[MD] Individual v Collective

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Marsha and Mark ..

Good job you pointed that out Marsha because I  didn't spot it in
Mark's mail on the first read through ...

So Mark,  at the risk of getting pedantic, we have now moved the
definitional problem  along to the difference between

repeating by "imitation" (without  manipulation)
and
repeating (expressing a preference for) after  "manipulation"
 
Mark: Hello Ian. The difference is an empirical observation. The behaviour  
of the social level wasn't deduced, it was observed to be so.
If you wish to deduce a definition you are confined to the intellectual  
level of symbolic manipulation. And by your own statement you feel you have  
encountered a problem of definition. But definitions are deduced. Social  behaviour 
is observed.

Ian: Again, I think I'm not disagreeing but saying these are not as  clearly
distinct as it might at first appear (in living things with  reasonably
sophisticated central nervous systems, and any kind of  mind).
 
Mark: If you are doubting the clear MoQ distinction then we  are indeed 
disagreeing, pedantry or not.
 
Produce one counterexample which challenges the imitation -  
social/manipulation - intellectual distinction and we have something to  work on.

The evolutionary related levels CNS's and Minds sandwich the Social  level. I 
think your difficulty seeing this stems from your intellectual  tradition - a 
tradition which does not value a distinct social level, and a  tradition 
which is reflected in your choice of language. I may be mistaken but  these posts 
and a few other experiences are what i have to work with.
Central nervous systems are biological patterns of sq.
[ Imitated conventions of behaviour (such as paying for you Walmart bill  
when you leave the store instead of walking straight out the exit) are Social  
patterns of sq which biological patterns of sq such as central nervous systems  
facilitate. No one is going to walk out of a Walmart or anywhere else without 
a  central nervous system sophisticated enough to perform the task. ]
Mind is a term the MoQ avoids like the plague.
(Mind is not up to our metaphysical project. Mind, like Culture, has a  
Social and Intellectual component and it is a retrograde step to ignore this in  my 
view. After the progress made in Lila i don't want to dredge up an extended  
enquiry into som Mind. I would rather be forced at gun point to have  to 
listen to the whole Jesus Christ Superstar soundtrack. Having said that,  and to 
martyr myself to the MoQ, i would agree to do it.)
Rather, the intellect can get you out of Walmart without walking straight  
into the arms of the Law if you give it enough thought.
So, the Mind can be at variance with itself if it's imitated patterns  don't 
stand up to intellectual scrutiny; Mind is more than one level of  
evolutionary related sq patterns.

Ian: I see some of the same "reflective  consciousness" thing I mentioned
before in the idea of "manipulation" ... so  clearly, the less
reflective consciousness goes into "repeating" a pattern,  the more it
looks purely social, reflexive "imitation", the more  conscious
manipulation, the more it looks intellectual.
 
Mark: It may not stop here: Sub-consciousness,  consciousness, 
reflective-consciousness, Hyper-reflective-consciousness, and as  many shades in between as 
you like. But no matter, because as these categories  increase it may also 
become clear they collapse into a more elegant and  simple description based on 
imitation and manipulation.
You may be suggesting:
1. Degrees of imitation and manipulation qua imitation and  manipulation.
(I do not doubt this; If some patterns of value are better than  others then 
there should be degrees of imitation and manipulation.)
2. One may follow the other in rapid succession.
(The crucial point is this: It's either imitation or manipulation, not  
shades of both merging in and out of eachother forming a socio-intellectual  level.)
3. Phases of dominance.
(A bright individual may be dominated by social or biological patterns  and 
behave like a dick-head, while retaining the capacity to be dominated by  
intellectual patterns as and when.)
I don't think you are suggesting any of these Ian? For you, the social  and 
intellectual are revealed by their appropriate conscious state? Have i  it 
aright?
But who said symbolic manipulation was reflexively conscious?
This goes against the grain of all i have ever said about losing the self  in 
creative endeavour, and if you read my posts with dmb recently you may see i  
am being consistent here?
Symbolic manipulation involves DQ.
In order for manipulation to occur the relationships between your current  
intellectual sq patterns must be disrupted and transcended, and this requires a  
letting go of reflexivity i should have thought. I'm not sure about  
consciousness? I didn't introduce the term consciousness into this thread  because i 
tend to prefer the term experience.
To be conscious may be to be conscious of something.
To experience is to be with that which you experience.
If you are conscious of the spanner you don't experience it.
 
Ian: It's the adding in of "intellectual meaning" that makes  it
"intellectual" ... as you said. Understood.
 
Mark: When did i say this?
 
Ian: I guess all I was
questioning ... in the bird-brained metaphor /  analogy was whether a
bird call really lacked such meaning ... or to use a  point I made
earlier ... where in the process any "meaning" arises.

If  I say any more, I'm just repeating myself :-)
Ian
 
Mark: For my part i've enjoyed this and it's had me thinking. Thank  you.
Love,
Mark