one interesting thing Chomsky stated in his lecture was that it was Newton who solved the mind matter dichotomy because he was able to prove matter followed purely formal mental principals (which I take it proved that the physical was of a mental nature? e.g. mentalized physical) In this respect Chomsky's grammars seem also to proceed from the purer algorithms of illumined mind and seek to express the working out of the embryology of language (in an Aurobindian sense by manomaya purusha worlding its way into the dense mental prakriti of hominoid evolution.)

It is quite interesting how propositions find truths and how individuals are led to interpret data which follow the underlying patterns of their ontological outlook and pre-assumptions.

Because the slam of Newton ever since William Blake is that it is Newton who is responsible for our single vision.

His scientific method by which the operation of matter can be deduced by logical (mathematical) principals
in which solid bodies separated by the void of empty space, forever distant in relationship, mechanical in motion, plodding along according to the clockwork laws governing the epi-cycles of infinite space, leads inevitably to the psychological alienating logic of solid bodies -which according to Bergsen becomes the operating assumption of our life world encounters e.g fragmentation-


At any rate it is a unique epistemology track which Chomsky follows in ascribing to Newton credit for collapsing the mind body dualism ( which is quite contrary to the romantic view ) and probably represents a mind which orients itself purely in accordance with Cartesian principles of rationality and is comfortable moving about purely in the world of formal principals (be they linguistic or moral) which innately order the universe .

rc

I have not yet gone through the article, but got a preview from your annotated comments. As far as I know, Mangesh Nadkarni's PhD thesis in linguisitcs was based on Chomsky's ideas. The attribution of the overcoming of the mind-matter duality to Newton is not new however. Basic to Enlightenment thinking is the idea of the "intelligent" basis of the physical universe, its clockwork reality as you have so eloquently described in your comment. There is of course a truth to this in Aurobindonian terms since there is a universal mind (Overmind) delegeated by the Supermind which orchestrates the differentiation of reality in matter. The problem is the Enlightenment assumption following this intuition (shared by Newton and perhaps, Chomsky) that the human mind can measure up to this unitive knowledge/intelligence without a change of consciousness or being (ontology). The problem of discovering the universal laws to manifest reality (in other words, Science) becomes not so much a piecing together of fragments using the present human mind, as an arriving at an overmentality which can experience the omniscience of the world - i.e. a spiritual problem.

this is interesting because the mental reductionism on the side of the continental philosophers seems perhaps as out of balanced as that of the physical reductionism of the empirical school. (maybe that's why there is a mind/body problem in the western psych) both tend to lean heavily on mechanics for explanatory models and metaphors.

I assume the spiritual problem which you mention is a function of not finding a proper integrative framework for understanding or interpretation. mechanics or logical analysis will always lack the suppleness, which is why Goethe suggested WissenKunst

Interesting material Rich. Did you personally attend Chomsky's lecture in San Fran? If so, I'm curious what your impression was of him. What "level of being" did you feel he had achieved (psychic center awakening?) or did he come across as 'just' another MIT brainiac?

I enjoyed reading Howard Gardner's article re the current understanding of language as a result of a co-evolution between Chomskian inbuilt, DNA-derived syntactic modules inherent in our neural structure and Piagetian cultural factors. Especially Steven Pinker's idea re a universal human nature, neurologically embedded in perhaps "fifteen modules, or 'families of instincts,' that might eventually be proven by cognitive scientists to make up the universal human mind." And of course Jerome Bruner's "calls for a 'contextualist' revolution.. and a new "cultural psychology."

All this reminds of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's ideas of an even more fundamental stratum for the higher aspects of human nature; that we are connected by quantum effects in intra-neuron microtubules to the unimaginably infinitesimal Planck scale, a "basic proto-conscious level of reality where Platonic values are embedded.." and that this connection "may account for spirituality."

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts re these ideas, and their possible relationship with Integral Yoga.

Here's a short introduction by Hameroff:

"Are life and consciousness connected to the funda-mental level of reality?"
by Stuart Hameroff, M.D. (U. of Arizona, Tucson)

"Consciousness defines our existence and reality, but the mechanism by which the brain generates thoughts and feelings remains unknown.

"Most explanations portray the brain as a computer, with nerve cells ("neurons") and their synaptic connections acting as simple switches. However computation alone cannot explain why we have feelings and awareness, an 'inner life.'

"We also don't know if our conscious perceptions accurately portray the external world. At its base, the universe follows the seemingly bizarre and paradoxical laws of quantum mechanics, with particles being in multiple places simultaneously, connected over distance, and with time not existing. But the “classical” world we perceive is definite, with a flow of time. The boundary or edge (quantum state reduction, or ‘collapse of the wave function”) between the quantum and classical worlds somehow involves consciousness.

"I spent twenty years studying how computer-like structures called microtubules inside neurons and other cells could process information related to consciousness. But when I read *The Emperor’s New Mind* by Sir Roger Penrose in 1991, I realized that consciousness may be a specific process on the edge between the quantum and classical worlds. Roger and I teamed up to develop a theory of consciousness based on quantum computation in microtubules within neurons. Roger’s mechanism for an objective threshold for quantum state reduction connects us to the most basic, “funda-mental” level of the universe at the Planck scale, and is called objective reduction (OR). Our suggestion for biological feedback to microtubule quantum states is orchestration (Orch), hence our model is called orchestrated objective reduction, Orch OR.

"In recent years I have concluded that such a connection to the basic proto-conscious level of reality where Platonic values are embedded is strikingly similar to Buddhist concepts, and may account for spirituality."

Here's the link to Hameroff's "Quantum Consciousness" website. It contains many fascinating articles & references, including detailed graphics of his hypothesized microtubular quantum processes:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Ron

We attended a linguistics lecture at U Mass and then went back to Hampshire to see Noam on rhetoric of democracy, in which he pointed out that the rhetoric and actual preference for democracy were miles apart in this administration.
My impression of him is of the Herr Doktor Professor type, very cerebral and authority figure. I cant comment as to if he has achieved any of aurobindian categories of which psychic awakening is one. I try to really avoid doing that (although at a loss for words I went out on a limb to call his generative grammars a product of the illuminated mind) But I simply don't feel I have the necessary pre-requisites or realization to know if my spiritual perceptions are authentic or just a product of my surface mind, and frankly I wince a bit when I see such descriptions in aurobindian writers. I would say however that he appears to be a wholly sincere, upstanding individual with an almost innate commitment to questions of morality and ethics. So much so that you never see any politicians in this country willing to debate him, nor any main stream media willing to host him (which goes for McNeil Lehrer too). But he is a committed Cartesian in his investment in logic and so he does fit the brainiac profile to some extent.

Now you raise a good question as to if these mental organs or modules the his student Fodor advocates may actual reduce via the microtubules to the Plank scale where perhaps the platonic or overmental realm resides or interfaces with the physical world. It is notable that although Pinker makes the attempt to correlate brain states and the organ of language, that there is to my mind yet to be a satisfactory biological correlation found e.g. brain state. From what I understand the reduction of such ideals or organs of consciousness to brain states has not been done. and I suspect it will never be done satisfactory according to the reductionism model or according to the constructions attempted by Churchland, Crick or Koch. Their attempt to define consciousness as purely a product of a certain complexity of neural states "She claims that conscious experience will be totally and completely explained by the dynamical complexity of properties at the level of neurons and neural networks. As far as consciousness goes, neural network firing patterns triggered by axon-to-dendrite synaptic chemical transmissions are the fundamental correlates of consciousness. There is no need to look elsewhere" (Hameroff) To try and reduce mind to a function of the brain is misplaced certainly as Whitehead would say a case of misplaced concreteness.

As such the efforts of Penrose ( who I have known for 15 years or so) who seem to grant an ontological status to mind and overmind independent of its reduction to matter is welcome in the field of scientific consciousness studies.
However IMO by itself such studies only half explore the problem. A fact which Varela also realized in giving equal weight to 1st person (phenomenological) as to 3rd person accounts (cognitive science) of consciousness
(A 2nd person account could perhaps also be given if there was a maha-guru handy) But the 3rd person exploration of consciousness such as the difference between normal 40 hz gamma synchrony and 80-120hz gamma synchrony in advanced mediators while important, must be augmented by equal weighted phenomenological accounts of ordinary and higher states of consciousness. For example although we may make a correlation with gamma synchrony and creative imagination, it is only the 1st person experience of the artist who can actually breath life into the work of art making it meaningful.
I think that Hameroff and Penrose perhaps are speaking a language not even understood by normal clinical psychologist who deal much more richly with 1st person accounts. That said however, I feel both phenomenological and the correlation of quantum states with consciousness states are the best hopes for forging a dialog in the coming century between the sciences and spiritual traditions. I especially think Penrose and Hameroff's work with microtubules are promising for research in integral yoga pertaining to the mind of cells.

Rich