History, Aesthetics, and Simulative Thought

There is one problem I keep encountering in my current attempt to synthesize/differentiate my thinking on history and aesthetics.

The problem is that of simulative thought.

Simulation theory of mind is the most persuasive account of minds that I have yet to read. Mirror neurons, the E-imagination, all that good stuff. I find it all very interesting.

I believe that art, fiction, the humanities, and history, all depend on simulative thought.

That is to say, they depend on our ability to understand another mind by recreating that mind inside our own mind. The type of understanding delivered by the humanities depends on our ability to simulate other minds within our own.

In my thinking, however, I should be careful not to reduce anything too much.

It would be unwise to reduce these complex phenomena to a single mode of thought.

Because while they may depend on simulative thought, there may be major differences worth focusing on.

I already prompted this question in my essay on the civil-aesthetic-zen attitude in Colingwood and Foucault. I think it is an important question. But I shouldn't be reductive.

Still, a question very worthy of my attention.

Does civility, history, art, and zen all rely on the human minds capacity for simulative thought?

Is simulative thought the linchpin of other humane forms of thinking?

I wonder.

Don't wonder what it means for me to wonder, R-dawg.

I always wonder.