ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 2, Spring 2015
tial adaptationary value of story-telling millennia ago within a landscape where commanding social relations well meant life or death, but that we could learn about other
individuals’ inner selves (including cultural beliefs of a group) through their art. I
think the evidence I present shows very strongly that the application of the adaptation
of theory of mind expands from viewers’ interests in the artists themselves, as well as
vice-versa. I think the likelihood for artification being used in this way as an adaptation would be for symbolic purposes, as showing status socially, but I am not sure. It
could be equally that theory of mind is simply being applied now, and has been for
some time, in an artist / viewer relationship, but there was no selection for this millennia ago. Here I am less sure, though it is a fascinating area for exploration.
Of course, a lot of the fourth culture analysis I make revolves around the relationship
between artist and viewer, but the argument for fourth culture criticism doesn’t, and
clearly shouldn’t, require that this adaptationist argument be correct.
As Mariagrazia and Dustin remark, the whole area of natural science / humanities integration really needs a better methodological and theoretical foundation, and I’m glad
they raise this point. Consilience is a great word for natural science / humanities integration, as a single-word is needed for the phenomenon. But I am critical of E.O. Wilson’s sketch of it. In the first of a series of papers, I have proposed a computer-level
view of consilience between all subjects, as it explains how reductionism and holism
balance, and thus how the sciences and humanities should really be understood as
linking together (Lock 2014). I am confident the computer-level analogy is important
because it shows how the sciences and humanities are part of one big framework, and
puts their relationship balance in appropriate perspective. The methodological problems of consilience are more practically troublesome, especially for adequate reading
in subjects! But we have terrific reasons for confidence in the area given the rate that
consilience has been developing at. The examples Matt and Mark show about recent
work in their fields are tremendously interesting, as well as everyone’s comments and
ideas that I would love to discuss in more detail, but can’t here. I hope many others
feel, like I do, that the era of consilience is really just beginning.
References:
Lock, Anthony (2014). Uniting the Sciences and Arts. Philosophy and Literature, 38(1A), A178-A193.
Wilson, David Sloan (2005). Evolutionary Social Constructivism. In Gottschall, J. and Wilson, D.S.
(eds.) The literary animal: evolution and the nature of narrative. Evanston: Northwestern University
Press, 20-37.
55