[MD] Individual v Collective
ian glendinning
psybertron at gmail.com
Thu Aug 17 13:12:34 PDT 2006
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/
>
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list