[MD] a view

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Sun Apr 11 21:44:27 PDT 2010 

Hahahaha.



On Apr 11, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Mary wrote:

> 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
> 
> 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


 
___

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list