[MD] Individual v Collective

[ian glendinning]

Mark,

You're right - "just aesthetic" was loose talk on my part ... sorry about that.

The aestheics as a part of every interaction, every communication,
every grip on every spanner / wrench, every feel of every wrench
against every nut-face against every thread .... So how to communicate
my point .... ? Perhaps as a question ...

Why is the bird-song communication from one bird to the community of
birds social, whereas linguistic / symbolic communication (of
whatever) human to humans, is intellectual ?

I guess we need to translate our mutual use of the words value &
meaning ... seems to be an important difference in our statements.

BTW I've never advocated an individual / collective or a social /
intellectual "split" far from it ... I'm just trying to understand the
axes along which they are related ... and just suggesting the
individual / collective is more meaningful / more significant / higher
value than the social / intellectual ... where I'm still failing to
see any clear distinction ..

Ian

On 8/16/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> 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/
>