[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 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level


> [Marsha]
> 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.
>
> [Arlo]
> I disagree. When I form the intent to purchase an organic apple, decide 
> the best strategy for enacting this purchase, and then put this plan into 
> effect, I am acting in a very deliberate way. It is not automatic, it 
> requires me to think, to plan, to make decisions (which store, when, etc), 
> plan for contingencies (what if they are out of apples but have organic 
> pears?). And, this happens within a broader context of deliberations, what 
> am I eating and when, etc.
>
> I'd say that both social and intellectual activity is deliberate (in terms 
> of human activity). The difference is in the object of activity. Don't get 
> me wrong, when people first started asking "what is blueness?" it set them 
> on a vastly more complex (higher evolved level) than "simply" the social 
> negotiations required to use "blue" to point to particular experiences 
> with certain objects.

For everyday living, your awareness level is much higher than mine.    When 
I'm hungry I eat, when I tired I sleep.  When I paint, I paint.  I try to 
keep it all pretty simple.


>
> Consider that if we think of social activity as "automatic", what does 
> this say about the period in human evolution pre-dating the intellectual 
> level?

I imagine there were intellectual patterns before there evolved an 
Intellectual Level.


>Were all humans automatons until intellect appears on the scene?

No.  See above.


>Or did social activity "automate" once we started thinking intellectually? 
>If so, why? Better, how?

Your questions sounds like it had to be either/or?   To me social level 
patterns are ritual and habit.  Discovering the stone arrowhead and wheel 
was more purposeful problem solving.  I do not think the social level is 
bad.   You're acting like I have demeaned the Social Level.  I haven't.


> Instead I'd argue that in certain cultures, certain social and 
> intellectual patterns become very reified and thus appear to be 
> "automatic". But this appearance of automation masks the very real agency 
> social and intellectual levels afford, regardless of whether that agency 
> is non-conformative or used to reify static patterns.

>From my point of view, reification of any kind is illusion.  Seems to be a 
worldwide convention, but it's illlusion just the same.


> But we may end up agreeing to disagree on this, and that's okay.
>
> As for your "cougar" daughter, this is another one of those strange 
> patriarchal areas. What would you say the male equivalent would be? We 
> have MILFs all over the place, but do we have any DILFs? We know that 
> "Stacey's Mom" has got it going on, but what about Stacey's dad? Does he? 
> On the other hand, I've been told by some women I know that the terms are 
> actually empowering because they force people to recognize that women (not 
> just teen girls) are sexual beings, that they validate the sexual identity 
> of older women. Thoughts?
>

I had to laugh.  When my daughter was a little girl her nickname was Cougar, 
or Coug.  She called me the other evening in shock because she heard this 
new expression and what it meant.  She had grown into her nickname.  "I am 
Woman hear me roar..."   You bet your boots the older woman are sexual. 
Very!   And still quite capable of multiple orgasms.  But there are other 
things of higher value too, like love and trust, and friendship and 
playfulness.


Marsha