arbitrarymarks.com

So far, I’ve been able to make it through two lectures by JG Vos.  The audio, which you can find at www.sermonaudio.com, was recorded in 1973, so the quality is a little bit poor.  I could make out most of it, however.

In his first introduction to a Christian perspective on comparative religions, he covers a definition of religion and talks about whether man is inherently religions.  In his second introduction, he talks about evolutionary explanations for religion’s origin.  Regardless of whether Vos is coming from a Christian approach or not, I found the lectures lacking dreadfully. Read the rest of this entry »

Send post as PDF to

Parts three and four in my promised personal essay series will be forthcoming, but I’ve been mulling over how to frame them.  I’d like them to avoid being polemical, but to answer a few questions that keep coming up on this blog.

In addition, I’m working on a more technical essay for a conference which I’ll put online for feedback once it’s complete.  The topic is philosophical zombies, consciousness and god.  I won’t say more that that for now, but I’m enjoying the writing.

Finally, a friend of mine from college, who is now a pastor, sent me a link to some lectures by “Dr” Johannes Geerhardus Vos on comparative religions. I’m going to try to take a listen to a few of them and post some reflections.  These lectures are from an explicitly Christian perspective, which is not the rubric I would choose for the topic.  However, there is no way to approach religions from a purely “objective” standpoint, so listening to an approach with an axe to grind can draw attention to those axes we thought we had hidden away, in our more “scientific” or “philosophical” method.

Send post as PDF to

While Renfrew studiously avoided the appearance of philosophical claims in his presentation (apart from a reference to Searle, it sounded as if he was trying to put forth what is “common-sensical” about our minds), to the careful listener, however, there’s a lot of philosophical baggage in his assertions.

Renfrew says that the concept of weight emerged from human beings holding items in their hands and going “Ah, one of these feels different.”  This is a form of empiricism, which argues that our concepts originate from our sense perceptions.  The example of weight and its corresponding archaeological evidence–rocks and scales–seems pretty convincing.  But what about the concept of “property”?

The story he gave was less compelling.  In it, he assumed the existence of the concept of possession–as humans became more agricultural, they naturally thought “This crop is mine when it becomes ripe” or “These sheep are mine because I’ve fed them.”  Thus the idea of property emerged.  What perception represents property, though?  Jerry Fodor would argue against Renfrew that the concept of property is assumed in the description of how the concept is created or learned.  Fodor is a nativist, claiming that most of our concepts are innate.  There are other positions, of course–this is a wide-ranging debate not easily settled.

Another problem in Renfrew’s narrative is his use of the term “mind.”  For me, it was less than clear what he meant by it.  Although he presented us with a diagram, containing the terms “embodied”, “extended”, “distributed”, etc., radiating in arrows from the word “brain”, what does this explain?  Is he a panpsychist?  Is “mind” a fundamental part of the world, or do human beings endow the world with “mind”?  There seems to be a sense in which mind exists apart from individuals (Renfrew’s use of Searle’s institutional facts seems to be close to a collective mind) but it is clearly connected by Renfrew to human biology.  In fact, he is accused of being ensnared by reductionist theories.

I’m not an archaeologist, so I cannot speak to Renfrew’s expertise in that area (from what I’ve read, he’s both an important and controversial figure).  In terms of “cognitive archaeology”, I’ll excerpt the conclusion of his peer, Alice B. Kehoe, reviewing his book The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology in American Antiquity.  She says, ”…Renfrew insists that because he himself feels “mental map” is how he operates, “the mind likely operates so (p. 10).  Will solipsism be the scientific archaeology of the third millennium?”  She goes on to criticize Renfrew’s ignorance of major figures in his work, such as Anthony Wallace, Clifford Geertz and Levi-Strauss.  Her conclusion: Renfrew is engaging in “turf wars.”

I don’t know about the skirmishes in that field, or what chip the reviewer might have on her shoulder, but I do agree with one thing.  While cognitive science may be the “It” discipline, that does not mean that it holds immediate and simple answers to questions like the “Sapient Paradox.”  And although I am drawn to cross-disciplinary approaches, such as science and exploration of human history through archaeology, I firmly believe that philosophers will always have a place in this discussion, if only to dig up the hidden assumptions in these hypotheses.

Kehoe’s review of The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology can be found in American Antiquity, Vol. 60, No. 4. (Oct., 1995), pp. 769-770.

Send post as PDF to

Lord Colin Renfrew presented the John and Penelope Biggs lecture in the Classics at Washington University today, speaking on "Becoming Human: The Cognitive Archaeology of Humankind."  His talk had two major components.  First, he gave a general narrative of human history, based upon the last 150 years of archaeological discovery.  Then he explored the central problem that this narrative has left unanswered: Why did it take so long for the Urban Revolution if homo sapien is genetically and physically identical today as it was 30,000 years ago?

The history I’ll pass over, except to say that the story of Mitochrondrial Eve and Chromosome Adam (as I think Dennett terms them in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, though I don’t know if it’s original to him) is a very exciting one.  Yet the development is primarily cultural, not genetic.  Renfrew notes that Darwin is very helpful when we’re examining speciation, but the history of homo sapien is of very tiny genetic changes and massive cultural changes.

What Renfrew speculates is that the mind is not the brain.  When he says this, he’s not advocating Cartesian dualism (he’s quite clear about this) although no one truly advocates this position any more, not without some kinds of adjustments.  His interpretation of "mind" is that it is the process or the brain and the body interacting with the external world.  I don’t think process is the wrong word, although he doesn’t use it himself.

Symbolic storage in the brain is a central feature of being human, augmented by the invention of the alphabet (though not necessary, note the Chinese and Japanese languages).  However, external symbolic storage is a primary element in human acculturation.  Renfrew cites John Searle’s "institutional facts."  The example of money is his first foray into "cognitive archaeology" during the lecture.  Up until now, he’s been setting the stage.

Archaeology can, he thinks, study the origin of value.  We can see how certain materials become valuable–jade, obsidian, feathers, various metals.  Naturally, we are working with hypothetical reconstructions and cannot see precisely how these early humans thought, but we can make some educated guesses.  Money is an example for Renfrew of the "distributed mind", as we all collectively agree that metal circles stamped with an image are "valuable" and represent something else.

The emergence of other concepts, such as weight and property, also fall under the purview of "cognitive archaeology."  We can see that early peoples used carved cubes of varying substances, which are multiples of what we’d call "weight units."  Why?  Probably for commodity, just as we would today.  This concept is not one that arises purely from the mind, but it originates in the tactile experience of mass, says Renfrew.  So the mind is "embodied" and becomes "extended" in these kinds of social systems, like weight units.

This was the first lecture I’ve been to where the word "cognitive" appeared in the title and there were no fMRIs or PET scan images.  That’s because both of those slides were not displaying.  However, Lord Renfrew made the explicit caveat that neuroscience is still "in its infancy" and that one of the lessons of archaeology is that the brain isn’t everything (I suppose the mind is, under his definition of the mind).  However, it is central.

*Image: Renfrew is a fan of Antony Gormley’s work.  He opened and closed his presentation with images of the artist’s sculptures.  I found this one, and thought it was a nice allusion to archaeology.  Renfrew used "Learning to Be" and "Quantum Cloud" which I recommend you also take a look at.

Send post as PDF to

Is part of the reason for my hesitation in proclaiming myself “Buddhist.”  The same problems plague pop-Buddhism as pop-Yoga (and pop-Christianity).

Send post as PDF to

How likely would this scenario be? And if it is likely, then what does it say about this (the actual) one?

During his eight days as a part-time high school history teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Upanishadic references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between religion, Naziism and the Civil Rights movement.

That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on religious history.

Helphinstine, 27, said in a phone interview with The Bulletin newspaper of Bend that he included the supplemental material to teach students about bias in sources, and his only agenda was to teach critical thinking.

"Critical thinking is vital to historical inquiry," said Helphinstine, who has a master’s degree in history from Oregon State. "My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking."

Parent John Rahm told the newspaper that he became concerned when his freshman daughter said she was confused by the supplemental material provided by Helphinstine.

"He took passages that had all kinds of Upanishadic references," Rahm said. "It prevented her from learning what she needed to learn."

Send post as PDF to

The movie ended a half an hour ago and I still have a testosterone rush.  (Women have testosterone, too, you know.)  Visually, the film is stunning.  In terms of music, the soundtrack is not likely to win any Oscars, but the combination of heavy metal riffs and orchestral backing works well dramatically.

I watching the movie with an eye for some of the themes critics had picked on–homophobia and ugliness in particular.  However, let’s get out of the way first that I do not think that this film is a propaganda piece for the Iraq war (or an upcoming attack upon Iran).  A simple reason is that it is faithful to the graphic novel, which predates the current conflict.  But I can see why people would think that.  The present administration has painted the conflict in terms like “freedom”, “honor” and “loyalty”, all of which are pervasive themes in 300. 

I don’t want to talk about politics, though; I want to talk about the ugly side of 300–literally.  Read the rest of this entry »

Send post as PDF to

I’d say that this article by Terry Caesar in Higher Ed deserves a spot in my “Philosophy Advice” del.icio.us tag that I’ve been compiling: it’s about rejection, an event we’ll all become intimitely acquainted with.  I’ve gotten some good practice at it during this cycle of PhD applications–six of my eight schools gave me a politely-worded letter which boiled down to the red rubber stamp you see at left.

Caesar’s entire story–about a failed book project–is interesting in itself, but I’ll excerpt from a couple of paragraphs below:

This brings me to a final point: rejection itself. You’ve got to be prepared for it in professional life — the article you can’t get published, the class with which you can’t connect, the tenure you are denied, the position for which you not got an interview. Arguably, in the construction of a career, the dissertation represents its initial moment, because a dissertation can be rejected.

[snip]

Nobody wants to hear about rejection. Not only because it is always judged to smack of “sour grapes,” but because virtually each time rejection threatens to edge up uncomfortably beside acceptance — and then, although all is not lost, much might well become confounded. The profession after all is full of people who have been rejected in some significant way. (Or in the case of people who choose not to attempt to write a dissertation, effectively self-rejected.) We teach right alongside them. They are part of who we are. No, they are who we are, whether, for starters, we have written dissertations or not. But we don’t know many of their — our — stories, especially those that courted, or continue to court, rejection.

Send post as PDF to

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day from the Keating clan!

My family crest contains the cross of Saint Andrew, signifying resolve, a boar signifying fierce warrior strength, a helmet referring to wise defense, and holly leaves referring to truth. And our motto is “fidelissimus semper”, meaning “always faithful.”

I suppose, as an Irish Protestant (Unitarian Universalists are part of the Protestant Reformation), I should be wearing orange today. But I’ll be going with green, since my grandfather, who came to Boston from Valencia, Ireland, was Irish Catholic.

Update 3.19.07: Well, without turning this into a genealogy blog, it turns out my Irish Catholic family came from Scotland originally.  So I suppose I should nix that crest and start looking for my clan’s tartan.  I’d thought that there was some Irish to counterbalance all the Scottish and English on my mom’s side (Calhoun, Maitland, Titsworth)…but looks like it’s just about all Scottish.  Sheesh.  Course, we may all be genetically related, anyway, so what’s in a name?

Send post as PDF to

From Washington University: Lord Colin Renfrew, an influential and innovative archaeologist for more than three decades, will present this year’s John and Penelope Biggs Lecture in the Classics as part of the Assembly Series at 4 p.m. March 22 in Graham Chapel. Titled “Becoming Human: The Cognitive Archaeology of Humankind,” the talk is free and open to the public.

I may try to flex my work schedule to attend.  Readers interested in meeting up should send an email to my arbitrary dot marks gmail address.

Update 3.23.07: Two posts are now available in connection with the lecture: a summary and a brief critical analysis.

Send post as PDF to