Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20782] Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality Greetings Economists, Doyle The discussion thread is about opening up the concept of dogmatism through a concept called theory of another persons mind. The way I think dogmatism can be understood better is through examining disabled content in the term, how proximity issues are involved, how a theory of another's mind is a labor process that can be put to use in an architecture of social groups. So this is a meditation on a party structure that goes beyond an able bodied concept of organizing people, goes beyond the limitations of proximate or shop floor concepts of social groups. And in that I want to show some elements of the importance of feelings as a means of realizing new forms of working class organization. Chris Burford, Jim's 5 year old essay on Aspergers Syndrome is a very personal examination. The biggest qualification that could be made to it, I think, is the need for a social context. What many members of the intelligentsia struggle over internally are the internalised experiences of the processes of selection that make them members of the intelligentsia. It is a vital layer of modern capitalist society, and riddled with social contradictions. Not all of them are the fault of the intellectuals. ... Doyle I think one way that I would distinguish myself from your view Chris is that I am seeing how Jim is both talking about disability and being disabled rather than see his membership in the intelligentsia. So the part about him being a member of the intelligentsia does not matter to me. About 70% of disabled people are not employed. That is an important structure to capitalist economic definition of a working class people. There are two important ways that Jim talks about this disability. First he points very carefully at the contingent definition of the syndrome. Jim makes clear that a sense of the whole is not adequately defined by the categories that describe the syndrome as it is now understood in manuals of symptoms which is typical of science. This contingency of the whole of the disability is an extremely important marxist element of understanding class structure. To understand contingency and therefore the importance of disability perspectives I think it relevant to keep in mind what Richard Lewontin writes about biology and genetic structure, the Triple Helix, Gene Organism and Environment, Harvard Press, 2000 page 47, Darwin's alienation of the outside from the inside was an absolutely essential step in the development of modern biology. Without it, we would still be wallowing in the mire of an obscurantist holism that merged the organic and the inorganic into an unanalyzable whole Doyle This applies to class structure and organizations of the working class which understand workers in an able bodied holism. Dogmatism as a conceptual critique of the failure of sects to functionally work, rests upon a sense that a holism of able-bodied functioning exists in group structures which makes sects work when they work. In fact variation in human cognition reflects a need for varying cognitive methods in varying work related activities. A holism that ignores that variation obscures what is true forces that make up any human social group. Lewontin, page 75 The difficulty of applying the simple machine model to the study of organisms arises from three sources. Organisms are intermediate in size, they are internally heterogeneous in ways that are relevant to their functions, and they enter into complex causal relations with other heterogeneous systems. There are several consequences of these features that make the simple machine model inappropriate as a mode of understanding or of analysis. First, there is not a single and obvious way to partition an organism into organs that are appropriate for the causal analysis of different functions. Second, the organism is nexus of a very large number of weakly determining forces, no one of which is dominant. Third, the separation of causes and effects becomes problematical. Finally, organic processes have an historical contingency that prevents universal explanations. Chris Burford A degree of obsessionality is both a handicap and also a strength in certain areas. A lot of what Jim describes is no more than that. IMHO. It is clearly part of a self-regulatory system that is alive and well from what he described here. In classical marxist theory the intelligentsia is not a separate class because it does not have a separate relationship to the means of production, but it is an extremely important layer of society, which mostly supports the ideas and practice of the ruling class, but may face towards the mass of the working people. On their own, members of the intelligentsia may appear almost handicapped. In the wider social context they are now indispensible. Perhaps this is part of what Doyle means when he says getting away from able bodied thinking is very important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
Doyle writes: The discussion thread is about opening up the concept of dogmatism through a concept called "theory of another persons mind". Uta Frith (a German-born psychologist or psychiatrist based in London studying autism) applied the "theory of mind" theory to autism: those with autism cannot look at matters from another's perspective (or at least have a very hard time doing so). (Summarized by Stephen Edelson, Ph.D., "Theory of mind refers to the notion that many autistic individuals do not understand that other people have their own plans, thoughts, and points of view. Furthermore, it appears that they have difficulty understanding other people's beliefs, attitudes, and emotions." see http://www.autism.org/mind.html. It's also been used for studying chimps, who may or may not have a theory of mind.) If the common view that Asperger's syndrome is in the middle of a spectrum between classical (Kanner's) autism and "neurotypical" (so-called normal people) is true, then those with AS have a weaker theory of mind than neurotypicals and a stronger one than those with classical autism. (BTW, Tony Attwood, an English-born AS maven working in Australia, posits the autistic disorder spectrum as follows in his books: classic autism -- high-functioning autism -- Asperger's Syndrome -- loner -- neurotypical. In his lectures, he replaces "loner" by "professor." It's for laughs, but there's a lot of truth to it, especially at research-oriented universities. However, I think an AS-type culture develops at universities which encourages AS-type psychology to prevail even with neurotypicals.) ... There are two important ways that Jim talks about this disability. I have a visceral negative reaction to those who want to replace the word "disabled" with cutesy Pollyanna-type words like "differently-abled" or "handicapable," but in this case it may be appropriate. As Oliver Sachs writes (in AN ANTHROPOLOGIST ON MARS), people with disabilities often develop excessive capabilities in other ways that compensate for their disabilities. Or maybe they are just a little unbalanced, being weak on one spectrum but strong on another. People with AS have a social disability but are usually pretty strong on other spectra... ... Let me try to clarify what that is again through using Asperge's syndrome. It is hard for Jim to know another's mind in the sense of understanding feelings. ... it's important to understand that autism and AS are _developmental_ disabilities. That means that one's ability to "know another's mind" develops _slowly_ and incompletely compared to that of ordinary folks. It's not a yes/no thing, like flipping a switch but more of a delay. It also means that many with AS -- and some with hard-core autism -- can learn to live in "normal" society in an almost "normal" way. (This usually involves having a somewhat restricted life, to minimize the need to always have to adapt...) More precisely, the problem is that someone with autism or AS lacks the _intuitive_ feel for what others are thinking or feeling that ordinary folks have: they lack what Simon Baron-Cohen says is the inability to read the language of the eyes, the ability to read others' emotional states by the appearance of their eyes, and/or lack the ability to understand others' body language. However, someone with autism or AS can gain an _intellectual_ feel for what others are thinking or feeling. That's one reason why I study psychology (non-behaviorist, of course) and argue against those Marxists who pooh-pooh psychology. (Most NC economists are worse on this score, holding onto their non-psychology of utility maximization with dogmatic fervor.) One can also learn the language of the eyes and body language, but it takes time. It's easier for those with AS than for those with classical autism. in a separate message, Brad asks: Lest this list remain guilty of flatness of affect, how is your kid doing? I don't know if the list would be interested, but what I'll do is edit a message I just sent to a friend. He's in Florida with his grandparents and his cousin (who's also 10 years old). He's having a ball. He's very tall these days, only a few inches shorter than Fran [my wife]. His behavior is fine (when he's not tired, hungry, distracted, etc.), though we've had a lot of trouble with his teacher who is totally oriented toward behaviorism, ignoring how important his morale is. Luckily, she's moving on to another job. G goes to a special "nonpublic school" (i.e., independent from the public school, but all of the money comes from the public school system), one that is specifically aimed at dealing with kids who have poor "socialization." It's not like a voucher system or a school choice system at all, since the public school can't handle him and refuses to try in-house. (There's no choice.) His life is ruled by the IEP (the individualized education plan), agreed upon by both schools,
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
Greetings Economists, Chris Burfurd made an interesting reply. During the week I work. When a good reply comes along I can't get to it as fast as I would like. However, I will respond in a few days or less. If I had my druthers, I think Chris is someone I think who could make something more substantial out of the whole business surrounding "dogmatism". So I am hoping this thread can develop in depth. I will respond in a day or two. thanks, Doyle Saylor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
Doyle Saylor wrote: Greetings Economists, Doyle, I don't think you should speak of/to the disabled like this. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
At 12:20 AM 6/28/00 +0100, you wrote: Jim's 5 year old essay on Aspergers Syndrome is a very personal examination. The biggest qualification that could be made to it, I think, is the need for a social context. What many members of the intelligentsia struggle over internally are the internalised experiences of the processes of selection that make them members of the intelligentsia. It is a vital layer of modern capitalist society, and riddled with social contradictions. Not all of them are the fault of the intellectuals. A degree of obsessionality is both a handicap and also a strength in certain areas. A lot of what Jim describes is no more than that. IMHO. It is clearly part of a self-regulatory system that is alive and well from what he described here. According to the experts on this stuff, Asperger's syndrome is more than "obsessionality," though it involves having obsessions. It's also different from obsessive-compulsive disorder. As I understand AS, it involves a poor connection between the individual and his or her social environment, typically associated with a poor mind/body connection. For example, telling people over and over again about one's current obsessive topic (UFOs, railroad schedules, Star Wars, dinosaurs, or whatever) is closely connected with being unable to tell that others have already gotten the point or are bored with the topic or simply don't like being lectured to all the time. Also, it seems that the focus of an individual's mental resources is biased toward internal processing (thinking) as opposed to understanding other peoples' emotions and other mental states. This means that he or she can understand the topic extremely deeply or with surprising originality (Einstein, Bill Gates) or has a extremely great grasp of detail (the guys who know all the train schedules, called "trainspotters" in England). Hans Asperger himself pointed to the importance of both the problems associated with what is now called AS (lack of social connection, unhappiness, etc.) and the benefits of the syndrome (ability to concentrate on a single topic for a long time, etc.) He did so because he wrote in Nazi Austria and knew that if he didn't mention how folks with AS "helped the fatherland," they would likely be shipped to camps and/or offed. But this balanced perspective has recently become more generalized among the shrinks, so that many look for the positive side of all patients. I agree that the social context is highly relevant and that my little essay would be improved by adding it. (I rewrote it recently, but the editor insisted that it be shortened drastically, so I didn't do so.) I think there's a connection between one kind of societal alienation and Asperger's syndrome, since those people with AS are likely to look at the world differently than others and are so likely to be pushed into marginal occupations (including academia). This idea needs to be developed. I think that most of the intelligentsia probably don't have AS, but society encourages them to emulate AS behavior in many ways. Here "society" includes those with AS, who seem to dominate research-oriented universities and think-tanks like RAND or Los Alamos. An AS-type culture develops, just as a sociopathic culture develops in some lines of business. However, there's also a biological component, as is clear with my son's condition. Contrary to Freudians like Bruno Bettelheim, there is no reasonable theory for blaming Asperger's syndrome on the immediate social environment (the family). Writing in the 1940s and 1950s when he could get away with such nonsense, he blamed the "refrigerator" mother for driving kids into autism and has been repeatedly shown to be wrong. (I think that latter-day Freudians should become aware of people like Bettelheim and how they have abused their master's theory.) It is possible that class plays a role in biology, since environmental pollution hits the poor and working classes hardest and there seems to be a connection between pollution and autism (and thus between pollution and Asperger's, a milder version of autism). This is seen in concentrations of autism in New Jersey, where pollution is pretty high. Some think that childhood vaccines may cause autism, but there's no class dimension there that I can think of, except that people higher up the scale are _more_ likely to get childhood vaccinations. Those most likely to refuse the vaccines for their children are those most distrustful of the established power structure (and justly so). Though there's a lot of counter-culturalism in the middle classes, the ones refusing the vaccines seem concentrated at the bottom of the class system. So, ironically, the incidence of childhood diseases is likely to become even more concentrated among the poor and the working poor than it is already. So class is playing a strange role. I do think that the vaccine/autism connection should be
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
Well Hello, Mark Jones gets the point across to me this way, Greetings Economists, Doyle, I don't think you should speak of/to the disabled like this. Mark Jones Doyle You know what, I rather like you. You kind of grow on a person. By the way you wicked provoker, the last two weeks of my life have been the pinnacle of my life. I have found peace of mind in ways that I have never experienced. No magic formula, just felt like I wanted to tell you Mark. It makes me appreciate the conversation here a great deal. Each and every one of you. By the way, I try to be accurate and correct about what someone wants to call themselves, but sometimes I get twisted about writing down someones name. Chris I know your name is Burford. Doyle
Re: Re: Re: Dogmatism, and homosexuality
At 06:31 27/06/00 -0700, you wrote: Greetings Economists, Chris Burfurd asks what web page I got my quotes from. I would like to add another correction also. The book I quoted from is called "Sex Between Men", not just the subject matter. A history of male fucking since WWII. The web site is, http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS/as_chronicles.html These are Jim Devine's accounts mainly of the meaning of his life experience in a particular narrow range of disability. However, I want to emphasize again that this kind of disability shows us not to assume that feeling is central to human social systems. Human feeling is important in terms of the stickiness of human cohesion, but that as Jim points out in his accounts, kinds of labor processes are enhanced by a relative lack of understanding. And this getting away from able bodied thinking is very important in the Marxist sense of seeing the dialectical whole of economic systems. thanks, Doyle Saylor These essays are so courageously, and at times, ruthlessly personal, and the span of connections so great that it is hard to know whether a comment is relevant or merely tangential. Still on balance it seems better to make some response even if it is off key. Jim's 5 year old essay on Aspergers Syndrome is a very personal examination. The biggest qualification that could be made to it, I think, is the need for a social context. What many members of the intelligentsia struggle over internally are the internalised experiences of the processes of selection that make them members of the intelligentsia. It is a vital layer of modern capitalist society, and riddled with social contradictions. Not all of them are the fault of the intellectuals. A degree of obsessionality is both a handicap and also a strength in certain areas. A lot of what Jim describes is no more than that. IMHO. It is clearly part of a self-regulatory system that is alive and well from what he described here. In classical marxist theory the intelligentsia is not a separate class because it does not have a separate relationship to the means of production, but it is an extremely important layer of society, which mostly supports the ideas and practice of the ruling class, but may face towards the mass of the working people. On their own, members of the intelligentsia may appear almost handicapped. In the wider social context they are now indispensible. Perhaps this is part of what Doyle means when he says getting away from able bodied thinking is very important in the Marxist sense of seeing the dialectical whole of economic systems There is a very wide range of sexual communication. Indeed the word "intercourse" has an even wider meaning. It is only in developed capitalist societies that different types of sexual behaviour have been categorised. In any fundamental theoretical sense these categories should break down, just as Jim is right to note the relative and limited nature of diagnostic categories like Asperger's syndrome. An autistic spectrum may be linked to difficulties over a "theory of mind", to being able to discern human beings behind the outside phenomena, an enormously complicated task. In normal psychological interaction we experience each other perhaps at best only as part objects seeing and experiencing only a sub set of features that particularly resonate with our own psychological needs. This is not however all subjective idealism. This is the way human beings interact in actually engaging together to cope with the environment and to reproduce themselves materially. Older traditions of marxism have been seen as very dogmatic. But the Bolshevik emphasis on respect for certain principles and policies has a material relevance in creating a political force that changed the direction of history in 20th century. On balance I think the internet can create a degree of resonance among progressive people across the world, that does not have to be rigid or dogmatic, but network politics is not good at pointing in just one direction. Greater awareness of ourselves as individuals, with all our different concrete limitations may be a necessary part of a conscious process of collective interaction which adds up to a material force capable of changing the world. "Theory becomes a material force when it grips the masses" (Marx - to be dogmatic!). By a process of numerous approximations, perhaps that is beginning again to happen. Chris Burford London
