I feel embarrassment for not being able to fully articulate my question in the debate yesterday. So here it is again (stated more clearly this time):
How does a five sex classification help to understand humanity from a biological perspective when in order for reproduction only two sexes are required (union of gametes)?
It seems the only reason to switch to this system is to make the 1.7% of the population feel like they fit into one of our Cartesian boxes.
any thoughts?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Religion and Reason
Reading Descartes’ Meditations and considering the way we have so comprehensively applied the ideas he lays out in them to every aspect of our lives as Westerners (to the point that valuing individuality, reason, and the separation of mind and body have become part of our unconscious socialization, things we take for granted), I found it very interesting the way we have extracted the “reason” half of his musings from the religion. Or the other way around. Descartes’ final goal (or so he said) in writing the Meditations was to prove the existence of God, yet somehow in our reason and science-driven society have managed to sidestep this part of his argument, to the point of turning Descartes’ own logic around to disprove the existence of God. In fact, it’s possible that from this basic disagreement comes the deeply ingrained notion that science and religion are completely incompatible. Steven Pinker, for example, endlessly employs the reasoning of “I think, therefore I am,” as well as the very Cartesian practices of categorizing and labeling in order to understand the world around us, while unapologetically disparaging the validity of any kind of religious belief. I’m not saying this is necessarily a good or bad thing (though I don’t really condone disrespect toward anyone for any reason)—to be honest, I have a hard time wrapping my head around a way that faith and science could coexist peacefully in their pursuits. But perhaps these are the limits of my own imagination due to my inherent “Cartesianism.” I just think it’s funny the way we have taken Cartesianism to the point where, when considering the original text, it contradicts itself. It leads me to wonder what our views of and ideas about science will be in the future—as well as the fact that we almost blindly accept our current notions of science as truth. At this moment, we have come to see religion and reason as two innately contradictory subjects, but this is because Descartes’ ideas radically changed the way we think of the two in relation to one another. Who knows what kind of revolutionary thinker could come along and shake things up once again? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Life is Full of Beauty and Illusions
“I perceive so clearly that there exist no certain marks by which the state of waking can ever be distinguished from sleep, that I feel greatly astonished; and in amazement I almost persuade myself that I am not dreaming.” These words by Rene Descartes really resonated something within me that no other portion of the reading could quite establish as effectively. Even though this particular quote can be found in the beginning pages of Meditation 1, it was able to stick with me upon completing both meditations.
I’m sure many can relate with me when I say that my dreams have been so vivid and lucid at times that I’ve sometimes found myself hesitating when trying to recall if the events within the dream had actually occurred or not, even after I’d been awake for hours already and had gone about my day. Similarly, I’m able to remind myself of the desperation and agony some dreams were able to cause me to feel, where I remember wishing so hard that I could just wake up from the all too corporeal situation I had temporarily believed to be reality. Another example that immediately came to mind was the phenomenon of déjà vu—that strange, eerie, limited moment in time when you swear you have been in a particular spot and had already lived through an exact event previously. It is instants like these that allow me to get a glimpse into Descartes’ lack of confidence in a concise consciousness argument.
When he makes the point that what we witness in sleep is very much based on realistic representations, he ties the images of what is true and false together, and shows how they depend on one another to exist in order to form what we have always thought of as being the present existence. We aren’t able to recognize an absolute concreteness until we are able to distinguish between real life and illusion. Is it reasonable to say that there is a definite reality when we don’t know for sure what happens after this portion of our so called “being” is up, and is it because of our Cartesian ways that we have all come to accept a universal form of entity? No one can really be certain.
I’m sure many can relate with me when I say that my dreams have been so vivid and lucid at times that I’ve sometimes found myself hesitating when trying to recall if the events within the dream had actually occurred or not, even after I’d been awake for hours already and had gone about my day. Similarly, I’m able to remind myself of the desperation and agony some dreams were able to cause me to feel, where I remember wishing so hard that I could just wake up from the all too corporeal situation I had temporarily believed to be reality. Another example that immediately came to mind was the phenomenon of déjà vu—that strange, eerie, limited moment in time when you swear you have been in a particular spot and had already lived through an exact event previously. It is instants like these that allow me to get a glimpse into Descartes’ lack of confidence in a concise consciousness argument.
When he makes the point that what we witness in sleep is very much based on realistic representations, he ties the images of what is true and false together, and shows how they depend on one another to exist in order to form what we have always thought of as being the present existence. We aren’t able to recognize an absolute concreteness until we are able to distinguish between real life and illusion. Is it reasonable to say that there is a definite reality when we don’t know for sure what happens after this portion of our so called “being” is up, and is it because of our Cartesian ways that we have all come to accept a universal form of entity? No one can really be certain.
Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?
In speaking about Descartes in class I have really been opening my eyes to how our world is so obsessed with being Cartesian, even if we don't even realize it. The fact that I feel the need to organize everything in my life into certain areas in my calender, sort out my things into separate compartments, ect. makes me question whether this is instilled in me or whether I have been taught to look at everything with such a 'black & white' mentality. Perception is a strong tool and if used correctly it can alter the way you look at anything- so who is to say something in life is only to be or exist in one kind of way? I love how Anne Fausto-Sterling tries to make us see that there is a gray area indeed, especially in her writiings about gender and intersexuality. This intrigued me and made me open my eyes to the fact that there needs to be a more opened minded and made me believe that there needs to be less urgency to label, label, label in fear of the unknown.
There is a quote on page 93 of Sexing the Body which really made me think about the idea of only male and only female, the Cartesian part in all of us which is displayed from the moment a child is born; It reads, "Should," he wondered, "this patient be allowed to grow up as male... even if[surgery] shows the gonads to be female?" This quote really displays how human perception is so altered by the notion of something only being one way or the other, how Cartesian viewpoints can so strongly influence ideas on the way life should be. I believe being Cartesian does allow us to function better as a society in most aspects of life- keeping peace and order in giving us a way to feel safe and comfortable with labels and the idea that we have control over this thing that we call our body. However, as my title points out, everything can never be seen as one way or the other. Some people believe a glass is half empty while another person may be gun-ho on the notion that it's half full. I believe we can never unCartesian, it's a quality that we've all possessed for such a long time, especially when speaking about gender. But I do believe we can and should push ourselves to try and except other way of looking at life and our surroundings. I think we can be more aware of our perception of things and use that to realize that there could possibly be more than 2 genders, and that there is nothing wrong with that. We need to learn to not fear what we do not know, but instead embrace these uncertainties and with patience and time try to understand all possibilities considering subjects such as gender.
There is a quote on page 93 of Sexing the Body which really made me think about the idea of only male and only female, the Cartesian part in all of us which is displayed from the moment a child is born; It reads, "Should," he wondered, "this patient be allowed to grow up as male... even if[surgery] shows the gonads to be female?" This quote really displays how human perception is so altered by the notion of something only being one way or the other, how Cartesian viewpoints can so strongly influence ideas on the way life should be. I believe being Cartesian does allow us to function better as a society in most aspects of life- keeping peace and order in giving us a way to feel safe and comfortable with labels and the idea that we have control over this thing that we call our body. However, as my title points out, everything can never be seen as one way or the other. Some people believe a glass is half empty while another person may be gun-ho on the notion that it's half full. I believe we can never unCartesian, it's a quality that we've all possessed for such a long time, especially when speaking about gender. But I do believe we can and should push ourselves to try and except other way of looking at life and our surroundings. I think we can be more aware of our perception of things and use that to realize that there could possibly be more than 2 genders, and that there is nothing wrong with that. We need to learn to not fear what we do not know, but instead embrace these uncertainties and with patience and time try to understand all possibilities considering subjects such as gender.
The Lives of Animals
We all take reason for granted. Sometimes, a grand attempt at refuting our natural reason is really intriguing. At the 1997-98 Tanner Lectures sponsored by the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, J. M. Coetzee gave a lecture called "The Lives of Animals", which is told in a narrative form about a woman name Elizabeth Costello, who is herself lecturing at a college about animal rights. And this woman's dialectic is extremely intriguing.
Her argument is basically this: that human reason is overrated and that the inability to reason does not diminish the value of life. She pushes for re-conceiving our devotion to reason as a universal value.
Accepted philosophy says that through the application of reason, we can come to understand the rules by which the universe works. This proves that reason and the universe are of the same being. And the fact that animals, lacking reason, cannot understand the universe have to simply follow its rules blindly. This proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being: that man is Godlike, animals thing-like.
To Costello, this does not hold. She believes that we are capable of thinking about the animal like we do ourselves. There is no bound to the extent in which we can think ourselves into the being of another. If we open our hearts to them, exposing our sympathies, we can change the way the structure works. There are no bounds to the sympathetic imagination. “If we are capable of thinking out our own death, why on earth should we not be capable of thinking our way into the life of a bat?”
Costello takes up Descartes specifically, and his likening animals to machines. "To be alive is to be a living soul. An animal – and we are all animals – is an embodied soul. This is precisely what Descartes saw, and for his own reasons, chose to deny." She sees reason as a vast tautology. Of course reason will validate reason as the first principle of the universe – what else should it do? Dethrone itself? Reasoning systems, as systems of totality, do not have that power. If there were a position from which reason could attack and dethrone itself, reason would have already occupied that position: otherwise it would not be total. So, is God a God of reason? She says, “Reason is neither the being of the universe nor the being of God. On the contrary, reason looks to me suspiciously like the being of human thought; worse than that, like the being of one tendency in human thought.”
"Cogito ergo sum" implies that a living being that doesn't "think" is somehow subordinate. To thinking, cognition, she opposes fullness, embodiedness: "the sensation of being – not a consciousness of yourself as a kind of ghostly reasoning machine thinking thoughts, but on the contrary the sensation – a heavily affective sensation -- of being a body with limbs that have extension in space, of being alive to the world. Not a pea rattling around in a shell." Animals have this kind of sensation of being that may be different from man, but is not so far away. And it is precisely their sensation of being in the world, their "extension into space", which we as humans imprison.
In Descartes’ defense, he had no access to information about apes or brilliant marine mammals. Little cause to question that animals could think. No access to the fossil record, didn’t know the science of any graded continuum of anthropoid creatures.
So, do animals have souls or are they just biological automatons? Once upon a time, the cry of man, raised in reason, clashed with the roar of the lion, and a great war was fought for centuries. The war has been won, and animals have no more power. Our captives only have silence with which to confront us.
I believe Costello's brick against the wall reason here is used well, but outside the scope of her argument, used against hundreds of years of philosophy, can't break down anything.
www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Coetzee99.pdf
Her argument is basically this: that human reason is overrated and that the inability to reason does not diminish the value of life. She pushes for re-conceiving our devotion to reason as a universal value.
Accepted philosophy says that through the application of reason, we can come to understand the rules by which the universe works. This proves that reason and the universe are of the same being. And the fact that animals, lacking reason, cannot understand the universe have to simply follow its rules blindly. This proves that, unlike man, they are part of it but not part of its being: that man is Godlike, animals thing-like.
To Costello, this does not hold. She believes that we are capable of thinking about the animal like we do ourselves. There is no bound to the extent in which we can think ourselves into the being of another. If we open our hearts to them, exposing our sympathies, we can change the way the structure works. There are no bounds to the sympathetic imagination. “If we are capable of thinking out our own death, why on earth should we not be capable of thinking our way into the life of a bat?”
Costello takes up Descartes specifically, and his likening animals to machines. "To be alive is to be a living soul. An animal – and we are all animals – is an embodied soul. This is precisely what Descartes saw, and for his own reasons, chose to deny." She sees reason as a vast tautology. Of course reason will validate reason as the first principle of the universe – what else should it do? Dethrone itself? Reasoning systems, as systems of totality, do not have that power. If there were a position from which reason could attack and dethrone itself, reason would have already occupied that position: otherwise it would not be total. So, is God a God of reason? She says, “Reason is neither the being of the universe nor the being of God. On the contrary, reason looks to me suspiciously like the being of human thought; worse than that, like the being of one tendency in human thought.”
"Cogito ergo sum" implies that a living being that doesn't "think" is somehow subordinate. To thinking, cognition, she opposes fullness, embodiedness: "the sensation of being – not a consciousness of yourself as a kind of ghostly reasoning machine thinking thoughts, but on the contrary the sensation – a heavily affective sensation -- of being a body with limbs that have extension in space, of being alive to the world. Not a pea rattling around in a shell." Animals have this kind of sensation of being that may be different from man, but is not so far away. And it is precisely their sensation of being in the world, their "extension into space", which we as humans imprison.
In Descartes’ defense, he had no access to information about apes or brilliant marine mammals. Little cause to question that animals could think. No access to the fossil record, didn’t know the science of any graded continuum of anthropoid creatures.
So, do animals have souls or are they just biological automatons? Once upon a time, the cry of man, raised in reason, clashed with the roar of the lion, and a great war was fought for centuries. The war has been won, and animals have no more power. Our captives only have silence with which to confront us.
I believe Costello's brick against the wall reason here is used well, but outside the scope of her argument, used against hundreds of years of philosophy, can't break down anything.
www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Coetzee99.pdf
removing partner preference from gender dysphoria
It is incredibly difficult to escape the limitations of Cartesianism, arguably self-imposed, upon our minds when attempting to describe what is and isn’t. As we progress from hierarchically organizing and categorizing the flora and fauna based on phenotype to evolutionary relationship to one another, we reflect our tendency to describe based only upon what we can see and understand. While this is certainly a functional and defensible way of working out the world, it can provide an impediment to the incorporation of new information into a well-established way of thinking about a subject or category of things.
This has been an exceptionally salient pattern in the history of sexology. Much of this is outlined in Fausto-Sterling’s book, but I will draw from another example, which I am surprised to find she did NOT (at least as far as I’ve read) examine or refer to in Sexing the Body. The description and explication of transsexualism and gender identity disorders has had a tumultuous and fast-changing history in and of itself, but that does not mean that its thinkers are immune to thinking about the bodies and sexualities of this individuals in a rigid, unchanging way. Yes, we now accept that gender identity disorder is a legitimate experience of individuals, but do we accept that how they identify and their partner preferences can change?
Drs. Eli Coleman, Walter Bockting, and Louis Gooren examined the cases of nine female-to-male transsexuals who, AFTER undergoing gender reassignment surgery, became aware of attractions to other males. This change in partner preference, looked at through the lens of the man+woman=hetero, man+man, woman+woman=homo, trans=correction to man+woman=hetero from (wo)man+woman=homo in this case, does not fall into any appropriate category. Prior to this article, partner preference was used as an item to assess the appropriateness of gender identity disorder. These nine individuals then, according to the classification system in place, would have been wrongly reassigned, as they were male-identified women who became homosexual transmen, as opposed to heterosexual transmen.
The risk upon the acceptance and incorporation of this new knowledge into the existing system is the tendency to simply add a couple more categories on the right side of the equation male-identified biowoman=hetero transman to male-identified biowoman=hetero or homo or bi transman. While this includes a greater recognition of the gradations of human gender identity and partner preferences, it unfortunately still represents the linkage of partner preference and gender identity. This is to say, it engenders the assumption of a link between gender identity and partner preference. And that fixing a problem with the former will correct to a known and limited category of the latter.
Fortunately, the authors of this study recognized this problem, calling for reassessment or removal of sexual orientation/partner preference as an item in the decision regarding sex reassignment surgery and the classification of a gender disphoric individual.
This has been an exceptionally salient pattern in the history of sexology. Much of this is outlined in Fausto-Sterling’s book, but I will draw from another example, which I am surprised to find she did NOT (at least as far as I’ve read) examine or refer to in Sexing the Body. The description and explication of transsexualism and gender identity disorders has had a tumultuous and fast-changing history in and of itself, but that does not mean that its thinkers are immune to thinking about the bodies and sexualities of this individuals in a rigid, unchanging way. Yes, we now accept that gender identity disorder is a legitimate experience of individuals, but do we accept that how they identify and their partner preferences can change?
Drs. Eli Coleman, Walter Bockting, and Louis Gooren examined the cases of nine female-to-male transsexuals who, AFTER undergoing gender reassignment surgery, became aware of attractions to other males. This change in partner preference, looked at through the lens of the man+woman=hetero, man+man, woman+woman=homo, trans=correction to man+woman=hetero from (wo)man+woman=homo in this case, does not fall into any appropriate category. Prior to this article, partner preference was used as an item to assess the appropriateness of gender identity disorder. These nine individuals then, according to the classification system in place, would have been wrongly reassigned, as they were male-identified women who became homosexual transmen, as opposed to heterosexual transmen.
The risk upon the acceptance and incorporation of this new knowledge into the existing system is the tendency to simply add a couple more categories on the right side of the equation male-identified biowoman=hetero transman to male-identified biowoman=hetero or homo or bi transman. While this includes a greater recognition of the gradations of human gender identity and partner preferences, it unfortunately still represents the linkage of partner preference and gender identity. This is to say, it engenders the assumption of a link between gender identity and partner preference. And that fixing a problem with the former will correct to a known and limited category of the latter.
Fortunately, the authors of this study recognized this problem, calling for reassessment or removal of sexual orientation/partner preference as an item in the decision regarding sex reassignment surgery and the classification of a gender disphoric individual.
uncartesianing
It's very likely that every single person in our class is a "Cartesian" thinker, at least in some capacity. Our methods of thinking are our great success; in my opinion, if it was Descartes's Meditations which changed the way the world thought, he truly did liberate the "common man". Having said this, there is no doubt in my mind that Cartesian thinking falls short when it comes to explaining life's gray areas. When we wonder whether being gay or straight is nature or nurture, for example, we are being pointlessly Cartesian.
There is no escaping our point of view, but I think that Anne Fausto Sterling does subvert it in some important ways. I feel she refutes total mind/body separation, for example, which is important. When we think of something as being in the mind, we automatically separate it from the body, as though what happens in the mind is not "real". I'm not sure if what I'm saying is making any sense, but I think it's pretty clear (at least to myself) that the mind and body are not separate entities.
While she does say that there are six genders, she refutes that there are only two, and helps us understand that gender is not black or white, but is instead many shades of gray. Is Fausto Sterling being a Cartesian thinker, in the sense that we've discussed it in the class? She appears to use Cartesian methods to "prove" her points, so yes, I believe she is, but I think she thinks outside of the box enough that she helps us get a greater understanding of the world.
So... How to get unbamboozled. I would say it's okay that we're Cartesian. I mean, I don't know how to unCartesian. But we could take Fausto Sterling's approach and accept that "truth" isn't necessarily what we were brought up to believe, and then turn our Cartesian eyes towards getting a bigger understanding of "truth". Yep.
There is no escaping our point of view, but I think that Anne Fausto Sterling does subvert it in some important ways. I feel she refutes total mind/body separation, for example, which is important. When we think of something as being in the mind, we automatically separate it from the body, as though what happens in the mind is not "real". I'm not sure if what I'm saying is making any sense, but I think it's pretty clear (at least to myself) that the mind and body are not separate entities.
While she does say that there are six genders, she refutes that there are only two, and helps us understand that gender is not black or white, but is instead many shades of gray. Is Fausto Sterling being a Cartesian thinker, in the sense that we've discussed it in the class? She appears to use Cartesian methods to "prove" her points, so yes, I believe she is, but I think she thinks outside of the box enough that she helps us get a greater understanding of the world.
So... How to get unbamboozled. I would say it's okay that we're Cartesian. I mean, I don't know how to unCartesian. But we could take Fausto Sterling's approach and accept that "truth" isn't necessarily what we were brought up to believe, and then turn our Cartesian eyes towards getting a bigger understanding of "truth". Yep.
I am glad there is a DSM
Descartes has a very strong influence on all scientists and the people who are writing the new DSM because Descartes laid the foundation for doctors to write things like the DSM, Sexing the Body etc.
The DSM played a huge role in my life and I am extremely grateful for it. I have a disorder listed in it and at the time when I was at my worst (and no one knew what was wrong) this book was a crucial tool to put my life back on track. With out the influence Descartes had on the writers of the DSM I wouldn’t be where I am today. The DSM is there to help people at their worst and that is why it is so beneficial to everyone.
In the future, each edition of this book will grow bigger as more people walk the Earth with more disorders. The way this plays out is that it will continue to help people who suffer from disorders and it will continue to make doctor’s jobs easier while improving the lives of those effected by theses new disorders i.e. Apotemnophilia.
The DSM played a huge role in my life and I am extremely grateful for it. I have a disorder listed in it and at the time when I was at my worst (and no one knew what was wrong) this book was a crucial tool to put my life back on track. With out the influence Descartes had on the writers of the DSM I wouldn’t be where I am today. The DSM is there to help people at their worst and that is why it is so beneficial to everyone.
In the future, each edition of this book will grow bigger as more people walk the Earth with more disorders. The way this plays out is that it will continue to help people who suffer from disorders and it will continue to make doctor’s jobs easier while improving the lives of those effected by theses new disorders i.e. Apotemnophilia.
Harry Potter, blog appearance #1
When presented in class we were encouraged to read Descartes through several "lenses" (Latour) one of which was 'as literature' requiring paying specific attention to the author's motive and tone, views and limits of his characters, and general themes present within the work. Thus i would like to divulge from our standard scholarly text into a comparison between Descartes and something a bit more pop... the world of Harry Potter.
Being a Harry Potter fanatic I have collectively read the entire series upwards of five times (consecutively) and each individual book more than that, therefore I appeal to your Cartesian minds to legitimize me in this subject. I identify one of the central themes in Descartes' mediations to be the concept of "I think therefore I am" The principle that the human mind is wired intune with the universe and thus can achieve all obtainable knowledge is also a central theme in the Harry Potter series. In the world of Hogwarts this is demonstrated with the use of magic, the power of magic resides in ones mind and their mind alone. Wands, like our physical bodies, are instruments of the mind. Likewise, denial of the body is for Descartes crazy, and for J. K. Rowling evil. Lord Voldemort, the ultimate villain, with a mind so evil it has physically corrupted his once beautiful human body beyond all recognition, is a product of this Cartesian mindset, for he denies his body as his own, desiring to be only an immortal mind and this denial of body is the basis of his fall from grace. Another Cartesian theme is that of reason being the ultimate representation of humanity. Dumbledore, the ancient heroic wizard is the embodiment of this, for his supreme power to reason manifests itself in his wisdom, and thus saves him (and ultimately the wizarding community)
Our socialital Cartesian reasoning is the basis for the uproar this series caused, for effects within our world witchcraft is NOT credited to be an acceptable cause, it does not fit in a Cartesian plane or box. Paradoxically, Cartesian logic is also what made the series so popular. Rowling, after establishing herself as an author, is able to then present abstract ideas outside the norm without being considered crazy. Once again, I am unable to escape from my Cartesian wiring, as in conclusion I categorize, legitimize, and divide my reason into two, dueling dualisms.
Descartes and Bataille
Reading Descartes and the ideas of dualism and interactions between the immaterial mind and material body immediately made me think back to Elliot and Brang and their quests to find a cause of apotemnophilia. It seems Descartes would argue that apotemnophilia exists in both "worlds" that is to say, begins as an idea or dream or something in the immaterial mind, and then manifests in the material body. Pinker and Brang (it seems) would argue against Cartesian dualism, that there is no seperate mind, therefore, apotemnophilia is a physical condition originating in the parietal lobe etc etc. Elliot (more or less) discusses both of these possibilities, and doesn’t make any terribly solid conclusions (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I think the interactions between the immaterial mind and material body as discussed by Descartes can maybe account for Brang’s (and probably Pinker’s) ideas in that the "problem" could start in the physical body and then manifest in the immaterial mind as the idea "I need to remove my leg". Descartes offers an explanation for why one would imagine themselves differently than they appear biologically.
So, in the context of apotemnophilia, are Pinker and friends and Elliot all that different? I don’t think so at all. Not only in the immaterial vs material argument I make above, but also in terms of how they do what they do–that is, try and find a logical (reasonable) explanation for why apotemnophilia exists. Brang’s entire though process is clearly Cartesian (“X causes Y causes Q and BAM apotemnophilia!”), Elliot’s slightly less so, but only because he never really comes to an answer. Elliot still plows through possible explanations, trying to find some kind of answer that makes sense. He also explores “treatment” possibilities, which I think are by definition Cartesian in nature–the idea that some “problem” exists, the cause can be found, something can be done, and the problem can disappear completely and one can return to a “natural” or “normal” state relies on the kind of rationality and logical reasoning Descartes argues is the way the world works.
Is this the correct way to approach issues such as apotemnophilia? It’s certainly difficult to fit into the “framework of reasoning” of Cartesian thought. It also seems that this is where many problems arise, when we try to fit something into a Cartesian framework and end up excluding someone or something, or anger those who don’t want to be categorized, or realize that there is some idea or thing that we cannot explain logically, and then freak out. The work of Georges Bataille (who I am vaguely familiar with through debate) is a criticism of the Cartesian model of thought. Bataille argues Descartes, our economy, all of us attempt to spend productively. This can mean seeing all goods, acts, individuals in context of their overall utility (which is a whole different set of arguments) or thinking about things in a way that attempts to fit them all together, have nothing go unexplained–essentially, Cartesian thought. This model of thought/action cannot account for the existence of excess, of things like eroticism or unexplainable desires (such as having your limb cut off, even though it serves no utility or goal). Bataille argues that this is why we fear (and then demonize things) certain things. For example, homosexuality: erotic union that serves no productive purpose (literally, reproduction is impossible) is something that we cannot explain or understand in Cartesian thought. This is what pushes some to hunt for a “gay gene” (rational explanation) and others to be grossed out (it is inexplicable, and therefore unnatural). Elliot and Brang seem to show we are trained to think in a “productive”/Cartesian way…is that how we should think? I suppose this post is not so much an argument for reason, but a general thought problem…what do you all think?
So, in the context of apotemnophilia, are Pinker and friends and Elliot all that different? I don’t think so at all. Not only in the immaterial vs material argument I make above, but also in terms of how they do what they do–that is, try and find a logical (reasonable) explanation for why apotemnophilia exists. Brang’s entire though process is clearly Cartesian (“X causes Y causes Q and BAM apotemnophilia!”), Elliot’s slightly less so, but only because he never really comes to an answer. Elliot still plows through possible explanations, trying to find some kind of answer that makes sense. He also explores “treatment” possibilities, which I think are by definition Cartesian in nature–the idea that some “problem” exists, the cause can be found, something can be done, and the problem can disappear completely and one can return to a “natural” or “normal” state relies on the kind of rationality and logical reasoning Descartes argues is the way the world works.
Is this the correct way to approach issues such as apotemnophilia? It’s certainly difficult to fit into the “framework of reasoning” of Cartesian thought. It also seems that this is where many problems arise, when we try to fit something into a Cartesian framework and end up excluding someone or something, or anger those who don’t want to be categorized, or realize that there is some idea or thing that we cannot explain logically, and then freak out. The work of Georges Bataille (who I am vaguely familiar with through debate) is a criticism of the Cartesian model of thought. Bataille argues Descartes, our economy, all of us attempt to spend productively. This can mean seeing all goods, acts, individuals in context of their overall utility (which is a whole different set of arguments) or thinking about things in a way that attempts to fit them all together, have nothing go unexplained–essentially, Cartesian thought. This model of thought/action cannot account for the existence of excess, of things like eroticism or unexplainable desires (such as having your limb cut off, even though it serves no utility or goal). Bataille argues that this is why we fear (and then demonize things) certain things. For example, homosexuality: erotic union that serves no productive purpose (literally, reproduction is impossible) is something that we cannot explain or understand in Cartesian thought. This is what pushes some to hunt for a “gay gene” (rational explanation) and others to be grossed out (it is inexplicable, and therefore unnatural). Elliot and Brang seem to show we are trained to think in a “productive”/Cartesian way…is that how we should think? I suppose this post is not so much an argument for reason, but a general thought problem…what do you all think?
The Placebo Effect
Descartes’ mind-body dualism is deeply entrenched in Western civilization. The idea is so ingrained that few people discuss it. Instead, they implicitly assume that the ideology governs all. This way of seeing the world gives us the power to reason and view the mind as being wholly separate from the corporeal body.
Cartesian dualism also gives us a way to discuss the placebo effect. We identify that there is the body, a physiological system, which drugs and other medical treatments influence. We also recognize that there is the mind, which by suggestion can affect our expectations, hopes and therefore our responses to treatment. There is little evidence about how placebos create such clinical reactions but even without a conscious effort, people reach a logical conclusion about placebos.
This code of belief makes the placebo effect seem as a let-down. The prescriptions and surgeries are viewed as definite results while placebo effects are simply psychological. I think there is disappointment that the mind can’t control itself to produce the effects but instead we must physically manage the mind with sugar pills. Anthony Campbell, a trained physician, makes a clear point when he says, “The ghost has not yet been fully exorcised from the machine; a shadowy vestige of it, at least, still haunts the clinics and laboratories in which clinical trials are conducted.” (For more see: http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/essays/altmed/placebo.html)
Cartesian dualism also gives us a way to discuss the placebo effect. We identify that there is the body, a physiological system, which drugs and other medical treatments influence. We also recognize that there is the mind, which by suggestion can affect our expectations, hopes and therefore our responses to treatment. There is little evidence about how placebos create such clinical reactions but even without a conscious effort, people reach a logical conclusion about placebos.
This code of belief makes the placebo effect seem as a let-down. The prescriptions and surgeries are viewed as definite results while placebo effects are simply psychological. I think there is disappointment that the mind can’t control itself to produce the effects but instead we must physically manage the mind with sugar pills. Anthony Campbell, a trained physician, makes a clear point when he says, “The ghost has not yet been fully exorcised from the machine; a shadowy vestige of it, at least, still haunts the clinics and laboratories in which clinical trials are conducted.” (For more see: http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/essays/altmed/placebo.html)
The Creationists’ Trojan Horse
I link reason with science so I support Steven Pinker’s polemic that religion has no place in the pursuit of truth in education. Throughout this country’s history, religious fanatics strove to bring biblical teachings—especially creationism—into public school curricula often in the guise of science. Those attempts to blur the distinction between science and ideology were repeatedly shot down by federal courts upholding the First Amendment establishment clause. In a burst of ingenuity, creation advocates have pursed a tactic to circumvent the Constitution—intelligent design.
Intelligent design advocates argue that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not an undirected process, such as natural selection. (Kitzmiller v. Dover, case 4:04-cv-02688-jej, document 342, 12/20/2005). The architects of the concept, largely associated with an organization called Discovery Institute (www.intelligentdesign.org), carefully avoid identifying this intelligent cause in order to circumvent a First Amendment challenge. In a private document, the Discovery Institute assured its supporters that the intelligent cause is consistent with Christian theology and is God. (The Wedge Strategy, Discovery Institute, 1999.)
The tactics of intelligent design proponents have so far failed to blur the distinction between science and religion. The most famous instance was the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (cited above). In 2005, a group of Dover, Pennsylvania, parents challenged, in federal court, a requirement of the school board that intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution. The presiding judge found that intelligent design featured no scientific research or testing, and that advocates of the concept sought to avoid scientific scrutiny, which they knew the concept would not withstand.
The creationists have not abandoned their quest to raise religious canards to the level of science in public schools. So hail to Pinker for defending truth.
The Necessity of Labeling
Growing up is hard, and its made no easier for kids by the multitude of contradictions taught to them in, and even before, school. One of the biggest lessons teachers try to teach their students is to not label others. That boy you laughed at on your first day because he couldn't say "three" correctly, the one you thought was dumb? He turned out to be the best in class at math. And the quiet girl who didn't like to talk with other kids, the one you figured just didn't like anyone? She was the first one to come play with you after you spent the previous day crying about your runaway cat. (Or was that just me?) By listening to their teachers and trying to think of their peers as being the same as them, students can make friends they never would have had otherwise. And even if that's not the case, it at least makes the classroom an easier place to manage.
Outside of recess and lunch, however, labeling is one of the first things you are taught in class. "A" denotes the first sound heard in the word "apple". Apples are fruit, rather than a vegetable, like corn or carrots, or meat, like beef or pork. Cows and pigs are farm animals, unlike monkeys and jaguars, which live in the jungle. We live in a farm town rather than the jungle or a city. St. Paul is the capital city of Minnesota, the state we live in. Minnesota is in the northern part of the United States. Every subject, from English (which is the name of the language we speak) to science begin by teaching kids what's what and how it differs from everything else, the fundamentals of Cartesian-ism.
So are we just not supposed to people? If so, why did my teacher spend our entire geography class teaching us about people in Mexico and the rest of Latin America and how they aren't like Americans? Does that mean I can put labels on the Mendez family who lives across the street from me? Or should I consider them different from me and my classmates because their kids go the public school across the street from my private Catholic school? And why do I have to wear a dress and get a white rosary for my First Holy Communion, while all the boys get to wear pants and get black rosaries? And why did the school have to call his parents when one boy said he'd rather wear the dress?
So which is it? Am I really all that different from the other kids or aren't I? How do we kids learn what is acceptable behavior without labeling ourselves and others? Why can't someone just be whoever they want to be without having to conform to the ways society expects them to be?
Many scientists believe the answer lies in our genes. In 2004 a researcher at the University of Exeter in the UK found evidence that even newborns label people. The scientist, Alan Slater, showed a number infants, some as young as one day and none older than one week, a pair of images, one "attractive" and one "ugly" female face (as rated by a selection of adult subjects), and found that, when presented with both pictures at once, the babies spent significantly longer looking at the more "attractive" face. Another study by Olivier Pascalis and Dave Kelly at the University of Sheffield demonstrated that within the first the first several months of life an infant can tell the difference between individuals of different ethnicities, as well as monkeys, equally well. This ability was greatly reduced after about one year, when they could only distinguish the differences between those people of their own race or races they encountered regularily.
So does this means that we're all vain, racist creatures from the get-go and trying to get along is futile? Hardly. What it does mean is that as we evolved it made sense for us to be more interested in the "attractive" members of our community, as they were typically the most healthy. And as long as a child could distinguish between its own tribe and another, it didn't really matter if they could tell the difference between the individuals in the other group. Without labeling, we wouldn't even able to talk about the other community or our own, or anything else, really.
So it is not Cartesian-ism itself that is to blame for the harm that comes from putting labels on things. What is at fault is our discomfort with anything or anyone who does not fit easily into any label, such as intersexed or interracial individuals, or when we place unwarranted attributes on other groups. Now that we've moved beyond societies based on small groups of individuals and have the ability to go anywhere in the world within, at most, a matter of days we've got to be willing to reform the way we look at the world and how we categorize people.
Outside of recess and lunch, however, labeling is one of the first things you are taught in class. "A" denotes the first sound heard in the word "apple". Apples are fruit, rather than a vegetable, like corn or carrots, or meat, like beef or pork. Cows and pigs are farm animals, unlike monkeys and jaguars, which live in the jungle. We live in a farm town rather than the jungle or a city. St. Paul is the capital city of Minnesota, the state we live in. Minnesota is in the northern part of the United States. Every subject, from English (which is the name of the language we speak) to science begin by teaching kids what's what and how it differs from everything else, the fundamentals of Cartesian-ism.
So are we just not supposed to people? If so, why did my teacher spend our entire geography class teaching us about people in Mexico and the rest of Latin America and how they aren't like Americans? Does that mean I can put labels on the Mendez family who lives across the street from me? Or should I consider them different from me and my classmates because their kids go the public school across the street from my private Catholic school? And why do I have to wear a dress and get a white rosary for my First Holy Communion, while all the boys get to wear pants and get black rosaries? And why did the school have to call his parents when one boy said he'd rather wear the dress?
So which is it? Am I really all that different from the other kids or aren't I? How do we kids learn what is acceptable behavior without labeling ourselves and others? Why can't someone just be whoever they want to be without having to conform to the ways society expects them to be?
Many scientists believe the answer lies in our genes. In 2004 a researcher at the University of Exeter in the UK found evidence that even newborns label people. The scientist, Alan Slater, showed a number infants, some as young as one day and none older than one week, a pair of images, one "attractive" and one "ugly" female face (as rated by a selection of adult subjects), and found that, when presented with both pictures at once, the babies spent significantly longer looking at the more "attractive" face. Another study by Olivier Pascalis and Dave Kelly at the University of Sheffield demonstrated that within the first the first several months of life an infant can tell the difference between individuals of different ethnicities, as well as monkeys, equally well. This ability was greatly reduced after about one year, when they could only distinguish the differences between those people of their own race or races they encountered regularily.
So does this means that we're all vain, racist creatures from the get-go and trying to get along is futile? Hardly. What it does mean is that as we evolved it made sense for us to be more interested in the "attractive" members of our community, as they were typically the most healthy. And as long as a child could distinguish between its own tribe and another, it didn't really matter if they could tell the difference between the individuals in the other group. Without labeling, we wouldn't even able to talk about the other community or our own, or anything else, really.
So it is not Cartesian-ism itself that is to blame for the harm that comes from putting labels on things. What is at fault is our discomfort with anything or anyone who does not fit easily into any label, such as intersexed or interracial individuals, or when we place unwarranted attributes on other groups. Now that we've moved beyond societies based on small groups of individuals and have the ability to go anywhere in the world within, at most, a matter of days we've got to be willing to reform the way we look at the world and how we categorize people.
Blessed Theresa
As I watched the video of Theresa Neumann in class, I couldn't help myself and my Cartesian mind from wondering how she got the stigmata. At first, when Robin said that Theresa didn't eat or drink for some thirty years or so, I thought that that could have been the sole cause of her stigmata appearing. After doing a little research, mainly for my own interest, I found this site, which is basically a summary of her life:
http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/TheAmazingLifeStoryofTheresaNeumann.pdf
I think a major reason why Descartes inhabits both people who believe this miracle and those who don't is because most of us were raised in a Cartesian household/school. I think the majority of us grew up only knowing of males and females, with no inbetween. In math class, the final answer was either right or wrong, not semi-right. Also, morally, there was good and bad, however this is not as clear cut as the other two examples I gave.
Part of the way this Cartesian way of thinking plays into the miracle of Theresa Neumann is we, as humans, are always trying to find an explanation for how something happened. In the case of Theresa Neuamann, scientists found nothing that led them to believe that there was anything physically or internally wrong with her body. The only explanation left is that this was an act of God. Perhaps, in order to see more clearly, we should have an open mind and set aside our pre-concieved notions.
Again, I suggest going to that site if you have a little extra time to spare, it clears up a lot of the details about this miracle!
http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/TheAmazingLifeStoryofTheresaNeumann.pdf
I think a major reason why Descartes inhabits both people who believe this miracle and those who don't is because most of us were raised in a Cartesian household/school. I think the majority of us grew up only knowing of males and females, with no inbetween. In math class, the final answer was either right or wrong, not semi-right. Also, morally, there was good and bad, however this is not as clear cut as the other two examples I gave.
Part of the way this Cartesian way of thinking plays into the miracle of Theresa Neumann is we, as humans, are always trying to find an explanation for how something happened. In the case of Theresa Neuamann, scientists found nothing that led them to believe that there was anything physically or internally wrong with her body. The only explanation left is that this was an act of God. Perhaps, in order to see more clearly, we should have an open mind and set aside our pre-concieved notions.
Again, I suggest going to that site if you have a little extra time to spare, it clears up a lot of the details about this miracle!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
A Way of Being
"I, and many others, have come to a new realization. It is this: The only reality I can possibly know is the world as I perceive and experience it as this moment. The only reality you can possibly know is the world as you perceive and experience it at this moment. And the only certainty is that those perceived realities are different. There are as many 'real worlds' as there are people! This creates a most burdensome dilemma, one never before experienced in history."
-Carl Rogers, A Way of Being
Carl Rogers was a 20th century humanist. The humanistic psychological approach emerged in the 1950's stressing the individual's potential and the importance of growth and self-actualization. The idea was that every person was born innately good, but that problems would occur when one would deviate from natural tendencies.
Does Cartesianism fit somewhere in these ideas? Of course it does, Cartesianism can be seen anywhere thanks to Descartes. Rene Descartes expressed to the world that the mind was wholly separate from the corporeal body. He believed that the two worked together to form reason- the basis of all knowledge. He believed that the body and brain were materialistic properties that worked like a machine. On the other hand, the mind did not follow the laws of physics; it was its own entity. So what can be said about Carl Rogers?
Roger's thoughts concur closely with Descartes ideas. He says that because everyone experiences different things throughout life, everyone perceives the world different. All of these different perceptions gives the world multiple 'real worlds' that shape our one. Descartes stresses that we give the universe structure by our mirror of self perception. Perception and deductive reasoning are the two ways in which we can acquire knowledge about the world. Rogers and Descartes are helping people map out the world. Explaining that everything one perceives is different than someone else, helps to characterize people as legit (or not). They help people to be able to find truth, prove things, have doubt or skepticism--basically understand that we live in a dualism of the mind and body.
-Carl Rogers, A Way of Being
Carl Rogers was a 20th century humanist. The humanistic psychological approach emerged in the 1950's stressing the individual's potential and the importance of growth and self-actualization. The idea was that every person was born innately good, but that problems would occur when one would deviate from natural tendencies.
Does Cartesianism fit somewhere in these ideas? Of course it does, Cartesianism can be seen anywhere thanks to Descartes. Rene Descartes expressed to the world that the mind was wholly separate from the corporeal body. He believed that the two worked together to form reason- the basis of all knowledge. He believed that the body and brain were materialistic properties that worked like a machine. On the other hand, the mind did not follow the laws of physics; it was its own entity. So what can be said about Carl Rogers?
Roger's thoughts concur closely with Descartes ideas. He says that because everyone experiences different things throughout life, everyone perceives the world different. All of these different perceptions gives the world multiple 'real worlds' that shape our one. Descartes stresses that we give the universe structure by our mirror of self perception. Perception and deductive reasoning are the two ways in which we can acquire knowledge about the world. Rogers and Descartes are helping people map out the world. Explaining that everything one perceives is different than someone else, helps to characterize people as legit (or not). They help people to be able to find truth, prove things, have doubt or skepticism--basically understand that we live in a dualism of the mind and body.
Friday, February 19, 2010
There are only two types of people...
... those who believe that there are only two types of people and those who do not!
When sexologists say there are six genders, they are referring to a way to classify and thus begin a conversation about gender. All the language we use can be considered Cartesian in that when we use a word we have a general (or specific) idea of what the word means and what we are trying to communicate. By using one word instead of another we hope that the word we use is translated by the receiver in the same way that was meant by us when we said it. Going back to Chomsky who says (and I believe) that language has progressed as an evolutionary process, so we can see that in some way we have always been Cartesian. Language for humanity has brought fourth the ability to have reason, with this is a feedback loop where more reason gives more specific language which lets us do more reasoning... ad infinitum. Alongside this process is the biological process of brain development, which gives us an evolutionary advantage. Our ability to reason is our key to our survival. Now, because we have an excess of food and natural resources, we have the opportunity to not use reason. And there will be no death penalty for not using reason, most animals in the wild will die when their ideas do not match reality. Not us. We can go on surviving, at least for a little while. Now that our language has become so complex, we can contradict ourselves, we can invent semantic paradoxes, we can believe in things that are unreasonable on purpose. At least for a little while, until reality comes crashing down around us and we are caught worshiping a sacred image of our unreasonable god on a grilled cheese sandwich and forgetting everything we've learned or bombing each other into oblivion because our imaginary friend is the "true" god instead of creating a happy healthy sustainable society based on reason.
When sexologists say there are six genders, they are referring to a way to classify and thus begin a conversation about gender. All the language we use can be considered Cartesian in that when we use a word we have a general (or specific) idea of what the word means and what we are trying to communicate. By using one word instead of another we hope that the word we use is translated by the receiver in the same way that was meant by us when we said it. Going back to Chomsky who says (and I believe) that language has progressed as an evolutionary process, so we can see that in some way we have always been Cartesian. Language for humanity has brought fourth the ability to have reason, with this is a feedback loop where more reason gives more specific language which lets us do more reasoning... ad infinitum. Alongside this process is the biological process of brain development, which gives us an evolutionary advantage. Our ability to reason is our key to our survival. Now, because we have an excess of food and natural resources, we have the opportunity to not use reason. And there will be no death penalty for not using reason, most animals in the wild will die when their ideas do not match reality. Not us. We can go on surviving, at least for a little while. Now that our language has become so complex, we can contradict ourselves, we can invent semantic paradoxes, we can believe in things that are unreasonable on purpose. At least for a little while, until reality comes crashing down around us and we are caught worshiping a sacred image of our unreasonable god on a grilled cheese sandwich and forgetting everything we've learned or bombing each other into oblivion because our imaginary friend is the "true" god instead of creating a happy healthy sustainable society based on reason.
Blog Posting #4 (Due Sunday 2/21 11:59 PM)
This week we get to write about all the things many of us wanted to talk about for hours—maybe over beer: the faith-science wars; Christian Texas Patriots; bleeding mystics (and cute teenagers); indubitable 'selves,' reason (and faith), hypnotized away warts, and the entire mind-body split.
What we've been calling the 'Cartesian Moment' (Descartes' successfully elevating REASON to the center of all knowledge, and banishing the BODY and all its attributes) changed everything. Anne Fausto-Sterling starts her deeply political work on science, sex, bodies and lives by calling the 'Cartesian' split (a 'dualism') into question on many grounds.
We claimed that we were all 'Cartesians' even if we'd never read a word of his or even heard his name.
Fair enough. So now what?
Well, for starters, let's try to make 'common sense' of the idea that we're sort of trapped by the ways we see the world, and have trouble imagining things any other way. The idea that the world is 'framed' by certain 'paradigms' or 'world views'—ours being pretty 'Cartesian.'
Explain how Descartes 'inhabits' Steven Pinker (or Louis Menand), or the National Geographic producers, or Dr. George Buchanan, or people loving Blessed Teresa (or some of us thinking 'she faked it'), or sexologists who think there are 'six types of people' (…body, 11), or the guys writing the DSM, or the Founding Fathers, or, or, or. Find a good example to read closely—ours are fine; so are yours if you've got one. Whatever works.
Then suggest how this all plays out—theoretically, scientifically, ethically, historically, whatever. Work with our readings. How are we bamboozled and how might we get un-bamboozled? Alternatively: how does our 'reason,' rightly used, steer us right? How do we need to think in order to see more clearly? If you want a model, it's Anne Faust Sterling; her book is a passionate polemic about why seeing sex and gender wrongly (or confusedly) has made life harder for all of us.
What we've been calling the 'Cartesian Moment' (Descartes' successfully elevating REASON to the center of all knowledge, and banishing the BODY and all its attributes) changed everything. Anne Fausto-Sterling starts her deeply political work on science, sex, bodies and lives by calling the 'Cartesian' split (a 'dualism') into question on many grounds.
We claimed that we were all 'Cartesians' even if we'd never read a word of his or even heard his name.
Fair enough. So now what?
Well, for starters, let's try to make 'common sense' of the idea that we're sort of trapped by the ways we see the world, and have trouble imagining things any other way. The idea that the world is 'framed' by certain 'paradigms' or 'world views'—ours being pretty 'Cartesian.'
Explain how Descartes 'inhabits' Steven Pinker (or Louis Menand), or the National Geographic producers, or Dr. George Buchanan, or people loving Blessed Teresa (or some of us thinking 'she faked it'), or sexologists who think there are 'six types of people' (…body, 11), or the guys writing the DSM, or the Founding Fathers, or, or, or. Find a good example to read closely—ours are fine; so are yours if you've got one. Whatever works.
Then suggest how this all plays out—theoretically, scientifically, ethically, historically, whatever. Work with our readings. How are we bamboozled and how might we get un-bamboozled? Alternatively: how does our 'reason,' rightly used, steer us right? How do we need to think in order to see more clearly? If you want a model, it's Anne Faust Sterling; her book is a passionate polemic about why seeing sex and gender wrongly (or confusedly) has made life harder for all of us.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
contrary to pinker
this is more related to the last unit yet it's so fascinating I felt like posting it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html
Sapolsky is a neurobiologist that disagrees with pinker on the importance of genes.
To bring this back to our current readings he talks about sex from a viewpoint of evolutionary biology and goal directed behavior.
Just thought I'd throw this out there, and hey, it's better than T.V.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html
Sapolsky is a neurobiologist that disagrees with pinker on the importance of genes.
To bring this back to our current readings he talks about sex from a viewpoint of evolutionary biology and goal directed behavior.
Just thought I'd throw this out there, and hey, it's better than T.V.
Transgender Commission fights for better restroom access
Anne Fausto Sterling's work and our discussion about gender politics and sexual identity today reminded me of an related issue that hits close to home. The University of Minnesota Transgender Commission has begun a fight to secure more gender neutral bathrooms on campus. Read the full article here. Will the University become a "three-gender" community?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Identity
CSCL Letter to the editor
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/11/national/a072047S67.DTL
Right now I’m in California for a debate tournament (which is why this post is so late, Robin and Ben…) so I decided to take a look at the “local” paper here, the San Francisco Chronicle. I found an article about a proposal to remove Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM, and lump it together along with other variations of autism under “autism spectrum disorders”. The article reported the controversy surrounding the change of labels.
Dear Editor,
I think the recent article, “Proposed autism diagnosis changes anger ‘Aspies’” raises several interesting issues surrounding language and identity. I was surprised at the amount of hostility some individuals with Asperger’s felt toward the change, in particular those who felt that the change was offensive because it groups them with autistic individuals who had more severe symptoms. It seemed, however, that many more were concerned with the fact that changing the diagnostic label would somehow erase or marginalize their identity as individuals with Asperger’s. To me, this begs the very important question “How are out identities shapes by science?” The strong emotions of individuals with Asperger’s seem to show that the clinical label has become a strong part of how they see themselves, and so the removal of said label by the scientific community is thus erasing part of who they are. Why do we privilege the authority of the DSM? Society is not making the switch (yet) nor (does it seem) are individuals in their own lives, yet people are furious and concerned over the change. I think the findings of the article expose the immense faith we have in science as a cite of truth. A manual should not determine how we identify as people. The change also ignores the social and cultural implications that have now become attached to the words “Asperger’s” or “autism”. Both of these points go unexplored by the article, which limits the amount of knowledge or understanding one can gain about the situation.
–Laura Johnson
St. Paul, MN
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/02/11/national/a072047S67.DTL
Right now I’m in California for a debate tournament (which is why this post is so late, Robin and Ben…) so I decided to take a look at the “local” paper here, the San Francisco Chronicle. I found an article about a proposal to remove Asperger’s syndrome from the DSM, and lump it together along with other variations of autism under “autism spectrum disorders”. The article reported the controversy surrounding the change of labels.
Dear Editor,
I think the recent article, “Proposed autism diagnosis changes anger ‘Aspies’” raises several interesting issues surrounding language and identity. I was surprised at the amount of hostility some individuals with Asperger’s felt toward the change, in particular those who felt that the change was offensive because it groups them with autistic individuals who had more severe symptoms. It seemed, however, that many more were concerned with the fact that changing the diagnostic label would somehow erase or marginalize their identity as individuals with Asperger’s. To me, this begs the very important question “How are out identities shapes by science?” The strong emotions of individuals with Asperger’s seem to show that the clinical label has become a strong part of how they see themselves, and so the removal of said label by the scientific community is thus erasing part of who they are. Why do we privilege the authority of the DSM? Society is not making the switch (yet) nor (does it seem) are individuals in their own lives, yet people are furious and concerned over the change. I think the findings of the article expose the immense faith we have in science as a cite of truth. A manual should not determine how we identify as people. The change also ignores the social and cultural implications that have now become attached to the words “Asperger’s” or “autism”. Both of these points go unexplored by the article, which limits the amount of knowledge or understanding one can gain about the situation.
–Laura Johnson
St. Paul, MN
We are Robots
My post is also concerning the Star Tribune article "Is a robot's arm better than a Surgeon's hand", however I am going to approach it differently. So here goes my supposed letter to the editor.
Dear Editor,
The article the Star Tribune recently featured about robotic technology being used in surgery is one of many historical markers that illuminate humanity's path from the pre-industrial era as mostly human to where we are now, as trans-human. I am going to make the bold claim that we are already robots. One need only engage in some healthy introspection in order to find at least a partial truth. Before I go any further, anyone reading this garbage should shed whatever conceptions of robotics they personally hold and adopt the idea of robotics that I'm suggesting - that human-robotics is more a measure of the increasing social relations between humanity and technology.
The concept of robotics that science fiction has developed throughout the course of its history is NOT the same concept I'm developing. I'm talking about cyborgs - I'm talking about biological life forms like humans existing with and depending on various pieces of technology in order to exist and continue existing.
A prime example of the type of robotics I'm discussing is the increasing reliance on technology to communicate with one another. Whereas in the pre-industrial era one might not be able to pick up the phone or sign into their G-mail account to communicate with eachother, now, in the post-industrial era, humanity itself is almost completely linked up through our technology. Computers and laptops are better described as cyborg appendages as opposed to commodities that exist outside of our material bodies.
Patients may be rejecting treatment and surgery if it comes from the robotic appendage of a Doctor willing to utilize the latest technology. But they are simply trying to pretend that the transition to trans-humanism isn't already underway. I, on the other hand, would welcome any sort of surgery at the steady, reliable hands of cyborg robotics.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Robotic Surgery Concern
The Minneapolis - St. Paul Star Tribune had an article titled: Is a Robot’s Arm Better Than a Surgeon’s Hand? (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/84307407.html?page=1&c=y) It delves into the emergence of robotic arms, specifically in prostate surgery, and pinpoints both the positives and negatives that come with this type of technology in operating rooms. Since more and more people have become aware of this option, surgeons who don’t perform with robots have been losing patients to those who do. The main take away point is that robotic surgery is indeed much more expensive, but there is no evidence indicating that results or outcomes are improved when compared to traditional surgery procedures.
Dear Editor,
It’s not surprising to hear about robots in operating rooms, since technology has been advancing extensively to no avail. I recall watching futuristic movies as a child and being afraid of having our world turn into a place where machines dominated life. Reality is now transforming into just what I had been weary of.
Don’t get me wrong, it is wonderful that we have been able to construct such advanced technologies, but I have to speculate if mechanization is the answer to every single discipline. Some tasks just seem too intricate and delicate to mimic. The precision, attention, and care that a doctor’s hand provides is a perfect example.
Another major concern I would like to address is what this means for our doctors and those who are studying medicine. If robots are performing procedures, the only direct contact left for doctors is between them and the machine they are operating. In a field where patients are looking to be healed and cured, a robot just doesn’t quite administer the same holistic, therapeutic relationship that needs to be established between patient and doctor for optimum medical care.
Dear Editor,
It’s not surprising to hear about robots in operating rooms, since technology has been advancing extensively to no avail. I recall watching futuristic movies as a child and being afraid of having our world turn into a place where machines dominated life. Reality is now transforming into just what I had been weary of.
Don’t get me wrong, it is wonderful that we have been able to construct such advanced technologies, but I have to speculate if mechanization is the answer to every single discipline. Some tasks just seem too intricate and delicate to mimic. The precision, attention, and care that a doctor’s hand provides is a perfect example.
Another major concern I would like to address is what this means for our doctors and those who are studying medicine. If robots are performing procedures, the only direct contact left for doctors is between them and the machine they are operating. In a field where patients are looking to be healed and cured, a robot just doesn’t quite administer the same holistic, therapeutic relationship that needs to be established between patient and doctor for optimum medical care.
mob psychology
This is what I have so far. I think most of you should be able to see where I'm going with this. Somehow it seems unfinished. I want to explain the fact that I know that public perception influences the lives of the victims of mental disorders, yet that a scientific authority is better suited to deal with these issues rather than the mob. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
The article in question is located here:
www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/83987797.html?page=2&c=y
Dear Editor,
Your article of February 10th on naming mental disorders is indicative of the increasing tendency to democratize science. In calling for a public debate on this issue the American Psychiatric Association deferring its responsibility to the public when it should be setting guidelines based on the scientific findings that it produces. It is strange that the emotional impact of the diagnosis on the patient should be considered in this regard. A diagnosis is a tool for the medical professional, not an identity label for the afflicted. Instead of pandering to the public that grows ever more sensitive to any perceived criticism, the APA should focus on diagnosis and treatment of illness. I believe it is dangerous to leave these matters to the whims of the mob.
The article in question is located here:
www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/83987797.html?page=2&c=y
Dear Editor,
Your article of February 10th on naming mental disorders is indicative of the increasing tendency to democratize science. In calling for a public debate on this issue the American Psychiatric Association deferring its responsibility to the public when it should be setting guidelines based on the scientific findings that it produces. It is strange that the emotional impact of the diagnosis on the patient should be considered in this regard. A diagnosis is a tool for the medical professional, not an identity label for the afflicted. Instead of pandering to the public that grows ever more sensitive to any perceived criticism, the APA should focus on diagnosis and treatment of illness. I believe it is dangerous to leave these matters to the whims of the mob.
sex ed letter
1. I wanted to look at this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/education/03abstinence.html about abstinence-only education and how a new study shows it to be more affective than other forms of sex-ed. Mostly I was thinking about "WHAT IS THE DATA" and also "HOW DO WE INTERPRET IT?".
2. ROUGH DRAFT (IT'S KIND OF SHORT AND I RAMBLE A LOT. NEEDS BETTER FOCUS? MORE INSIGHT?):
Dear Editor,
In the article "Quick Response to Study of Abstinence Education", Sarah Brown is quoted as saying that the latest study on abstinence-only education is "game changing", but is it really? No doubt it does bring up ideas for new methods to help teens navigate the difficulties they face. However, the immediate effect of the recent study is that social conservatives have adopted it as their own, claiming that they finally have the data to support not giving young people a balanced sex education. One study, while it does bring up interesting questions and new ideas, should not alone affect public policy on how we choose to educate teens, or how we view comprehensive sex-ed. For one thing, as the article noted, this particular study was very different in nature from traditional abstinence programs, not focusing on pushing morals or advocating waiting until marriage. These differences are worth paying attention to. In addition, an important part of sex-ed is not only preventing teens from having sex, but also helping them know how to protect themselves when they do become sexually active. If anything, more study is needed before we reconsider sex-ed as a whole.
2. ROUGH DRAFT (IT'S KIND OF SHORT AND I RAMBLE A LOT. NEEDS BETTER FOCUS? MORE INSIGHT?):
Dear Editor,
In the article "Quick Response to Study of Abstinence Education", Sarah Brown is quoted as saying that the latest study on abstinence-only education is "game changing", but is it really? No doubt it does bring up ideas for new methods to help teens navigate the difficulties they face. However, the immediate effect of the recent study is that social conservatives have adopted it as their own, claiming that they finally have the data to support not giving young people a balanced sex education. One study, while it does bring up interesting questions and new ideas, should not alone affect public policy on how we choose to educate teens, or how we view comprehensive sex-ed. For one thing, as the article noted, this particular study was very different in nature from traditional abstinence programs, not focusing on pushing morals or advocating waiting until marriage. These differences are worth paying attention to. In addition, an important part of sex-ed is not only preventing teens from having sex, but also helping them know how to protect themselves when they do become sexually active. If anything, more study is needed before we reconsider sex-ed as a whole.
Can Change Happen?
The Star Tribune recently published a story entitled, "To fix schools, fix neighborhoods. The schools involved in the article were elementary schools in the St. Paul neighborhood. The city is proposing that they make changes to the neighborhood by making them more friendly and conducive to younger children. The article also suggests that change needs to occur both at home and at school if any major change is to happen.
Letter:
As I read this article, my first question was what is the time frame on changing the neighborhoods, how long will it take to turn a poverty stricken neighborhood around and make it a vibrant and supportive community for the children in elementary school?
I think it is a great proposal to make the environment friendlier because research has shown that the environment plays a major role in the behavior and success of children. How will change affect the children in the transition period though? These kids have grown up in a particular lifestyle, and until now nothing has changed.
Being an human, I get stuck into habits and find it difficult to change my daily routines. My assumption is that the same is also difficult for a child in elementary school. The question that now arises is: what can be done to make the change easier for the children in this transition period?
My proposal in order to get these children more willing to change is to have some kind of an activity night at the elementary schools several times throughout the year. At this event, children would be able to have fun at school with their peers in a safe and friendly environment. If children are having fun at school, they will likely have a positive attitude toward school, and, as a result, achievement will improve!
Letter:
As I read this article, my first question was what is the time frame on changing the neighborhoods, how long will it take to turn a poverty stricken neighborhood around and make it a vibrant and supportive community for the children in elementary school?
I think it is a great proposal to make the environment friendlier because research has shown that the environment plays a major role in the behavior and success of children. How will change affect the children in the transition period though? These kids have grown up in a particular lifestyle, and until now nothing has changed.
Being an human, I get stuck into habits and find it difficult to change my daily routines. My assumption is that the same is also difficult for a child in elementary school. The question that now arises is: what can be done to make the change easier for the children in this transition period?
My proposal in order to get these children more willing to change is to have some kind of an activity night at the elementary schools several times throughout the year. At this event, children would be able to have fun at school with their peers in a safe and friendly environment. If children are having fun at school, they will likely have a positive attitude toward school, and, as a result, achievement will improve!
Autism spectrum?
Recently the Star Tribune published an article about the reaction from members of the Asperger’s community (“Aspies” as they call themselves) toward the proposal to combine the diagnoses of autism and Asperger’s syndrome into a single category of “autism spectrum disorders” in the DSM 5. There is heated debate on both sides of this decision for many reasons, but to me it seems that there simply isn’t enough information about autism treatment, let alone evidence that this will improve the ability to diagnose and treat Asperger’s, to make this change.
The recent article “Aspies cling to Aspergers as an elite diagnosis” brings to light an important issue—the medical and social struggle with ever increasing rates of autism in the US and the question of how we should diagnose and treat the range of autism-related disorders. However, I’m concerned that this article doesn’t address some very key questions we should be asking in response to this proposal. After considering some of the practical and political issues around it, I find myself wary of the American Psychiatric Association’s proposal to put Asperger’s syndrome under this spectrum in the DSM 5. The focus of this issue, though, should not be the vague consequences for “Aspie” identity, but why this is being considered and what practical impact it will have. The fact that many Aspies are fighting this raises the question of where the benefits of this change will land. In discussing the reasoning behind the consolidation, the article states: “doctors use the term [autism] loosely and disagree on what it means, according to psychiatrists urging the revisions.” If we group this comparatively mild syndrome mostly impairing social function with much more serious disorders, what kind of changes will we see in psychiatrists’ recommendations and prescriptions for its treatment? This leads to the question of whether we are even treating autism effectively—if not, how exactly will this change bring benefit to people with Asperger’s? Currently there seem to be enough problems with the treatment of autism and too much that we don’t know about it to complicate its definition further. We need to address these questions before making changes to the DSM that could have major unexpected consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)