[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arlo Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level


> [Marsha]
> Maybe in an everything-is-connect-to-everything sort of way.  This battle 
> between the collective and the individual seems a waste of time.  If the 
> individual is an illusion, and it is, then the collective is a group of 
> illusions.
>
> [Arlo]
> Absolutely. Which is why I've said many, many times it is never 
> "individuals v. collectives", that's just talk-radio blather. What it is 
> is about activity, the activity of "individuals within collectives". One 
> theory I am fond of is that of "Activity Theory", derived from the work of 
> Vygotsky, that looks at the interactive dynamics deriving from 
> "individuals within group using resources and constrained by rules working 
> towards the creation of objects". A common diagram of human activity is 
> this:
>
> http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/symposia/symposium7/mcateer_marsden_files/image005.jpg
>
> Thus human interactions are "understand human activities as complex, 
> socially situated phenomena" (Wikipedia) rather than the polarized 
> "subjectivism" or "objectivism" of traditional Western thought.


I'll check it out.


>
> [Marsha]
> The patterns in the Intellectual Level seem to function, as Peter has 
> suggested, more to solve problems by manipulating symbols in a more 
> deliberate manner.
>
> [Arlo]
> I've suggested before that a good way to frame the social-intellectual 
> distiction is not in "symbol/no-symbol" but that the emergence of the 
> intellectual level stems from the time when wo/man started thinking about 
> symbols as objects in themselves. That is, certainly the social level is 
> bemarked by the advent of symbolic manipulations, indeed I'd argue that 
> the dialogic formation of symbol systems is the point of emergence of the 
> social level. But as our symbol systems evolved in complexity, wo/man 
> eventually began investigating symbols as objects of inquiry. We began 
> "using symbols to examine symbols". At the social level, wo/man agreed to 
> term "blue" to refer to certain patterns of experience. At the 
> intellectual level, wo/man asked "what is blueness? where does it come 
> from? is it universal? is it in my head or out in nature?"
>
> Thus I would not say its a "more deliberate" way of manipulating symbols, 
> social level symbolic use is also very deliberate. When I use language to 
> ask my grocery if he has any organic apples, I am manipulating symbols 
> very deliberately. When I think about the category "apple" and what it is, 
> and what it is not, and why, I am also manipulating symbols very 
> deliberately, its just that I've made "appleness", a symbol, the object of 
> my inquiry. Math is a great example. At the social level, wo/man first 
> came up with symbols to describe multiple occurances, such as "one" or 
> "three". At the intellectual level, these symbols ("one" "three") became 
> objects-in-themselves, abstracted from experience, and people were able to 
> build elaborate symbolic relational systems. That is, when "one" ceased to 
> be a modifer for "apples" (one apple) and became a real thing in and of 
> itself.

Arlo, all you write above is true, but it somehow does not feel correct.

Maybe it's that the problem solving is at a much higher level, and much more 
abstract and much more deliberate.  The MOQ tries to abstract a new 
world-view.  That's big.  Genomics might be another example.  Putting a 
human on the moon was a monumental project.  I'm not sure if purchasing an 
organic apple is really deliberate.  Sophisticated?  Yes.  Deliberate.  I 
don't think so.  Most of what we do on a social level is automatic.  At 
those times when a decision is necessary, it usually between common, 
taken-for-granted, culturally-approved options.  There's nothing wrong with 
sophiscated, though.  Anyway, that's my take on it.


> You know, thinking about "wo/man" and the wife-totting pioneers of yore, 
> there are many examples of gender-patriarchy reification in language. 
> Consider that when addressing a group of males, one could begin "hey 
> guys", and when addressing a group of males and females one could begin 
> "hey guys", and even when addressing a group of females it is common to 
> begin "hey guys", but this is completely non-reversible. You could address 
> of group of females "hey gals", but for a mixed gender group or all male 
> group this would be taken as near offensive, if not ridiculing. But nearly 
> everyone, from males to females, adopts this convention as normal.

There's lots of examples.  Women very easily can wear men's clothing in 
public.  But for men to wear women's clothing still is not accepted.  Well 
the Pope sometimes looks swell in a pretty white frock.  And Pierce Brosnan 
looked great wearing a sarong in The Thomas Crowne Affair.

My daughter, who is in the category newly christened Cougars, thinks I'm 
old-fashioned.  But I'm concerned for my grandchildren, especially my 
granddaughters.  With the media hawking role models like Paris Hilton and 
Britney Spears, I have a right to be more than a little concerned.  Anyway, 
your awareness is appreciated.