I'm reviewing materials in preparation for an ENSO (Enactive Seminars Online) session on 3/3/16. This is one of the most important sections of The Freudian Wish (Holt, 1915). Something well worth meditating upon:
Let us consider, then, the higher forms of behavior, in human
beings, and the question of consciousness and thought.
If one sees a man enter a railway station, purchase a ticket,
and then pass out and climb on to a train,
one feels that it is clear enough what the man is doing, but it would be far
more interesting to know what he is thinking. One sees clearly that he is
taking a train, but one cannot see his thoughts or his intentions and these
contain the 'secret' of his actions. And thus we come to say that the conscious
or subjective is a peculiar realm, private to the individual, and open only to
his introspection. It is apart from the world of objective fact. Suppose, now,
one were to apply the same line of reasoning to an event of inanimate nature.
At dawn the sun rises above the eastern ridge of hills. This is the plain fact,
and it is not of itself too interesting. But what is the ‘secret’ behind such
an occurrence? "Why this is, as
everybody knows, that the sun is the god Helios who every morning drives his
chariot up out of the East, and he has some magnificent purpose in mind. We cannot
tell just what it is because his thoughts and purposes are subjective and not
open to our observation. We suspect, however, that he is paying court to Ceres,
and so cheers on by his presence the growing crops."
Or again, the same
line of reasoning as used in a somewhat later age. The stream flows through the
field, leaps the waterfall, and goes foaming onward down the valley. The fact
is that it has always done so. And the secret? "Well, they used to say that the stream
was a daughter of Neptune and that she was hurrying past to join her father. We
know better than that now; we know that water always seeks its own level, and
the only secret about it is that the water is urged on from behind by an
impulse which some call the vis viva.
We've never seen this vis viva, for
it is invisible; but it is the secret of all inanimate motion; and of course it
must be there, for otherwise nothing would move." It has taken man ages to learn that the gaps in his knowledge of observed fact cannot be filled by creatures of the imagination. It is the most precious achievement of the physical sciences that the ‘secrets behind’ phenomena lie in the phenomena and are to be found out by observing the phenomena and in no other way. The 'mental' sciences have yet to learn this lesson. Continued observation of the rising and setting sun revealed that the secret behind was not the gallantry of Helios, but the rotation of our earth which, by simple geometry, caused the sun relatively to ourselves to rise in the East. Continued observation of water showed that neither a nature god nor yet a vis viva is the secret behind the flowing stream; but that the stream is flowing as directly as the surface of the earth permits, toward the center of the earth. And that this is merely a special instance of the fact that all masses move toward one another. There is indeed a mystery behind such motion, but science calls this mystery neither Helios, Neptune, nor vis viva, but simply motion; and science will penetrate this mystery by more extended observation of motion. Now the inscrutable 'thought behind' the actions of a man, which is the invisible secret of those actions, is another myth, like the myths of the nature gods and the vis viva. Not that there are not actual thoughts, but tradition has turned thought into a myth by utterly misconceiving it and locating in the wrong place.
On seeing the man purchase a ticket at the railway station,
we felt that there was more behind this action, ‘thoughts’ that were the
invisible secret of his movements. Suppose, instead, we inquire whether the
more is not ahead. More is to come; let us watch the man further. He enters the
train, which carries him to a city. There he proceeds to an office, on the door
of which we read ‘Real Estate.’ Several other men are in this office; a
document is produced; our man takes a sum of money from his pocket and gives
this to one of the other men, and this man with some of the others signs the
document. This they give to our man, and with it a bunch of keys. All shake
hands, and the man whom we are watching departs. He goes to the railway station
and takes another train, which carries him to the town where we first saw him.
He walks through several streets, stops before an empty house, takes out his
bunch of keys, and makes his way into the house. Not long afterwards several
vans drive up in front, and the men outside proceed to take household furniture
off the vans and into the house. Our man inside indicates where each piece is
to be placed. He later gives the men from the vans money.
All this we get by observing what the man does, and without
in any way appealing to the 'secret' thoughts of the man. If we wish to know
more of what he is doing we have only to observe him more. Suppose, however,
that we had appealed to his inner thoughts to discover the ‘secret’ of his movements,
when we first saw him buying a ticket at the railway station. We approach him
and say, "Sir, I am a philosopher and extremely anxious to know what you
are doing, and of course I cannot learn that unless you will tell me what you
are thinking." "Thinking?" he may reply, if he condones our guileless
impertinence. "Why, I am thinking that it's a plaguey hot day, and I wish
I had made my morning bath five degrees colder, and drunk less of that hot-wash
that my wife calls instant coffee." "Was that all.?" "Yes,
that was all until I counted my change; and then I heard the train whistle. —
Here it is. Good-by! And good luck to your philosophy!"
…. What is
more important, the very best that the man could have told us would have been
no better than what we have learned by watching the man. At best he could have
told us, "I am intending to buy a house and to get my furniture in to-day";
exactly what we have observed. And if he told us his further intentions, these
in turn could be as completely learned by watching his movements; and more
reliably, since men do both think and speak lies.
…. It is an
error, then, to suppose that the ‘secret behind' a man's actions lies in those thoughts
which he (and he alone) can ‘introspectively survey.' We shall presently see that it is an
error to contrast thought with action at all.
But what are we to do when ‘thought' has receded to so
impregnable a hiding-place? We are to admit, I think, that we have
misunderstood the nature of thought, and predicated so much that is untrue of
it, that what we have come to call ‘thought' is a pure myth. We are to say with
William James "I believe that 'consciousness,' when once it has evaporated
to this estate of pure diaphaneity, is on the point of disappearing altogether.
It is the name of a nonentity, and has no right to a place among first
principles. Those who still cling to it are clinging to a mere echo, the faint
rumor left behind by the disappearing ‘soul' upon the air of philosophy."
Dear Eric,
ReplyDeleteThe 'thought' to which each of us only individually has access occurs in the same language as the verbal community by which one was conditioned. A Dutch person would never have a Russian thought. In other words, private speech is a function of public speech and positive self-talk is a consequence of positive public speech and negative self-talk is caused by negative public speech.
'Thought' has receded due to what I call Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB), the way of talking in which the speaker's voice is experienced by the listener as an aversive stimulus. During NVB our private speech is kept out of our public speech. Private speech becomes separated from public speech in NVB, because the speaker and the listener are separated. In Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB), on the other hand, our private speech is expressed during our public speech and thus, there is no separation between the speaker and the listener.
'Consciousness' is the private speech which is a function of SVB public speech, a.k.a the speaker-as-own-listener. The 'impregnable hiding place' is therefore a response product of NVB public speech.
Once we discriminate between SVB and NVB, we learn that as SVB increases and NVB decreases, private speech completely subsides. Increase of SVB makes us more and more quiet, peaceful and without any thoughts. 'Consciousness' then derives from the increase of our positive covert self-talk, which only occurs if we engage more often in SVB.
Only when our SVB public speech can continue and doesn't change again and again in NVB, will our so-called 'consciousness' or 'soul' dissolve.
Writing and reading about this (often done by behaviorists) is not the same as actually experiencing this. We only experience in SVB, the interaction which is without aversive stimulation, that there is no inner behavior-causing agent.
However, as long as we keep creating environments in which NVB occurs, we will continue to hang onto some sense of identity which is based on fear.
If you would like to read more about SVB, go to www.soundverbalbehavior.blogspot.com and please respond so that we can clarify this extension of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sound greetings,
Maximus Peperkamp