on page 151
'the myopia of the future caused by prefrontal damage
has a counterpart in the condition of anyone who
consistently alters normal feelings by taking narcotics
or large quantities of alcohol. The resulting maps of
life are systematically false, consistently misinforming
brain and mind about the actual body state. One might
guess that this distortion would be an advantage. What's
wrong with feeling fine and happy? Well, there seems to
be a lot wrong, actually, if well being and happiness
are substantially and chronically at variance with what
the body would normally be reporting to the brain. In
effect, in the circumstances of addiction, the processes
of decision making fail miserably and addicts progressively
make less and less advantageous decisions for themselves
and for those close to them. The term "myopia of the future"
describes this predicament accurately. If left unchecked,
it invariably leads to a loss of social independence.'
the resulting maps of life are systematically false,
consistently misinforming brain and mind about the
actual body state
this view while on the face of it fairly uncontroversial
- perhaps even commonsensical - is not all it seems
first up feelings (Damasio's term - not mine) have never
been a reliable guide to biology or medicine
if they were we would have no need for these sciences
and isn't it clear that one's feelings of pleasure -
may have nothing to do with good health?
what's the drama here?
one's state of health from a scientific point of view
may or may not correspond to one's feelings
Damasio has not understood the first lesson of science -
that the reason we have science is because what feelings
tell us - is as good as next to nothing
how can the brain be misinformed?
could it be that the brain has the correct picture -
but the information is faulty?
how would you decide this issue?
first up you drop all talk of correct information and
false or faulty information - data is data
and simply look at cause and effect -
now this may be no simple matter
but the point is to drop presuppositions about correctness
- for want of a better word
Damasio - goes on to use 'normal'
and here he is really displaying myopia - philosophical
myopia
granted scientists in the main are cautious thinkers
they need always to work very conservatively - to build
up their facts for their theory -
but the point of good science - good theory construction -
is to see what you see objectively
and to do this you need to know what you are doing
in the case of the addict -
are you a medical scientist?
a social worker?
a born again Christian?
or a brain surgeon?
what would Spinoza say here?
I think he would regard all this talk about feelings
and brain maps as rubbish -
Spinoza says of joy - 'the passion by which the mind
passes to a greater perfection. The affect of joy,
related at the same time to both mind and body,
I call pleasurable excitement (titillatio) or
cheerfulness....."
how does this relate to the conatus
first conatus: III.PVIII. -
'The endeavour wherewith a thing endeavours to persist
in its being is nothing else than the actual essence
of that thing.'
as I read this - and I suspect it is not a standard reading
Spinoza is here saying it is of the nature of an existing
thing to persist in its existence
now this may or may not be a pleasurable or joyful affair
as a consequence -
we can say the addicted person - in this respect is no
different to the non-addicted person
it is of the essence of both to persist in the endeavour
and what is to count as success here?
a long healthy life?
well you might think so - but Spinoza does not say this
in fact he is quite clear that there is no goal to life
per se
yes we make choices - we imagine goals - ends
but these are products of the imagination - not reason
emotional props to the fact that the only reason for
existence - is existence
so the point is - there is no point - beyond existence
this is Spinoza's answer to the question of meaning -
of the meaning of life
life is the meaning of life
(or technically - existence is the meaning of life)
so the endeavour to persist - is what we do - whatever
we do - and it's no contest
there is no right or wrong way -
there is just what we do -
there is just existence
this is really all Spinoza says
for Spinoza - to understand a person's emotional state
is to understand their potency
their power
for emotions are for Spinoza the increase of decrease
of the power of the body and the idea(s) of this
and just what does this amount to?
an addicted person may well have the idea that he or
she is more powerful as a result of their drug use
are they mistaken in Spinoza's terms?
I think not
could they be dying as they have this sensation
and idea of power?
yes
so were they mistaken?
is it a case of the body map giving the wrong information
to the brain and mind?
not on Spinoza's analysis
if so
how are we to understand power?
power is existence?
if so
is death the loss of power
the loss of existence -
and is this the loss of life?
I don't think Spinoza sees it this way
life may - go - existence does not
the loss of life - the loss of power
or an existent's - loss of the power to act?
i.e. - the dead man still exists
action diminished -
perhaps for Spinoza death is the state where one
is only acted upon
and we can't really speak of 'one' here
so - perhaps only the actor - in Spinoza's sense
of the initiator - is an individual - existent
with the loss of the power to initiate - one has
lost life
it becomes a question - if you distinguish life
and existence -
can the power to exist be increased or decreased?
Spinoza thinks so
but what does this mean?
and is he perhaps wrong here?
perhaps existence is the constant - life - the variable?
so what is it to increase the power of the body?
avoid death as long as you can - eat well exercise -
avoid drug use?
yes I suppose if you have something like Damasio's
view of the power of the body
a standard scientific / medico view of health
but it amounts to the view - power is health
OK - so you can't act if you are incapacitated -
i.e. - unhealthy to some degree
perhaps Damasio is right
what worries me though is - there is no real theory
of power or theory of action in Spinoza
if you discount death - and the idea of the standard
of longevity
take it out of the picture
who's to say?
who's to say what an active life is?
what an increase in power of action is?
what is the standard?
who's to know?
Spinoza does not offer us secondary theories here
there is substance - and within substance -
modes affected
that's it - it's that simple
so
does it finally just come back to pleasure and pain
I suspect this really was - Spinoza's considered
opinion
and if so all bets are off
