An English In Kentucky


















Monday December 3rd 2012    Tim Candler

    There is an argument that "Memes" will only become "Science" when information patterns as they are held in the mind of person 'A' can be seen by neurologists to be replicated in the mind of person 'B'.   Those who cleave to this view are in my view correct in their assumption that study of society, or political economics, or sociology, or interpersonal interactions, or fashionable behavior, or any in a long list of such areas of thinking, belong outside "Science."  Then when you think back to that time in our history when 'ailment of the stomach' produced 'humors' that included 'glandular pox' and when 'love' resided in the 'heart,' it's not beyond the bounds of reasonableness to suggest that one day all Cathedrals of Understanding will amble, sometimes by accident, into the domain of "Science."  But, at the same time, I don't think it beyond the bounds of reasonableness to assert that "I Am" will mostly lie outside "Science."  It can be described as a "Dualism."  A two-ness.  On the one hand there is what's known about me, about how my heart beats, why my feet smell and great many other even less attractive things about the species I belong to, it's origins and so forth.  And on the other hand there is the "I Am" that gets out of bed in the morning.

     For my part I have always wished to find a way out of "Dualism."  I have seen it as a source of irritation, after all, like Popeye, 'I am what I am.'  When I'm  told that I might not be what I am, is enough to cause sneering and other knee-jerk reactions, especially to accompanying demands for self improvement and the litany which comes from the suggestion that 'I am not even close to what I think I am.'   Nor is my reluctance to accept dualism as the framework though which to begin to grasp the distinction between the thing that might be me and the thing that I think I am, unique.  According to some texts, when Moses asked  God "What are you?"   God apparently replied, "I am that I am."  Which I'd argue, puts the God of Moses firmly into the category of Existentialist, with all the emotional insecurities and wishy-washiness engagement in such a category implies.   Otherwise the God of Moses might have done the sensible thing and glanced through the Miriam Dictionary, or its equivalent,  and announced. "I am a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe."  And God might have added, "I am the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."

Previous    Next