[MD] Individual v Collective

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Ian: Mark,

Just a brief one at this time ...

Sorry, but  "bird-song" is not just aesthetically pleasing to birds ...
it carries social  communications and comes with rules at both ends ...
 
Mark: Hello Ian. I believe you are making another mistake when you dismiss  
bird-song as 'just' aesthetically pleasing. The aesthetic is absolutely  
central.
This is a bit like saying, 'The feel of the spanner is not just  
aesthetically pleasing to the mechanic' - the aesthetic of the relationship is  central to 
excellent maintenance.
The aesthetic of bird-song in bird mating is central to the biological  
propagation of quality.
It's like an art competition with the most beautiful work getting  the gal.

Ian: As I say the difference between social and intellectual  seems to be
more to do with whether (or how) the sender and receiver  understand
the rules, than whether or not there are rules ... though even  rules
as a concept will need some discussion too ....
 
Mark: I do not remember you stating this before. As i recall, you have a  
concept of the socio-intellectual and a feeling that any differentiation may be  
found in an individual/collective split. I stated the MoQ case and, as far as 
i  can tell, you have ignored it in favour of your own ideas, even though you 
do  not appear to understand what you want to say?
The bird-song analogy, and it is simply an analogy, was introduced to  
illustrate the MoQ position regarding imitation and manipulation. You haven't  spent 
any time criticising any of this, and i have no idea if you accept it or  
reject it?

Ian: As I said, if the bird analogy doesn't work, let's find a  muman one.
 
Mark: The bird-song analogy works very well at illustrating  
imitation/manipulation. It works perfectly. Meaning has nothing to do with it,  it is value 
which determines what is imitated and what is manipulated. I gave  Human 
Analogues in previous posts: Church on Sunday for social imitation, and  Maths for 
intellectual manipulation.
If you consider what meaning is, i think you may see it is a bundle of  
preferences. And preferences are values.

Ian
PS, If we going to use  humour, could we avoid sarcasm please ;-)
 
Mark: This is most disheartening. I do not understand what you are  referring 
to Ian.
I have reread my e-mail below and wish to assure you there is nothing in it  
i intended to be in any sense sarcastic.
If you wish to indicate what it is you find inappropriate i will endeavour  
to give you a full account of what i attempted to convey.
Love,
Mark

On 8/15/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com  <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> Ian: 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" ...
>
> Mark: Hello Ian. Bird song  is a pattern of values. The Quality Bird  songs
> are aesthetically  appealing to Birds; the Quality Birdsong has the  
biological
> value  of attracting mates, marking territory, etc. Bird mating  rituals  
involve
> males trying to outdo each other in the Aesthetic  stakes.
> Maybe this is why even Humans find Birdsong Aesthetically  beautiful,  and
> plumage so attractive?
>
> Mark: The  bird is an analogy. I am not suggestion birds could learn morse
> code.  The analogy was intended to show that even birds can repeat 
intellectual
>  patterns even though they have no concepts. The analogy is as follows:
>  When Humans imitate behaviour through example it's a social pattern.
>  When Humans manipulate abstract symbols it's an intellectual pattern.
>  Examples of Human imitating are: Language and ritual.
> Examples of Human  manipulation of abstract symbols are Science,  Logic and
>  philosophy.
> Humans can imitate numbers and thus learn symbols socially,  but  
manipulation
> of numbers requires operators and an ability to  understand how they  
function.
>
> Ian: 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
> birdcall 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?
>
> Mark: I think you are making a mistake here  Ian: Intellectual patterns
> follow rules.
> Social patterns do not  follow rules - they are imitated.
> There is no intellectual rule which  says you must go to Church on  Sunday.
> However, there may be a  social price to pay for not imitating others
> sufficiently.
>  Mathematics is nothing without rules.
>
> Ian: So I agree with your  example actually illustrating the difference  ...
> in agreement  there ... but it's a bird-brained example ...
>
> Mark: It was an  analogy.
>
> Ian: 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)
>
> Mark: Laws, sets of  rules, are sophisticated relationships which follow
> their own  evolutionary path. In a sense, these patterns impose themselves.
> It  doesn't matter what your socially imitated behaviour is; it doesn't
>  matter if you are a Catholic from Iceland or a Hindu from India; Logic  
has  no
> faith, and faith has no rules.
> I am not sure where  consciousness fits into this?
>
> Ian: 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.
>
> Mark: The brain is a sq intellectual  pattern of understanding generated by
> years of scientific study. There  isn't a brain at all as far as the MoQ  
goes.
>
> Ian: 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
>
>  Mark: I'm having a problem identifying the intellectual tradition you   are
> working in. I have a suspicion your preferred tradition cannot solve  the
> questions you ask of it? I think the MoQ holds the promise of a way  out.
>
> Love,
> Mark