Saturday, December 16, 2006

Meat and the Excusarian Brain


Though a study linking higher IQ with the (youthful) inclination to go vegetarian may or may not prove true or of much consequence -- one doesn't have to be particularly smart to reject conventions that unnecessarily harm oneself or others -- it is clearly a mark of individual and collective rationality to reject prevailing methods of food production. But human traditions (especially those that touch our daily lives) can be stubbornly resistant to reason or change, leading one recent columnist to say this about the proliferation of meat-eating "excusarians":

"I’ve heard every excuse in the book for eating animals, but I’ve yet to hear a convincing reason. It’s a pretty simple equation: since humans don’t need to consume animals to survive, killing them simply to satisfy our taste buds amounts to senseless slaughter. But our eating habits and appetites have very deep roots, and we prefer convenience over conscience. With a determination that belies an irrational attachment to animal flesh and secretions, otherwise sensible and sensitive people spend vast amounts of time and energy concocting outrageous excuses to justify this unnecessary habit. Using lyrical and exalted language, they extol the virtues of tradition, glorify the need to conserve “heritage breeds,” and wax poetic about our “evolutionary heritage.

Affixed with meaningless labels that make it seem as if the animals sacrificed themselves for the pleasure of humans, the Holy Triumvirate of meat, dairy, and eggs remains the sacred foundation of the human diet, regarded as more of a right than a privilege. The marketing that surrounds these “products” suggests that not eating meat is downright un-American, and this is echoed by the mainstream public as well as “progressives." Culture and tradition are not excuses for cruelty.

There is perhaps no other lifestyle habit we spend so much time defending. Every excuse we make is an attempt to absolve ourselves from our participation in the gratuitous exploitation, mutilation, and death of non-human animals. If we have to disguise, rationalize, romanticize, and ritualize eating animals to such a degree that we’re no longer living in truth or reality, then perhaps we’re not comfortable with it at all."

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Hearing Mountains and Seeing Music: Syneasthetic Humeanism?


Hume's famous attempt to ground subjective aesthetic judgment in universal and relatively invariant cognitive processes (his proposed solution to the so-called "antinomy of taste") has received a bit of support recently from neuropsychologists Jamie Ward's and Julia Simner's research on syneasthesia -- the involuntary intermingling of perceptual modalities. This sort of sensory integration occurs, for example, when visual stimuation evokes a corresponding aural or olfactory sensation, just as Russian artist Wasilly Kandinsky (right), a self-proclaimed synaesthete, claimed to hear what he painted (and hoped to provide opportunities for his admirers to do the same).

Contrary to widespread belief that congenital synaesthesia affects no more than 4 percent of the population, Ward and Simner opine that we all routinely make synaesthetic connections in the brain, while only full-fledged synaesthetes are consciously aware of those connections. Ward concludes that "beauty is not in the eye of the beholder," but simply an "innate, hard-wired reponse" to objects in the world (Discover, December, 2006, p. 19).

If this is right, synaesthetic connections may double as an objective ground for subjective expressions of taste (as well as provide a solution to Hume's antinomy).

DKJ