Eric, The question is whether you or Nick find the word "intimacy" to have
a meaning -- and if so what is it. As I said to Nick in what was apparently
a private message, I'll accept "No" in answer to the question: does
"intimacy have a meaning?" What's your answer?
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:16 PM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> *"But what is it to know the subjective experience of another ? You ask
> me about my experience, and I tell you? Do you have to trust my account?"*
>
> Well.... the whole crux of psychology ("small p" psychology?) is that your
> account is suspect, and I would be a fool to accept it naively. Your
> ability to know yourself is suspect (what Henriques calls your "Freud
> Filter") and your ability to acknowledge what you know in an authentic
> fashion is suspect (what Henriques calls your "Rogerian Filter") and of
> course whatever you say encounters the same hurdles in "the mind" of the
> listener.
>
> We all recognize "sharing subjective experience" and "intimacy" as more
> than this. There are people who claim to tell us about their experience,
> but with whom we feel no sense of connection.
>
> *"It just struck me that intimacy as I understand that term depends on an
> assumption of subjective experience"*
>
> Well.... The question is, as Nick has said, what you mean by "subjective",
> right? If you mean that the world looks differently to different people, in
> the literal sense, of a physical body/mind experiencing certain things,
> then it is fine to talk about subjective experience *and* about coming to
> understand the subjective experience of another person. To be intimate with
> someone, as you present it, would be to understand, a person's quirky way
> of experiencing the world to such an extent that you could share in their
> view, i.e., you could come, at least from time to time, to find yourself
> with "their" quirks rather than "your own."
>
> If, on the other hand, when you talk about "subjective", you mean that
> there is a ghost-soul somewhere, experiencing a Cartesian theater in its
> own unique way, then you have a problem. (The problem isn't the one you
> might think, however! It matters not, for this discussion, whether such a
> thing exists.) The problem is that such a view rules out the intimacy you
> are thinking of in a much, much more dogmatic way than what you might worry
> about from Nick. If *that* is what you mean by "subjective experience"
> then it is *by definition* unsharable. You cannot possibly get yourself
> into another person's Cartesian theater, and you will never know if
> anything you experience bares even *the slightest* resemblance to what
> they experience. It is a deep rabbit hole.
>
> Eric
>
>
> -----------
> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
> Lab Manager
> Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning
> American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A
> 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
> Washington, DC 20016
> phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190
> email: echar...@american.edu
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net
> > wrote:
>
>> Yep! I didn’t feel I should name names.
>>
>>
>>
>> How did the wedding go? There was a point around 4pm when I was kicking
>> myself about bailing; and then another point, around 8 pm, when I was
>> wolfing hydrocodone and thanking God that I had.
>>
>>
>>
>> Debby must be exhausted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
>> Wimberly
>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 21, 2016 12:25 PM
>>
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick,
>>
>> I hope I am the "other FRIAMMER" to which you referring.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frank Wimberly
>> Phone
>> (505) 670-9918
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2016 9:11 PM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Russ,
>>
>>
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Intimacy is … not about just about knowing something about someone that
>> isn't generally known, e.g., where the person went to elementary school or
>> her mother's maiden.* *Intimacy has to do with the kinds of things that
>> are known, in particular with knowing about the subjective experience of
>> another person. At least that's how I would describe it -- and that's why I
>> raised the question.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, I don’t have a lot of trouble agreeing with the first part of this
>> statement. Some unknowns are inherently more intimate than others.
>>
>>
>>
>> But what is it to know the subjective experience of another ? You ask me
>> about my experience, and I tell you? Do you have to trust my account?
>> Well, if you ask *me*, I assert that I, for one, DON’T. One answer to
>> this quandary is to simply assert that Russ Abbot has subjective experience
>> and Nick Thompson does not! Perhaps ,N.T. is the victim of a form of
>> autism that deprives him of that self-conscious that for you defines the
>> human condition. And there’s an end to it, eh? At this point, one of my
>> most dedicated opponents in this discussion, a former graduate student,
>> always say, “So it’s OK to kill you eat you, right?”
>>
>>
>>
>> I am going to invoke the academic Scoundrel’s Defense here, and attach a
>> link to another paper
>> <http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/Texts/1990-1994/The_many_perils_of_ejective_anthropomorphism.pdf>.
>> “Ejective anthropomorphism” is the idea that we come to know animal mental
>> states by seeing an isomorphism between some feature of an animals behavior
>> and some behavior of our own and then, since we know infallibly the
>> internal causes of our behavior, inferring the internal causes of the
>> animal’s. The whole argument hangs, of course, on the notion that we know
>> why we do things by some special direct knowledge… “privileged access”.
>> The article is a bit of a slog, but if skim judiciously until you get to
>> the section on “privileged access”, 67, then you might have enough energy
>> to read the argument against that notion and be convinced.
>>
>>
>>
>> Russ, I think in our correspondence before you have perhaps taken the
>> position that it simply is the case that each of us has a private
>> consciousness. That is a position taken by another FRIAMMER and I find it,
>> oddly, the most winning argument. “I choose to start here!”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com
>> <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 10:33 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about
>> just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known,
>> e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden
>> name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web
>> sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the
>> *kinds *of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the
>> subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would
>> describe it -- and that's why I raised the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear John and Russ,
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, you question is an example of itself. Who is best qualified to
>> explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question
>> about etiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny
>> subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might
>> make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing
>> particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM
>> could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder
>> at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and
>> condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question
>> can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can’t find cc of the
>> published vsn at the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it’s about having some
>> others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would
>> argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it’s a metaphor. But
>> then, I am old.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of John Kennison
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
>> >
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>>
>>
>>
>> One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion
>> and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of
>> subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be
>> discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some
>> experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what
>> we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove
>> subjectivity.
>>
>>
>>
>> --John
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Russ Abbott [
>> russ.abb...@gmail.com]
>>
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM
>>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>
>> Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>>
>>
>>
>> We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting
>> frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly).
>>
>>
>>
>> It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it
>> -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private)
>> subjective experiences with another.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has
>> something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as
>> subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for
>> intimacy?
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ
>> Abbott
>> *Sent:* Friday, February 19, 2016 10:33 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Intimacy is not necessarily about sex, but it is also not about
>> just about knowing something about someone that isn't generally known,
>> e.g., where the person went to elementary school or her mother's maiden
>> name. It's more than just being able to answer the sorts of questions web
>> sites ask as a way to establish one's identity. Intimacy has to do with the
>> *kinds *of things that are known, in particular with knowing about the
>> subjective experience of another person. At least that's how I would
>> describe it -- and that's why I raised the question.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:39 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear John and Russ,
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, you question is an example of it self. Who is best qualified to
>> explain the basis of Nick's denial of subjectivity? Is this a question
>> about aetiology: I.e., the causal history of Nick's coming to deny
>> subjectivity? Or is it a question of what rational arguments Nick might
>> make for his denial of subjectivity. Note that there is nothing
>> particularly private about either of those forms of the question. FRIAM
>> could get to work on answering them and Nick could stand aside and wonder
>> at the quality and perspicacity of your answers. My own most recent and
>> condensed and approachable attempt to answer both versions of the question
>> can be found in the manuscript that is attached. I can’t find cc of the
>> published vsn at the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will think about the intimacy issue. I think it’s about having some
>> others who know things about you that are not generally known. I would
>> argue that when you get into bed with somebody naked, it’s a metaphor. But
>> then, I am old.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of John Kennison
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 2:30 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com
>> >
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>>
>>
>>
>> One thing I wonder about (or perhaps have forgotten) in this discussion
>> and Nick's denial is what the denial is based on. Is the absence of
>> subjectivity supposed to be a scientific fact? If so, we should be
>> discussing the experimental foundations of this fact. I have read of some
>> experiments which seem to indicate that subjectiviity is not exactly what
>> we (or what I) used to think it is --but which do not seem to disprove
>> subjectivity.
>>
>>
>>
>> --John
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> From: Friam [friam-boun...@redfish.com] on behalf of Russ Abbott [
>> russ.abb...@gmail.com]
>>
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:27 PM
>>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>
>> Subject: [FRIAM] Subjectivity and intimacy
>>
>>
>>
>> We've had discussions on and off about subjectivity -- with me getting
>> frustrated at Nick's denial thereof (if I understood him correctly).
>>
>>
>>
>> It occurred to me recently that intimacy is defined -- as I understand it
>> -- in terms of subjectivity, i.e., the sharing of one's (most private)
>> subjective experiences with another.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm wondering what Nick thinks about this and whether anyone else has
>> something to say about it. In particular, if there is no such thing as
>> subjective experience, does that imply in your view that the same goes for
>> intimacy?
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
