Speculation on 'dualism' and so on

contemplation, action, mind, body, problem!

Going on from last post, the difference between the perpetually active herd-animal, and the beast of prey in which both rest and activity are taken to the extremes. With the latter, it is because both are developed to such a high degree, and because both are found here together in one animal, as one unity, that we can come to see them as different in the first place. If one would want to write a speculative history of this idea of the separation of body and mind or soul, this could be a starting point. The more ‘evolved’ the animal (which seems to line up with the more predatorial the animal is), the more distinct soul(contemplation) and body(action) come to appear. If we look at the smallest living organisms, micro-organisms and so on, people often say that these are living and perhaps even ‘sentient’ and even have some degree of ‘thought’, because of the seemingly intelligent way in which they can move and replicate. But their movement, and the complexity of it, is what we take as evidence of their thought. It is not that we see them thinking, that we see thinking in them as a separate thing from their movements. Their activity and their ‘thinking’ is one and the same. It does not sit and contemplate, and then do, its doing is its thinking. Compare humans, or a cat, or a lizard even. It observes, and then it acts. Or the human can sit still and dream up an entirely new theory or story about whatever, its thinking can become an acting of its own, seemingly distinct from its acting with its body in space. What I want to say is, the more advanced the organism in its entirety, the more distinct the soul and the body, and the more contemplation and action come to appear as two separate things. It is no mistake that in the Platonic view, the lower level of people do not see their souls as distinct from their bodies, whereas those who are more formed/educated, come to realize that soul and body are distinct. (If you see someone claim that the distinction between mind or soul and body is childish, old-fashioned, and to be done away with, you should really keep Plato in mind and ask yourself if this person is not just on a very low level of spiritual development). 

‘Dualism’ is created. Now, this does not make it a ‘illusion’ or ‘fiction’ any more than a tree is a fiction because it is created out of different things which existed prior to the tree as a whole. The tree is not an illusion, whereas the soil and the seed are real. The result is a veritable creation, a thing of its own, and possibly an advancement. 

In ‘Voyage du monde de Descartes’, a 17th century sci-fi parody about Descartes, the philosopher consumes a bunch of tobacco snuff, too much of it, and dissociates from his body, thereby coming to realize that mind and body are distinct. Now of course, it is the complexity of his organism (the sensitivity of the receptors in his brain and so on), that allows him to have this realization. Is this then to say that ‘really’ there is no separation, and the separation is only an illusion? Or is it more accurate to say that Nature wants us to realize something? Does Nature have organisms evolve so that soul can finally be freed from body? So that contemplation can come to stand on its own, no longer being attached to action? Perhaps. But again, without action, no contemplation. And if contemplation could come to rule by itself, it can happen that it slowly starts devouring the contemplator. His body becomes frail, his mind fails. If there is a purpose to Nature’s creation of dualism, it is surely to see the value and unity of both contemplation and action. Unless we are willing to leave this world behind entirely, of course. 

The more detached from the practical life of action, the ‘higher’ the thought. Pure mathematics is more of a theoretical achievement than bakery. And even if a philosopher would claim the truth of pragmatism, he is still spending his time doing philosophy, and not engineering. And the more detached from theory, the more effective the action. When practice has become instinct in the martial artist for example, he is much more effective than if he had to ‘consciously’ think about every move he makes. So Nature creates dualism, so that action can be freed from the stifling impediment that is contemplation, the true enemy of action. And so that contemplation can be freed from action, the true enemy of contemplation. For action to truly become action, it has to be separated from contemplation. And for contemplation to truly become contemplation, it must be separated from action. And the only way to do this is for both to become more distinct, more a thing of its own. Now of course we dream of this unity of action and contemplation, of creativity and reason, of art and science, and so on. Which was very much the Greek ideal. But this unity is not the re-absorption of both sides so as to become one mess like it is in the lower animal, where the actions are the thoughts and the thoughts are the actions. It is more a realization and affirmation of the paradoxical unity and paradoxical separation of contemplation and action, soul and body. And following, an ordering and wisdom concerning the usage of both; to know when to contemplate, and when to act. In the organism in which contemplation is so evolved, there needs to be the counterbalance of an as intense capacity for action, and vice-versa. 

Only think, and you die. Only act, and you die. We talk about the so-called “mind-body problem”, the “hard problem of consciousness” they say in your language. And maybe this is all there is to be said about it, that it is a problem. A problem, which should be taken in the Kantian sense as an original reality that does not have an answer, that is not an answer, but that is fundamentally problematic. That is, open to possibility. It can not be fully grasped by thought, it can not be thought. Rather, it is that which forces us to think, and that which forces us to act. It is like this tension, and this tension precisely is the reality. But we can not stand this tension, no, we want to solve nature. We want body to be explained away by mind, or mind to be explained away by body. But what is the problem precisely? The fact that your nature is somewhat paradoxical, both mind and body, both action and contemplation. Is this really a problem? Or just something to accept and live with, however problematic, however much you would like your mind and body to be the very same thing, however much you would like your thoughts and actions to be the same, however much you would like to be free of the conflict that comes with being an individual. Which is perhaps really the desire to become like a simple organism again, ‘yeast-life.’ Really, subjectivity or individuality or whatever, it’s a big problem. And that is a blessing, for the more advanced the life, the more complex the problems it is exposed to, the harder the problems it can handle. Simply like how for a weak person a 100 kg back squat is a huge problem, but for the stronger person this is no problem anymore, and 200 becomes the problem, and so on. The more advanced the thing, the more problematic. Much disease follows from not struggling with the problem —the tension contemplation/action & soul/body—, from not accepting it, and instead trying to be done away with it. Not only in ‘philosophy’ and so on, but also in life. You can conjure up some examples for yourself.