EMBODIMENT, RELATIONALITY AND A NEW MORALITY A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Liberal Studies By Joyce A. Lussier Georgetown University Washington, D.C. February 2014 To my children, their spouses and my grandchildren ii EMBODIMENT, RELATIONALITY AND A NEW MORALITY Joyce A. Lussier DLS Chair: Francis Ambrosio, Ph.D. ABSTRACT With the introduction of Cognitive Science in the 1950’s, new theories of cognition emerged, resulting in a redefinition of Western philosophy’s concept of the human being. In the 1980’s, amidst growing dissatisfaction with this first generation of Reductionist theories, a second generation of cognitive scientists emerged offering yet another explanation of cognition and the nature of man. In this paper I will argue that both Western philosophy and the first generation of cognitive scientists’ theories are inadequate and therefore are unable to offer guidance for practical reasoning and moral judgment. It is the contention of this paper that the second group of cognitive scientists opens a major new pathway toward a more holistic, cognitively appropriate and comprehensive theory of man. The first generation of cognitive scientists operated within the world-view of Objectivism, which was the hallmark of the natural sciences. A paradigmatic shift from this Objectivist world-view to a hermeneutic ontological context became the linchpin of the newer generation. I contend that the fullest expression of this new view is expressed in Embodied Realism, wherein the brain, body, mind and culture are incorporated fully into the theory of cognition. This ‘new rationality,’ based primarily on prototypical experience, offers its claims for truth and value based on dialogue that consists of finite, historically situated, flexible non-algorithmic deliberated judgments of a community with iii shared aims and accountable practices rather than on universal dictums. I will argue that the prototypical ontological imaginative framework proposed by the Embodied Realists succeeds in opening up new paths, guidelines and possibilities for framing and re-framing questions to be resolved arising from specific historical situations and presents a wide arena of potential choices. I contend that, unlike traditional ethical theories and rules, the hermeneutical ontological tenets of Embodied Realism can co-exist with the findings of contemporary neuroscience and quantum physics. I intend to show that an individual’s practical reasoning and moral judgment depend on which community or ‘lifeworld’ is deemed most suitable to the particular circumstance encountered. By means of four examples I will argue that much of contemporary society already operates within this framework of Embodied Realism and that major conflicts occur when adherents to the ‘new rationality’ and those within the paradigm of Objectivism attempt resolution of an issue, without recognizing the incommensurability of the assumptions that underlie their respective world-views. It is the contention of this paper that, although much of society operates within the paradigm of Embodied Realism, our training and education of youth remains, for the most part, within a framework of Objectivist principles. Although much work has been accomplished in the field of cognition, fewer efforts concerning a hermeneutical ontology of the Person and the nature of morality have been fully developed. I intend to offer certain minimal criteria of a theory of practical reasoning and moral judgment consistent with the new findings. In conclusion, I will point to some of the contradictions that exist among prominent scientists today and Embodied Realist theorists in particular, concerning the iv nature of consciousness, free will, self and agency. It is my contention that we create our emerging worlds and that we hold responsibility for all interactions therein. Cognitive science has presented us with a new understanding of the operations of the mind, brain, body and culture but it must be stated that there is much that is unknown and that theories flowing from this data are in the embryonic stage. This paper does not propose to offer any solutions, but rather the intent is to address some of the more prominent theories of the day and to offer some limited perspective on the problems. It is the intent of this paper to present a snapshot, a moment in time, of today’s new rationality and the emerging definition of the human being in this evolved and evolving world. v CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ABSTRACT iii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2. THE REDUCTIONISTS 7 Francis Crick 8 Daniel Dennett 11 Sam Harris 18 Patricia Churchland 27 CHAPTER 3. RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM 33 David Hume and Immanuel Kant 33 Jonathan Haidt 36 Stephen Pinker 41 CHAPTER 4. THE PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS 46 Theories of Consciousness 48 Christof Koch and David Chalmers 49 Teilhard de Chardin 52 CHAPTER 5. EMBODIED REALISM 60 Mark Johnson and George Lakoff 63 The Mind is Inherently Embodied 70 Most Thought is Unconscious 83 Abstract Concepts are Mainly Metaphorical 85 Mark Turner and Giles Fauconnier 95 Andy Clark and David Chalmers 116 The Provisional Plateau 118 CHAPTER 6. THE ESSENTIAL MYSTERY 120 Hermeneutical Ontology 122 The Roadmap 125 Who’s in Charge? 126 Freedom Without Free Will 138 CHAPTER 7. A NEW MORALITY 148 The Role of Metaphor 151 The Conflict of Lifeworlds 154 Conflict of Lifeworlds and Individuals 161 Framing the Problem 163 Our Everyday Choices 173 vi CHAPTER 8. PROVISIONAL CONCLUSIONS 185 Provisional Epilogue 190 REFERENCE LIST 193 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION There is a new image of man emerging, an image that will dramatically contradict almost all traditional images man has made of himself in the course of his cultural history. Thomas Metzinger, Introduction: Consciousness Research at the End of the Twentieth Century, 2000. Throughout history, the nature of man and his place in the world has been the subject matter of theologians, philosophers, poets, humanists, psychologists and scientists. As each discipline developed in the Western world, its adherents offered their theories and insight into the nature of this mysterious being. Today, with thousands of years of history upon which to draw, varying theories of the human being, phylogenetic development, responsibilities and teleology in the emergent human world are available to us. It is quite noteworthy that in our present contemporary intellectual circles many of the disciplines have muted their discussions when confronted with the scientific community that, for the most part, claims the right to direct, define and formulate the study of this age-old issue. In the United States the two most prominent theories stand as polar opposites to each other: Cognitivism and the Embodiment Theory. The differences between these two theories of mind are significant and when applied, are in many instances incommensurable. I defend ‘Embodied Realism,’ a new evolving theory, as giving the more comprehensive, valid, and cogent account of the human situation than the various forms of ‘Cognitivism,’ which continue to be promulgated by many cognitive and neuroscientists. The Cognitivists, or “Hardliners,” have stated their findings succinctly 1 as: the mind is the brain. At the other end of the spectrum, those who adhere more closely to the Embodiment Theory assert that the mind cannot be reduced solely to the brain, but that the body and the culture must also be considered. The work that has been accomplished in the study of the brain and its neural components in the past decades is extra-ordinary and has greatly increased our knowledge not only of the brain but it has substantially altered the traditional theories of human cognition. The scientific data is quite solid, albeit limited and incomplete, opening up a wide avenue of interpretations that will be tested and revised throughout the next decades. At issue are the inferences that these scientists have drawn from the data and promulgated as indisputable fact to the public at large. The historical source of Cognitivism extends back to the early Greeks where Plato, with his analogy of the Cave, effectively separated the mind, the rational aspect of human beings, from his being as human. Aristotle wrote of the divided aspects of man – matter and form, body and mind – and it is this dualistic paradigm that infused Western thought for centuries to come. In the 10th century, the scholar, Gerbert, introduced Aristotle’s treatises on Logic to the intellectual world of northern Europe, initiating a surge of interest in this early philosopher who was first and foremost an experimental biologist. As Aristotle’s methods became intrinsic to the thought of the sciences, so too his methods were adopted by the religious writers and scholars, especially the Scholastics. At first, the question asked was “Christians had the Bible. Why did they need Aristotle” (O’Malley 2004, 97)? Thomas Aquinas “opens his Summa by turning the question around. We have Aristotle. Why do we need the Bible” (Ibid.)? Aristotle’s treatises on nature were rebuffed by the burgeoning scientific discoveries of the 17th 2 century, resulting in the diminishment of the Church as the voice of Truth in secular and scientific matters. Thus, the proponents of the Enlightenment established Reason and the Scientific Method as the pinnacle of man’s achievement. Their proposition was that all Truth could be attained through