Joshua Stephens

Composition II

Krupinski

M/W 1700-1830

I, Homunculus

Homunculus, homunculus, and homunculus. The same word repeated, meaning

something entirely different in each usage, one of the many fascinations with the word

“Homunculus”. In one iteration of the word, it describes a “physical shell, given life, with no

manner of mind or spirit” Think of this as Frankenstein’s monster, a creature that is simply an

animated patchwork of human flesh. In a second variation, homunculus refers to “a spiritual

being that resides in a flask, brought into creation by an alchemist and his talents”. (M.B.

Campbell) Think of this as “The Dwarf in The Flask” (Ill.1), a mind that has no physical

container, outside the flask that allows it to exist. Finally, homunculus can refer to the

manifestation of self that resides within the mind, or the “Little You” that views the world from

within you (Ill. 2) Think of this final definition, as “Conscious Self”, as this is the topic of this

papers discussion, with a brief call back to the previous two iterations of my beloved word.

Let’s talk about you. No, not you “The Reader”; but rather “You, whom resides within

The Reader.” That might have come off strange, so let me explain it better for you; whom I am

addressing in this statement is the conscious viewer that resides within yourself. The thing that

holds all of your likes, dislikes, fears, passions, sentiments and emotions. Some people would

call this “Identity”, others would call this “Self”; I simply call it “I” for myself, and “You” for

yourself. I want to talk about that part of you, that consists of everything that you are, and what

my theories are on that extraordinary state of existence.

Stephens 2

When you woke up this morning, what did you do? Did you turn over on your pillow and

stare groggily at your alarm, wishing that it would turn off? What were your thoughts on this?

What happened when you got up and made way toward the bathroom as you answered the call of

nature? Did you lament the oncoming toils of the day? Was it “You” that was feeling those

experiences, or was it “The Reader” going through the motions? As you read these words, are

you reading the words and are they sinking into your brain, as it is passes through your ocular

nerves, transferring to your occipital lobe, arcing across your cerebellum, creating new flows

of synapses as it travels from axon to axon, leading to a decision of personal preference in your

frontal lobe, as it gets returned as a short term memory in your hippocampus? Or, are you simply

viewing the words, and letting them settle into your mind without much of a thought? Well,

here’s a curious question for you. Did you notice the arrow? If you did, why did you, the same

can be asked if you didn’t; why didn’t you notice the arrow? Now that your attention is focused

on the arrow, why are you thinking about it? What purpose does the arrow have in being there?

Is it a typo? Is it a mind trick? What is with that darn arrow? The fact that you are having those

questions, means simply that you have an active mind, however is it “You” having those

inquires, or is it your brain pondering upon those questions, as they come flowing to you. This

all sounds very complex doesn’t it, well fortunately that all happened within a period of a

milliseconds, so don’t think about it too hard.

You see, there is a concept regarding this state of “Self” that I am referring to, it is a

concept called “Dualism” by French philosopher Rene Descartes, who wrote his theories in his

opus, “Discourse of Method” in the 17th century. He believed that that “Mind” and “Body” were

independent of one another, despite being relevant and connected to one another. Descartes’ term

for this state was, in fact “Homunculus”, or “The Little Man”. Descartes purported that “Self” or

Stephens 3

“Homunculus” exists within an undefinable space that is linked to the Mind, which controls the

Body as a shell to view and interact with the world around it. He also believed that the Brain and

Mind were two separate entities, the Brain being more of a controller, and the Mind being the

“Rational/Logic/Higher resolution of the Individual.” When we look at this theory, we can say

that Descartes believed that The Mind was in fact the afterimage of the Homunculus, and

ultimately, its conclusive evidence to its existence.

Now, Descartes had critics to his theory such as Thomas Nagel, who comprised the

argument “What is like to be a bat?” and Frank Jackson, who wrote “ Mary’s Room; A

knowledge experiement” both piece being logical arguments to his theory, however let’s take a

medical and psychological view into this. When we look at the brain, we have various portions

that do several different things. We have the cerebral cortex which consists of our lobes,

occipital, temporal, frontal, perianal and cerebel, which allow us the ability to interact with

reality around us. (K.A. Johnson) With the exception of the frontal lobe, you can think of this as

our basic life necessities. These are the same parts that animals have, so for the sake of

discussion I will refer to this group of lobes as “Locus Animalia” [Location of Animality]. When

we look further inward into the brain, we have a system that is comprised of the Thalamus,

Hypothalamus, and our Brain Stem. (J. A. Becker) These are the parts of the brain that take care

of our most important features, things that we do not think about, but happen nonetheless; such

examples are digestion, heart rate, respiratory regulation and our attachment from the brain to

the body. For this discussion, I will call this group “Locus Imperium” [Location of Control].

Through a medical standpoint, a generalized and simplified way to understand these two very

different yet similar locations, is to call Locus Imperium as “The Brain within the Brain”. Now,

doesn’t that sound a bit similar to a concept that was brought up before?

Stephens 4

Am I purporting that the “Self” that Descartes describes in his theory of Dualism, is in

fact a resident of this Locus Imperium? No, but it sounds nice doesn’t it? The Locus Imperium is

merely the control center for the body. Without it, we would be nothing; we would simply not be

alive. So does that mean that “Self” resides in the Locus Animalia? No, that is not what I am

proposing either; because of these are the sectors that give us our interactions with the world

around us. They are the centers for our senses, similar to animals who possess complex central

nervous systems. So, where is the “Self” then? Call back to when I was describing different parts

in the Locus Animalia, note that I left out specific lobe in that. That exception was the frontal

lobe, which controls our likes, dislikes, judgment, and is one of the most important lobes when it

comes to the limbic system, a system that regulates emotions. One could say that the concept of

“Self” is contained within this frontal lobe, as it contains all the “Higher Mind” functions.

Let’s look into some evidence into this theory, when elderly patients suffer from

Dementia, they often lose touch of those around them, and themselves as well. This disease

usually applies to the frontal lobe region of the brain, it’s a sort of “rotting of the ‘Self’” if you

will. (NIH) When patients deal with head trauma to the front portion of their cranium, they often

go through personality changes such as short term amnesia to full blown personality

metamorphosis. The latter is rare, however documented in cases. (www.brainandspinalcord.org)

Another piece of evidence is an attachment of a PET scan of a patient with Schizophrenia, (Ill.

3), the highlighted portion that shows irregularity in the frontal lobe of the brain. Schizophrenia

is known as a “splitting of The Mind/Self” and its effects widespread in variety, each as

corrupting to the “Self” as the other. However, I believe the most damning piece of evidence to

seal the point is the now debunk practice of lobotomy. A horrid practice that involved a surgeon

cutting a portion of the frontal lobe to “alleviate mental strain in those who are forgone in their

Stephens 5

affliction.” More often than not, the results of this practice would render the patient emotionless,

cold, unaware and soulless. (intropsych.com)

The evidence is certainly strong in favor of physical appropriation of the “Self”; however

please continue to humor both sides of the argument. Have you reached an answer about the

arrow yet? About why I had put it there, or did you simply put that as an aside as I continued

with the paper again? Now that you are thinking about it, you are probably wondering why I

keep on bringing it up. It certainly can’t be a typo now, for I’ve mentioned it twice, but we’ll get

to that in good time. For the opposite side of the argument, I bring up the case of the Mentally

Handicapped, and those with development disabilities, highlighting specifically those with

severe Down’s syndrome. Do these people have “Selves?” When you look at their interaction

with the world around them, they are certainly inhibited in their ability to do so, but are they

truly mindless? In society, the majority views the mentally handicapped both positively and

negatively in a “lesser” way, almost if they weren’t really people to begin with. In either regard,

that opinion is complete tripe, because these people have “Selves” albeit limited to what their

restrictions are. They are still aware, they are conscious human beings who experience fear, joy,

pain and the wide spectrum of individuality that normal human beings possess, despite the

damage on their brains.

What I am proposing is that “Self” is a harmonization of The Brain, The Mind,

and The Process of Life (Soul), and not what we understand to be “Identity”. The Mind as per

Identity exists because the frontal lobe of our brain houses such storage to do so. Limitations to

this storage area, such as developmental, psychological, or physical damage, effects the

limitations and potentials of “Identity” or “The Reader”. As per “Self” it exists as a state of

phenomena; it IS “You” as your core, beyond the definitions you give yourself at the end of the

Stephens 6

day. I believe when Descartes speaks of “Mind” he speaks of this definition. In a word,

Consciousness, not just being mentally active or alive, which is the medical variation, but rather

Consciousness, this phenomena of “You”. Fascinating isn’t it? We’ve come across another word

that has multiple meanings, despite being spelt the same way, and regarding two similar topics.

Now, you may scoff at the idea that I am incorporating both “Dualism” and

“Pragmatism” into this “Homunculus” proposition; however let’s go back to the two other

definitions of homunculus. Physical body homunculus, a creature that exists without mind or

soul, an animation of nerves, which regulate how the body moves. Are we homunculi in that

sense, do we simply live by the body, obeying the signals that come from our central nervous

system? Do we shuffle along, thinking only of how to survive and to continue living in our form?

Let’s go back to the second definition of homunculus, “The Dwarf in The Flask.” Are we simply

wisps contained within a shell, brought about by a wise creator, fated to return to our origin, or

fade away to nothingness when our container is broken? Well, I suppose it all comes down on

what you thought about that arrow. Am I insinuating that because of your answer, you are

mindless, or formless? Of course not, let me explain what this revelation is.

The odd thing about the word homunculus is that each definition refers to a different

composition of the human being. Homunculus when it comes to The Body, The State of Life

(Soul) and The Mind. The first example is The Body, the second, The Soul, and finally this

paper’s focus, The Mind. This is the trifecta of being human and when combined, forms

something known as “You”. The Body simply is a body, it is your being that “You” are

contained in, and this includes your “Locus Animalia” and “Locus Imperium”. The Soul is

contained within The Body, similar to the Dwarf in The Flask; this is “Life given form” or

“Consciousness” in the medical terminology. Finally, The Mind is because of our complex

Stephens 7

central nervous system and our frontal lobe being able to appropriate definition unto an Identity.

The three are absolutely co-dependent on one other, however the singularity that arises from this

trinity, exists as a harmonic frequency of all three, no matter how limited one part of the trinity

would be. The thing that is curious is that “You” are not the direct byproduct of these three

sections, but rather through these three section “You” are manifested. “You” came into being,

and “You” will fade from being, however it is not outright impossible to say that “You” will

never manifest again, if the three sections are made available once more.

So what does that have to do with that arrow? Well, if you passed it by after multiple

instances, you are probably more focused on The Body, you don’t really take time to sweat the

small stuff, you are more focused on living. If you noticed it before but haven’t decided upon an

answer, you are more focused on The Soul, because you simply see it as it is, something that

exists for reasons you can’t really explain, but are definitely apparent. If you noticed it,

pondered about it, and found an answer, then you are focused on The Mind, especially if you had

some emotive reaction to it. The thing that we need to learn from this experiment is that it is

through continued maintenance of all three sectors, we nurture our singular “Self”.

As a final point, merely for speculative joys, I would like to discuss the concept of “The

Godhead” which is similar to what I am describing. The Godhead is a symbol referring to that

space within a trinity, which exists as “God”. (Ill. 4) It’s curious that I had mentioned that “Self”

resides as the center piece of the homunculi trinity; notice the symbol of The Godhead, it has a

blank space in the middle where “God” resides. Let’s take a symbol for “God” and place it in

that space, a symbol that is often brought up in the practices of Self Enlightenment, and Self

Awareness. You can do this as well, do you notice anything interesting when we put an eye in

this blank space in the center? (Ill. 5) It’s eerily similar to the “Eye of Providence” a symbol

Stephens 8

most commonly known for being “The Eye of God”. (Ill. 6) Now, in self enlightenment practices

and beliefs, where is there something added to human visage? Need a hint? It’s an eye seated in

front of the frontal lobe, creating a trinity of eyes. (Ill. 7)

Is this little indulgence to be taken seriously? Of course not, however it is interesting food

for thought. After all, we’ve haven’t really answered the question have we? We’ve only

proposed the possibility, not the validation of the “Self”. That, and we’ve inadvertently created

three even greater questions in this proposition. “Where does “Self” come from?” “Where does it

go?” and “Is ‘Self’ brought on internally by The Mind, Soul and Body, or is it an external state

of existence that is manifested when the aforementioned three are present?” These questions will

be addressed in my next paper, however please do not think there will be an absolute answer.

After all, these are just theories and hypothesizes created by a homunculus, a homunculus, and a

homunculus.

Illustrations

Stephens 9

Illustration 1:

Illustration 2:

Stephens 10

Illustration 3:

Illustration 4:

Illustration 5:

Stephens 11

Illustration 6:

Illustration 7:

Stephens 12

Citations

"Artificial Men: Alchemy, Transubstantiation, and the Homunculus." Mary Bell Campbell

ARCADE. Web. <http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/artificial-men-alchemy-transubstantiation-and-

homunculus>.

Illustration 1: “The Homunculus Grows...” Brettman/CORBIS, Web.

<http://stuffo.hswstatic.com/stufftoblowyourmind/wp-

content/uploads/sites/23/2013/12/Homunculuslab.jpg>

Illustration 2: “The Soul Antropromorphized” Bill Vallicella , February 17, 2012 Web.

<http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/02/homunculus.html>

"The Whole Brain Atlas." The Whole Brain Atlas. Keith A. Johnson M.D., J. Alex Becker Phd

Web. <http://www.med.harvard.edu/aanlib/home.html>

SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on Discourse on Method.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC.

n.d.. Web.

"The Basics of Frontotemporal Disorders." National Institute on Aging. Web.

<http://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/publication/frontotemporal-disorders/basics-frontotemporal-

disorders>.

"Frontal Lobe Brain Injury." Frontal Lobe Brain Injury. Web.

<http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/brain-injury/frontal-lobe.html>.

Illustration 3: Web. <http://www.humanillnesses.com/images/hdc_0000_0001_0_img0070.jpg>

"Effects of Lobotomies | in Chapter 02: Human Nervous System | from Psychology: An

Introduction by Russ Dewey." Effects of Lobotomies | in Chapter 02: Human Nervous System |

from Psychology: An Introduction by Russ Dewey. Web

http://www.intropsych.com/ch02_human_nervous_system/lobotomy_effects.html

Illustration 4: Web.<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Triquetra-

Vesica.svg/2000px-Triquetra-Vesica.svg.png>

Illustration 6: Web. <http://www.altheadlines.com/up/p/9/0/51009/Christian-Eye-Of-

Providence.png>

Illustration 7: Web. <https://woottonwondersandwoes.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/third-

eye.jpg?w=584>