[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level

[David M]

Hi Ian

I think Rayner's inclusionality chimes well with the
philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar who points out that
sciences derives much of its knowledge from controlled
experiments and closed systems whereas real life and
experience is much more often having to deal with open
systems that are unique and evolving in fluid and very
unpredictable ways. Science excludes the vastness of
environmental factors in an experiement, but life is all
about living in much more complex open and evolving
and chaotic systems. We are all in individual and unique
situations, hence we become individuals, being a mere
type would be sub-optimally adaptive to unque situations
and environments.

regards
David M


>
> BTW I like your "individuals within collective activity view" - I was
> using the usual shorthand of individuals and collectives, because I
> feel many are making that distinction when they say "individual". But
> in reality these things are matters of dynamic connection. You know I
> detest polarization - prefer fuzziness, until dynamic comlexity is
> actually understood - rather than mis-placed concreteness in
> over-simple ontology. (I would recommend people look at Alan Rayner's
> "Fluid Dynamic Inclusionality" - very poetic.)
>
> All these discussion about what the self and "I" really are also
> blurring the concreteness of the individual.
>
> Ian
>
> On 7/15/08, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>> [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.
>>
>> [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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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/
>