Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self

5 Responses to “Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self”

1. John C. Landon says:

   August 28, 2010 at 11:29 am

   Although this book starts with a challenge to the ‘postmodern atheists’ who use science to debunk religion, it soon turns into an past critique of positivism. And this aspect of the book is of fantastic value, save only that the leader adopts a tactic of indirection to do this: an older generation of critics of Darwinism regularly attacked sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology, leaving the core theory of Darwin intact. The same strategy seems to be at work here. We are treated to an appealing expose of scientism, but then one prinicple culprit is left intact. This novel perspective built around the thought of parascience breaks new ground, but is in the end misleading.
   
   This spoils the argument, and the vital discussion of altruism is left stranded as an example of postivistic parascience. But the point here is not just that positivism deprives the discussion of a ’self’ but that Darwinian evolution cannot on the basis of the theory of natural selection account for altruism at all. The very arcane argument of Hamilton on kin selection (next to the parallel tradition of group selection) is a tour de force, but the simple and devastating answer is, so what? The foundation for the argument is a fallacy, and cannot distinguish the spectrum of ethical conditions of which altruism is but a particular aspect. The obsession with altruism as the core ‘ethic’ to be clarified by explaining it away is a curious symptom of Darwinism pathology as a kind of dumbed down economic ideology in disguise, attempting to legitimate the ‘egocentricity’ proposed by Adam Smith as economically dynamic. This ideological corruption is what seems to lie behind the whole focus on altruism by scientists determined to degrade its meaning. Here Robinson’s challenge on the grounds of parascience is absolutely cogent, yet fails to go the whole mile and reject the sophistical junk science of mathematicized selectionism made into a tough-dick theory of unselfish behavior. Bascially the game is that egocentricity is made to clarify unselfishness, in the vein of scientific nihilism.

   Thus Robinson’s stance is unclear here. To challenge Darwin directly is a quick way to not sell a book, so the suspicion is the strategy is the one of indirection to forestall the fate of Darwin critics.
   
   That is a reminder that bestsellers are nearly certainly not going to challenge Darwin, that we must turn to the underground (not ID) literature on evolution/scientism to get real answers.
   
   Despite the fantastic interest of this analysis, we need to be done with Darwinism at this point: it needs to be exposed directly. And that expose would be a prime instance of Robinson’s argument.
   
   Appealing book in any case, but be suspicious that authors, and I am not yet including Robinson, will fib on Darwinian issues for monetary gain.
   
   Language generally, Robinson is reasonably right to show the way that modern science cannot handle a ’self’. The point should be considered in the light of Kant. Her last chapter on Freud is cogent here also, although Freud is the much debunked themetic of a past generation now. It is but worth considering the roots of Freud in fin de siecle distortions of Schopenhauer, leading us back to Kant, once again.
   
   The philosopher Kant exposed the whole game of ‘Newtonism’ now the positivism in Robinson’s discussion, and provides the classic answer in his transcendental idealism, which is more in tune with science than the religious traditionalism that seems to lurk behind the book’s challenge to science.
   
   The solution to the problem was produced in the Enlightenment, and not so very well by defenders of religion who tend to make scientists double down in their ‘parascience’.
   Reader’s Rating: 3 / 5
2. Sydney Carton says:

   August 28, 2010 at 11:41 am

   Fantastic book by a very learned writer. Her points are well made and erudite—she reminded me of Christopher Hitchens, but from the metaphysical side—very smart and thoughtful.
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
3. Kemanorel says:

   August 28, 2010 at 12:45 pm

   This is what you get when you have a brilliant person delve into areas for which they have no expertise. Nothing more than a different flavor of people like Lee Strobel (Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale) and Micheal Dowd (B.A. in philosophy and biblical studies). Both of these people are obviously decently intelligent people… who write bunk on topics far outside their expertise (biology, physics, astronomy, etc).

   Marilynne Robinson is no different. A brilliant person writing outside her expertise. This is like having a dentist have a debate with a name who removes their teeth with string and a door. It’s silly. English PhDs shouldn’t be expounding on science.

   There is no such thing as scientific fundamentalism. Science can get it incorrect. The fact that it WILL change makes it NOT fundamentalist. It formulates hypotheses, it tests them, finds what works and formulates these into theories. (note: theory in science is proven. It is not the same as the colloquial use of the word which is really a hypothesis.) These theories lead to new hypothesis, and so on.

   It’s the exact opposite of fundamentalist. It is harshly unbiased because it self corrects and is completely uncaring about people’s feelings and what they *hope* will take place. And you better pray to whatever god you judge in if you try to falsify your results. You will get caught, and your career won’t be worth the ink your degree is printed with. This is the harsh truth… go question Andrew Wakefield…

   That doesn’t make it fundamentalist. That means you follow the rules, or you get kicked out. This isn’t the Vatican were if you rape a few children you just get hidden away to continue to work somewhere else.

   The problem with stuff like this book is she will seem intelligent on the theme to lay people, but not to scientists such as myself. Nothing is more annoying that seeing a name butcher what science is and how it works, and then aver it to be things that it’s not. It weakens overall understanding by muddying the waters with trash.

   When are people going to place science writing to the scientists?
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
4. Scott Kalkin says:

   August 28, 2010 at 3:02 pm

   The writing style only serves to obscure the message.

   Having been intrigued with the topic of reconciling faith with religion for many years, I so wanted to like this book. The Amazon description seemed to indicate I’d find a fresh perspective on this issue. While I have only labored through the introduction and half of the first essay, I find the writing unnecessarily verbose, to the point that the opinion are a chore to read. While there may be some substance worth the work here, I can see no literary reason to make the reader work so hard to discern the leader’s point.

   Scott Kalkin
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
5. reality bites says:

   August 28, 2010 at 3:32 pm

   Get over it, Belly-Achers. Robinson’s prose isn’t for the “chew it up, spit it out” reader. And to state or imply that she writes anything with an eye on the almighty dollar defies a response. Read and learn.
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5