Things so horrible you never want to be in the situation to find them out #167

[andrewducker]

Collecting your own stool sample is _exactly_ as unpleasant as you'd imagine.

Comments

[thishardenedarm.livejournal.com]

well like the man said, the unconscious is structured like a language. sensory organs don't just passively encode (but even if they did, you have even there a rudimentary language) but they are actively informed by inherited and acquired schemas that inform and structure experience so that even in your flow state bliss your experience is still mediated and enabled by language. The conscious mind actually does very little. It processes a vanishingly small amount of our actual ongoing experience. Most experience is unconscious. That doesnt mean that language, the symbolic order, is therefor unimportant. Call it the Lacanian unconscious (structured like a language) or the cognitive unconscious (like the psychologists now do)but it's pretty clear that it is symbolic, representational all the way down. I think you are conflating conscious mental activity with language. Language is much bigger than that.

so it goes like this

and non primates don't "have" experience of the world like us. In fact even primates clearly don't. Heidegger calls the kind of being that is unique to humans Dasein ("being there"); what distinguishes Dasein from any other kind of being-in-the-world is that Dasein is the only being for which Being is an issue. Only Dasein can pose the question of its being, only for dasein is existence a question, only dasein has the notion of being as the horizon of it's experience. To put it more technically, human beings are where ontology happens. With Dasein goes worldhood

[andrewducker]

and non primates don't "have" experience of the world like us.

And at this point we part company. I think that we do have experience like them _and_ we have Dasein. And the flow state is something akin to the experience they have.

It can't possibly be language all the way down - language is an abstraction built out of lower-level things - a way of dividing the world into this/that. It has to be built out of experience. Language is deduction, built on (and informing) induction, learning through exposure to experience.

I do agree that the conscious mind does very little though. Nor do I think that language is unimportant (or I would have said so). Or that you can _actually_ divide the world up into conscious/unconscious, inductive/deductive or any other duality. All of these are language constructs, formed from, and informing our understanding of the experiences we have. Saying that, for instance, my eyeballs have language seems to be using the word 'language' in a different way than anything it's usually used for.