About three weeks ago I spent a few days with my girlfriend at our secret love nest. Well, actually it's owned by her parents and her uncle who brings his hairball of a dog there to induce asthma in everyone within a mile radius, but anyway. It's a small cabin in the small island of Laip in the archipelago of Kvarken. This time of the year the water's completely frozen so it's only a fifteen minute's walk from the shore. We were lucky to catch the coldest time of the year, the weather was between -20 to -30 celsius (that's -4 to -22 fahrenheit degrees). With almost no wind and beautiful sunshine the timing couldn't have been better. Not to mention the delightful lack of electricity and running water, and the very welcome move on my part not to take any academic books with me, our short winter break was a success. Here's some pictures from the trip.

The mornings were wonderful. Without any other heating than the fireplace and and a stove they were also somewhat cold.



Skiing was a favourite pastime. One day we were skiing what seemed to be only a short time. Before we knew it we were in China! Hot damn!


Doing yoga postures in snow has turned out to be a surprisingly popular way to keep fit among Finns. The subzero temperatures and the subsequently slow rising of the kundalini serpent burn two times more fat than any other know exercise - nordic walking included.


The cabin being without running water we had to dig deep for our bathing essentials. Gladly, the salty water from the sea is known for its skin-soothing effects.



Reading Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf was like a punch in the nose: I was asking for it. Really, I was. Glad that I did.



In July 2006 the archipelago of Kvarken where our little hideaway is located was added to the World Heritage list of Unesco. Way cool!


In the end it's all about being in love, riding into the sunset on skiis and holding hands, you know? We had fun. It's all about that, too.

Slate had a good article today on "New Age takeover of yoga". I think it made some good points, echoing Ken Wilber's Boomeritis Buddhism ramblings. Check it out.

I subscribe to the magazine The Economist to keep myself up to date on worldly issues. I don't watch television and reading newspapers takes too much time so I usually skim through my weekly copy to see what's going on. In the March 24th-30th issue the paper had an article under the science and technology section. Considering philosophy & neuroscience it was titled "Posing the right question". It was about recent findings in the neural basis of moral choice. I quote:

"[i]t seems that the decision how to act is not a single, rational calculation of the sort that moral philosophers have generally assumed is going on, but a conflict between two processes, with one (the emotional) sometimes able to override the other (the utilitarian)."

The findings were based on studies with persons who had a certain type of brain damage. They were more easily able than normal people to solve the "runaway-railwaywagon paradox". That is, they were quite content with killing somebody (theoretically, that is) if that could save, let's say, five other lives.

The point was madde that this fits with the tenets of evolutionary psychology: the mind is composed of modules evolved for certain purposes. I have nothing against this: But if this is all that the mind is suppposed to be about -a collection of modules viewed from a third-person empiristic perspective- I get a hunch that something isn't taken into account. So, I blew off the dust from my copy of Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology and wrote a short reply. I post it here in case The Economist won't publish my letter (something I'm not holding my breath for).

-------

Sir,

In your article on the neurology of morality you described one of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology and cognitive science: that minds are composed of modules that have evolved for different purposes. In addition you suggested a trade-off between Kant and Darwin. Having been immersed for some years now in the writings of philosopher Ken Wilber and his integralist framework I strongly encourage you to consider a third option. Namely, to see the theories of the aforementioned gentlemen as not being opposed to each other but instead as complimentary. Both offer invaluable insights into the human nature from perspectives that come from different standpoints. It's not about putting off one dusty copy for another one; I see it as honouring the viewpoints of both and then some. Realizing the fact that individuals are capable of being aware of and overriding their mind modules means that the mind is something more than just a module. Posing the right questions is surely important, but I see it just as crucial that we pose our questions right.

Sincerely,

JP Jakonen
University student
Turku
Finland