The ideology of compulsiveness

I have found this excellent source on the 'lizard brain' -- a neurobiological brain system conceptualised by Paul D McLean (who became prominent in the early 50s on).

The reptilian stage (“R-complex” or "striatal complex”) is the earliest [mentality]. Its positive effects on human beings include order, hypostatizing beliefs, a certain type of mannerliness, etc. Its negative effects include human elaboration on the need for power, deception, egotism, and intolerance. [C. Don Keyes, 'Ethical Judgment and Brain Function: An Interpretation of Paul D. MacLean’s Hypothesis.']

The quote, referencing MacClean's work, is by a philosopher. I find it admirable that he takes on this neurobiological material in order to attempt to construct a system of ethics out of it. It produces food for thought.

On the negative side, I do have a criticism. Let us begin by considering what R-complex is, according to Paul MacLean. It is the earliest brain system that developed along evolutionary lines, long before we became human. MacClean, in his work refers to it as the 'reptilian' or 'lizard' brain.

When a philosopher like Don Keyes wants to consider the merits of this R-complex system -- an earlier evolutionary adaptation and mode of processing that differs from the later acquistion of higher processing faculties -- he must consider R-complex "mentality" in relation to what the higher brain systems seem designed to do. In effect, he must consider the "triune system" of the human brain (MacLean's model) as a whole system, wherein the parts, from various stages of evolution, can interact. (Such interactivity is suggested by the fact that we still have the earlier evolved parts of the general brain system. These have not atrophied, which suggests that they are still part of an overall processing facility.)

Having established was R-complex is, I want to quickly address an implicit philosophical premise that is present in the quote from Keyes. What Keyes is suggesting is a kind of ethical determinism: He says, "[R-complex's] positive effects on human beings include order, hypostatizing beliefs, a certain type of mannerliness, etc." Then he adds: "Its negative effects include human elaboration on the need for power, deception, egotism, and intolerance."

I want to suggest that Keyes may well be in error up to a certain point, and only insofar as his rendering implies that there is ethical determinism behind the production of these features, in the way that R-complex is related to the higher parts of the human brain. Now, Keyes does go on to suggest biological indeterminism: "MacLean's hypothesis strikes a balance between genetic predisposition and learning as explanations of human behavior. Furthermore, it allows for a significant degree of indeterminism." But his ethical determinism is what interests us here.

For instance, he includes as one of the likely positive aspects of R-complex: "hypostatizing beliefs".

hypostatize - construe as a real existence, of a conceptual entity
reify - consider an abstract concept to be real

To "hypostatize" is to believe that one's concepts have material validity. Whether hypostatizing has a negative or positive ethical outcome really depends on the degree to which one tends to take this hypostatizing tendency. It also depends on the context: hypostatizing in a ritualistic context will have a totally different effect the participants than hypostatizing in a context that is secular and modern. To hypostatizing gender, for instance, is to reinforce the notion of nonvariability between all men as such and all women as such. It is easy to imagine how imposing such a view upon the world can enhance the pleasure of a ritual activity (which the R-complex seems particularly designed for). Imposing such a hypostatizing perspective onto the complexity of modern life would, however, be a great downer -- in this context, it would be an ethical mistake to boot. The higher mind has a better grasp of natural variability than the lizard brain is able to fathom: So, we would do wrong to treat humans with higher brains as lizards, as a general rule.

Keyes, in the quote, takes the deterministic view that hypostatizing is ethically positive, but I argue that it absolutely depends on the context.

This brings me to my main point. It is the implied aspect of compulsiveness in Keyes model of ethics. Compulsiveness in any form smacks of pathology, and would imply an incapacity to act ethically. The way Keyes frames his perspectives on ethics is too mechanistic, in supposing that certain qualities of action always have the same ethical value no matter how they are employed. Dividing parts of the brain's functions into negative and positive sides essentialises the qualities of lizard brain thinking too much. It is as if humans were never positioned to use egoism, for example, in a beneficial fashion, to promote pleasure in power and the intellect and so forth. Yet this aspect of lizard brain's mentality is also part of our evolutionary endowement, so it is to our advantage not to eschew egoism but to learn to use it more advantageously than in a narrow and unethical manner.

Even though Keyes accepts that there is biological indeterminism in MacClean's model he does not notice the implication of ethical indeterminism with regard to using lizard brain's powers. What the lizard brain gives to human consciousness is not easily divided, as Keyes makes out, into stacks of attributes that are ethically good, or bad. Reasons for this include the issue of changing social contexts, as I have noted. Also the idea from Nietzsche, that the value of egotism strongly depends on the nature of the one who has it. All of this highlights that there is a factor of ethical indeterminism in relation to the way that humans make use of the triune brain.

Finally, there is the shamanistic model, which upholds that compulsiveness in action is abhorrent. The reason the shaman gets to know the inside workings of the lizard brain is for no other reason that mastering it, and no longer having to submit to it as if it were an unconscious force. Rather one wants to pillage and exploit its contents for the use of the higher mind. Nietzsche knew about this method of intellectual advancement, but it seems that many do not understand it.

We should not permit our actions to be determined by any ethical hypostatisations! That is conceding far too much ground and control to the lizard brain!!