|
Psycho-Epistemology
by Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
11/17/2012
“Psycho-epistemology” is one of those words that
shows up in the Ayn Rand / Objectivist literature and seems to throw a lot
of people off, since it is a big word and not found anywhere else.
“Psycho-epistemology is the study of man’s cognitive processes from
the aspect of the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic
functions of the subconscious. “Psycho-epistemology,” a term coined by
Ayn Rand, pertains not to the content of a man’s ideas, but to his
method of awareness, i.e., the method by which his mind habitually deals
with its content.” [from the Lexicon]. As far as I know, she uses the
word first in The Romantic Manifesto regarding art, both for its creation
and its understanding.
Psycho-epistemology is a combination of two words,
“psychology” (dealing with man’s subconscious) and
“epistemology” (the study of man’s conscious mind). In a way, one
can consider those mental functions which are semi-automatic to be in the
domain of psycho-epistemology. Take driving, for example. When one first
learns how to drive, a great deal of conscious attention must be exercised
so that one can keep control of the vehicle and not get into a wreck.
After a while and through continuous driving, the effort to keep
control of the car becomes semi-automatic – that is, one must still pay
attention to the road, but one no longer has to give oneself explicit
instructions to turn to the right or the left, to press the gas pedal, or
to hit the breaks. One’s
conscious awareness is directed at the road, but driving per se is done in
an automatized manner: It becomes habitual.
Learning a language and learning how to walk, all
done at a very early age for most of us, is psycho-epistemological. Like
driving, the various mental habits and muscle co-ordinations take time to
become automatized, but as an adult, one does not have to be consciously
aware of using a specific language or moving one’s legs in a certain way
to walk. Basically, once it has been automatized, it just happens.
More specifically, psycho-epistemology has to do with
one’s mental habits when considering a topic. For example, let’s say
one reads a headline that says, “Israel Stations 75,000 Troops at the
Border.” If one is rational, one seeks to identify the facts of the
case, to semi-automatically bring up memories of the conflict between
Israel and Hamas around the Gaza Strip. By doing this, one can assess
whether or not the headline is appropriate, or if it should have stated,
“Gaza Hamas Continues to Fire 10,000 Rockets into Israel.” This comes
about due to the mental habit of going to the facts. Another mental habit
might be to semi-automatically go to floating principles, such as trying
to be fair to both sides to demonstrate that neither side is wholly in the
right on the issue, as a recent news story following that original
headline revealed. Trying to be fair, rather than being on the side of
total justice, is a mental habit brought about by attempting to be
“politically correct” in all matters (not taking sides in any
political conflict). Yet another mental habit would be to go by one’s
emotional reaction to the headline, which might be anger that Israel is
preparing to attack Gaza or joy that they are finally going to take on
their enemies as they have a right to do.
So, psycho-epistemology is something one does all the
time, it just sounds big and cumbersome because Miss Rand combined two
words that already existed (she was against neo-logism or coining new
terms unless it was absolutely necessary). Regarding art, where she first
mentions it, psycho-epistemology has to do with the semi-automatic or
automatized mental processes of the artist creating the art. Does he bring
forth mentally those aspect of the subject that best concretizes or makes
real that which he is trying to convey – i. e. the facts that observed
would lead the viewer to understand his intent? Or does he go by the
method he was taught as a floating principle not connected to the facts or
the case being presented? Or does he go by his emotions, conveying things
in a hap-hazard kind of way because they seem to fit together because he
has the same emotional reaction to each of the items presented?
These types of mental habits and a similar
automatized reaction by the viewer identifies the nature of the art
conveyed by the artist and the nature of the response to the art by the
viewer. Both are counting on semi-automatic mental processes which can be
difficult to explicitly identified without a good instructor who knows not
only artistic techniques of rendering things real on canvas, say, but also
the mental habits that must be developed to be able to convey what is on
one’s mind as one begins the process of creating a work of art.
Miss Rand goes into the issues in some detail in The
Romantic Manifesto; and I recommend it highly to anyone interested in the
arts, both as the producer of the art and the enjoyer of the final
product.
Also see:
The
Purpose of Art
|
|