[MD] Individual v Collective

[ian glendinning]

Hi Squonk,

On the social / intellectual half of the question ...

Your bird immitating a call (vs the possibilty of it learning morse code) ....

I'd agree the former is social and the latter is (more) intellectual,
if I believed the bird had indeed learned some "meaning" by the morse
code example. But conversely the bird-song has some meaning in the
birdie-social context ... the question is where does the meaning arise
....

I still don't see a clear "split" ...

What I'm still getting here is that the reason we see one as
intellectual and the other as merely social is really a question of
how much conscious, self-reflective meaning there is in the social
bird-call vs the shared "language" of morse code. ie I'm guessing
neither of us believes bird-brain has a linguistic level of conscious
thought ... even when its social call is sharing "meaning" with its
local birdie community ?

So I agree with your example actually illustrating the difference ...
in agreement there ... but it's a bird-brained example ... all I'm
suggesting is that the dividing line is more one of how sophisticated
the consciousness creating the communication, and the intended meaning
vs any "incidental / emergent" meaning ... something like  - does the
meaning "emerge" in the social context or is it intiated in the
individual brain. (Clearly here I don't want to re-open the individual
/ social debate ... individual brains interact with each other in the
intellectual space ... its just a questio of whether any significant
aspect of the meaning arises in the individual brain ... or is the
meaning all social)

BTW I mentioned elsewhere that I saw a "dead metaphor" aspect to this.
A metaphor is dead if the brain communicating it is not (no longer)
aware it's a metaphor ... and simply sees is as a matter of
communication (conduit style) .. the meaning is self-conrtained in the
packet of data, without the originating and receiving brains needing
to encode / infer / decipher and independently intended meanings - I
think this is the key here.

Probably need a social / intellectual example in the human world ...
though I suspect there we'd be second guessing the human intent in the
social example ..

Clear as mud ?
Ian

On 8/14/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> Ian: Squonk,
>
> Now that is interesting ... I continually talk of  the
> socio-intellectual level ... ie I have great difficulty making  any
> clear distinction between what look like two aspects of culture to  me
> - social and intellectual ...
>
> Mark: Hello Ian, Let's change the subject then and have a chat if you  wish?
> You say, 'I have great difficulty making any
> clear distinction between  what look like two aspects of culture... ...the
> socio-intellectual  level.'
> An analogy may help?
> Imagine a bird in a forest - it hears a call an imitates it. That is the
> social level.
> The bird could imitate morse code, which is an intellectual  pattern. So,
> intellectual patterns may be learned socially, but the morse  code pattern itself
> is an intellectual pattern. Birds are not going to start  speaking English to
> each other using morse code, and they are certainly not  going to use such
> speech to discuss science or philosophy.
>
> Ian: I'm forming the view that the missing axis is individual vs  collective
> ... but it's not a well formed view yet. Either way, I see a  great
> deal of cutural (social) conditioning of what we (individually  or
> collectively) see as "intellectual".
>
> Mark: There is a way out of this but it's going to hurt: The way out is to
> strike out 'individual' altogether, and view what had been previously
> conceptualised as the individual as a collective of various sq patterns  responding to
> DQ.
> The bottom line is Atomic conceptions v field conceptions.
> Fields may be constructed from discrete atomic simples, and  fields may
> coalesce into atomic-like densities depending on the conception.  So, a more
> fundamental conceptual shift is in order which generates both fields  and atomic
> simples.
> What may sort this out is the introduction of DQ itself: I have been  working
> toward an ontology of excellence which says there are nodes of coherent  sq
> relationships within the DQ field. These sq ontological events look like
> objects but they are not, and the term event is used to remind us that what look
> like discrete objects are Dynamic goodnesses/badnesses - excellences.
> Where does this leave the socio-intellectual level?
> I don't know, but i think it can be teaselled out if we drop the individual
> and think in terms of fields. To remind you again, the discrete is a
> particularly stable field anyway, so the individual is illusory and there really
> isn't anything to worry about once you make the conceptual leap away from your
> social conditioning.
>
> I appear to have changed the subject -  sorry.
> Ian
>
> Mark: I'm glad you did and look forward to your reply.
> Love,
> Mark
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>