[MD] a view

[MarshaV]

Greetings Mary,

Not to whine, but I was brought up in a family where every time I asked
a challenging question, I was told I think too much.  It still boggles my
mind.  I suppose looking at it optimistically, I was being told to kill my
intellectual patterns.  Who'd of thought?  


Marsha






On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Mary wrote:

> Hello John!
> 
> Jumping abruptly into this conversation, I want to comment on one thing you
> said.
> 
> [John]
> In its microcosmic form, which takes place in the development of every child
> ever born, is where you can study and observe it most clearly.  Many social
> behaviors seem built in or automatic, but this intellectualism only seems to
> be transmitted if taught explicitly.
> 
> Every small child repeatedly asking "Why?" is engaging in the beginnings of
> their own personal journey with intellectualism.  How far they eventually
> take that journey depends on how quickly they are satisfied with the answer
> they receive.  I think it's innate in all of us to puzzle, wonder, and ask
> questions; but it can be "taught" out of us if we learn early that it is not
> good to ask.
> 
> Mary
> 
> - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-
>> bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 7:53 PM
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] a view
>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> And my point, and Pirsig's, is that this process occurs only embedded
>> in a
>>> socio-historical dialogue; only after a biological organism has
>>> appropriated
>>> the shared culture of her/his social world, and only in the context
>> of
>>> response/anticipation to others in this dialogue.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Well you can't say that and expect to continue this argument with me.
>> You're completely correct and I agree completely.  What fun is that?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> 
>>> For what its worth, I find symbolic mediation underscores both the
>> social
>>> and
>>> intellectual level, for me I separate the levels as occurring when
>> the
>>> shared
>>> symbols of a culture become objects to inquire about themselves.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In other words, "intellectualized".  In other words, "objectified".  In
>> other words "thought".
>> 
>> And yes, I agree completely there too.  I also see this process of
>> objectifying social patterns and analyzing them objectively as that
>> supreme
>> 4th level activity which human societies have always engaged in, as
>> long as
>> there have been human societies.
>> 
>> Primitive societies were no more "social" as opposed to intellectual
>> than
>> our own, that we have any evidence of.  In fact, I'd hazard a guess as
>> to
>> the opposite.  The technological powers that are now in the service of
>> reinforcing and manipulating social patterns have created a society
>> more
>> social and less intellectual than any time in human history.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> One sees the
>>> intellectual level then as a sort of "literary criticism" atop a
>> strata of
>>> "storytelling". I've mentioned this before, but one analogy would be
>> to
>>> consider that on the social level we see evidence of using number-
>> symbols
>>> to
>>> represent cows (or chickens, or wheat bushels, etc.), and we see a
>> symbolic
>>> mapping of something like "II then II gives us IIII cows". But it is
>> not
>>> until
>>> the "concept" of "twoness" is freed from its very particular social
>> usage
>>> do we
>>> see "theoretical mathematics" take hold. That is, "two" as a symbolic
>>> marker is
>>> used and manipulated on the social level, but "twoness" as an
>> abstract
>>> concept
>>> gives rise to the intellectual level.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In its microcosmic form, which takes place in the development of every
>> child
>> ever born, is where you can study and observe it most clearly.  Many
>> social
>> behaviors seem built in or automatic, but this intellectualism only
>> seems to
>> be transmitted if taught explicitly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> For the mythos, we have very illustrative and remarkable story-
>> weaving, we
>>> see
>>> elaborate and intricate sagas developed over many generations to
>> explain
>>> and
>>> transmit the moral code of the social group. But with the logos we
>> see
>>> people
>>> starting to ask "what is a 'god'?, what evidence do we see of this?
>> does it
>>> make sense that we are saying this, but seeing this other thing?"
>> etc.
>>> Social
>>> level = religion, intellectual level = religious criticism. Or,
>> concretely,
>>> social level = norse sagas, intellectual level = Joseph Campbell's
>> work on
>>> mythology.
>>> 
>>> [Jon]
>>> But yeah, you do have to have a society in order for intellect to
>> evolve.
>>> As
>>> well as inorganic material and biological continuance.  Duh?
>>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> Well, it should be "duh", but it still confounds people, witness
>> Platt's
>>> perennial confusion. Intellect does not emerge from biology, it
>> emerges
>>> from
>>> the social world. Without that very clear aspect of the MOQ, you have
>> a
>>> hierarchy that goes something like "inorganic-biological-intellectual
>> (with
>>> social around screwing things up)".
>>> 
>>> 
>> My girl Jackie was just talking about this:
>> 
>> "Jessica Benjamin presents what she labels as an intersubjective view
>> of
>> human development, the view that individuals grow in and through
>> relationships to other subjects, subjects that are different and yet
>> alike.
>> Royce speaks of the interaction of similarity and difference,
>> assimilation,
>> and differentiation in developing the human self.  Benjamin argues that
>> for
>> proper self-development there must be a balance of tension between
>> self-assertion and self-recognition.
>> 
>> Benjamin and Royce also agree that contrast between self and other is
>> the
>> foundation for individualism.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> [Jon]
>>> Intellectuality arises with the big brain that some poor woman had to
>> pop
>>> out
>>> of her womb.
>>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> Here even you seem to propose that intellectual thinking is simply a
>> direct
>>> function of a neural mass. Intellect from biology.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Well Arlo, not in a simplistic, straightline, mechanistic way, no.
>> Whales
>> have more massive brains than humans and porpoises come close or
>> exceed.
>> Yet they haven't built any libraries (probably, but who knows?  Their
>> world
>> is probably the most mysterious we know of)   But yeah, there is a
>> correlation that is meaningful, when viewing the evolutionary story as
>> a
>> whole, it does suggest a resonance between brain size and intellect.
>> 
>> 
>> Arlo:
>> 
>> 
>>> I'd say that the human brain
>>> has evolved to enable the organism to readily appropriate a shared
>>> consciousness, but that without that social appropriation all that
>> big
>>> brain
>>> will do is enable the organism to function biologically. Like a big
>> empty
>>> building that could function as a library.
>>> 
>>> 
>> Speaking of big brains, it's "John" with an "h".  I wouldn't care about
>> getting all pedantic on ya, but another Jon joined recently and I'd
>> hate to
>> be the source of confusion.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> [Jon]
>>> Intellectualism arises with societies devoted to intellectuality as
>> the
>>> center
>>> of their existence like in academia where too many big-brained apes
>> have
>>> too
>>> much time on their hands and think up overly complicated explanations
>> of
>>> the
>>> simple and obvious.
>>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> Alright, so you're using the Bo Fallacy here, and tossing in some
>>> gratuitous
>>> academic bashing for good measure.
>>> 
>>> 
>> A two-fer!
>> 
>> Woo-hoo!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I'd say that the big brain (biology) enables the organism to
>> appropriate
>>> the
>>> shared consciousness of her/his society and then partake in the
>>> socio-historical dialogue (social), and THAT participation prepares
>> the
>>> social
>>> organism for the meta-analysis of those social symbols as
>>> objects-in-themselves
>>> which sets the social organism on the path of theoretical
>> mathematics,
>>> metaphysics, and critical inquiry (intellectual).
>>> 
>>> 
>> Yeah, you would.  But then you'd just be showing off, wouldn't you.
>> I'd
>> just quote more Jackie at ya, doing the same thing, but in my own way.
>> 
>> (showing off, that is.)
>> 
>> "If I see the world from a particular point of view, as is strongly
>> suggested by the intentionality of human consciousness, the only way I
>> can
>> transcend my narrowness and subjectivity is by checking things out with
>> my
>> fellows and with nature.  Indeed, as we have seen, as as we shall now
>> discuss, for Royce, knowledge both of self and of external world is
>> grounded
>> in social interaction.  This means that the human self is, then,
>> essentially
>> a relational and social being."
>> 
>> "I" think, therefore a contextual process has led to my being.
>> 
>> And if you think about it, even the most rigorous science is dependent
>> upon
>> intersubjective agreement before it's discoveries are deemed "real".
>> 
>> 
>> [Jon]
>>> Is it absolutely impossible for animals?  Maybe not.  But it's such a
>>> degree of
>>> difference between coyote's howling in the night and people typing
>> out
>>> ideas on
>>> keyboards, that we should keep the useful distinctions in mind.
>>> 
>>> [Arlo]
>>> Well, duh. Right?
>>> 
>>> By the way I don't know if I'd consider the coyote's howl
>> "intellectual" at
>>> all. Maybe a very crude social pattern (if its mediating the activity
>> of
>>> other
>>> coyotes). Probably mostly biological.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah the point I was trying to make was this obvious social
>> communication
>> (coyote's howling) contrasted with using words with people.  It's been
>> a
>> while, but as I remember it you posited intellectual patterns amongst
>> non-human animals.  With which I disagree, which was the point of most
>> my
>> points.
>> 
>> That and agreement with you on the need for socially created
>> individualism.
>> 
>> That's what I meant by "useful distinction".  We intellectualize,
>> animals
>> don't.  It's the main difference between us.
>> 
>> Now Pirsig had a hard time seeing that both we and animals socialize.
>> It's
>> what we have in common with them.  Royce does a good job of including
>> the
>> realization of man's true self through social interaction with animals
>> as
>> well as people.
>> 
>> But it's weird to have this discussion with you Arlo, because I
>> remember
>> starting up with you over whether we share emotions with animals.
>> Which I
>> say we do.  Mammals at least.  Mammals share social patterning and
>> emotional
>> reasoning with humans.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> As I said, I would posit very few species
>>> that MAY be considered to involve very crude intellectual activity,
>> and
>>> certainly none as robust and sophisticated as humans. Even on the
>> social
>>> level,
>>> we see maybe more animal species evidencing social patterns, but
>> still very
>>> crude compared to those of humans.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Agreed then.  So crude it hardly bears comparison, but yet enough to be
>> intriguing.
>> 
>> I met one character in my reading who was trying to teach his dog to be
>> human, and since he'd named his dog "Descartes" you know he was serious
>> about the project.
>> 
>> John with the 'h", home from work
>> 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/md/archives.html
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___