He quotes Howard Pattee, “I have taken the point of view that the question of what constitutes an observation in quantum mechanics must arise long before we reach the complexity of the brain. In fact, I propose…. that the gap between quantum and classical behavior is inherent in the distinction between inanimate and living matter…. Our models of living organisms will never eliminate the distinction between the self and the universe, because life began with this separation and evolution requires it…. This is a universal and irreducible complementarity. Neither model can derive the other or be reduced to the other.” Gazzaniga suggests that these “two complementary modes of behavior, two levels of description are inherent in life itself, were present at the origins of life, have been conserved by evolution, and continue to be necessary for differentiating subjective experience from the event itself.” William James had suggested the idea of polyzoism: that “every brain-cell has its own individual consciousness, which no other cell knows anything about, all individual consciousness being ‘ejective’ to each other.” Gazzaniga suggests that each cell has a very rudimentary conception of the subjective ‘self’, built on the fact that each cell has semiotic closure, the key to independent living systems present in all cells. He continues, “neural circuits are structures with a double life: they carry symbolic information, which is subject to arbitrary rules, yet they possess a material structure that is subject to the laws of physics.” Gazzaniga suggests that consciousness is the linkage of independent neural modules that span across time and memory. “Each mental event is managed by brain modules that possess the capacity to make us conscious of the results of their processing…. Those single bursts of processing parade one after another, seamlessly linked by time…. Our smoothly flowing consciousness is itself an illusion. In reality it is made up of cognitive bubbles linked by subcortical “feeling” bubbles, stitched together by our brain in time…. Consciousness is inherent throughout the brain.”