Intro to Rad Constructs

I found von Glasersfeld’s article stimulating. I particularly enjoyed the comment that the unanswerable question whether, or to what extent, any picture our senses "convey" might correspond to the "objective" reality. I was delighted to discover that this is not taken as “fact,” that it is still the crux of all theory of knowledge. What properties objects are assigned by our senses – how real, how accurate are these sensory stipulations? It is not at all obvious that sense-defined determinants do not possess other properties beyond our stipulative definitions, properties that are not perceived by the senses of the stipulators in general (Western majority). Wondering what I might be missing – what might be beyond the capacity of my senses to perceive is a major focus in the journey of my life.
Neuroscientists Trey Hedden and John Gabrieli of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research recent study provides the first neurological evidence that cultural difference extend to brain activity patterns. “People from different cultures use their brains differently to solve basic perceptual tasks. They saw a difference in higher-processing brain areas, not in the parts of the brain involved in early vision. People from different cultures don’t see the world differently, but they think differently about what they see." American brains had to work harder at relative judgments, while East Asian brains found absolute judgments more challenging. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22729220/
If cultural perception is the basis of one’s composition of knowledge, what will be the unifying element for universal “truth”? Whose “truth” becomes “The Truth”?
And then came Kant, shifting our experiences relative to time and space – challenges our senses, our perceptions, and our minds. Perception, interpretation, knowledge, constructs, Truth.
Philosophy - I’m loving it – its definitely not boring!

Theories of Knowledge

Von Glasersfeld’s "An Introduction to Radical Constructivism” is well seasoned with wit and "isms". I appreciated the basic nature, simplicity, and logic of many of his ideas. I effortlessly agreed with those that I have long held, intuitively and innately, though not cognitively – previously never having thought about them in that manner.

Dominant beliefs in my personal philosophy of life that I have often pondered are:

“The only aspect of that "real" world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints.”

“Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, proves no more and no less than just that it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the "objective" world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world.”

“It tells us nothing -- and cannot tell us anything -- about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience.”

“The proponents of an idea, as a rule, explain its non-acceptance differently than do the critics and opponents.”
Simple, Logical and True.

“Our knowledge is useful, relevant, and viable - if it stands up to our experience and enables us to make predictions, to bring about, or, avoid certain phenomena.” Simple, Logical and True.

“Because our ways of experiencing are what they are, we cannot possibly conceive of an unexperienced world.”

I have never been able to conceive what is inconceivable to me, without first being exposed to the possibility of its potential existence. It is my experience that communication of an idea by another - through the exchange of thoughts, use of senses, or exposure to stimuli always occurs prior to contemplation of what had previously been unimaginable.

“The epistemological problem - how we acquire knowledge of reality, and how reliable and "true" that knowledge might be” certainly troubles me. We use thoughts (some resulting from experiential exposure) to construct ideas, and ideas to construct knowledge, and knowledge to construct reality. Since reality is fabricated out of (sometimes competing) individual or group constructs, how do we determine whose reality is the true reality? And what if the true reality is as yet inconceivable?”

Presently, we know with certainty, of the existence of “the unknowable.” Knowledge is a prerequisite for defining reality. Therefore, it is presently impossible to suppose any definition of reality to be true.

I agree with von Glasersfeld, “Our knowledge can never be interpreted as a picture or representation of that real world, but only as a key that unlocks possible paths for us. A key fits if it opens the lock. The fit describes a capacity of the key, not of the lock.”

“If we take seriously the evolutionary way of thinking, it could never be organisms or ideas that adapt to reality, but it is always reality which…inexorably annihilates what is not fit to live. In nature, a lack of fitness is invariably fatal; philosophers, however, rarely die of their inadequate ideas.”

Could this be why there are so many Philosophical Schools of Thought and so many philosophers?

After reading this article, I know for certain, that I am not a metaphysical realist. I can embrace some of the components of radical constructivism’s theory of knowledge. However, at present, I lack sufficient data to consider limiting myself to any one "ism" or category philosophical.

Zoos and Humans

I had never considered zoos pornographic. After reading Acampora’s article, I agree that many, but not all, zoos can be viewed as pornographic. I see some significant differences between the nature of erotic (porn industry) and biotic (zoo industry) entertainment. There is a certain “economy of desire” which exists human-human in the porn industry, and human-animal in the zoo industry - relationship shortcuts.
The presumption of mastery and control occurs in both industries. For this reason, some zoos can be classifed as pornographic. However, I am unwilling to classify all zoos as inherently pornographic. At times, profound, fulfilling exchanges, however brief, can occur between humans and animals in zoos, even those meeting certain criteria of pornography.

Human-animals have dominated and radically altered the environment of “wild” animals in their “natural habitats,” precipitously so, since the industrial revolution. Acampora claims that in zoos, “The very structure of the human-animal encounter is disrupted, and the interaction that is sought—encountering the animals—becomes impossibility as the “real” animals disappear and the conditions for seeing are undermined.” I would posit that industrialization, globalization, human poverty, and human greed have curtailed opportunity for true interaction between humans and “wild” animals. Their “natural habitats” exist only in the most remote, humanly –inhospitable environments. Remoteness offers no protection to the animals, or their habitats, from human-created alterations, like pollution and global warming. Doesn’t this also create structural inauthenticity - despite the best intentions of humanity? Couldn’t we also consider the proclivity of human beings to alter habitats of nonhuman beings within the structure of possessive consciousness?

Acampora stated that his argument focuses on what the institutions of animal-keeping, particularly the zoo, reveal about us and our possibilities for relating to other human and nonhuman animals alike. Does it reveal the same, or different possibilities/limitations for relating to other human and nonhuman animals as the human domination of the environment?

How can we ethically argue against the structural inauthenticity of zoos, and the consideration of live beings within the structure of possessive consciousness, without applying this same logical morality to the reverse stewardship perpetrated by some humans against all living beings?

Nature, Humans included.

Attending college is absolutely what I need to be doing. Wednesday, in logic class I learned about the Principle of Interpretive Charity. I had never heard of that principle. It has a Bhuddist essence, and appears to be the best way to live among linguistic communicators.
Then, in Nature of Human Nature, class discussion of the inclusion of humankind as equally natural as nature, sent my mind into turmoil. I was reluctant to give up my preferred catorgarization of humans as unnatural. I went from thinking DJ didn’t understand nature, to realizing he was right. Component, natural ingredients synthesized by humankind into products, logically make these products natural. There are the erratic, occassional, non-deliberate significant acts of natural destruction, usually confined to specific regions of the planet. Then there are the deliberate, human-caused, ongoing, planet-wide, destructive acts that are also natural. I followed a link DJ offered to the journal of Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. and found this gem on their site.

We regard nature as having intrinsic value.
We see humanity as part of nature.
We are nature’s self-transforming creature.

Humankind becomes de-vilifyed, no longer the destroyer of nature, we become nature’s self-transforming creature.

Exposure to new ideas, exposure to different ways of looking at tightly held, old ideas, and the opportunity to be gently supported through internal shifts of personal, imperfect views of the world, are the true blessing and value of a college education.

"Zoos and Eyes"

My first zoo experience was a grammar school field trip to the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. I was deeply traumatized by the horrific condition of the animals and their environment. My next zoo-like experience came a decade later when I visited the San Diego Wild Animal Park. People were confined inside a monorail. The park was artificially divided into regions representing the world’s ecosystems. Animals were grouped according to the region where they would normally be found – except predators were arificially separated from their prey. I was delighted with the concept of confining the people instead of the animals.
My next zoo experience came about a decade later at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. The enclosures I could see were clean, but too tiny for any mammal. I remember the tigers and the wolves. I thought they all looked depressed. I had an amazing interspecies experience with a silver back gorilla who offered to share his meal with me. We were separated by a sheet of glass. He repeatedly tapped the glass with his green beans and carrot pieces while I held my hand against the glass. I remember being amazed at his hands, his fingers, and his eyes. His graciousness couldn’t mask his sadness. I repeatedly apologized to him about his circumstances, but I had no solution for his plight. I was both exhilerated and anguished by this zoo experience.
At the New England Aquariam in Boston, a seal and I shared a brief encounter that I enjoyed. But again, the enclosure was unacceptably tiny. I went to Sea World, and hated it. I went to Busch Garden, and Disney’s Animal Kingdom. These places were considered among the best zoos and parks. I found them depressing. Unable to enjoy them the way most of the public seemed to be, I thought there must be something wrong with me. These animals have been objectified to such an extreme that most human spectators do not recognize their suffering. There seems to be no innate human compassion for the suffering of their fellow creatures.

This year I went to an animal park in Quebec, where the human spectators were confined to their vehicles and following an assigned route. Sighting of particular species was not guaranteed. Time of visit, season, weather, and the nature of the species, are factors affecting potential sightings. The animals have sufficient assigned territory to avoid human eyes, but I don’t know at what cost to them. We watched cars and the bus choose to keep moving instead of waiting to see if animals would come into sight. For many human spectators, there was a real impatience with, and intolerance of, the natural needs and rituals of the animals. This clearly was what Acampora was speaking of, those people had come to be amused, entertained. The animals were objectified, valueless. The spectator's experience of viewing was all that had value here.

“Zoos and Eyes” validated my experience with these zoos. I agree with many of Ralph Acampora’s statements supporting his argument that zoos are pornagraphic. Modern zoos are not healthy for the animals or the spectators. It would be optimum if there was opportunity for interspecies encounters, if it was a voluntary encounter for all parties. I would not want to never have the opportunity to encounter extirpated species, or non-native species. I will always cherish and be saddened by my encounter with the silver back, and the seal. I must question some of my assumptions of what I have seen in the Quebec park. As you can see from one of my coyote pictures and one of my wolf pictures taken there, sometimes the animals do choose to make eye contact with the human spectators.

Practice of Marx's Theory?

I agree, in theory, with Marx’s Historical Economic Thesis. I see the benefit of effecting change in an organic, evolutionary flow. Only organic, evolutionary processes could produce true, complete, and lasting change. I agree with that theory.

As DJ said in class, organic, evolutionary, human processes take hundreds of years. Humankind requires multiple generations for those within the superstructure to effect the necessary change within the base.

I worry that neither the planet, nor any of its species, will survive intact long enough for that evolutionary change to occur. We’ve lost so many species already; many more are on the brink. Pollution, climate change, and economic globalization, the base’s newest version of colonialism, have already destroyed complete ecosystems, and cultures. The greedy, global base should be prevented from destroying any more environments, any more species, or more people. How can that be done without harming any life?

I do not see how Marx’s theory can be put into practice in time. The base is destroying the superstructure. The base’s existence is ultimately linked to the existence of the superstructure. Is the base’s destruction of the superstructure, and its consequent self-destruction, Marx’s vision of organic, evolutionary restructuring?

While I’m a true fan of the metaphysical worldview, I deeply love some aspects of the natural physical world. I am also fond of certain convenient, or enjoyable, manufactured objects. If the base keeps moving at its current pace, the physical realm will disappear. Only the metaphysical realm will remain.

If this is the practice of Marx’s theory, I think it requires an addendum.

"Why Work? Marxism and Human Nature "

Most of the time, what we say and do is a reflection of the way we produce. Society judges people by their productivity; people perceived as not productively contributing to society, have less value than producers do. Unfortunately, productively contributing to society is a subjective concept, standardized by the powerful elite of the society.

I agree that most individuals often regard society’s perception of them, as a true reflection of who they are, and what their value is. I think this is true all of the time for most people, and at least some of the time for everyone.

Caregivers of humankind’s offspring – homemakers, and educators, responsible for producing the next generation of producers, by proxy, are undervalued. Their manufactory relationship to incomplete, and therefore, substandard producers, i.e., children, and college students, renders their final products as insufficient. Relatively few professors become exceptions, usually because of influential works they publish, rather than the number of successful producers they manufacture. Then, society judges them as producers of particular works, not the next generation of producers. Their works may influence an aspect of the manufacturing process (education). Society now views the published work as their product. Society no longer evaluates them on their former product, students. Disassociated from society’s undervalued product, their position in the superstructure is raised.
This defies logic, even from the p.o.v. of the base. Children are a composite production of multiple factors of both nature, and nurture. From Marx’s p.o.v., it defies both logic and reason.

Those providing for people too old, or too incapacitated, to produce for Marx’s base, are, also by proxy, undervalued by society. I view caregivers, educators, children, and the disenfranchised, as victims of Marx’s base. This is my personal view of capitalistic societies, especially the U.S..

All those we would consider moral patients, are considered by Marx’s base as unvalued, disposable products.

I think this is the foundational concept supporting, legitimizing, and maintaining the dominance of the base over the superstructure and everything in the material.