[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level

[Heather Perella]

opps, didn't mean to send that


--- On Tue, 7/15/08, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 9:53 AM
> --- On Tue, 7/15/08, MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of
> The Intellectual Level
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 8:40 AM
> > ----- 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. 
> > 
> > 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/
> 
> 
>       
> 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/