Reductionism

[Roger K Thomas]

"In art, as in science, reductionism does not trivialize our perception—of color, light, and perspective—but allows us to see each of these components in a new way.  Eric Kandel

 

http://chronicle.com/article/Eric-Kandels-Visions/131095/

 

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology

University of Georgia

http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/

[David Devonis]

Very true. This is also a good article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/science/a-quest-to-understand-how-memory-works.html?scp=1&sq=eric%20kandel&st=cse

DaveD

David Devonis
Treasurer, Cheiron
Dept Psychology
Graceland University

________________________________
From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger K Thomas [rkth...@uga.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:59 AM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Cheiron-Forum:991] Reductionism

http://chronicle.com/article/Eric-Kandels-Visions/131095/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.

[Christopher Green]

Which is not to say, of course, that many who do not really grasp the import of the whole too often attempt to disguise the fact with a swirl of reductionist detail that is of dubious relevance. 

But Kandel's a smart fellow who would never try to pull such a shallow trick.

:-)

Chris

---

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chr...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==========================

-- 

[Roger K Thomas]

'...[the] many who do not really grasp the import of the whole [equals sum of parts] too often attempt to disguise the fact whith a swirl of fantasy....'

 

Owing to the practical constraints on scientific method, it may always be a case of 's/he said; s/he said.' 

 

Cheers!

Roger

 

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology

University of Georgia

http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/

---

From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Christopher Green [chr...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:05 PM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:993] Reductionism

[Christopher Green]

On 2012-03-16, at 12:59 PM, Roger K Thomas wrote:

"In art, as in science, reductionism does not trivialize our perception—of color, light, and perspective—but allows us to see each of these components in a new way.  Eric Kandel

 

http://chronicle.com/article/Eric-Kandels-Visions/131095/

 

Another thought on this matter: Although I appreciate that for many people questions of art are primarily emotional (read neurochemical, if you wish) questions, I think that far too much is made of this by people who don't have any other way of understanding aesthetics. I think that anyone who has actually engaged in the study of art as a technical practice (not just as "appreciation") knows what I mean by this. There is stuff going on -- not just "interpretive/meaning" stuff but "structural/dynamical/perceptual" stuff -- that just isn't apparent to the casual observer (and this is why the forms of art -- often "abstract" -- that are most fascinating to artists have such limited resonance with the public). Put plainly, there are things I find interesting about works of art that have little to do with what emotional state they generate in me.

 

R. G. Collingwood stated the problem strikingly back in his 1938 _Principles of Art_ (note: Collingwood was not actually asserting this position himself): "If art is only art so far as it stimulates certain reactions, the artist as such is simply a purveyor of drugs, noxious or wholesome; what we call works of art is nothing of a section of the Pharmacopoeia." 

[Roger K Thomas]

I don't have time right now to give it a more specific response, but I think that much of what Chris wrote below is consistent with Kandel's viewpoint... which should not be based only on the brief quotation with which this discussion began.

 

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology

University of Georgia

http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/

From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Christopher Green [chr...@yorku.ca]

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:33 PM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:995] Reductionism

[David Devonis]

There are theories from the science side that suggest that there isn't much, if indeed any, of a split between

emotion and cognition (i.e. 'preferences (seem to) need no inferences'---my parenthetical addition to

Zajonc's well-known formulation.)

Another English take on the relations of emotions and art---

(BUNTHORNE concludes his poetry reading.)

ANGELA. How purely fragrant!

SAPHIR. How earnestly precious!

PATIENCE. Well, it seems to me to be nonsense.

SAPHIR. Nonsense, yes, perhaps - but oh, what precious nonsense!

COLONEL. This is all very well, but you seem to forget that you are engaged to us.

SAPHIR. It can never be. You are not Empyrean. You are not Della Cruscan.

You are not even Early English. Oh, be Early English ere it is too late!

: ) DaveD

________________________________
From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Green [chr...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:33 PM

To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:995] Reductionism

On 2012-03-16, at 12:59 PM, Roger K Thomas wrote:

http://chronicle.com/article/Eric-Kandels-Visions/131095/

chr...@yorku.ca<mailto:chr...@yorku.ca>

[Christopher Green]

On 2012-03-16, at 2:33 PM, Christopher Green wrote:

> "If art is only art so far as it stimulates certain reactions, the artist as such is simply a purveyor of drugs, noxious or wholesome; what we call works of art is nothing *BUT* a section of the Pharmacopoeia."
>

Nothing like killing a good quote with a typo. :-(

[Nicole B. Barenbaum]

Just to clarify, there were actually two typos in the quote. The last phrase should read "what we call works of art are nothing but a section of the Pharmacopoeia". . .

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

Cheers,

Nicole

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.

-- 

Nicole B. Barenbaum

Professor

Department of Psychology
University of the South
735 University Avenue
Sewanee, TN  37383-1000


ph: (931) 598-1302
fax: (931) 598-1145
e-mail: nbar...@sewanee.edu

[Emily Cahan]

Kandell is a terrific fellow.  He recently made a documentary about his life and work that is available for a hefty price.  I believe it’s called, appropriately enough “In Search of Memory”  (the same title I think as one of his books) but I could be mistaken.  In any case, just wanted to let folks know that this documentary exists — excerpts are available on U-tube.

Emily

Which is not to say, of course, that many who do not really grasp the import of the whole too often attempt to disguise the fact with a swirl of reductionist detail that is of dubious relevance.

But Kandel's a smart fellow who would never try to pull such a shallow trick.

:-)

Chris

[Emily Cahan]

Collingwood was a pretty cool dude as well.

Emily

[Roger K Thomas]

With all due respect, Nicole, I am aware that the reductionism v. anti-reductionism disagreement goes back at least as far as Democritus (material reductionism) vs. Heraclitus (anti-reductionism), and Pythagoras suggested a form of idealistic reductionism with his monads.  James Mill (reductionist) and John Stuart Mill (anti-reductionist) represented the disagreement in the nineteenth century. That “many respected psychologists” have convinced you and others of anti-reductionism, does not mean that they have convinced me.  It is an unwinnable argument, and one’s choice ultimately comes down to what works best for each of us as scholars and, perhaps, in our personal lives.  There is nothing that an anti-reductionist can perceive, know, “create,” etc. etc. that is not a product of his/her experience, genetics, anatomy, physiology, and memory.  Experience, shaped by one's anatomy and physiology, results in memory, and memory reduces to material activities.

 

As for Chris’s argument that a lot more goes into art appreciation than an emotional response, the reductionist has no problem including anything s/he knows about art technique, the artist’s personal history, etc. etc. in her/his appreciation or art.  Selectively attending to different aspects or considerations that may pertain to a given work of art is part of the fun of appreciation…and please don’t try to argue that “selective attention” cannot be accommodated by a reductionist. The way I see it, reductionists have more fun.  The short cuts that anti-reductionists take ignore much that might be appreciated "intellectually" and "emotionally."

 

Roger.

 

 

Nicole Barenbaum wrote:

 

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

 

Chris Green wrote:

 

Another thought on this matter: Although I appreciate that for many people questions of art are primarily emotional (read neurochemical, if you wish) questions, I think that far too much is made of this by people who don't have any other way of understanding aesthetics. I think that anyone who has actually engaged in the study of art as a technical practice (not just as "appreciation") knows what I mean by this. There is stuff going on -- not just "interpretive/meaning" stuff but "structural/dynamical/perceptual" stuff -- that just isn't apparent to the casual observer (and this is why the forms of art -- often "abstract" -- that are most fascinating to artists have such limited resonance with the public). Put plainly, there are things I find interesting about works of art that have little to do with what emotional state they generate in me.

 

 

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology

University of Georgia

http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/

---

From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Nicole B. Barenbaum [nbar...@sewanee.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:54 PM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:999] Reductionism

[Nicole B. Barenbaum]

Thanks, Roger--Yes, indeed, it's an unwinnable argument!

Cheers,

Nicole

With all due respect, Nicole, I am aware that the reductionism v. anti-reductionism disagreement goes back at least as far as Democritus (material reductionism) vs. Heraclitus (anti-reductionism), and Pythagoras suggested a form of idealistic reductionism with his monads.  James Mill (reductionist) and John Stuart Mill (anti-reductionist) represented the disagreement in the nineteenth century. That "many respected psychologists" have convinced you and others of anti-reductionism, does not mean that they have convinced me.  It is an unwinnable argument, and one's choice ultimately comes down to what works best for each of us as scholars and, perhaps, in our personal lives.  There is nothing that an anti-reductionist can perceive, know, "create," etc. etc. that is not a product of his/her experience, genetics, anatomy, physiology, and memory.  Experience, shaped by one's anatomy and physiology, results in memory, and memory reduces to material activities.

 

As for Chris's argument that a lot more goes into art appreciation than an emotional response, the reductionist has no problem including anything s/he knows about art technique, the artist's personal history, etc. etc. in her/his appreciation or art.  Selectively attending to different aspects or considerations that may pertain to a given work of art is part of the fun of appreciationŠand please don't try to argue that "selective attention" cannot be accommodated by a reductionist. The way I see it, reductionists have more fun.  The short cuts that anti-reductionists take ignore much that might be appreciated "intellectually" and "emotionally."

 

Roger.

 

 

Nicole Barenbaum wrote:

 

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

 

Chris Green wrote:

 

Another thought on this matter: Although I appreciate that for many people questions of art are primarily emotional (read neurochemical, if you wish) questions, I think that far too much is made of this by people who don't have any other way of understanding aesthetics. I think that anyone who has actually engaged in the study of art as a technical practice (not just as "appreciation") knows what I mean by this. There is stuff going on -- not just "interpretive/meaning" stuff but "structural/dynamical/perceptual" stuff -- that just isn't apparent to the casual observer (and this is why the forms of art -- often "abstract" -- that are most fascinating to artists have such limited resonance with the public). Put plainly, there are things I find interesting about works of art that have little to do with what emotional state they generate in me.

 

 

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology

University of Georgia

http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/

---

From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Nicole B. Barenbaum [nbar...@sewanee.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:54 PM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:999] Reductionism

Just to clarify, there were actually two typos in the quote. The last phrase should read "what we call works of art are nothing but a section of the Pharmacopoeia". . .

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

Cheers,

Nicole

[Eugene Taylor, PhD]

Hi,

   The entire conversation seems quite odd from the standpoint of how narrowly Western are the arguments by the reductionists, who think that only WE are in possession of the Real. The tip off his referencing only the history of Western civilization when civilizations in Asia had solved these issues by presenting a radically different epistemology regarding the relation of parts to the whole.   Reductionism in psychological science is a failed enterprise and is showing good signs of cracking at the foundations, though the reductionists are still in control. Existential and phenomenological psychology, as well as the depth psychologies are our portal into non-Western epistemologies, if the reductionists would just look there, but I do feel its a problem of temperament so a few more facts are not going to change their minds. We may look to the humanistic implications of the neuroscience revolution for  possible antidotes to the reductionistic mentality as a new kind of science emerges based on the phenomenology of the science-making process itself. If basic science changes, the reductionists, who are also materialists and positivists, will dutifully follow. 

Eugene

[Fred Weizmann]

There are, of course, several forms of reductionism. One point that seems appropriate to consider for those on this list is whether there is such a thing as historical reductionism, and if so, what are the implications of that. One could argue that historical reductionism exists within the sciences (e.g., the evolutionary or developmental explanations of particular phenomena) but also that the historical reconstruction of the events and processes through which science is made can also become a kind of reductionism.

Fred W.

--

[Fred Weizmann]

While I don't think anyone would deny that genetics, physiology etc. in some ways structure the ways we experience, but when you say everything "we can know, create, etc." Is a product of all these influences, you beg the question, or at least leave it ambiguous. The question is precisely whether what we experience, create or know is "uniquely" a product of these influences.

Fred W. �

On 17/03/2012 11:42 AM, Roger K Thomas wrote:

With all due respect, Nicole, I am aware that the reductionism v. anti-reductionism disagreement goes back at least as far as Democritus (material reductionism) vs. Heraclitus (anti-reductionism), and Pythagoras suggested a form of idealistic reductionism with his monads. �James Mill (reductionist) and John Stuart Mill (anti-reductionist) represented the disagreement in the nineteenth century. That �many respected psychologists� have convinced you and others of anti-reductionism, does not mean that they have convinced me.� It is an unwinnable argument, and one�s choice ultimately comes down to what works best for each of us as scholars and, perhaps, in our personal lives. �There is nothing that an anti-reductionist can perceive, know, �create,� etc. etc. that is not a product of his/her experience, genetics, anatomy, physiology, and memory.� Experience, shaped by one's anatomy and physiology,�results in memory, and memory reduces to material activities.

�

As for Chris�s argument that a lot more goes into art appreciation than an emotional response, the reductionist has no problem including anything s/he knows about art technique, the artist�s personal history, etc. etc. in her/his appreciation or art.� Selectively attending to different aspects or considerations that may pertain to a given work of art is part of the fun of appreciation�and please don�t try to argue that �selective attention� cannot be accommodated by a reductionist.�The way I see it, reductionists have more fun.� The short cuts that anti-reductionists take�ignore much that might be appreciated "intellectually" and "emotionally."

�

Roger.

�

�

Nicole Barenbaum wrote:

�

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

�

Chris Green wrote:

�

Another thought on this matter: Although I appreciate that for many people questions of art are primarily emotional (read neurochemical, if you wish) questions, I think that far too much is made of this by people who don't have any other way of understanding aesthetics. I think that anyone who has actually engaged in the study of art as a technical practice (not just as "appreciation") knows what I mean by this. There is stuff going on -- not just "interpretive/meaning" stuff but "structural/dynamical/perceptual" stuff -- that just isn't apparent to the casual observer (and this is why the forms of art -- often "abstract" -- that are most fascinating to artists have such limited resonance with the public). Put plainly, there are things I find interesting about works of art that have little to do with what emotional state they generate in me.

�

�

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology

University of Georgia

http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/

---

From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Nicole B. Barenbaum [nbar...@sewanee.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:54 PM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:999] Reductionism

Just to clarify, there were actually two typos in the quote. The last phrase should read "what we call works of art are nothing but a section of the Pharmacopoeia". . .

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

Cheers,

Nicole

On 2012-03-16, at 2:33 PM, Christopher Green wrote:

>� "If art is only art so far as it stimulates certain reactions, the artist as such is simply a purveyor of drugs, noxious or wholesome; what we call works of art is nothing *BUT* a section of the Pharmacopoeia."

>

Nothing like killing a good quote with a typo. :-(

Chris
---
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chr...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
==========================

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.

-- 

Nicole B. Barenbaum

Professor

Department of Psychology
University of the South
735 University Avenue

Sewanee, TN� 37383-1000

ph: (931) 598-1302
fax: (931) 598-1145
e-mail: nbar...@sewanee.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.

[David Devonis]

All I can say (about what started this thread) is that trying to put Klimt and the Judith story together with cascades of oxytocin is not
a promising pathway to reductionism. And probably not Kandel's intent. DaveD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSnD1tZ_AFQ

________________________________
From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fred Weizmann [weiz...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:52 PM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:1006] Reductionism

While I don't think anyone would deny that genetics, physiology etc. in some ways structure the ways we experience, but when you say everything "we can know, create, etc." Is a product of all these influences, you beg the question, or at least leave it ambiguous. The question is precisely whether what we experience, create or know is "uniquely" a product of these influences.

Fred W.

On 17/03/2012 11:42 AM, Roger K Thomas wrote:
With all due respect, Nicole, I am aware that the reductionism v. anti-reductionism disagreement goes back at least as far as Democritus (material reductionism) vs. Heraclitus (anti-reductionism), and Pythagoras suggested a form of idealistic reductionism with his monads. James Mill (reductionist) and John Stuart Mill (anti-reductionist) represented the disagreement in the nineteenth century. That “many respected psychologists” have convinced you and others of anti-reductionism, does not mean that they have convinced me. It is an unwinnable argument, and one’s choice ultimately comes down to what works best for each of us as scholars and, perhaps, in our personal lives. There is nothing that an anti-reductionist can perceive, know, “create,” etc. etc. that is not a product of his/her experience, genetics, anatomy, physiology, and memory. Experience, shaped by one's anatomy and physiology, results in memory, and memory reduces to material activities.

As for Chris’s argument that a lot more goes into art appreciation than an emotional response, the reductionist has no problem including anything s/he knows about art technique, the artist’s personal history, etc. etc. in her/his appreciation or art. Selectively attending to different aspects or considerations that may pertain to a given work of art is part of the fun of appreciation…and please don’t try to argue that “selective attention” cannot be accommodated by a reductionist. The way I see it, reductionists have more fun. The short cuts that anti-reductionists take ignore much that might be appreciated "intellectually" and "emotionally."

Roger.

Nicole Barenbaum wrote:

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

Chris Green wrote:

Another thought on this matter: Although I appreciate that for many people questions of art are primarily emotional (read neurochemical, if you wish) questions, I think that far too much is made of this by people who don't have any other way of understanding aesthetics. I think that anyone who has actually engaged in the study of art as a technical practice (not just as "appreciation") knows what I mean by this. There is stuff going on -- not just "interpretive/meaning" stuff but "structural/dynamical/perceptual" stuff -- that just isn't apparent to the casual observer (and this is why the forms of art -- often "abstract" -- that are most fascinating to artists have such limited resonance with the public). Put plainly, there are things I find interesting about works of art that have little to do with what emotional state they generate in me.

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology
University of Georgia
http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/
________________________________

From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiro...@googlegroups.com> [cheiro...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiro...@googlegroups.com>] on behalf of Nicole B. Barenbaum [nbar...@sewanee.edu<mailto:nbar...@sewanee.edu>]

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:54 PM

To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiro...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:999] Reductionism

Just to clarify, there were actually two typos in the quote. The last phrase should read "what we call works of art are nothing but a section of the Pharmacopoeia". . .

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

Cheers,

Nicole

On 2012-03-16, at 2:33 PM, Christopher Green wrote:
> "If art is only art so far as it stimulates certain reactions, the artist as such is simply a purveyor of drugs, noxious or wholesome; what we call works of art is nothing *BUT* a section of the Pharmacopoeia."
>

Nothing like killing a good quote with a typo. :-(

Chris
---
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chr...@yorku.ca<mailto:chr...@yorku.ca>
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
==========================

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.

To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiro...@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com>.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.

--

Nicole B. Barenbaum

Professor

Department of Psychology
University of the South
735 University Avenue

Sewanee, TN 37383-1000

ph: (931) 598-1302
fax: (931) 598-1145

e-mail: nbar...@sewanee.edu<mailto:nbar...@sewanee.edu>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.

To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiro...@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com>.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.

To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiro...@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com>.

[Roger K Thomas]

I do apologize for the arrogant way I expressed the last sentence in the first paragraph below.  I should have prefaced it by saying "In my opinion..." rather than leaving open the possible interpretation that I was asserting a "truth."  I agree with Fred's earlier email about there being more than one kind of reductionism.  Discussions about reductionism of any kind seems to be plagued by the "Idol of the Marketplace."   With that, I have said enough on this subject for now.  Thanks and cheers to those who put up with me.

 

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Psychology

University of Georgia

http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/

---

From: cheiro...@googlegroups.com [cheiro...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Fred Weizmann [weiz...@yorku.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 2:52 PM
To: cheiro...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Cheiron-Forum:1006] Reductionism

While I don't think anyone would deny that genetics, physiology etc. in some ways structure the ways we experience, but when you say everything "we can know, create, etc." Is a product of all these influences, you beg the question, or at least leave it ambiguous. The question is precisely whether what we experience, create or know is "uniquely" a product of these influences.

Fred W.  

On 17/03/2012 11:42 AM, Roger K Thomas wrote:

With all due respect, Nicole, I am aware that the reductionism v. anti-reductionism disagreement goes back at least as far as Democritus (material reductionism) vs. Heraclitus (anti-reductionism), and Pythagoras suggested a form of idealistic reductionism with his monads.  James Mill (reductionist) and John Stuart Mill (anti-reductionist) represented the disagreement in the nineteenth century. That “many respected psychologists” have convinced you and others of anti-reductionism, does not mean that they have convinced me.  It is an unwinnable argument, and one’s choice ultimately comes down to what works best for each of us as scholars and, perhaps, in our personal lives.  There is nothing that an anti-reductionist can perceive, know, “create,” etc. etc. that is not a product of his/her experience, genetics, anatomy, physiology, and memory.  Experience, shaped by one's anatomy and physiology, results in memory, and memory reduces to material activities.

 

As for Chris’s argument that a lot more goes into art appreciation than an emotional response, the reductionist has no problem including anything s/he knows about art technique, the artist’s personal history, etc. etc. in her/his appreciation or art.  Selectively attending to different aspects or considerations that may pertain to a given work of art is part of the fun of appreciation…and please don’t try to argue that “selective attention” cannot be accommodated by a reductionist. The way I see it, reductionists have more fun.  The short cuts that anti-reductionists take ignore much that might be appreciated "intellectually" and "emotionally."

 

Roger.

 

 

Nicole Barenbaum wrote:

 

As for the dubious suggestion that "the whole [equals sum of parts]," let me just point out that many respected psychologists have disagreed, and argued quite convincingly that the whole is not "the sum of parts". . .

 

Chris Green wrote:

 

Another thought on this matter: Although I appreciate that for many people questions of art are primarily emotional (read neurochemical, if you wish) questions, I think that far too much is made of this by people who don't have any other way of understanding aesthetics. I think that anyone who has actually engaged in the study of art as a technical practice (not just as "appreciation") knows what I mean by this. There is stuff going on -- not just "interpretive/meaning" stuff but "structural/dynamical/perceptual" stuff -- that just isn't apparent to the casual observer (and this is why the forms of art -- often "abstract" -- that are most fascinating to artists have such limited resonance with the public). Put plainly, there are things I find interesting about works of art that have little to do with what emotional state they generate in me.

 

 

Roger K, Thomas, Ph.D.

Sewanee, TN  37383-1000

ph: (931) 598-1302
fax: (931) 598-1145
e-mail: nbar...@sewanee.edu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cheiron Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cheiro...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cheiron-foru...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cheiron-forum?hl=en.

[Christopher Green]

I didn't intend to launch a debate about the value of reductionism in general. I don't personally think much can come of such a debate because (1) reductionism has worked well in some places and not so well in others (though partisans will say "just wait!...."), so the declaring for or against value of reductionism *generally* seems more ideological rather than scientific, and (2) whether the "whole" is equal (or not) to the sum of its parts would seem to depend entirely on how broadly and metaphorically one construes the word "sum". If it is meant literally, then it is false (I defy anyone to get the area of circle by literally "summing" pi and r). If what is meant is that the whole can be analyzed into *some* function of *some* set of parts, then that is probably true (IMHO) in the long run, though, at any given point in time, there will be a plethora of counter-examples where we don't know of any function that fills the bill (and then, of course, there is the piquant Gestalt critique that "parts" are not actually "primitive" but are defined by the role they play in the whole; e.g., it's a nose if I see it under this aspect, and an ear if I see it under that aspect).

Instead, I was really commenting on the adequacy of the neuroaesthetic project in particular, which appears to operate under the unanalyzed presumption that the "worth" of artworks depends on the structure of the  emotional states (underpinned by particular neurotransmitters) that they appear to generate. To me, this is a rather old and naive view of aesthetics. If what you think you're doing is explaining why relatively casual viewers/listeners of art respond in the ways that they do, then you might be on to something. If you think, by contrast, that it explains why art is good, bad, or indifferent, then I think you're mostly barking up the wrong tree. One of the scientists quoted in the article Roger sent said that aesthetic researchers who do not include neurological findings in their analyses from now on are like those who (putatively) refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Alternatively, they might be more like those who refuse to look at blood types when judging personality (a popular pastime in Japan, I'm told). It is the right answer to the wrong question. 

Regards,

Chris

---

Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada

chr...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

==========================