[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:58 AM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Something has bothered me quite a bit for a long time, and I'm gonna fumble
> through an analogy of sitting on a hot stove in three different
> environments, in order to get at the conceptualization (of
> conceptualization) which bothers me.   And then I'd like to discuss this
> thing "psychological nominalism" which recently popped up in my reading, as
> well as this list.  Such congruent leadings should always be heeded, imo.
>
> First, three hot stoves.  We'll take as our "hot stove" your basic wood
> fired, kitchen stove.  It's black, squat and normal.  A perfect height for
> sitting and nothing shiny or distracting about it.  Heated to standard
> temperature, we'll figure it at about 450-550 degrees.   We're going to
> consider this hot stove in three different environments, a north-woods
> cabin, a deserted island and a normal kitchen like has been around for
> hundreds and thousands of years and we're going to compare experiential
> encounters with this hot stove in these three different ways.
>
> First, the normal hot stove experience involves a cook working in a kitchen,
> who is fully aware ahead of time of the stove's existence and temperature.
> He's a busy guy, got a chef's hot on his head which is full of thoughts
> about the dinner, the cooking and all the tasks involved.  This first sitter
> most closely approximates Pirsig's analogy of "not thinking" when he sits on
> it.  His distraction causes the accident and he quickly reacts to his
> stove-sitting experience because he's fully aware of the stove and his
> environment so there seems to be no time lag between the physical sensation
> and the physical reaction.  But as I would like to show with my other
> examples, this is not because he's having a non-intellectual experience,
> it's because his intellect has already dealt with the existence of the stove
> ahead of time.  He's probably done it once or twice before in his life, and
> the first conscious thought flitting through his head after he's leaped off
> is "oops" and he goes about his business with very little afterthought or
> reflection or emotional connection to this flitting experience.  Like
> getting a bit of egg shell in the cake batter, it's just a normal "oops" in
> the kitchen, with no associative "aha" at all.  Part of the process, is all.
>
> The second stove sitter, is found on a deserted island in a warm climate.
> He's walking along the beach, decides to rest for a minute and watch the
> waves, and what he thinks is a bunch of rocks, just right for sitting, is
> actually a hot stove amongst a bunch of rocks.  Because his butt was
> expecting a certain amount of warmth, he doesn't realize at first that he's
> sitting on a hot stove and not a sun-warmed rock.  Furthermore, in this time
> and place the hot stove is completely incongruous.  He didn't put it there,
> he didn't light a fire in it, and there's nobody else on the island.  It's
> appearance under his ass is about as unexpected an event as he could
> imagine.  He's not going to react as fast, because he has no mental picture
> in his head to even deal with the experience and after he realizes he has
> sat on a hot stove, he's going to be frightened and bewildered and his heart
> is going to be pounding, his mind racing to come up with some explanation of
> how this stove got there and who lit it.  He's going to be completely
> obsessed with this stove for days, if not months and years.  He's going to
> wonder if he's going crazy, with nobody else around to even confirm it's
> existence, he's going to really wonder.  If he's at all inclined toward
> supernaturalism, that's going to be the direction he's going to be
> thinking.  Eventually, I could easily imagine such a hot stove experience to
> become a talisman or idol for him.
>
>
> The third hot stove experience will be found in a north-woods cabin.  The
> owner of the cabin gets the fire going, and then goes for a walk after dark
> on a cold, frosty winter's night.  He has a mishap, gets his bottom wet and
> frozen and stays out much longer than he expects and as he's trudging back
> to the cabin through the snow, each step a torture to his almost frozen legs
> and buttocks, his whole being and attention are gonna be focused on that hot
> stove.  He's going to fantasize to himself how good it's going to feel to
> just go in and sit right down on that stove and when he finally gets there
> and seats himself, he's going to stay on it as long as he can stand it.  As
> long as it takes to heat his frozen flesh and he's going to have the most
> positive emotional response to the hot stove of any hot stove sitter ever.
>
> So which guy had the most "pure" experience of the hot stove?  I say they
> all experienced the stove in relation to a pre-existing conceptualization of
> their environment and their reactions and the meaning of their experience
> was not derived from the merely sensory reactions of stimulus response, but
> derived from a narrative of their existence and a mental context for their
> varied perceptions.

Dan:

You're missing the whole point, John. The hot stove analogy is meant
to show experience BEFORE conceptualization. That's what I was trying
to tell you when you were going on about it being language all the way
down. The beginning of experience has nothing to do with prior
concepts or narratives of existence. It is pure and direct. Only after
do we mutter oaths or sighs.

Dan