[MD] a view

[Mary]

Considering how intelligent you are, you probably just wore them out after a
while. :)

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 MarshaV
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:15 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] a view
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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