Question about phenomenological definition of autism

Post Reply New Topic

This isn't a question about academic philosophy, and I've never studied academic philosophy, but it does need a bit of a possibly academic-looking philosophical preface, so please bear with me, for a paragraph or three.

I once had a therapist who was trained in academic philosophy, and who said that I reminded him of Wittgenstein. I've never been able to get much out of trying to read Wittgenstein, and I also sense that, if only I knew how to formulate my philosophical opinions, they would be very different indeed from Wittgenstein's: I feel no intellectual kinship there. However, one thing I do vaguely seem to have in common with him is a preoccupation with language, as being somehow much more problematic than it is commonly supposed to be (at least by NTs!).

I dimly recall reading somewhere something to the effect that Wittgenstein was always (at least in his later philosophy) concerned to exhibit the opacity of language, whereas it is normal (and philosophically wrong) to take language to be something transparent. That concern of his, at least, I seem to understand on an intuitive level.

Wittgenstein took a very broad view of language, I think, as illustrated by his famous saying in the Tractatus (5.6), "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." I would prefer, therefore, to subsume language as part of the larger entity called "society", and take issue with what is customarily called the "social construction of reality" (rather than, say, the "linguistic relativity hypothesis", associated with the names of Sapir and Whorf).

(An example of something that is part of "society", but is not part of "language", is the set of rules concerning what kinds of clothing a person may or may not wear in public: I also struggle with these rules every day of my life.)

My question is whether being autistic has something to do with finding the social construction of reality opaque (and therefore consciously problematic) rather than transparent (and therefore apparently straightforward).

Is an autistic person always having to struggle consciously with the surrounding social construction of reality, rather than being able to absorb it quietly and invisibly into his or her unconscious mind (like the rules of grammar)?

Or is that just me? I know that I have to struggle in this way all the time.

[Please skip the next paragraph if it's unreadable.]

(What command of language I have is much more written than spoken. Even learning to write halfway-clearly cost me decades of painful effort - and evidently I still have a lot to learn about writing clearly! I vividly remember having to teach myself to speak to people by imagining writing down what I wanted to say to them, and then reading out what I had written in my mind. And I have always had a mental image of language as something like a defensive, all-enclosing suit of medieval armour, with spikes on it, but the spikes are turned inwards, and they hurt me all the time, at least when I try to move. So it is easier if I am silent, and also do not listen to people too much, say on the radio or television, because their words so often seem to drive me out of existence, by portraying a world in which a being such as myself cannot possibly exist. It's hard to explain! In words, at least! I know that my horrible image of language has a lot to do with the way in which language was (ab)used in the family in which I grew up. I also know that I turned away from language, regarding it as hopeless, and tried to use mathematics as a substitute, possessing the kind of crystalline perfection which was perhaps envisioned in Wittgenstein's early philosophy. So there is another parallel between me and Wittgenstein there, and this was perhaps part, although only part, of what my therapist meant.)

But I don't really know if I am in any way autistic.

The three rather turgid paragraphs preceding my question (I think it is a single question, although perhaps several questions are entangled) may make the question itself seem rather obscure, so I had better pause first to check whether I am making sense to anyone, before trying to get any actual responses to the question itself.

A subsidiary question is: if you do struggle consciously, profoundly, painfully, and confusedly, with the social construction of reality, then is it consequently important to you to try to have some sort of connection with reality which (at least to some extent) bypasses the social construction thereof?

By "reality", I mean a reality which includes persons as well as things (and indeed, even includes society); but the existence of such a reality is a whole big philosophical topic in itself! But I mean, in particular, is it important for you to have personal relationships which are not totally bedevilled by this constant struggle with language and the social construction of reality?

(I find it very hard to find anybody who does not seem to me to be primarily a representative of "society", to which I must helplessly and miserably conform, at the cost even of knowing my own mind, and my own feelings and wishes.)

In another thread, I mentioned my daughter, who is studying philosophy, art and English at A-level (and she hates and fears mathematics, which is the only part of socially-constructed reality that ever seemed really accessible to me!): she's the one person I've met who seems to understand, intuitively and without effort, why this conception of reality is so important to me.

I have no idea at all whether it is important to AS/HFA people. It may not be easy to find out, because it is very hard to make oneself clear (transparent?) on this topic, and I'm amazed that my daughter and I understand each other on it all, when we are so different in other ways (and she is almost certainly NT).

Incidentally, my daughter says I remind her of Spinoza - who I think is often, like Wittgenstein, considered to have been autistic.

A second subsidiary question (assuming that my first question even makes sense at all!) is: if autistic people do struggle with the social construction of reality in this way, then is this a significant part of the definition (from a phenomenological and first-person perspective) of what it means to be autistic?

Or, are there certain other conditions which involve a similar struggle, but for different reasons? If so, then what are the specific reasons why autistic people (as opposed to those other categories of people) have to struggle in this general way (which they share with those other categories of people)?

I hope that is not too ... opaque.

Now that the poll has been created, I don't think it is possible for me (or anyone else?) to edit the text of the five options, so I will just state now that the first option implicitly excludes the second, i.e. it should really read:

"Yes, that is part (but only part) of what it means to be autistic."

Thus, the five available options are (I hope!) mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

(I assume that that is usually the case with polls, and therefore people will naturally tend to make the correct assumption, viz. that the first option excludes the second, but I thought I had better state so explicitly, for the sake of clarity.)

I'm going to do something stupid, and attempt to answer your question. I only have a vague idea what you're asking, so if what I say is completely wrong, please don't assume I'm completely thick (just a little bit).

When Wittgenstein said "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world", I think what he meant was that his understanding of the world was influenced and limited by the concepts that he could write and understand. Literally, if he didn't know the word "Internet" and what it stood for, he couldn't write about it or even think about it. So, according to him, we all understand the world through our language and the concepts that it gives us. Because language is social, we construct our understanding of the world together.

If we do construct our understanding of the world together, by sharing ideas, debating, and stuff like that, then it might mean that members of Wrong Planet see the world differently to other people. On Wrong Planet, people use concepts, like NT and neurodiversity, that you don't really hear outside of autistic communities. We use this shared vocabulary to talk about our own understanding of who we are. But, when it comes to non-autism stuff, like milk, we probably all talk about it in similar ways to everybody else (except if it's a special interest ).

Sorry if I completely failed to understand you.

Would you say that people on Wrong Planet, or autistic people generally, see the world of mind and society (except for that part of it which specifically concerns autism itself) in the same way as non-autistic people?

Speaking for myself, I would have expected a consensus among autistic people that they (we??) tend to see the world of mind and society differently from non-autistic people, even when autism itself is not the focus of interest.

(That is not to say that they/we would find it easy to articulate their/our different view. Nor is it to deny that there are individual differences in worldview, just as there are among people generally.)

I doubt you will find a consensus among autistic people on any issue. But, I think that people on Wrong Planet are definitely likely to understand "the world of mind and society" differently from most other people, because we have a different experience, and we talk about it differently.

Not sure if that helps.

Wittgenstein's statement probably makes sense to a consciousness that operates on language. Such a mind will think that "world" AKA "reality" is primarily where language is (i.e. human minds) and secondarily where things are that have been named by language. Such a mind may have a vague sense that maybe the real real world is bigger than it thinks it is, but it can't get a clear idea of anything it does not have words for.

A consciousness that operates on sensory impressions, on the other hand, will have a ready awareness of everything it sees, hears and feels, and develop understandings of it by means of association with earlier or imagined other sensory impressions. Such a consciousness, like mine and that of many other autistics, can't get a clear understanding of any ideas that are purely verbal, because those ideas can't be visualized and don't match anything perceived through the senses.
Verbal minds perceive a lot of sameness where sensory-based minds perceive differences. E.g. language calls all trees "tree" while no two trees are the same. Verbal minds like to generalize and simplify, while sensory-based minds perceive everything and everyone as irreducibly complex (i.e. there are no groups and categories, dealing with 1 person is not the same as dealing with a different person and one can handle only one complex issue or person at a time). Verbal minds seem more aware of what they expect to be there than of what is in fact there, e.g. they will call a thing "the real thing" if it matches their expectation of the thing. If it doesn't match their expectation, they'll conclude there's something wrong with the thing and not with their expectation.

There isn't a 1:1 relationship between sensory-based thinking and autism, though. Many visual thinkers are not autistic. Some autistics can think only[/] in language. Many of these are diagnosed with "NLVD" ("non-verbal learning disorder"), i.e. they can't learn from visual aids such as images and graphs. The "essence" of autism, if anything, could be difficulty hopping flexibly between different mental states and understanding mental states different from the one currently occupied, and (flip side) ease exploring the current mental state and the subject that has its attention.

More likely the essence of autism is, I think, that it is a set of allergic responses by sensitive brains to an array of circumstances that did not exist during the longest time of human evolution.

Twirlip wrote:

This might have to do with overactive mirror neurons, which, combined with the idea that expectations have supremacy over reality, leads nonautistics to disapprove of any behavior you might display that makes it more difficult for them to identify with you.

First of all I should clarify my position - I have been given a preliminary diagnosis of AS, and am waiting on the formal report.
So my perspective on your question comes from my own idiosyncrasies and learned experiences. (Yes, even this statement has alot to do with the question, in the same way that a pun might.)

I love Wittgenstein's musings. If you care to read the preface to Tractatus, you will find that the manner of his writtings, (almost in point form,) are the way they are because he couldn't put them together in any other satisfactory way. I have often found this in my own musings, but I think that the root of why we are in some ways similar to Wittgenstein is in our ability to place things in an almost overly logical order that is unlike the language use of 'normal' individuals. (I see this as an advantage, but most people see it as a difference and so fear it.)

Wittgenstein's statement about the limits of language, as Indy has indicated, refer to the idea that reality is constructed, or construed, through language. He makes this statement on the basis that the purpose of language is only the symbolic communication of experience between individuals, who have presupposed the meanings of those signs. It is in this vien then, that language must be viewed as not simply a tool used by society, but also the very means by which society is possible. For without symbolic communication, of a type that presupposes meaning, the subjective experiences of individuals could not be shared and any community that attempts to form under such conditions soon splinters.

Addressing your example, the manner of a person's dress, (or undress as the case may be,) is indicative of the presuppositions and attitudes that person has toward the community's presuppositions concerning that style of dress, in which they present themself. That is, what you chose to wear is a sign of your attitude, and as it is a sign, (or symbol,) it is a part of communication and may be viewed as a part of language.

Finally to the question at hand:
In my own experience, my view or understanding of reality has little difference from that of other individuals. The specific models that I choose to use in order to understand the world remain unaffected by my condition. It only becomes apparent that there is a problem when I attempt to express my thoughts while under time constraints. The problem that I believe I am experiencing at such times is one of framing or bracketing a particular thread of thought that I have not previously prepared.

I would like to use an analogy to possibly help you to see what I am trying to get at:
If you consider that most people think in strings of thought. That is to say, when they want to think about something or say something, they pick up the appropriate string, starting from the beginning, and work their way along it until they get to the other end, then they place the string down and pick up another one.
In my case however, my strings are all tangled together, and to the extent that I have untangled them I am able to see that the tangle in fact forms a weave. So the positive part, therefore, is that I am able to see, more clearly than most, how all the threads fit together to make up the 'big picture'. But the problem arises when I attempt to grasp only one thread, all the other threads come with it and I end up with a tangled mess again that I must spend time sorting through in order to restore any balance.