Dear Phellow Phriammers,
I want to thank you all for giving me a place to think “out loud” about these matters. You see, as a behaviorist, out loud is the only way I know how to think.
I was struck by the relation between two words of critique employed in Glen’s and Dave’s most recent posts: Elitist! And Puritan! What is remarkable to me is that they really do go together. Elitist points to my privileging science as a method for determining the truth. Puritan points to my reluctance to risk future satisfaction for present pleasure. What they share is an [Apollonian?} focus on the long run. Really the two boil down to the same thing … that the apparent non-randomness of past events is evidence that in some sense, and to some degree, the future can be counted on, that a careful plan will, on average and with many exceptions, lead to a better result than a impulsive reaction. “Science” is just a name for practices of knowledge-gathering that have a likelihood to produce expectations of experience that will endure. So, my privileging of science, in general, and expertise in particular is recursive: I believe in science because in my enduring experience science produces expectations that endure the test of time. I.e, scientific behavior is somewhat more likely to work out in the long run than non scientific behavior, despite MANY exceptions. Puritan (sez I) is just a name for somebody whose confidence that there IS a future is sufficient to justify relinquishing short term pleasure for the enjoyment of the long run.
No, I am not sure that Dave and Glen would disagree with any of this. That ambiguity is what makes this argument so tantalizing for me. Dave MIGHT be saying that the evidence suggests that to be consistent, I and all other elitist puritans SHOULD be taking psychedelics because the evidence shows that the knowledge gained thereby will pass the test of time and that the long term satisfaction I will gain from having taken them will cancel out any short term ill-ease that I experience. In short, are you sharing my elitist puritanism but challenging my understanding of its implications, or are you disagreeing with my elitist puritanism, and offering a different, non-pragmaticist, approach to life. Or both? Or neither?
I am sure you both will say that you have explained this to me a dozen time, and why on earth would you repeat yourselves now.
Perhaps you have brought me to a teachable moment?
By the way, Dave. What probably would happen if you showed up at Friam under the influence is that I would ask you to quarantine yourself for two weeks. Last night AP revealed that the Trump administration had vetoed a CDC recommendation that all elderly persons be discouraged from getting on airplanes for the foreseeable future. Elderly, to my surprise, seems to mean “over 60”.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |