At the end chapter 2, Massumi brings up the concept of viscerality (interoception). He states that “Visceral sensibility immediately registers excitations gathered by the five “exteroceptive” senses even before they are fully processed by the brain (ch.2, pg.60).” I find this concept interesting because it is so radical from what we are normally taught. Because our brain processes items at an extraordinary speed, it is amazing to see interoception is even quicker than are brain wiring. But as Massumi later writes, this all has to do with the registration of intensity. I think what he is trying to say is that viscerality is prominent the most when intensity is the highest. That might be why interoception is prevalent most in situations when you are in danger.
The example Massumi brings up is when you are in a dark ally and your lungs swell before you see someone emerge (ch.2, pg.60). An example I can think of is when you are in the woods and you feel your stomach drop before you see the large bear pop out of the bush. Both scenarios are dangerous and high intense situations where viscerality is clearly there. This makes me wonder though if interoception could be evolutionary based? Did our ancestors who developed this pre-sense live longer because their skins/flesh/bodies were able to feel the intensity of the situation before their brains could register it?
When Massumi talks about language in the last two pages of chapter 2, I was confused. Massumi writes that “The line Reagan speaks makes him feel like a cripple and gives rise to the idea that he has become a semiautomation (ch.2, pg 63).” I was confused at how language got Reagan to that dramatic point. I know that while Reagan was lying on the trick bed, his affects were intensified. Did his affects intensity to such a point that when he spoke his line, he finally realized the affect which then embodied this idea of him being an amputee? Does language solidify the affect?
Hey Donah!
ReplyDeleteI think you're on to something with interoception being evolutionarily based! I'm a pretty clumsy person, and I am often amazed by my ability to avoid danger before I even realized it was imminent. Most impressive, I find, is the blinking reflex.
There have been dozens of times where I've unintentionally sent something flying towards my face and blinked before I even realized I'd done so. The same thing happens when I'm on my bike, and my eyes end up in the path of an insect; before I know it's coming, my eyes blink and the would-be disaster is avoided.
If my body did not have this remarkable foresight, I would surely be blind in both eyes by now. And, were these less accommodating times, I would have lost my ability to provide for myself, protect myself, and ultimately pass on my genes.
I agree wholeheartedly that interoception could be from evolution. It reminds me of all of the processes that happen in our body that we are unconscious of - cell growth, antibodies fighting off potential infections, etc. But for an affect to be able to penetrate our bodies with a purpose without the intermediary of the brain telling it what to do is amazing to me.
ReplyDeleteI think it has to do at least a little with expectation though, that is why you can jump at a cat in a dark alley or at a cracking branch in the forest. Think about when you are really scared, maybe after watching a frightening movie or when walking at home in a dark, unfamiliar area, you jump easy right? Any and everything could set you off because your body is poised on the thought of potential danger. With the blink on the bike for the bug scenario, I think it could be argued that there is an expectation on an unconscious level of some sort of danger, since your body is aware that it is moving faster than normal. This could be an evolutionary development for sure.
I would identify the belated, conscious response metaphorically as "thunder", and the unconscious, instantaneous reflex as "lightening". The same stimulus provides for both, though the one arrives sooner. I think we could all agree that this serves some evolutionary function (ex. getting out of the way of big falling rocks without doing a cost-benefit analysis). It seems clearly valuable that we would have some innate, reflexive knowledge of sensory information before we consciously process it.
ReplyDeleteWhat interests me, from a revolutionary standpoint, is why affects got thrown in with the reflexes. For example, you tend to physiologically change (have an affect) prior to having perception of this affect (the "feeling" of emotion, based on turning your attention to your inward condition). In this way, affective/emotional responses seem to come like the "lightening" and are only thereafter consciously mediated into feelings, conscious emotional states. What evolutionary purpose could this serve? Would we not be more adaptable if our emotional disposition was "on hold" until we could consciously mediate it?
For example, you see a dent in your car and perceive it as an unjustifiable wrong against you, until learning that something justified it, which leads you to be less upset. But wouldn't it be more advantageous, in supporting life and preserving energy (ATP and Brennan's more intangible affect-energy) if you didn't have an emotional response until you had time to consciously "chew on" the sensory inputs? Couldn't we have muscle reflexes without having heart-reflexes?
*** 2nd paragraph should read "from an evolutionary standpoint"... I'm not staging a a coup here...
ReplyDelete