On the other hand, how is a scientist to make a distinction that is, perhaps, beyond the ken of science?
What the scientist can study is how the brain acts in certain circumstances. The Times gives the following example:
When ... patterns break down — as when a hiker stumbles across an easy chair sitting deep in the woods, as if dropped from the sky — the brain gropes for something, anything that makes sense. It may retreat to a familiar ritual, like checking equipment. But it may also turn its attention outward, the researchers argue, and notice, say, a pattern in animal tracks that was previously hidden. The urge to find a coherent pattern makes it more likely that the brain will find one.This sort of thing is empirically verifiable. Moreover, various forms of prayer and/or meditation have been shown to correspond to certain brain states. But what is not clear is whether there is an empirical difference between a mystical vision and an experience of absurdity.
In short, can the brain tell the difference between an angelic vision in the woods and a vision of a La-Z-Boy?
The mind certainly can tell the difference. Had Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, claimed to see a talking rocking chair, they would have been laughed out of town. Had Paul told the Athenians that their "unknown god" had raised the Pythagorean theorem from the dead, they would have told him to go study logic.
But these people claimed an experience, not contrary to reason, but beyond reason. They described an event that, if true, would broaden the scope of the world and human experience. This is as true of ghost hunters as it is of prophets. Their experience is uncanny.
The merely absurd, on the other hand, actually attempts to destroy the world and, in particular, human experience. It posits something that disorients, that undermines the trust we put in out senses and intellect. Our minds seek order and rationality in the world; absurdity denies that there is order or rationality to seek.
To which I reply, where did the human mind get the idea to seek order?
In any case, the answer to the question of whether brain states empirically show a difference between an experience of the absurd and an experience of the uncanny would show more about the scope of science than it would about the nature of the universe.
1 comboxers:
It's a good point that if order did not exist, the absurd wouldn't work at all--because there has to be an order, either a perceived order or an actual one, for the absurd to subvert or else, it is....not abusrd. Just ordinary. And whether the subverted order is real or perceived, still the point is the mind is driven toward order in the first place? And why?
This is great--thanks for the link and I'm glad you can see what I'm getting at--though I'll add another dimension--it's the taking it one step further that made me say "ech" and stop the distinction because it was the weekend and I was being, um, lazy.
But here is where the distinction breaks down: You can also have absurd angelic visions and a vision of a LaZBoy can be mystic.
I'm quite certain that the absurd leads to altered consciousness---what arrives in that state is another story--so it also makes sense to me that the absurd and the uncanny go hand in hand, though not necessarily so.
And angelic visions may very well use the absurd to grab our attention.
It's something for me to chew on and thanks for adding to it-0
Post a Comment