>” There is neither a reference to imitation nor mimesis in CP. I am a bit >relieved.”
Stephen, I regard Peirce as the Isaac Newton of mind science (that’s a compliment). However… to really test one’s theory of Mind, one needs to test their firstness. And to do this, one needs to immerse themselves into culturally alien contexts, and then observe how their motivations change with said re-immersion. I mean, a lifestyle change. Up and relocate, maybe speak a new language. And that means incorporating the assumptions of your new locale, tune into the narratives of your new surroundings… i.e., imitation. You need to become the people that you want to understand. You need to imitate them. It’s the difference between theory and practice. That’s why an academic focus on theory alone is never enough. You need to become amazed at how your motivations have changed with your re-immersions. That’s why the importance of imitation can never be appreciated when confined to within a single academic or cultural context alone… it is perceived as “real” because its core narratives are never questioned, even when you think you are questioning them… how can you question a narrative while using the very narrative that you are questioning? You can’t question your culture’s assumptions from an armchair. You will never be amazed seated in an armchair. sj From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 1:05 PM To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nurture and imitation as pragmatism There is neither a reference to imitation nor mimesis in CP. I am a bit relieved. Harold Blom is salient on the subject but it is not, I think, any more lasting that some of his other ideas. Borderline gossip. As to the subject as worth delving into, I delved for years in the fields of Rene Girard and finally emerged with this valedictory sonnet: Mimesis Jesus can this compass truth As Oedipus and chums and geigenwelt Once seemed a way of parsing in my youth Before Girardian influence was felt What minds so compass all reality All things to stated causes they reduce What story can compel us just to see A single vision our mimetic noose I'll take the Bard to be our still-best guide And Jesus as our best iconoclast And never more behind a theory hide Or seek on earth a premise that will last I'm free at last for I have finally found There's nothing I can wrap my mind around From WINNING THE WAR WITHIN amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 6:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: List, following on from our thread on "Culture wires the brain", I want to look more closely at imitation (mimesis, knowing how to be) as a basic form of pragmatism. It now surprises me that something as fundamental and sweeping as imitation goes under everyone's noses, throughout academia, barely noticed. This bears testimony to the power of a pre-existing narrative blinding us to the obvious. We are so immersed within the "because genes" mythology that we fail to see the imitation that precedes it... the imitation that led to its acceptance and subsequent popularization. "But what about the genes?" we reflexively ask. The idea of imitation as a genetically determined adaptive trait (natural selection) has it seriously the wrong way around. Forget the genes. They are clearly very important, certainly with respect to biology and inheritance of physical traits. They certainly impact on our predispositions. But I suggest that genes/DNA are better understood in the context of momentum (habituation), predisposition, and resistance to change... it is a fundamental mistake to conflate their correlation with causation. But it's obvious when you think it through. Role models (as cultural attractors), the company we keep. Gender roles depend on imitation within the context of mind-body predispositions. We imitate accents, whether we like them or not, even when they make us cringe. Jesus told his followers to imitate him. Social insects, like ants, perish rapidly when kept in isolation, without any fellow ants to imitate. The domestication of animals relies on their imitation of human civility. Feral children (children raised by wild animals) imitate their "adoptive parents" to become impossible to assimilate into "normal" society later... the video of Oxana Malaya (neglected but not strictly feral), available online, provides compelling insight into the power of imitation, with respect to the dogs that nurtured her. Imitation is so fundamental, so comprehensive, so sweeping, but we don't see it because we are swayed by the very illusions that are derived from it. We assume these illusions to be "just reality as it is, what is there to question?" Of course for some critters, imitation does not seem to be that crucial... turtles that hatch and make a dash for the open ocean... turtles safely cocooned in a thick shell don't need to imitate anyone, they survive just fine. What about other non-social animals and insects? What price do they pay for not having models to imitate? Might mimesis (mimicry) be a substitute for some of them, like insects that look like leaves? Richard Dawkins correctly reminds us of the arbitrariness of religion. If one were born into Islam, they would be Muslim. If one were born into Christianity, they become Christians. And both have been known to fight to the death for their arbitrary truth that derives from imitation. He's right. And of course, the precious irony... Dawkins himself fails to see the imitation that accounts for his faith in the selfish gene... despite the selfish gene's obvious violation of the entropy problem. The onus of proof of the Neo-Darwinists remains outstanding, because they've not taken seriously the entropy problem (e.g., Shannon entropy). Do primitive cultures have a better understanding of entropy than we do? Not in theory. But maybe intuitively. That's why they invented their gods, and why they will continue to invent their gods to explain all this amazing complexity that they cannot accept happened by dumb luck. Neo-Darwinists, however, are perfectly happy with their dumb-luck hypothesis, smugly secure that they have the One True answer, and they don't even think that there's a problem. Islam, meet Darwin. Nature/nurture? The evidence supporting "nature" as first-cause is lacking. There is no "because genes". I'm going to stick with "nurture" (knowing how to be) as primary cause. Peirce explored the Fixation of Belief. It might pay to review his topic in the context of this discussion. I wonder what Peirce would say about imitation-as-pragmatism, were he alive today. sj ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
