Gramsci and idealism

[AshvinP]

I was only aiming my comment at explicit philosophical systems like that of Gramsci, not any specific interactions with non-humans. Specifically I was generally agreeing with this:

‘The idea of “objective” in metaphysical materialism would appear to mean an objectivity that exists even apart from man; but when one affirms that a reality would exist even if man did not, one is either speaking metaphorically, or one is falling into a form of mysticism. We know reality only in relation to man, and since man is historical becoming, knowledge and reality are also a becoming and so is objectivity..’ (446)

And I disagree with Gramsci. Western philosophy starts from 'gnothi seauton', which in the epistemic translation "know thyself" does not assume that "man" is known. Replace "man" with "sentient being", and Gramsci's argument can start to make better sense. Finnish etc. translation of 'gnothi seauton' is not epistemic, gnosis is sentient: feel thyself.

It does not make sense to speak of a metaphysics which starts from anything other than human experience. We may eventually incorporate some aspects of non-human experience as phenomenon which are relevant, but the starting point remains the human experience of the world, including the human experience of animals in the world. If we imagine that we are starting from anything other than human experience, then we are fooling ourselves.

As I tried to say, meaning of "human" is not universal among the sentient beings that Western science biologically categorizes as "human species". Among what I suppose you refer to as "human species" with "human experience", there is no full consensus what those terms refer to and mean and how and where their extend among various costumes of the spirit. In many indigenous languages "human" refers only/mostly/by degree to members of a same tribe, and in various degrees less to sentient beings who are not members of the tribe, and those degrees don't necessarily depend from how Western science categorizes species.

A dog can be a family member and more closely shared perspective than other sentient beings including other biological humans who are not members of the same family, regardless of biological species. Human children also often associate very closely with spirits that are in West commonly called "imaginary friends". And in non-Western perspectives, children are not always lectured by materialistic authority that their "imaginary" friends "are not real".

My point is simply, we have no consensus definition of what is "human experience", so the claimed necessity of starting from something we can't assume is a fully/highly shared perspective, becomes moot.

I am curious how you know it "does not assume 'man' is known" but rather "sentient beings". Without further context, it is only reasonable to assume it is addressing the specifically human capacity to know thyself.

So what is the range of 'costumes of the spirit' the word "human" can apply to, according to you? There must be a delineation somewhere, unless we are taking "human" to be a meaningless word. So where is it?

I dispute that, theoretically, you can share the perspective of the family dog more closely than another human being (assuming you do not define "human" to include dogs). Another human's experience of relating to a family pet will always be closer to your experience than the pet's experience of relating to you.

[Lou Gold]

I was only aiming my comment at explicit philosophical systems like that of Gramsci, not any specific interactions with non-humans. Specifically I was generally agreeing with this:

And I disagree with Gramsci. Western philosophy starts from 'gnothi seauton', which in the epistemic translation "know thyself" does not assume that "man" is known. Replace "man" with "sentient being", and Gramsci's argument can start to make better sense. Finnish etc. translation of 'gnothi seauton' is not epistemic, gnosis is sentient: feel thyself.

It does not make sense to speak of a metaphysics which starts from anything other than human experience. We may eventually incorporate some aspects of non-human experience as phenomenon which are relevant, but the starting point remains the human experience of the world, including the human experience of animals in the world. If we imagine that we are starting from anything other than human experience, then we are fooling ourselves.

As I tried to say, meaning of "human" is not universal among the sentient beings that Western science biologically categorizes as "human species". Among what I suppose you refer to as "human species" with "human experience", there is no full consensus what those terms refer to and mean and how and where their extend among various costumes of the spirit. In many indigenous languages "human" refers only/mostly/by degree to members of a same tribe, and in various degrees less to sentient beings who are not members of the tribe, and those degrees don't necessarily depend from how Western science categorizes species.

A dog can be a family member and more closely shared perspective than other sentient beings including other biological humans who are not members of the same family, regardless of biological species. Human children also often associate very closely with spirits that are in West commonly called "imaginary friends". And in non-Western perspectives, children are not always lectured by materialistic authority that their "imaginary" friends "are not real".

My point is simply, we have no consensus definition of what is "human experience", so the claimed necessity of starting from something we can't assume is a fully/highly shared perspective, becomes moot.

I am curious how you know it "does not assume 'man' is known" but rather "sentient beings". Without further context, it is only reasonable to assume it is addressing the specifically human capacity to know thyself.

So what is the range of 'costumes of the spirit' the word "human" can apply to, according to you? There must be a delineation somewhere, unless we are taking "human" to be a meaningless word. So where is it?

I dispute that, theoretically, you can share the perspective of the family dog more closely than another human being (assuming you do not define "human" to include dogs). Another human's experience of relating to a family pet will always be closer to your experience than the pet's experience of relating to you.

Ashvin, Would you dispute a Jaguar Shaman? Check out the Narby video for more details.

[AshvinP]

And I disagree with Gramsci. Western philosophy starts from 'gnothi seauton', which in the epistemic translation "know thyself" does not assume that "man" is known. Replace "man" with "sentient being", and Gramsci's argument can start to make better sense. Finnish etc. translation of 'gnothi seauton' is not epistemic, gnosis is sentient: feel thyself.



As I tried to say, meaning of "human" is not universal among the sentient beings that Western science biologically categorizes as "human species". Among what I suppose you refer to as "human species" with "human experience", there is no full consensus what those terms refer to and mean and how and where their extend among various costumes of the spirit. In many indigenous languages "human" refers only/mostly/by degree to members of a same tribe, and in various degrees less to sentient beings who are not members of the tribe, and those degrees don't necessarily depend from how Western science categorizes species.

A dog can be a family member and more closely shared perspective than other sentient beings including other biological humans who are not members of the same family, regardless of biological species. Human children also often associate very closely with spirits that are in West commonly called "imaginary friends". And in non-Western perspectives, children are not always lectured by materialistic authority that their "imaginary" friends "are not real".

My point is simply, we have no consensus definition of what is "human experience", so the claimed necessity of starting from something we can't assume is a fully/highly shared perspective, becomes moot.

I am curious how you know it "does not assume 'man' is known" but rather "sentient beings". Without further context, it is only reasonable to assume it is addressing the specifically human capacity to know thyself.

So what is the range of 'costumes of the spirit' the word "human" can apply to, according to you? There must be a delineation somewhere, unless we are taking "human" to be a meaningless word. So where is it?

I dispute that, theoretically, you can share the perspective of the family dog more closely than another human being (assuming you do not define "human" to include dogs). Another human's experience of relating to a family pet will always be closer to your experience than the pet's experience of relating to you.

Ashvin, Would you dispute a Jaguar Shaman? Check out the Narby video for more details.

No I don't necessarily dispute him (just based on the description).

In this mesmerizing talk, Jeremy Narby shares the findings from his groundbreaking book Intelligence in Nature. He describes his quest around the globe to chronicle how leading-edge scientists are studying intelligence in nature and how nature learns. He uncovers a universal thread of highly intelligent behavior within the natural world, and asks the question: What can humanity learn from nature's economy and knowingness? Weaving together issues of animal cognition, evolutionary biology and psychology, he challenges contemporary scientific concepts and reveals a much deeper view of the nature of intelligence and of our kinship with all life.

But what does it mean to study "intelligence in nature" and "nature's economy and knowingness"? It means we are asking how plants and animals exhibit what humans conceive as "intelligence" based on human experience.

[Lou Gold]

I am curious how you know it "does not assume 'man' is known" but rather "sentient beings". Without further context, it is only reasonable to assume it is addressing the specifically human capacity to know thyself.

So what is the range of 'costumes of the spirit' the word "human" can apply to, according to you? There must be a delineation somewhere, unless we are taking "human" to be a meaningless word. So where is it?

I dispute that, theoretically, you can share the perspective of the family dog more closely than another human being (assuming you do not define "human" to include dogs). Another human's experience of relating to a family pet will always be closer to your experience than the pet's experience of relating to you.

Ashvin, Would you dispute a Jaguar Shaman? Check out the Narby video for more details.

No I don't necessarily dispute him (just based on the description).

In this mesmerizing talk, Jeremy Narby shares the findings from his groundbreaking book Intelligence in Nature. He describes his quest around the globe to chronicle how leading-edge scientists are studying intelligence in nature and how nature learns. He uncovers a universal thread of highly intelligent behavior within the natural world, and asks the question: What can humanity learn from nature's economy and knowingness? Weaving together issues of animal cognition, evolutionary biology and psychology, he challenges contemporary scientific concepts and reveals a much deeper view of the nature of intelligence and of our kinship with all life.

But what does it mean to study "intelligence in nature" and "nature's economy and knowingness"? It means we are asking how plants and animals exhibit what humans conceive as "intelligence" based on human experience.

There are different technologies: one can study "intelligence in nature" from separation from it (typical of Western science) or you can experience via direct incorporation of it as in shamanhood. This is the difference making the difference. BTW, Narby's talk is quite enjoyable filled wit a deadpan humor. If you are impatient with it, you can listen to the final 8 mins (approx). The point is, as Santeri asserts, that there are many ways of being human including being more animist. Accepting this, violates a clear certainty of hierarchy.

[SanteriSatama]

I am curious how you know it "does not assume 'man' is known" but rather "sentient beings". Without further context, it is only reasonable to assume it is addressing the specifically human capacity to know thyself.

If you are asking for which is the better translation of gnothi seauton, if the motto meant epistemic knowing instead of gnosis, the Greek verb from which 'epistemic' comes would have been used. You are also familiar with the expression "To know in Biblical sense" which, jokes beside, refers to the feeling meaning of gnosis. Self-feeling, aka 'bodily awareness', is not dependent from the costume that spirit is wearing, though self-image (epistemic) and self-feel can and do interact in complex and wonderful ways. OBE, various synaisthetic phenomena, etc. etc.

Healthy epistemic (/metacognitive) knowing should come with healthy epistemic humility, ie. philosophical skepticism. Direct sentient knowing does not ask e.g. whether you are feeling hungry or not, skepticism of sentience can come only with many layers of interpretation. "Silent knowing" is a term sometimes used in English for gnosis-sentience-feel.

So what is the range of 'costumes of the spirit' the word "human" can apply to, according to you? There must be a delineation somewhere, unless we are taking "human" to be a meaningless word. So where is it?

I don't agree that there must be a delineation somewhere, or that meaning would cease without either-or delineation, as I don't subscribe to Law of Excluded Middle, except in very specific contexts. For speakers of European languages, especially, assuming LEM of Aristotelean logic is a highly automated reaction-assumption resulting from long history of conditioning. But it's not universal, not even in mathematics where Intuitionist logic does not subscribe to it.

From the traditional perspective of my Savo tribe, if somebody insists on LEM by his speech and general manner, that makes him less immeinen, word for 'human' in our dialect. Other Finn or similar looking biological creature can be 'ihminen', word for human in the general dialect, but to earn the tribal title immeinen, there are sneaky tests involved to let an ihminen inside the insider joke of our tribe to become a fellow immeinen. Trying to explain this philosophically in English ruins the joke, but then on, maybe it doesn't or could be also some other way around.

I dispute that, theoretically, you can share the perspective of the family dog more closely than another human being (assuming you do not define "human" to include dogs). Another human's experience of relating to a family pet will always be closer to your experience than the pet's experience of relating to you.

Couple obvious examples. A hunting pair of a human and dog spending more time together in a forest than with other people can be tight beyond my imagination. A blind human guided by senses of a dog can be tight beyond my imagination.

In our language what is "officially" translated as he/she vs it meaning human vs non-human. The real and actual semantics of those pronouns is complex layering of emotional closeness, respect, etc. Most usually 'it' is used for other humans, and when 'he/she' is used, that is some sort of distancing/emphasis that is hard to classify. When he/she is used for non-humans, that expresses respect and/or emphasis on inclusive relation e.g. as family / tribe member. A clan of a bear never addresses a bear as "it", or even uses the real name of a bear, Finnish has dozen or so caressing names for bear, to avoid directly naming him/her with their real name.

Anthropological data of other animistic ways of life shows that such way of speaking of degrees of inclusive-exclusive relations is the norm, not exception. So yes, we often can and do include dogs etc. as human.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, Would you dispute a Jaguar Shaman? Check out the Narby video for more details.

No I don't necessarily dispute him (just based on the description).

In this mesmerizing talk, Jeremy Narby shares the findings from his groundbreaking book Intelligence in Nature. He describes his quest around the globe to chronicle how leading-edge scientists are studying intelligence in nature and how nature learns. He uncovers a universal thread of highly intelligent behavior within the natural world, and asks the question: What can humanity learn from nature's economy and knowingness? Weaving together issues of animal cognition, evolutionary biology and psychology, he challenges contemporary scientific concepts and reveals a much deeper view of the nature of intelligence and of our kinship with all life.

But what does it mean to study "intelligence in nature" and "nature's economy and knowingness"? It means we are asking how plants and animals exhibit what humans conceive as "intelligence" based on human experience.

There are different technologies: one can study "intelligence in nature" from separation from it (typical of Western science) or you can experience via direct incorporation of it as in shamanhood. This is the difference making the difference. BTW, Narby's talk is quite enjoyable filled wit a deadpan humor. If you are impatient with it, you can listen to the final 8 mins (approx). The point is, as Santeri asserts, that there are many ways of being human including being more animist. Accepting this, violates a clear certainty of hierarchy.

Regardless of which way you study or experience it, you are entering into the relationship as a human. Claiming anything else seems to me disrespectful of animist cultures, like telling a person from a foreign country you know its culture better than they do.

[Lou Gold]

No I don't necessarily dispute him (just based on the description).



But what does it mean to study "intelligence in nature" and "nature's economy and knowingness"? It means we are asking how plants and animals exhibit what humans conceive as "intelligence" based on human experience.

There are different technologies: one can study "intelligence in nature" from separation from it (typical of Western science) or you can experience via direct incorporation of it as in shamanhood. This is the difference making the difference. BTW, Narby's talk is quite enjoyable filled wit a deadpan humor. If you are impatient with it, you can listen to the final 8 mins (approx). The point is, as Santeri asserts, that there are many ways of being human including being more animist. Accepting this, violates a clear certainty of hierarchy.

Regardless of which way you study or experience it, you are entering into the relationship as a human. Claiming anything else seems to me disrespectful of animist cultures, like telling a person from a foreign country you know its culture better than they do.

The Jaguar Shaman is a person from a foreign culture. Are you saying that you know his culture better than he does? What might possibly give you a superior view to the one directly reported by the Jaguar Shaman himself? Methinks that perhaps you have not directly experienced mediumship. Is this true?

[AshvinP]

I am curious how you know it "does not assume 'man' is known" but rather "sentient beings". Without further context, it is only reasonable to assume it is addressing the specifically human capacity to know thyself.

If you are asking for which is the better translation of gnothi seauton, if the motto meant epistemic knowing instead of gnosis, the Greek verb from which 'epistemic' comes would have been used. You are also familiar with the expression "To know in Biblical sense" which, jokes beside, refers to the feeling meaning of gnosis. Self-feeling, aka 'bodily awareness', is not dependent from the costume that spirit is wearing, though self-image (epistemic) and self-feel can and do interact in complex and wonderful ways. OBE, various synaisthetic phenomena, etc. etc.

Healthy epistemic (/metacognitive) knowing should come with healthy epistemic humility, ie. philosophical skepticism. Direct sentient knowing does not ask e.g. whether you are feeling hungry or not, skepticism of sentience can come only with many layers of interpretation. "Silent knowing" is a term sometimes used in English for gnosis-sentience-feel.

I was not asking that but it's good to know. What can be more epistemically less humble than claiming human identity is sufficient to experience and philosophize about all non-human perspectives?

So what is the range of 'costumes of the spirit' the word "human" can apply to, according to you? There must be a delineation somewhere, unless we are taking "human" to be a meaningless word. So where is it?

I don't agree that there must be a delineation somewhere, or that meaning would cease without either-or delineation, as I don't subscribe to Law of Excluded Middle, except in very specific contexts. For speakers of European languages, especially, assuming LEM of Aristotelean logic is a highly automated reaction-assumption resulting from long history of conditioning. But it's not universal, not even in mathematics where Intuitionist logic does not subscribe to it.

From the traditional perspective of my Savo tribe, if somebody insists on LEM by his speech and general manner, that makes him less immeinen, word for 'human' in our dialect. Other Finn or similar looking biological creature can be 'ihminen', word for human in the general dialect, but to earn the tribal title immeinen, there are sneaky tests involved to let an ihminen inside the insider joke of our tribe to become a fellow immeinen. Trying to explain this philosophically in English ruins the joke, but then on, maybe it doesn't or could be also some other way around.

This is not a case of LEM because I am not claiming the word "human" has clear ontological boundaries. Rather I am claiming that, for epistemic-pragmatic purposes, to continue using the word "human" in a meaningful way we must delineate some boundaries. Otherwise I can expand and contract the definition of "human" as I see fit to support whatever argument I happen to be making at the time.

I dispute that, theoretically, you can share the perspective of the family dog more closely than another human being (assuming you do not define "human" to include dogs). Another human's experience of relating to a family pet will always be closer to your experience than the pet's experience of relating to you.

Couple obvious examples. A hunting pair of a human and dog spending more time together in a forest than with other people can be tight beyond my imagination. A blind human guided by senses of a dog can be tight beyond my imagination.

In our language what is "officially" translated as he/she vs it meaning human vs non-human. The real and actual semantics of those pronouns is complex layering of emotional closeness, respect, etc. Most usually 'it' is used for other humans, and when 'he/she' is used, that is some sort of distancing/emphasis that is hard to classify. When he/she is used for non-humans, that expresses respect and/or emphasis on inclusive relation e.g. as family / tribe member. A clan of a bear never addresses a bear as "it", or even uses the real name of a bear, Finnish has dozen or so caressing names for bear, to avoid directly naming him/her with their real name.

Anthropological data of other animistic ways of life shows that such way of speaking of degrees of inclusive-exclusive relations is the norm, not exception. So yes, we often can and do include dogs etc. as human.

That is why I used the word "theoretically". I can definitely imagine any particular person who ends up having a closer experiential relationship with non-human animals than with other humans. But, theoretically, that same person could always achieve an even closer experience with another human if placed in conducive circumstances.

[SanteriSatama]

That is why I used the word "theoretically". I can definitely imagine any particular person who ends up having a closer experiential relationship with non-human animals than with other humans. But, theoretically, that same person could always achieve an even closer experience with another human if placed in conducive circumstances.

Ah, "theoretically" can then be understood to mean potentially, in which case your argument is coherent with the shades of gray view of terms 'human', 'people' etc in animistic ways of life.

[AshvinP]

That is why I used the word "theoretically". I can definitely imagine any particular person who ends up having a closer experiential relationship with non-human animals than with other humans. But, theoretically, that same person could always achieve an even closer experience with another human if placed in conducive circumstances.

Ah, "theoretically" can then be understood to mean potentially, in which case your argument is coherent with the shades of gray view of terms 'human', 'people' etc in animistic ways of life.

Yeah, I think so. Another way of putting my argument would be that we cannot philosophize from the perspective of non-humans any more than we can explain the experience of color to a blind person in a way that makes them experience it.