Reflexivity
Probably animals may also have their own internal domains to some extent. Animals can imagine what they see and perceive. Otherwise, we cannot say that they also communicate each other by using some kind of primitive sign language. Even bees can communicate one another. One bee that can find the location of the flowers can tell the other bees in their nest by using a certain communicative tool called "dancing." This dancing has been highly systematized, so that the other bees can locate the subtle difference on how the particular flowers can be approached. While it is quite systematized, however, this tool is too mechanical to use some other purpose such as, for example, expressing the feeling of bees, etc. Some particular behaviors in any insects and animals can be considered as the moves of their courtship. But, such moves are too mechanical to allow the variations of their own interpretations. These communicative tools can be used as signs, but never be used as symbols.
What is the difference? While signs have only one on one signifier/signified binary relation, symbols can have almost infinite variations of its own interpretation. In other words, while sign has only one meaning of each sign, symbol can just show the open-ended possibility to be interpreted in any ways depending on the context. Moreover, using symbols can create the context, which can be continuously updated as the interpretations can be differed.
That is one of the crucial differences between animals/insects and humans even though both have their own communicative tools. Because of such difference, the tool of human communication is called language and requires not only reflection, but also reflexivity. What is reflection and what is reflexivity? What is the difference between both? The answers can be figured out based on the above-mentioned difference between sings and symbols.
For example, when a bee has come back to her nest and start dancing so as to show the other bees the location of the flowers, what the other bees need to do is to understand the "meaning" of her dancing. Due to this mechanistic system, the dancing has several combinations. In this sense, the other bees have to reflect on the particular dancing. Once they understand the "meaning" of the dance as keeping in "mind," they go out of the nest and try to approach the flowers that the first dancing bee "taught" them. Although the "communication" may be quite simple and primitive (in a way it is amazingly sophisticated as one of the natural phenomena) a certain extent of reflection must be required. Although the mechanism of the memory may be different from us humans, it is truth that the particular information had to be retained and stored in somewhere (probably in the "brain" of the bees) in the meantime at the time gap after they saw and understood the "meaning" of dancing until they find the flowers while they are flying.
In the same way, animals also have the similar but more advanced capacity of the reflection. This can remind us of a dog of Pavlov. If we always feed a dog with the sound of bell, then eventually the digestive function of the dog's stomach can be automatically activated even without seeing the food but with the sound of bell alone. Although it is quite simple and primitive, it is also true that the physical reaction of the dog has been conditioned by particular information, the sound of bell. And this sound of bell can be considered a sign that enable both dog and his feeder to make a simple communication to some extent.
The more general example is that we can see a dog is happy or hungry when he tries to look at us and moving his tail and the dog also knows that his breeder can understand the meaning of his gesture, so that he can tell his breeder that he is happy or hungry. This is the reflection of the dog. His tail is used for one of the communicative tools between the dog and his breeder. But it is not yet reflexivity. Both insects and animals do not have the capacity of reflexivity.
Why? Because while the dog tries to move his tail for his breeder to understand that he is hungry or happy, he is not aware of his own intention of doing so. His behavior is not intentional. Or else, even though it can be called intentional in some sense, this "intentionality" is so spontaneous and still instinctive. That is why; the dog cannot "pretend" to be happy in his "intention" to get the food from his breeder. Pretending is possible only when he knows or can think of what is doing. More strictly, pretending is possible only when he is aware of his own reflection and such awareness is the level of reflexivity. In a word, reflexivity means the reflection on the reflections. When the dog is angry, he looks angry and expresses his anger spontaneously. The dog can not pretend to be happy by controlling his emotion while he notices that he is angry. Of course, the trained dog can be behaved and disciplined. But this is not the kind of self-discipline derived from his reflexivity.
Thus, while holding so-called instinctive and spontaneous "intention" is possible among some "intelligent" mammals such as dogs and chimpanzees etc. they cannot have the more advanced level of intentionality, which is derived from the reflexivity, the self-awareness of one's intention. And, such reflexivity (the self-awareness of one's intention) is closely related to the concept of time. For example, the capability of "planning" is held only by humans. Planning is the behavior based on the self-awareness of one's own intention. In the same way, the retrospective thinking is also the self-awareness of what one was intending in the past. If the capability of reflection is limited to the extent of instinctive and spontaneous reactions, then it can not have the temporal, chronological perspective, while the capability of reflexivity can have it and accordingly provide the more precise special perspective too. And because of that, the capability of reflexivity is the one to provide the "rich internal world" in the consciousness of humans. For, self-awareness means playing a kind of mental movie in our internal domain. It is that we see ourselves in "another world" that has been constructed in our mind. And actually we tend to consider such "another world" as the more realistic world. Or rather, because of such reflexivity, we can no longer experience the world as it is unlike other animals – this is why; it is difficult for us adults to become so spontaneous like newborn infants.
Because of reflexivity, we can experience the world through our interpretations. In other words, the world is what we perceive and what is called social reality and institutional fact. It is started from our own mind or consciousness, but this has become a so thick lens that we perceive and experience the world. We can no longer distinguish the inner world from the outer world. It seems that we can distinguish this difference quite easily. But it does not. As we have discussed previously, we have taken for grated the fact that the world we experience is heavily reply on the institutional knowledge. We have been lost in the midst of our own diverse interpretations of the world. The world we experience has been constructed within us and by our diverse interpretations based on the imbedded institutional knowledge. But then, since it is imbedded, we tend to forget this truth that the reality is constructed.
In the Buddhism it is said that life is suffering because life is distorted by human desires. This somewhat moralistic statement also shows the fact that the world has been constructed because of reflexivity. For example, if you cannot be satisfied with your job and have been suffered and frustrated by this fact, then the cause of your suffering and frustration comes from the institutional knowledge that has been imbedded in you unconsciously. If you do not care about what kind of job is supposed to be prestigious for you and so on, then your suffering and frustration may be disappeared. This is called "detachment." But in our present context we can say that you are free from the institutional knowledge imbedded in you unconsciously, or at least you can be conscious of such knowledge that the world has been constructed. Probably this realization is considered as one of the awakening steps in this religion.
Using the mythical metaphor in the Bible, when Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, they are so spontaneous that they could be totally free from any kinds of sin and suffering just like other animals. Literally and metaphorically they were the residences of the kingdom of God; as one can never enter the kingdom of God unless one becomes like a child. But once they have eaten the fruit of wisdom (probably it should be called the fruit of knowledge), they have had institutional knowledge and the world as it is has been transformed into the world interpreted by their knowledge, and yet they are not aware of this transformation. Then, suddenly the world looks cruel to both of them. The world is no longer the oasis that protects them, but the enigma that forces them to do the continuous interpretations.
The more they try to interpret the world, the more the world become elusive and the causes of sufferings and frustrations may be accumulated. For, the interpretation is relied on the limited knowledge of humans. Indeed, trying to escape from the imbedded institutional knowledge is just to create another set of institutional knowledge. That is why; it is often said that in the most of the world religions or spiritualities to cease the suffering of the world derived from one's ego-oriented interpretations, one has to restore the sort of eye of God or of Spirit that can see the world again as it is.
In the philosophical perspective, however, such religious statements might sound like neglecting the human efforts as to how to cope with the above-mentioned institutionalized reality. In fact, the most of the religions, despite such valuable instructions to be free from the institutionally oriented sufferings, the reality is that those religions themselves have been the very sources of the somewhat harmful or sometimes even cruel institutionalization and of its knowledge such as doctrines and ideologies. Considering this fact, what we should do or can do? In my understanding the heart of philosophy is really the capability to be reflexive. Reflexivity is one of the most basic requirements for philosophy.
Kant said: "The greatest human quest is to know what one must do in order to become a human being." It seems to me that "becoming a human being" means cultivating our capability of reflexivity – to continuously, deeply and thoroughly conduct the reflections on the reflections. For, only through such reflexivity, we can be aware of the negative side of reflexivity and can be aware of the confusion between the world as it is and the world as constructed. Although it is true that the continuous reflexivity may create another set of reflexivity and the next...endlessly and uselessly, it is also true that without such continuous endless reflexivity we could never be mindful enough to place us on the path to the right human evolution to "become a human being."
What is the difference? While signs have only one on one signifier/signified binary relation, symbols can have almost infinite variations of its own interpretation. In other words, while sign has only one meaning of each sign, symbol can just show the open-ended possibility to be interpreted in any ways depending on the context. Moreover, using symbols can create the context, which can be continuously updated as the interpretations can be differed.
That is one of the crucial differences between animals/insects and humans even though both have their own communicative tools. Because of such difference, the tool of human communication is called language and requires not only reflection, but also reflexivity. What is reflection and what is reflexivity? What is the difference between both? The answers can be figured out based on the above-mentioned difference between sings and symbols.
For example, when a bee has come back to her nest and start dancing so as to show the other bees the location of the flowers, what the other bees need to do is to understand the "meaning" of her dancing. Due to this mechanistic system, the dancing has several combinations. In this sense, the other bees have to reflect on the particular dancing. Once they understand the "meaning" of the dance as keeping in "mind," they go out of the nest and try to approach the flowers that the first dancing bee "taught" them. Although the "communication" may be quite simple and primitive (in a way it is amazingly sophisticated as one of the natural phenomena) a certain extent of reflection must be required. Although the mechanism of the memory may be different from us humans, it is truth that the particular information had to be retained and stored in somewhere (probably in the "brain" of the bees) in the meantime at the time gap after they saw and understood the "meaning" of dancing until they find the flowers while they are flying.
In the same way, animals also have the similar but more advanced capacity of the reflection. This can remind us of a dog of Pavlov. If we always feed a dog with the sound of bell, then eventually the digestive function of the dog's stomach can be automatically activated even without seeing the food but with the sound of bell alone. Although it is quite simple and primitive, it is also true that the physical reaction of the dog has been conditioned by particular information, the sound of bell. And this sound of bell can be considered a sign that enable both dog and his feeder to make a simple communication to some extent.
The more general example is that we can see a dog is happy or hungry when he tries to look at us and moving his tail and the dog also knows that his breeder can understand the meaning of his gesture, so that he can tell his breeder that he is happy or hungry. This is the reflection of the dog. His tail is used for one of the communicative tools between the dog and his breeder. But it is not yet reflexivity. Both insects and animals do not have the capacity of reflexivity.
Why? Because while the dog tries to move his tail for his breeder to understand that he is hungry or happy, he is not aware of his own intention of doing so. His behavior is not intentional. Or else, even though it can be called intentional in some sense, this "intentionality" is so spontaneous and still instinctive. That is why; the dog cannot "pretend" to be happy in his "intention" to get the food from his breeder. Pretending is possible only when he knows or can think of what is doing. More strictly, pretending is possible only when he is aware of his own reflection and such awareness is the level of reflexivity. In a word, reflexivity means the reflection on the reflections. When the dog is angry, he looks angry and expresses his anger spontaneously. The dog can not pretend to be happy by controlling his emotion while he notices that he is angry. Of course, the trained dog can be behaved and disciplined. But this is not the kind of self-discipline derived from his reflexivity.
Thus, while holding so-called instinctive and spontaneous "intention" is possible among some "intelligent" mammals such as dogs and chimpanzees etc. they cannot have the more advanced level of intentionality, which is derived from the reflexivity, the self-awareness of one's intention. And, such reflexivity (the self-awareness of one's intention) is closely related to the concept of time. For example, the capability of "planning" is held only by humans. Planning is the behavior based on the self-awareness of one's own intention. In the same way, the retrospective thinking is also the self-awareness of what one was intending in the past. If the capability of reflection is limited to the extent of instinctive and spontaneous reactions, then it can not have the temporal, chronological perspective, while the capability of reflexivity can have it and accordingly provide the more precise special perspective too. And because of that, the capability of reflexivity is the one to provide the "rich internal world" in the consciousness of humans. For, self-awareness means playing a kind of mental movie in our internal domain. It is that we see ourselves in "another world" that has been constructed in our mind. And actually we tend to consider such "another world" as the more realistic world. Or rather, because of such reflexivity, we can no longer experience the world as it is unlike other animals – this is why; it is difficult for us adults to become so spontaneous like newborn infants.
Because of reflexivity, we can experience the world through our interpretations. In other words, the world is what we perceive and what is called social reality and institutional fact. It is started from our own mind or consciousness, but this has become a so thick lens that we perceive and experience the world. We can no longer distinguish the inner world from the outer world. It seems that we can distinguish this difference quite easily. But it does not. As we have discussed previously, we have taken for grated the fact that the world we experience is heavily reply on the institutional knowledge. We have been lost in the midst of our own diverse interpretations of the world. The world we experience has been constructed within us and by our diverse interpretations based on the imbedded institutional knowledge. But then, since it is imbedded, we tend to forget this truth that the reality is constructed.
In the Buddhism it is said that life is suffering because life is distorted by human desires. This somewhat moralistic statement also shows the fact that the world has been constructed because of reflexivity. For example, if you cannot be satisfied with your job and have been suffered and frustrated by this fact, then the cause of your suffering and frustration comes from the institutional knowledge that has been imbedded in you unconsciously. If you do not care about what kind of job is supposed to be prestigious for you and so on, then your suffering and frustration may be disappeared. This is called "detachment." But in our present context we can say that you are free from the institutional knowledge imbedded in you unconsciously, or at least you can be conscious of such knowledge that the world has been constructed. Probably this realization is considered as one of the awakening steps in this religion.
Using the mythical metaphor in the Bible, when Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden, they are so spontaneous that they could be totally free from any kinds of sin and suffering just like other animals. Literally and metaphorically they were the residences of the kingdom of God; as one can never enter the kingdom of God unless one becomes like a child. But once they have eaten the fruit of wisdom (probably it should be called the fruit of knowledge), they have had institutional knowledge and the world as it is has been transformed into the world interpreted by their knowledge, and yet they are not aware of this transformation. Then, suddenly the world looks cruel to both of them. The world is no longer the oasis that protects them, but the enigma that forces them to do the continuous interpretations.
The more they try to interpret the world, the more the world become elusive and the causes of sufferings and frustrations may be accumulated. For, the interpretation is relied on the limited knowledge of humans. Indeed, trying to escape from the imbedded institutional knowledge is just to create another set of institutional knowledge. That is why; it is often said that in the most of the world religions or spiritualities to cease the suffering of the world derived from one's ego-oriented interpretations, one has to restore the sort of eye of God or of Spirit that can see the world again as it is.
In the philosophical perspective, however, such religious statements might sound like neglecting the human efforts as to how to cope with the above-mentioned institutionalized reality. In fact, the most of the religions, despite such valuable instructions to be free from the institutionally oriented sufferings, the reality is that those religions themselves have been the very sources of the somewhat harmful or sometimes even cruel institutionalization and of its knowledge such as doctrines and ideologies. Considering this fact, what we should do or can do? In my understanding the heart of philosophy is really the capability to be reflexive. Reflexivity is one of the most basic requirements for philosophy.
Kant said: "The greatest human quest is to know what one must do in order to become a human being." It seems to me that "becoming a human being" means cultivating our capability of reflexivity – to continuously, deeply and thoroughly conduct the reflections on the reflections. For, only through such reflexivity, we can be aware of the negative side of reflexivity and can be aware of the confusion between the world as it is and the world as constructed. Although it is true that the continuous reflexivity may create another set of reflexivity and the next...endlessly and uselessly, it is also true that without such continuous endless reflexivity we could never be mindful enough to place us on the path to the right human evolution to "become a human being."
Comments