2021 02 28 - lydgate/mindmeld GitHub Wiki
- The co-creation of the self thesis, taken seriously, is linked to myriad of implications across a wide range of domains, disciplines, and discourses.
- The evolutionary hypothesis needs to be concretely unpacked (every mechanism, every process, including feedback processes, phase transitions, stabilization mechanisms, etc.). Then it needs to be supported by data. What do we need in terms of theories and data to establish that the sense of an individual, autonomous self (of a separate consciousness as well) emerged out of a more primitive, collective sense of self, over evolutionary time?
- The developmental hypothesis likewise needs to be articulated precisely, then supported by actual data (although theory is a first step of course). What do we need in terms of theories and data to establish that postnatally, the infant begins life with an already-established (in utero, literally part of the same organism) intersubjectivity? Out of this interconnected consciousness should emerge, from social feedback, a sense of a separate, individual self.
- The epistemological (?) hypothesis also needs to be articulated and supported. Ideas/insights/true innovations of thought/the basis of paradigm shifts should also be socially-constituted, fundamentally. So ideas (for short) should "best" emerge through social interaction (if "best" is better quality, faster, more rigorous). This contrasts not only with the "lone genius" myth, but also more generally, with the notion that we need to close our doors and turn off our internet, to be alone, to come up with the most brilliant ideas.
- From Krakauer: "The development of an idea is a transit from the deliberative solitude of the Mountain, into the collaborative fraternity of the Monastery, to be finally delivered to the diverse appetites of the Metropolis. Each place corresponds to the needs of a creative stage: contemplation, conversation, and commerce."
- Of course I agree with much of this account; it really appeals to me from several angles. And it is absolutely necessary to be alone in this process of constructing meaning and knowledge, of course. Writing at its elemental best is a necessary and important lone experience. Listening to the muse also necessitates keeping quiet and attuned, while "alone", though again, if one is waiting for the muse to come hang out, do we want to call that really being alone? More to the point, Krakauer's 3Ms model has a basic assumption that you start in the Mountain alone. Two problems with that:
- We are to assume that on the Mountain, we are not with other people physically, and so therefore we are "alone", not in social interaction. But we are likely at least reading as we formulate our new ideas. I strongly believe that the best reading is a social act, a literal dialogue (albeit often internal, in our own minds). This internal machination or processing of what we read is probably proto-dialogues in our head, at least in my head. But also note-taking is /should be an active engagement with the ideas. A fundamentally dialogical process
- I don't think that this is where the most robust, important ideas actually originate, in isolation. The "aha" moment might, sometimes, happen when alone. But I feel like this is still a socially-constituted experience because of the voices likely in one's head when this last piece of a puzzle snaps into place
- From a social safety theory or social baseline theory perspective, it should be that we have additional cognitive (and concomitant emotional) resources available to allocate to a "problem" we're thinking about if we are doing it with someone we value and trust. I'm not sure if this is only metaphorical, or if we can make a clear empirical argument for this process as well.
- the visual cliff experiments are super important for this argument
- can we track whether people's physiology changes when they are tackling a problem with others vs alone? (stupid data problem: excitement and anxiety have similar physiological signatures, so you'd have to rely on dumb self report, but this isn't a hard problem to solve, if I actually wanted to take on another student some day to test this)
- ideally, the same or similar set of principles and processes would characterize all these levels of analysis (1-3) and the venn of key processes (e.g., phase transitions, bifurcations, sensitive dependence on initial conditions, chaos-order-chaos accordion, autopoeitic feedback processes) overlap across the 3 levels/domains. What the hell do you call the Epi one? Not a level but not exactly a domain. And there are a bunch more. But basically, we need to think of the ontogeny-phylogeny fit, and the thinking around what we're often calling "meta" -- the processes by which Bryan and I are working together, -- may be interesting to zoom out into a larger epistemology perspective.
- I have theoretical frameworks already articulated for all three domains/levels, and some supporting data (not mine) in some cases.
- I needs to find a way to systematically pull her info from old work in these domains. Evernote is easy, so do first, but most isn't, since so much used to be done on hard copies (the reading, the note-taking, the writing in some cases)
Todo :: Intersubjectivity :: Co creation of the self
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
