From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net>
Subject: BHA: The stratification of personality, cont'd
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:29:57 -0500


Hiya Gary, you ol' devil worshipper--

> Now I grant that my first formulation of this was too non-social and
overly
> individualistic.  It helps I think if we talk of the concrete
> universal.  My stress is on the first level here that of the common core
> humanity.  What did Orwell "have" as his genetic& metaphysical
> endowment?

Okay, I'm willing to try to follow this, but I'm not sure how far it takes
us.  Re the genetic endowment that contributes to our common core humanity,
aside from an extremely tiny percentage of our genes, humans have
essentially an identical genetic makeup, whatever their sex, race,
intelligence, or physical capacities.  Of course that tiny percentage often
"grounds" (or is interpreted as grounding) a lot of difference in our
attitudes and behavior toward each other, but let's set that aside for a
moment: the point is that humans indeed have a common genetic endowment.

But what do you mean by metaphysical endowment?  That we each have a soul?
Assuming that's what you mean, then I come upon the following dilemma: on
the one hand, if the soul is the distinctive essence that makes us each
individual, if each soul is unique and eternal, then it is misleading to
speak of it belonging to common core humanity except in a very abstract
sense; on the other hand, if it is part of the common core humanity, then it
appears to contribute nothing that wasn't in the genetic endowment, and if
it's an empty notion we may as well take Ockham's razor to it.  (NB: to some
extent anyway I'm playing Devil's advocate; I'm ultimately agnostic on these
matters, God knows.)

>                Moore
> is no fool or clown.  He has a mind like a steel trap and is very much in
> charge.  So this raises the question in many minds of "Will the real
> Michael Moore stand up?'
>
> I try to solve this problem with the notion of stratification of the
> personality.  The creation that we see in Roger and Me is 'authentic'.  It
> is part of Moore. But for me it emerges from deeper layers within
> Moore.

In which case the original question makes a false assumption, since the one
Moore is just as real as the other.  (And the Moore, the merrier!)  But I'm
still not entirely clear what sense of "deeper" you have in mind and what
its function is.  Evidently it is not "more real" (good), but I still need
some elucidation.

> Now the question of acting emerges here, and I admit that this is a tricky
> one.  But I would like to bracket this off for the time being and stress
> that Moore is the actor/writer/creator and that this is different from an
> actor who walks in and performs the lines. (Not at all sure about this!)

Hmm, no, I don't think that sort of distinction can hold up.  The actor is
more creative than this opposition suggests, and Moore is less so, in the
sense that he necessarily has to use language and cultural idioms
("scripts") that pre-existed him and his film.

> As for my remark that what is crucial is the relationship between the
> levels in the personality, I meant by this that the relationship is not
> linear but rather dialectical.  The upper layers if you like are generated
> by deeper layers but they also react with and influence the deeper
> levels.  The trick in life seems to me to achieve a harmony between the
> levels and that is really what FEW is about. And that is yet one more
> reason for not dismissing the book out of hand.

The dialectical nature of the relationship between levels I most certainly
would go along with, though in this description you again limit your
discussion to the individual level.

As for harmony, how is that defined?  Speaking again as the Devil's
advocate, some of us *like* tritones (diabolus in musica!).

Re that beer I owe you, I fear I'm unlikely to get to another CR conference
during this lifetime.  Which pretty much leaves you either to coming over
here to get it, or waiting for my next incarnation.  Speaking of
metempsychosis in the 21st century, does a cloned sheep have a cloned soul?
And when, after many reincarnations, a sheep attains the pinnacle of inner
purity and harmony, does it become the dalai llama?

Yours in Groucho Marxism-John Lennonism,  T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---