Physical Mind

[IgnorantGod]

Hi everyone, here's something I was thinking recently, and thought it could bring an interesting conversation.

As I was reading further on Arpad Szakolczai's term 'permanent liminality', since Bjorn Thomassen discusses about this in his book "Liminality and the Modern", in order to make a thread on that subject, I ended up wondering about Descartes physical/non-physical duality.

However, when I'm thinking about this, I prefer to use the term 'extended' for physical matter, and 'unextended' for non-physical matter, of which Descartes 'Mind' would be part of.

That is, as far as I know. But for the mind to be non-physical, it has to be 'unextended', which from the point of view of human perception, is. It's all good, until one realizes that thoughts do seem to have 'extension', at least in time. It also seems to be 'localized' in space.

I mean, when I'm thinking, my thoughts aren't at the house from the other side of the road, they are in my head. Some people say they can think with the heart, though I've never experienced such myself, as far as I know. I can pass the whole day thinking, while everything else minds its own business.

If time is an 'axis', then thoughts, at least, have 1D (linear) 'extension'. Still hypothetically speaking, if there were to be other 'dimensions/axis' aside the classical 3D (width, height and depth) from which physical matter has 'extension', thoughts could have more than 1D, they could start having 2D 'extension' (flat forms).

So basically, this thread is about discussing the possibility (or otherwise) that the 'Mind' might be physical/'extended' from specific perspectives that, I reckon, could be outside human's perception capabilities, or those were somehow closed/dropped during adaptation, or something.

As always, thanks for reading, and cheers! 

[Bootless]

As I was reading further on Arpad Szakolczai's term 'permanent liminality', since Bjorn Thomassen discusses about this in his book "Liminality and the Modern", in order to make a thread on that subject, I ended up wondering about Descartes physical/non-physical duality.

This here: What must we know of Arpad Szakolczai, Bjorn Thomassen, and Descartes physical/non-physical duality in order to understand the questions?

Permanent Liminality and Modernity Analysing the Sacrificial Carnival through Novels

This book offers a comprehensive sociological study of the nature and dynamics of the modern world, through the use of a series of anthropological concepts, including the trickster, schismogenesis, imitation and liminality. Developing the view that with the theatre playing a central role, the modern world is conditioned as much by cultural processes as it is by economic, technological or scientific ones, the author contends the world is, to a considerable extent, theatrical - a phenomenon experienced as inauthenticity or a loss of direction and meaning. As such the novel is revealed as a means for studying our theatricalised reality, not simply because novels can be understood to be likening the world to theatre, but because they effectively capture and present the reality of a world that has been thoroughly ’theatricalised’ - and they do so more effectively than the main instruments usually employed to analyse reality: philosophy and sociology. With analyses of some of the most important novelists and novels of modern culture, including Rilke, Hofmannsthal, Kafka, Mann, Blixen, Broch and Bulgakov, and focusing on fin-de-siècle Vienna as a crucial ’threshold’ chronotope of modernity, Permanent Liminality and Modernity demonstrates that all seek to investigate and unmask the theatricalisation of modern life, with its progressive loss of meaning and our deteriorating capacity to distinguish between what is meaningful and what is artificial. Drawing on the work of Nietzsche, Bakhtin and Girard to examine the ways in which novels explore the reduction of human existence to a state of permanent liminality, in the form of a sacrificial carnival, this book will appeal to scholars of social, anthropological and literary theory.

Liminality and the Modern Living Through the In-Between

This book provides the history and genealogy of an increasingly important subject: liminality. Coming to the fore in recent years in social and political theory and extending beyond is original use as developed within anthropology, liminality has come to denote spaces and moments in which the taken-for-granted order of the world ceases to exist and novel forms emerge, often in unpredictable ways. Liminality and the Modern offers a comprehensive introduction to this concept, discussing its development and laying out a conceptual and experiential framework for thinking about change in terms of liminality. Applying this framework to questions surrounding the implosion of ’non-spaces’, the analysis of major historical periods and the study of political revolution, the book also explores its possible uses in social science research and its implications for our understanding of the uncertainty and contingency of the liquid structures of modern society. Shedding new light on a concept central to social thought, as well as its capacity for pushing social and political theory in new directions, this book will be of interest to scholars across the social sciences and philosophy working in fields such as social, political and anthropological theory, cultural studies, social and cultural geography, and historical anthropology and sociology.

[IgnorantGod]

This here: What must we know of Arpad Szakolczai, Bjorn Thomassen, and Descartes physical/non-physical duality in order to understand the questions?

As I understood from Bjorn's book, which I'll have to do a second reading in order to better grasp all his argumentations, is that Descartes have replaced 'God' for 'Individual Mind' as an absolutism to 'reality'.

Thomassen explore the idea that the Lisbon earthquake might have been a liminal event that shook the western beliefs to their core, which prompted individuals to question the concept of reality at the time.

Really, this is the only link about Arpad/Bjorn and Descartes in that they try to apply Arnold Van Gennep's tripartite phase of a ritual of passage (preliminal/separation, liminal/transition and postliminal/aggregation phases) with an era and the western civilization rather than one tribe in anthropology.

I used it as an introductory context that kicked off my thinking process on thoughts 'extension'.

[Bootless]

Thomassen explore the idea that the Lisbon earthquake might have been a liminal event that shook the western beliefs to their core, which prompted individuals to question the concept of reality at the time.

Really, this is the only link about Arpad/Bjorn and Descartes in that they try to apply Arnold Van Gennep's tripartite phase of a ritual of passage (preliminal/separation, liminal/transition and postliminal/aggregation phases) with an era and the western civilization rather than one tribe in anthropology.

I used it as an introductory context that kicked off my thinking process on thoughts 'extension'.

Yes. Culture has these moments:
Sinking of Titanic: a blow to optimism
WWII: a blow to thinking WWI was "the war to end all wars". "Maybe we need a new world order."
9/11: a blow to feelings of security. "Maybe New World Order isn't working as we expected."

Yes. Liminal moments: there's the before, the as it's happening, and the aftermath.

Szakolczai seems to propose novels, plays, movies can also be seen as liminal. Think the World before Star Wars and the World after Star Wars. Any blockbuster movie, No. 1 best selling book etc. can extend the definition of liminal events for society. (note: I haven't read the two books, I'm just going by what the summaries are that I quoted.)

There's a youtube video that I noticed, but haven't watched yet. If everyone watched it together that would be a significant liminal event. Or not.
Men, you NEED to read fiction

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

Szakolczai seems to propose novels, plays, movies can also be seen as liminal. Think the World before Star Wars and the World after Star Wars. Any blockbuster movie, No. 1 best selling book etc. can extend the definition of liminal events for society. (note: I haven't read the two books, I'm just going by what the summaries are that I quoted.)

[...]

Part of the reason I mention them is that I intend to make a research thread on an antithesis to their 'permanent liminality'. I'm not fond of Victor Turner's liminoid nor Bjorn's attempt with limivoid in regards to liminality in 'modern' civilization.

My current opinion on liminality is that if there isn't any transition between two 'stable state', then its not a liminal event. Also, I don't believe that 'permanent liminality' is possible, or rather, you could apply it by the 'fact' that everything is ever-changing, hence 'permanent' transition. But that wouldn't be helpful in any way me thinks.

Without going too far on that road since this thread is about 'Mind' possible 'extension', I think we are still in the transitory phase from our former state, to a new one. But as I've said above, I still need to better understands Arpad and Bjorn's arguments before tackling this.

[Bootless]

My current opinion on liminality is that if there isn't any transition between two 'stable state', then its not a liminal event. Also, I don't believe that 'permanent liminality' is possible, or rather, you could apply it by the 'fact' that everything is ever-changing, hence 'permanent' transition. But that wouldn't be helpful in any way me thinks.

Without going too far on that road since this thread is about 'Mind' possible 'extension', I think we are still in the transitory phase from our former state, to a new one. But as I've said above, I still need to better understands Arpad and Bjorn's arguments before tackling this.

My view on liminality is the same as what you currently have. I have strong feelings about it too.

For instance, while a Christian, I was totally against the idea of re-baptizing. It's like "what? The New life isn't what you expected? Do you think a new new life would be better, or new new new?"

For some reason I'm hearing philosophers and spiritual guides talking about psychedelics as a way to re-align a certain set view point or worldview. Well if that's what they see as liminal experience, fine, I guess. But now consider if someone ends up doing it over and over and over again? That would be perpetuating a chaos in their lives. No reordering so as to narrative create (toward the end of Joe Folley video) a stability.

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

For some reason I'm hearing philosophers and spiritual guides talking about psychedelics as a way to re-align a certain set view point or worldview. Well if that's what they see as liminal experience, fine, I guess. But now consider if someone ends up doing it over and over and over again? That would be perpetuating a chaos in their lives. No reordering so as to narrative create (toward the end of Joe Folley video) a stability.

While I think that psychedelics can be a shortcut to a liminal event, or a catalyst of sort, it is quite dangerous by its own right. Not only the lack of context, but also the lack of a 'guide' and 'purpose' in the journey can be fatal for both the 'mind' and the body.

Now, there's a difference between dabbling (a trip), and actually 'going on a journey'. Generally speaking, I tend to think that dabbling isn't enough to trigger a liminal event.

Furthermore, liminality brings forth both physical and psychological changes, it isn't as simple as experiencing something 'new', or having a 'never thought that before' thought, at least in my opinion.

The reason I'd like to eventually discuss 'permanent liminality' is because I believe the word 'liminality' has as much potential to become a 'garbage word' (that is, a word that has as many definition as there's people to define it, opposed to a more pejorative view) as the word 'spirit' or 'soul'. 

And that's what Arpad and Bjorn are doing. They are making up words like limivoid to try to force their view of our current era as 'permanent liminality'. Entertainment as nothing to do with liminality in my view. Trying to implement non transitory event as part of a liminal state just blurs the word's boundaries, and weaken its definition.

However, I do agree with them when they say modernity is a liminal phase, the difference is that I think we are still in it, it hasn't established itself as a permanent state. Or rather, it cannot, by definition.

Now, I've digressed quite a bit, so I'll try to tie back this discussion with the topic and say that while I've mentioned in the OP that thoughts seem to be 'localized' in the thinker's body, it isn't that obvious within a liminal event.

That also applies to dreams, or dreamlike states. Thinking about OOBE (Out Of Body Experience), while I haven't had any myself, it does seem to exhibits motion in space properties, while the body is lying still. That is, the 'Mind', and perception, move around.

[Bootless]

 I'll try to tie back this discussion with the topic and say that while I've mentioned in the OP that thoughts seem to be 'localized' in the thinker's body, it isn't that obvious within a liminal event.

That also applies to dreams, or dreamlike states. Thinking about OOBE (Out Of Body Experience), while I haven't had any myself, it does seem to exhibits motion in space properties, while the body is lying still. That is, the 'Mind', and perception, move around.

So if we have established a common understanding of liminality, let's look at Descartes' mind/body dualism:

According to Descartes, two substances are really distinct when each of them can exist apart from the other. Thus, Descartes reasoned that God is distinct from humans, and the body and mind of a human are also distinct from one another. He argued that the great differences between body (an extended thing) and mind (an un-extended, immaterial thing) make the two ontologically distinct. According to Descartes's indivisibility argument, the mind is utterly indivisible: because "when I consider the mind, or myself in so far as I am merely a thinking thing, I am unable to distinguish any part within myself; I understand myself to be something quite single and complete."
 
Moreover, in The Meditations, Descartes discusses a piece of wax and exposes the single most characteristic doctrine of Cartesian dualism: that the universe contained two radically different kinds of substances—the mind or soul defined as thinking, and the body defined as matter and unthinking. The Aristotelian philosophy of Descartes's day held that the universe was inherently purposeful or teleological. Everything that happened, be it the motion of the stars or the growth of a tree, was supposedly explainable by a certain purpose, goal or end that worked its way out within nature. Aristotle called this the "final cause", and these final causes were indispensable for explaining the ways nature operated. Descartes's theory of dualism supports the distinction between traditional Aristotelian science and the new science of Kepler and Galileo, which denied the role of a divine power and "final causes" in its attempts to explain nature. Descartes's dualism provided the philosophical rationale for the latter by expelling the final cause from the physical universe (or res extensa) in favor of the mind (or res cogitans). Therefore, while Cartesian dualism paved the way for modern physics, it also held the door open for religious beliefs about the immortality of the soul.

René Descartes

Descartes was working with data available to him at the time. Kepler was a contemporary. So he accepted his better theory of planetary motion over Copernicus' notion that orbits are perfect circles because God is perfect. But Psychology as we know it (conscious mind/unconscious mind) was not available to him, that's how he could consider the mind as indivisible.

And now we have Neurologists who pretty much have reached the consensus that OOBE are an illusion happening in the brain by chemicals and nervous impulses. 

Copying the Original Post so I don't get lost on what the topic is:

If time is an 'axis', then thoughts, at least, have 1D (linear) 'extension'. Still hypothetically speaking, if there were to be other 'dimensions/axis' aside the classical 3D (width, height and depth) from which physical matter has 'extension', thoughts could have more than 1D, they could start having 2D 'extension' (flat forms).

So basically, this thread is about discussing the possibility (or otherwise) that the 'Mind' might be physical/'extended' from specific perspectives that, I reckon, could be outside human's perception capabilities, or those were somehow closed/dropped during adaptation, or something.

 
The time element is rather interesting to me because of frequent Déjà vu and other symptoms of temporal displacement syndrome (non technical term that I coined about 40 years ago).

[IgnorantGod]

[...]

Descartes was working with data available to him at the time. Kepler was a contemporary. So he accepted his better theory of planetary motion over Copernicus' notion that orbits are perfect circles because God is perfect. But Psychology as we know it (conscious mind/unconscious mind) was not available to him, that's how he could consider the mind as indivisible.

And now we have Neurologists who pretty much have reached the consensus that OOBE are an illusion happening in the brain by chemicals and nervous impulses. 

[...]

That's fair in regards to Descartes.

As for OOBE, whether it is an illusion/dream or there's something more about it doesn't really matter, I think. I'd guess those that experience such still feel the motion. I'd also assume that their thoughts probably follow perception.

So if someone starts flying off somewhere, leaving the body, perception and thoughts would follow the 'mind' wandering.