A series of short essays reflecting on a few of the early points of the following interview from the YouTube channel Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal (& Peter J. Glinos); particularly those relating to religion and consciousness:
0:32 Chomsky’s views on consciousness and free will (and marijuana)
I have to wonder how much the fact that he never used marijuana affects his view on consciousness. Also are we to assume that because he doesn’t smoke pot, he also doesn’t drink? And if so then why? What is the relationship between intoxication and the analytical mind? Perhaps the least significant question of the bunch, but it hasn’t really been answered either. What’s most significant about this response is that Chomsky expresses his (stated before) sort of ambiguity as to the nature of “materialism”. On the one hand, he says no such clear definition exists. Then he explains what “we mean” when we say “materialism”. According to Chomsky it’s “anything we more or less understand”. A fair enough definition. Chomsky also defines “consciousness” as “our window into the world and into ourselves”. A rather poetic metaphor, though I’m hungry for more. I’ll further divide consciousness into three “necessary” aspects, perception, awareness, and substance. Let’s get metaphysical.
First, let’s take the most basic and unambiguous aspect of consciousness, which is the immediate experience of perception itself. This is what we, and other animate beings experience via our senses. The question comes to mind about whether or not perception requires the second aspect of “awareness”. I’ll suggest that perception only becomes “conscious” once awareness is accompanying it. To our knowledge this feature belongs to anamalia alone. There is no evidence that organisms such as plants can be conceived of as “conscious beings”, as while they may “sense” in the sense of responding to physiological stimulus, they are not to our knowledge aware that they are “sensing”. Therefore we would not describe them as “conscious beings”. Furthermore within the animal kingdom there are different degrees of consciousness. Some rudimentary, others more complex. A significant sub-category seemingly unique to humans would be metacognition.
The third category I mention in terms of consciousness is that of “substance”, the most metaphysical of the three, as it is under this category that I describe the phenomena in more symbolic terms. The substance of consciousness is the information itself, that which is requiring of interpretation by the conscious (sentient, aware) subject. In this sense, any “material” aspect of existence may be described as “consciousness” in that it represents information in “concrete” perceptible form. It’s worth mentioning that “substances of consciousness” also interact with each other, as the “material (understandable) world” relies on a complex of interactions. Without this final category, there is to our knowledge no “consciousness” for the human subject.
Noam Chomsky, rather preceptively acknowledges that “most of what is going on in our mind is completely inaccessible to consciousness. In Freudian psychoanalysis this would be included in the unconscious mind (ID drives, biological maintenance, preconscious etc). I imagine this unconscious-mind interacts via language (primordial and socio-culturally developed) and helps produce dreams, desires, and emotions. The following question brings to mind the atomic structure of existence in relation to consciousness and the question of whether or not consciousness is in some way ontologically foundational. And this is where Chomsky’s unclear notion of materialism comes in, the impossibility of explanation.
The following question concerns free-will, a subject Chomsky doesn’t seem terribly enthused to explore since “science” tells us nothing about it. Certainly we can chose to lift our fingers up or down, or at least there is an awareness that we have such a desire before we commit to the action. I would dig even deeper into this subject and question whether or not our desires are our own. Of course, it seems absurd to ask, since how could our own desires not belong to us? What I’m getting at here though, and I hope I’m not being naive in my provocation, but if we are the primary source, and originators of drive, how do we know that those unconscious impulses we’re unaware of, aren’t the true “us” making the decisions, rather than what we are conscious of? Furthermore, in terms of the more complicated drives that guide our will, how do we account for the social aspect of being human? We are after-all social animals, existing in relation to our environment and one another. We cannot derive desire purely from internal inspiration (desire as opposed to pre-lingual ID). Dare I suggest the question of free-will is a bit more complicated than moving ones finger.
The question inherently leads to a discussion about the transcendental, as it relates with Chomsky’s own espoused atheism, which inherently begs the question, “What is the material world?” Chomsky recounts the centuries old debate between the great scientists of the seventeenth century over the nature of the “material world”. The “mechanical science philosophy” of enlightenment Europe had this idea that the world was a machine, much like a clock or any other automated mechanism. I suppose this is the root of Chomsky’s atheism. Galileo (and others) suggested the theory could not be considered science if not demonstrable through the creation of a machine that could duplicate this “world machine”. Of course, until this day no such machine exists and the question has fallen somewhat into obscurity. Furthermore the question of the transcendental for Chomsky is by implication that which we cannot include within established theories. This all is interesting, though points toward the need for a “better philosophy” and way of understanding the purpose of science. What reasons must justify our conception of truth? Chomsky implies that if we don’t understand, or don’t have the means to, its better we consider it conjecture. A fair assessment though not incredibly useful as it pertains to philosophy, in relation to the creative, exploratory nature of our kind. Without reason, humans invent one. I believe this may be the case even for those who take the proposed Chomskian logic to it’s absolute end, and this is how we make our way to the question of G-D.
6:04 Views on “God” (do you believe in it? how do you define it?)
It appears immediately to Curt Jaimungal that in Chomsky’s response to the question of the transcendental (vs material) origin of consciousness, taken to its end could imply a kind of agnosticism toward both “materiality” and the “transcendental”. If so, what does that say about G-D? Chomsky again, rather preceptively begs the question, “What exactly are we talking about when we say “G-D?” A question I’ve often asked in such discussion, as the definition is extremely necessary. Peter J. Glinos attempts to give more concise parameters, positing a kind of philosophical G-D of the ideal principles that “we should abide by.” Rather than give definitive characteristics to the concept of G-D, Glinos relies on an analogical explanation of why the the Name (G-D) might be useful, the claim that “a coin that’s lost its face has lost its value”.
“We all have principles,” Chomsky responds, then explaining some common human values. Against the “coin” analogy Chomsky suggests the name you give these ideals shouldn’t have any affect on their value. Chomsky here rather easily makes clear how the use of terminology isn’t particularly relevant. This is actually part of what made the comic conclusion of Stephen Colbert’s “Nothing interview” with Lawrence Krause so profound for me. By any other name THEY’RE (G-D) just as sweet. Still, a clear and concise definition of G-D escapes the interview.
In the Abrahamic tradition there is only ONE G-D, who is wholly other than the material universe. At the same time THEIR existence appears to pervade all that exists. The Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina postulates an ontological foundation in which G-D is considered “the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud)” and source of all existence. Typically us intelligent yet contingent beings relate with G-D in the abstract, understanding THEM through negative theology or as a philosophical abstraction (Prime Mover). In defining THEM concisely though the question of whether (or not) THEY share in consciousness seems crucial. If we’re talking about a personal deity it seems G-D must at least be aware, even if not “All-Knowing”. If G-D is just a philosophical concept on the other hand, THEY are a concept that “thinks for Itself”. This is to say that even if THEY appear in our own minds, THEY function as an independent entity, perhaps mechanically producing restraints and allowances (Super-Ego). This “personal vs philosophical” dichotomy of course does not exclude the possibility of both.
8:02 Chomsky’s views on Moral Relativism vs Objectivism
Does Chomsky believe in Objective morality? The simple answer is yes, or so it seems. He doesn’t believe necessarily that there are a set of “true rules” which are always useful for every potential human society but he does believe (against moral relativism), that there are limits to what we can say is good or bad, as widely spread as such systems of morality might appear. I essentially agree. No matter what society it is, rules and regulations are produced. Furthermore they can be logically justified within their context.
Furthermore, certain norms are impossible to exist. If for instance what is considered “murder” became normal, “society” as we typically understand it would fundamentally cease to exist. There have been societies that practiced cannibalism under certain circumstances. Those same societies had rules against killing for its own sake. This suggests that while the consumption of human flesh may have been acceptable, something in human reason, and/or empathy forces human societies to reject murder. This isn’t to suggest that there aren’t individuals within a society that are unconcerned about morals or ethics. We have after-all people in our own society we call “anti-social” with the assumption that they shouldn’t be functioning in such an anti-social manor. It is however doubtful these folks would whole heartedly argue in favor of murder’s acceptance. Rather, they would rationalize their own actions. They are a minority of course, hence their clinical classification. Clinicians serving a special function in the upkeep and creation of norms and reifying power structures. It always helps to have a good philosopher pressing the issue, though not many of you reading would argue that murder is a good thing, and none can argue it without involving ethics/morality (right and wrong, or “what ought to be”).
The discussion leads me again toward “the Transcendental”. Why is it that there is a limitation at all to ethics? Even in nature one might witnesses limitation. Though an animal is not aware perhaps of their own ethical/moral “wrong doings”, they tend to function in a certain way to survive. If they were to collectively stop functioning in such a way they risk the survival of their species. So while I basically agree with Chomsky, I think the question of whether or not ethics/morals are absolute and transcendent is less relevant, than acknowledging the fact that such a thing exists within human societies and appears to serve a purpose in the well functioning of those societies. The question of “right” and “wrong” is so hyper contextual, that it arises every instance where one must ask the question. The standards by which one judges, arise within context. We have a notion of right or wrong, but only once we understand the context under which such distinctions arise.
Fundamentally what validates “morality” is logic, which can be understood and communicated with the average, healthy, clearly functioning human faculty of reason. Necessary to its application is a functional understanding or awareness of the circumstance in which a “rule” might be applied. Furthermore I’d argue morality serves a purpose in the greater survivability and success of our species. Hence, they are natural to our character as humans and exist even in those who consciously refuse them.
9:55 Views on mythology, and religious upbringing
He makes an interesting deduction about rituals in Judaism, specifically how they might replace actual belief. I would be curious to know how he sees this functioning. Is it just a matter of psychological purity, or do rituals offer some kind of deeper clarity that keeps the believer coming back for more? How is it that they “believe” for the believer, and why is that belief necessary? Apparently Hegel had a similar understanding of rituals , where the ritual would serve to relieve the believer of too intense a belief. Perhaps they serve an innate human need. A way of orientating subjectivity, and giving texture to the continuous flowering of consciousness. It got me thinking about how various types of rituals might serve different functions to the individual believer. Remembrance (dhikr) of “The Almighty” for instance, helping to instill humility and a sense of security. Repetition of words or physical gestures perhaps for clarity and focus. Ritual ablution on the other hand serving as a psychological cleansing of the conscience, often in preparation for contact with the Divine.
Most fascinating for me, pertaining to Judaism and Islam are the fasting rituals, which follow a logic of “refusal” found throughout the Abrahamic tradition. They seem to serve to strengthen the spirit of denial in the act of saying “No” to the common pleasures we take for granted. This is of particular interest since while other animals follow instinct alone, humans can deny instincts (positive or negative) with the act of refusal, affirming our very dignity as a species. In this way the act of refusal may be of use to strengthen the instinct of the believer to “be more human”, while also reenforcing a feeling of gratitude for the “gift” of pleasure. Furthermore such an act of ritualized refusal may serve to strengthen ones consciousness, build character and the ability to overcome difficulty, while regulating the dangers of temptation.
Whatever it is, there is no doubt something to the mystique of ritual, whether it be meditation or the “ritual” purchase of goods in a consumer capitalist society. Perhaps they are actions that believe; actions that reify ruling ideological structures without the need of our conscious embrace or acceptance; the alien ghost operating the machine.
13:30 Personal story on Chomsky’s childhood
His humorous story is familiar as well as funny. It is here where Chomsky points out how the religious might act with the assumption that “God is an idiot”, twisting their interpretation of the rules, in order to essentially “trick G-D”. Of course if we’re to accept THEY are All-Knowing, how could we ever trick THEM? A fascinating provocation first of all, though ironically dealt with rather explicitly in the Qur’an in discussion of “hypocrites”; one of four categories of peoples mentioned in the Book in relation to belief. The other three being the rejectors (those who flat out reject belief/act contrary to the “system” of Islam), the ignorant (those unaware) and of course the actual “true believers”. Muslim theology suggests G-D judges individuals based on their intentions, rather than on the surface reality of their actions. In Islam one may repeatedly request forgiveness, though it is clearly stated in the Qur’an that G-D knows what is in the heart (3:29 for example), and that you could never fool HIM.
There is an inherent “moral” obligation on “true believers”, that forces a confrontation with purpose. I mean to say, the “true believer” is one who cannot simply act without reason, or without justification. All acts are questioned, and the life of the “believer” who knows is a challenge. The challenge of a vigorous lifestyle of discovering meaning in an otherwise fragmentary material existence, rather than passively drifting through the motions. Though not all “believers” say they believe in G-D, not one is without a Master. Whether that be some discursive vision of “nature”, or an ambiguous perception of “the Universe”, or the mysterious and often unseen force of “the market”, no human conscience exists independent of the big Other.
