So much these days about the brain “acting” in priority to “thought” (self-reflection?) that I wanted to again assert the prescience of the 19th century as regards our current scientific moment.
Morse Peckham on Browning:
We never know what we are doing. It is only after it is done that we can create constructs which are themselves in the service of our interests, whether our interest be a the moment self-justification or self-condemnation…he had arrived at the realization that what unifies will, perception, cognition and truth is personality, and that the problem of epistemology, that is, of knowledge and of what can be known, is inseparable from the problem of personality…epistemology is a personality problem, not a philosophical question. (Victorian Revolutionaries)
If the brain “thinks us” (a fun “zen” anecdote here recalls the little boy who sneezed and was chastised for not “excusing” himself saying “but it sneezed me”) then personality too is a response to that organ’s adjustment to environmental stimuli.
It will also upend Descartes, right? I am therefore I think. (The contention here must be and always have been how the “I” is defined.) Of course this brings the conception of the linguistic frame of God back into play “I am that I am” (or is that Popeye?).
I will confess to writing poetry in this mode. I write it, then I think about what I meant by it–that is, I am only one interpreter of the stimulated brain inside my head.
Also, one might imagine “image” or the “reflection” of our physical appearance would take on even more significance as regards “mind” or “personality” right? A brain that is “Doug Storm” resides in the head of Doug Storm who is only recognized as Doug Storm by a view of his countenance, i.e., we really do “reflect” the myth of Narcissus (and don’t forget the Echo part!).
I am not identified by fingerprints but rather the “carrier” of this brain is identified (as a car is identified by VIN but the driver is in question).
whew…my jekyll is tired and the confusion is prompting my hyde to stir. Wait, that’s using the idea of a different Robert!
But wait, here’s more from the 19th century–yes, it’s Melville:
So that there are instances among them of men, who, named with Scripture names—a singularly common fashion on the island—and in childhood naturally imbibing the stately dramatic thee and thou of the Quaker idiom; still, from the audacious, daring, and boundless adventure of their subsequent lives, strangely blend with these unoutgrown peculiarities, a thousand bold dashes of character, not unworthy a Scandinavian sea-king, or a poetical Pagan Roman. And when these things unite in a man of greatly superior natural force, with a globular brain and a ponderous heart; who has also by the stillness and seclusion of many long night-watches in the remotest waters, and beneath constellations never seen here at the north, been led to think untraditionally and independently; receiving all nature’s sweet or savage impressions fresh from her own virgin voluntary and confiding breast, and thereby chiefly, but with some help from accidental advantages, to learn a bold and nervous lofty language—that man makes one in a whole nation’s census—a mighty pageant creature, formed for noble tragedies. Nor will it at all detract from him, dramatically regarded, if either by birth or other circumstances, he have what seems a half wilful overruling morbidness at the bottom of his nature. For all men tragically great are made so through a certain morbidness. Be sure of this, O young ambition, all mortal greatness is but disease. But, as yet we have not to do with such an one, but with quite another; and still a man, who, if indeed peculiar, it only results again from another phase of the Quaker, modified by individual circumstances.
And in a chapter on the character (personality of) Starbuck:
With memories like these in him, and, moreover, given to a certain superstitiousness, as has been said; the courage of this Starbuck which could, nevertheless, still flourish, must indeed have been extreme. But it was not in reasonable nature that a man so organized, and with such terrible experiences and remembrances as he had; it was not in nature that these things should fail in latently engendering an element in him, which, under suitable circumstances, would break out from its confinement, and burn all his courage up.
Or perhaps we look to the 17th century?
I wish either my father or my mother, or indeed both of them, as they were in duty both equally bound to it, had minded what they were about when they begot me; had they duly consider’d how much depended upon what they were then doing;—that not only the production of a rational Being was concerned in it, but that possibly the happy formation and temperature of his body, perhaps his genius and the very cast of his mind;—and, for aught they knew to the contrary, even the fortunes of his whole house might take their turn from the humours and dispositions which were then uppermost;—Had they duly weighed and considered all this, and proceeded accordingly,—I am verily persuaded I should have made a quite different figure in the world, from that in which the reader is likely to see me.—Believe me, good folks, this is not so inconsiderable a thing as many of you may think it;—you have all, I dare say, heard of the animal spirits, as how they are transfused from father to son, &c. &c.—and a great deal to that purpose:—Well, you may take my word, that nine parts in ten of a man’s sense or his nonsense, his successes and miscarriages in this world depend upon their motions and activity, and the different tracks and trains you put them into, so that when they are once set a-going, whether right or wrong, ’tis not a half-penny matter,—away they go cluttering like hey-go mad; and by treading the same steps over and over again, they presently make a road of it, as plain and as smooth as a garden-walk, which, when they are once used to, the Devil himself sometimes shall not be able to drive them off it. –from Chapter One of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman by Laurence Sterne (1759)
And I wrote this, which strikes me as pertinent, out of some letters written by scientists in the 19th century who worked with Louis Agassiz.
The Stranger says to Willy as regards
the exfoliating Now
secret, the formula by which we see”)
walk round yourself in the revelation
philosophy a hound hunting his own
the more he hunts the farther he has
to go, and his nose never catches up
with his heels, because it is forever
ahead of them
the present already
a foregone conclusion for which I am
now too late to understand
of recovery from anesthetics,
just then, before starting on life, I catch,
so to speak, a glimpse of my heels, a glimpse:
the eternal process just in the act
we travel on a journey
that was accomplished before we set out;
the real end is in ending, not when we
arrive at, but when we remain in, our
destination (being already there) —
which may occur vicariously if
we halt intellectual questioning
a smile appears upon the face of the
as we view it
we are forever just a blink too late
You could kiss your own lips, have all the fun
to and of yourself, it says, if only
you knew the trick
it would be perfectly easy
can’t you manage it
In the first place, yes,
doesn’t move me
not the reading
not even the script
but the onion skin
an utter impress
of forgotten slough
as blood says,
the one sole sufficient
the how of it
when fast is a
forever too late
revealed by precedent
an initiation of the past
out of itself,
but kept to retreat
by formal stay
of wholly no propulsion
it goes because it is a-going
…was and is, a-going it
(catch it) can’t
without your look
But Pessoa says it better, with brevity:
The poet is a faker
Who’s so good at his act
He even fakes the pain
Of pain he feels in fact.
And those who read his words
Will feel in his writing
Neither of the pains he has
But just the one they’re missing.
And so around its track
This thing called the heart winds,
A little clockwork train
To entertain our minds. (tr Richard Zenith)