Hi DM, All, I've been trying to get people to talk about the emergence of intellect in terms of child development rather than history.
I have a daughter who just turned three years old. She is just beginning to participate in intellectual patterns. A typical social pattern for children of her age is to ask "why?" after everything you say. No answer ever satisfies. Another "why?" always follows until the adult gets tired of answering. I say that this is a social pattern for such children because it is a copied behavior with no intellectual content. An intellectual pattern first emerges when a child can understand and use rationales for behavior--when the child knows what "why?" and "because" mean. After telling my daughter the rules for using the new scooter she got for her birthday she tried to paraphrase, "and no standing on the scooter because...because...because...because it's sad." Her "because-ing" is just a copied behavior with no intellectual content. When she actually comes up with rationales for her behavior she is participating in intellectual patterns. Sometimes she comes up with a rationale which actually is participation in intellectual patterns : "if I go potty, can I get a marshmellow?" This statement implies cause and effect as well as linking the present with the future. Thoughts? Steve On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:18 PM, David M wrote: > Steve > > You are quite right that what has been embedded > in the culture (S/O as a metaphysics) is also a > distinction (S/O) that is part of normal development > that is forgetful of its own origins. > > David M > > > > Hi Ham, DM, (Bo?, Chris?, Magnus? all) > > I'm interested in your comments on an extensive Lila quote to follow... > > >>> DM: >>>> My point is that to create the conception of a perceiver you have to >>>> divide out of experience something that is not a quality of >>>> experience >>>> and this is a vain hope. >>> >>> My point is that creating the concept of a perceiver is already done >>> for >>> us. >>> We each perceive our self as the perceiver. Why do you deny the >>> obvious? >>> >> >> DM: I just do not think it is true. The child experiences prior to >> this. >> First the >> child recognises others and then it comes to conceptualise itself as >> also >> like >> these others. We act and exist just like animals until we start to >> become >> self-conscious and for full individual & human self consciousness you >> need >> language. > > Steve: > I think this is right on, DM. I am so glad you brought up "the child" > in attempting to understand the MOQ. The baby does not perceive himself > as the perceiver as Ham suggests. I think it may be far more useful to > try to find the birth of subjects and objects in the development of a > child rather than in history. > > Here Pirsig describes the evolution of the child to explain dynamic and > static quality: > > > > "When this reality of value is divided into static and Dynamic > > areas a lot can be explained about that baby's growth that is not well > > explained otherwise. > > One can imagine how an infant in the womb acquires awareness of simple > > distinctions such as pressure and sound, and then at birth acquires > more > > complex ones of light and warmth and hunger. We know these distinctions > > are pressure and sound and light and warmth and hunger and so on but > the > > baby doesn't. We could call them stimuli but the baby doesn't identify > > them as that. From the baby's point of view, something, he knows not > what, > > compels attention. This generalized "something," Whitehead's "dim > > apprehension," is Dynamic Quality. When he is a few months old the baby > > studies his hand or a rattle, not knowing it is a hand or a rattle, > with > > the same sense of wonder and mystery and excitement created by the > music > > and heart attack in the previous examples. > > If the baby ignores this force of Dynamic Quality it can be speculated > that > > he will become mentally retarded, but if he is normally attentive to > > Dynamic Quality he will soon begin to notice differences and then > > correlations between the differences and then repetitive patterns of > the > > correlations. But it is not until the baby is several months old that > he > > will begin to really understand enough about that enormously complex > > correlation of sensations and boundaries and desires called an object > to be > > able to reach for one. This object will not be a primary experience. It > > will be a complex pattern of static values derived from primary > experience." > > > Once the baby has made a complex pattern of values called an object and > > found this pattern to work well he quickly develops a skill and speed > at > > jumping through the chain of deductions that produced it, as though it > were > > a single jump. This is similar to the the way one drives a car. The > first > > time there is a very slow trial-and-error process of seeing what causes > > what. But in a very short time it becomes so swift one doesn't even > think > > about it. The same is true of objects. One uses these complex patterns > > the same way one shifts a car, without thinking about them. Only when > the > > shift doesn't work or an "object" turns out to be an illusion is one > forced > > to become aware of the deductive process. That is why we think of > subjects > > and objects as primary. We can't remember that period of our lives when > > they were anything else. > > In this way static patterns of value become the universe of > distinguishable > > things. Elementary static distinctions between such entities as > "before" > > and "after" and between "like" and "unlike" grow into enormously > complex > > patterns of knowledge that are transmitted from generation to > generation as > > the mythos, the culture in which we live." 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/
