On the subject of Mind the most interesting aspect is what has been called the Mind-Brain Problem. It was never a problem for those that had a proper metaphysical understanding of the concept and the reality behind it. The progression of the dementia sufferer is perhaps the best illustration. This is an area of familial experience, as I have been a caregiver for an Alzheimer’s sufferer for 13 years. Alzheimer’s has been called the Disappearing Person disease. It is an understandable and unfortunate moniker. The person does not disappear, they go into involuntary hiding. My point here is that it is the brain that (slowly) disappears, not the Mind. I have seen it myself so many times. I read a book some years ago about Alzheimers titled ‘Still Alice’. The title was apt. The person is still in there. The Mind is awake. This is what makes Alzheimer’s and pathological dementia so devastating. The brain has let the mind down. I can think of no laboratory or clinical setting that would demonstrate this reality like spending years with a person that is suffering the progression of this devastating disease.
Very interesting Brien. Sorry about the pain which no doubt accompanied this insight. Do you distinguish here between the mind and the person/self? What specifically did you observe that indicated for you the mind of your loved one was still independently present but “hiding” because of the brain disease?
That’s a good question. I would add the person/self to mind. She was always and still is “in there”, capable of feeling embarrassment, shame, anger, longing.... I see these emotions in her frequently although nothing can be expressed in words. I believed she could solve problems in her mind(fixing a meal, driving to the store) but could not do so in her brain. It was too diseased. To me her mind never declined, her brain never ceased to. She is in a memory unit now and has only emotional memory day to day, the memory of feelings.
Thanks for your response Brien. It sounds like you can identify her “self” by the enduring presence of her characteristic emotional responses to people and events? I wonder where emotions would fit into Platos four categories? On the one hand, they are part of all our inborn responses to specific perceptions: A kind of preprogrammed universal physiological response along with corresponding states of consciousness and action tendencies. On the other hand, we perceive our own emotions and the emotions of our loved ones as the essence of who we/they are as individual selves.
Nov 27, 2023·edited Nov 27, 2023Liked by Classical Wisdom
Great post, and a very important question in the headline that does not get the proper attention it deserves. The late, great Dr. Thomas Szasz (a psychiatrist) wrote an absorbing book titled "The Meaning of Mind." He concluded that mind is a verb, not a noun proper, and that we lead ourselves into a morass of misunderstanding when we treat it as a noun and reify it. He argued, very plausibly in my view, that the concept of "mind" arose only in the late Middle Ages as a legal fiction and that the concept is not continuous with the ancient concept of "soul." To my knowledge, no one in ancient philosophy has ever read his book, but they should. It is very clearly written and begins with a terrific chapter about the experience of Helen Keller.
These ideas have been top of mind for me recently as I have been rediscovering William Blake and Aldous Huxley’s Doors of Perception. Huxley specifically references back to Plato’s ideas regarding perception and abstraction, though not wholly in agreement. To Huxley, the role of language in structuring thought is central. Huxley refers to languages as implicit philosophies and contends that while we benefit in terms of survival from these philosophies being foisted upon us, they also limit our awareness of the world around us. In other words, language “petrifies” consciousness. Huxely contends that transcending language and survival mode (via mystical experience) one can (momentarily) cleanse the doors of perception, giving us access to a glimpse of the infinite and eternal — the most fundamental reality.
A most interesting article on what is arguably the most important subject of all. We only experience reality because of our mind's participation, but very few people ever stop to question what that mind is? Our Buddhist explanation of how we know things seems very similar to the one described: direct perception, inference based on experience (e.g. smoke coming out of a chimney suggests fire), and relying on someone else who we trust. In Buddhism, mind is defined as "a formless continuum of clarity and cognition" - clarity being the aspect of mind that enables anything to arise, and cognition being that which cognises. Ultimately, through mind watching mind meditation, we arrive at the same point: that all phenomena, our 'selves' included, are ultimately illusion-like. According to the Buddhist perspective, which I believe may well have influenced Classical Greek philosophers, letting go of the need to grasp at such illusion-like appearances is the path to inner peace.
On the subject of Mind the most interesting aspect is what has been called the Mind-Brain Problem. It was never a problem for those that had a proper metaphysical understanding of the concept and the reality behind it. The progression of the dementia sufferer is perhaps the best illustration. This is an area of familial experience, as I have been a caregiver for an Alzheimer’s sufferer for 13 years. Alzheimer’s has been called the Disappearing Person disease. It is an understandable and unfortunate moniker. The person does not disappear, they go into involuntary hiding. My point here is that it is the brain that (slowly) disappears, not the Mind. I have seen it myself so many times. I read a book some years ago about Alzheimers titled ‘Still Alice’. The title was apt. The person is still in there. The Mind is awake. This is what makes Alzheimer’s and pathological dementia so devastating. The brain has let the mind down. I can think of no laboratory or clinical setting that would demonstrate this reality like spending years with a person that is suffering the progression of this devastating disease.
Very interesting Brien. Sorry about the pain which no doubt accompanied this insight. Do you distinguish here between the mind and the person/self? What specifically did you observe that indicated for you the mind of your loved one was still independently present but “hiding” because of the brain disease?
That’s a good question. I would add the person/self to mind. She was always and still is “in there”, capable of feeling embarrassment, shame, anger, longing.... I see these emotions in her frequently although nothing can be expressed in words. I believed she could solve problems in her mind(fixing a meal, driving to the store) but could not do so in her brain. It was too diseased. To me her mind never declined, her brain never ceased to. She is in a memory unit now and has only emotional memory day to day, the memory of feelings.
Thanks for your response Brien. It sounds like you can identify her “self” by the enduring presence of her characteristic emotional responses to people and events? I wonder where emotions would fit into Platos four categories? On the one hand, they are part of all our inborn responses to specific perceptions: A kind of preprogrammed universal physiological response along with corresponding states of consciousness and action tendencies. On the other hand, we perceive our own emotions and the emotions of our loved ones as the essence of who we/they are as individual selves.
Great post, and a very important question in the headline that does not get the proper attention it deserves. The late, great Dr. Thomas Szasz (a psychiatrist) wrote an absorbing book titled "The Meaning of Mind." He concluded that mind is a verb, not a noun proper, and that we lead ourselves into a morass of misunderstanding when we treat it as a noun and reify it. He argued, very plausibly in my view, that the concept of "mind" arose only in the late Middle Ages as a legal fiction and that the concept is not continuous with the ancient concept of "soul." To my knowledge, no one in ancient philosophy has ever read his book, but they should. It is very clearly written and begins with a terrific chapter about the experience of Helen Keller.
Here's a link if anyone wants to check it out/sneak-peek it: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Meaning_of_Mind/IcljKrApZq4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+meaning+of+mind+szasz&printsec=frontcover
I will definitely read it! Looks fascinating.
Loved this, thank you
These ideas have been top of mind for me recently as I have been rediscovering William Blake and Aldous Huxley’s Doors of Perception. Huxley specifically references back to Plato’s ideas regarding perception and abstraction, though not wholly in agreement. To Huxley, the role of language in structuring thought is central. Huxley refers to languages as implicit philosophies and contends that while we benefit in terms of survival from these philosophies being foisted upon us, they also limit our awareness of the world around us. In other words, language “petrifies” consciousness. Huxely contends that transcending language and survival mode (via mystical experience) one can (momentarily) cleanse the doors of perception, giving us access to a glimpse of the infinite and eternal — the most fundamental reality.
A most interesting article on what is arguably the most important subject of all. We only experience reality because of our mind's participation, but very few people ever stop to question what that mind is? Our Buddhist explanation of how we know things seems very similar to the one described: direct perception, inference based on experience (e.g. smoke coming out of a chimney suggests fire), and relying on someone else who we trust. In Buddhism, mind is defined as "a formless continuum of clarity and cognition" - clarity being the aspect of mind that enables anything to arise, and cognition being that which cognises. Ultimately, through mind watching mind meditation, we arrive at the same point: that all phenomena, our 'selves' included, are ultimately illusion-like. According to the Buddhist perspective, which I believe may well have influenced Classical Greek philosophers, letting go of the need to grasp at such illusion-like appearances is the path to inner peace.
Great article! We (my wife and I) wonder about dreaming and how the mind works so differently while we sleep. The comments here were great as well!