categorically prejudiced ideologue

An interesting lecture a Human Behavioral Biology by Robert Sapolsky . –

About 15 mins in he is talking about categories and the prejudicial difficulties they produce.

The tack that is critical of categories seems very attractive to me. Perhaps am blinded by the attractiveness, however the notion of checking cause and effect to counter categorical thinking/imagining is a mistaken turn in my mind. It seems to me that cause and effect requires an ideology, a categorical prejudice, that predetermines the link between 2 or more elements to be cause and effect type.

Hyposub is a term that questions, or imagines the questioning of cause and effect kind of linking. As far as I seem to comprehend, Sapolsky suggests where a behaviour comes from. What happened around, what kind of neurons were firing, which elements were at play prior to an event.
I think that this approach, somehow ironically in the case of Sapolsky because he seems to push for anarchic rather than hierarchical understanding/learning, produces a prejudice of heirarchical processes. (one will not Be without X.) However, if we are in fact equals in a clustered soup network, then perhaps only link between signal switches*, that might go either/all ways, is a rather more accurate or free way to imagine?

Am using signal switches as basic possible elements, not with number attachment in mind. My fingers as signal switches on the keyboards’ keys that are signal switches -> the keys affect my fingers, determain where and how and in which effort they more, as much as my fingers affect the keys, press them keys. If we check the key being pressed as an effecy from a cause, we miss the network..?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.