Intelligence in Nature - Jeremy Narby [55]
Not so long ago, some people considered the use of signs a specifically human trait. But defining human specificity by listing traits that only humans possess has turned out to be a difficult exercise: Either some people do not exhibit the trait or else members of some other species do. People in Western cultures have obsessed about the difference between humans and animals. But humans are animals, and our capacities grow out of our common past with other species. So why conceive of ourselves as entirely separate from them? Why the obsession to look for the human distinction?
Japanese semiotician Yoshimi Kawade wrote in 1998: âThe Western mind draws a sharp boundary between the human and the rest of the world (also between the human and God); for Japanese, that boundary is much less clear-cut, especially between the humans and animalsâ¦for the Western mind, it is hard to recognize mind in animals, whereas for the Japanese mind, it is hard not to do so.â
But the situation has since grown less clear-cut. Western scientists have recently generated a mountain of data demonstrating that humans have kinship with other living species. What may still be lacking among Westerners is a willingness to accept the consequences of this kinship. And Western languages may lack the appropriate concepts to think it through.
I launched into this investigation seeking to understand âintelligence in nature,â but gradually realized that intelligence has so many different meanings that trying to define it does not seem intelligent. In Japan I realized that the Japanese word chi-sei, meaning knowing-ness or recognizing-ness, provides a workable alternative.
In English, to know and to recognize are related. The verb know comes from Old English cnawan, meaning ârecognize, identify.â Its first definition in Websterâs Dictionary is âto apprehend immediately with the mind or with the senses; perceive directly; have direct unambiguous cognition of.â A slime mold in a maze has the capacity to apprehend its situation and act on its knowledge. It can take in many different variables about the world around it and make a decision that enhances its survival. It has chi-sei. But is this knowing-ness, or recognizing-ness?
Recognizing-ness does not exist in dictionaries, whereas knowingness does. At first I thought it might be the clear concept I was looking for as an alternative to intelligence. But on closer inspection, knowingness is associated with the adjective knowing, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as âsuggesting that one has secret knowledgeâ and as â(chiefly derogatory) experienced or shrewd, especially excessively or prematurely so.â This was not the kind of knowingness I had in mind.
I considered know-how as a translation for chi-sei. But it means âexpertise,â which itself means âgreat skill or knowledge in a particular field.â Chi-sei is about knowing how, but know-how does not mean this.
I also tried apprehension, cognizance, and understanding, but none fit the bill. Apprehension means âanxious or fearful anticipation.â Cognizance refers to âthe action of taking judicial notes,â or to a âdistinctive mark worn by retainers of a noble house.â Even an apparently simple word like understand is loaded. Its first meaning is âto perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker).â
I did not find an English word equivalent to chi-sei that could apply neutrally to other species. Intelligence, awareness, cognizance, and understanding were all defined in human terms.