The spider web analogy illustrates the idea
of a sensory integration center that acts as the seat of consciousness in the
individual (p183). This idea reflects the notion of man’s continuity brought up
last class. The spider, or “meninges” of
the brain, reacts to and remembers the thousands of impulses sent from the
disruption of its webs. This model shows how consciousness is contingent on the
senses, and how the senses hinge on physiology. The analogy provides a materialist
framework for Diderot’s mechanical explanations of the monstrosities and
wonders discussed in the following dialogue (p189-193, 195, 205).
The analogy also works on another (aesthetic?)
level to explain differences in human personality. If the center of the network
is too weak, then “we get what we call…wild beasts” (p211). If “one branch dominates the rest we see various
specialized instincts in animals and special aptitudes in men” (p211). Does
this center network idea then support a chain of being?
The discussion of the spider web suggests
our uncertainty “that the whole world hasn’t its meninges, or that there isn’t
a big or little spider living in some corner of space with threads extending
everywhere” (p184). Such contemplations of “the possibility of all kinds of
marvels one can imagine” (p185) are the result of our progression from
sensitive matter to cognitive being. Despite this sublime realization, Diderot
avoids tackling the seemingly unanswerable questions such as why life exists.
What are your guys’ thoughts?
- Chris
I don't know how much neuroanatomy Diderot knew, but I can't help but feel like this analogy is a clever neurological pun on his part. The meninges, which cover the brain, are made up of three layers: the pia mater, the dura mater, and the arachnoid. The arachnoid layer is so named because of its fibrous texture that makes it look like a spider's web. It seems like Diderot could have easily called the brain itself the center of the spider's web, but chose the meninges instead. Was this an intentional choice on Diderot's part, or a happy coincidence visible only from the modern era of neuroscience?
ReplyDeleteI was also impressed by Diderot’s reference to the meninges and the arachnoid space, which may or may not have been coincidental. It’s hard to draw a conclusion about that.
ReplyDeleteAs a Neuro major, I was immediately drawn into the analogy of the spider as the brain and the threads as the nerves running through the body. Upon reading it a second time, I was able to see the eloquent way in which Diderot was able to combine two seemingly separate ideas (neuroscience and religion) into one analogy. He tackles both the microcosmic (the spider is a representation of the brain of one human/animal) and the macrocosmic (there may be a spider out there that has threads running to and through everything). While his analogy may pose more questions than it has answers (Where does the spider come from? What is its purpose? What are its limitations?), I still see it as a strong tool. His use of analogy allowed him to break down scientific jargon into layman’s terms; everyone has seen a spider in its web.