> [Platt]
> Arlo flatly contradicts Pirsig. About those two biological
> individuals -- according to Arlo they both started talking simultaneously.
>
> No matter how Arlo tries to justify a communitarian agenda, "Someone
> has to be first."
> [Arlo]
> Arlo does not contradict Pirsig, he simply takes all of Pirsig into
> account, and he certainly does not use one one-liner to disprove
> other things the man said. As for your "one lone man who just started
> talking", I don't know how much more ridiculous you can get (but I'm
> sure you'll find a way to top it eventually).
>
> Yes, they did in that moment of recognition of shared attention both
> start talking simultaneously, as they negotiated rudimentary symbols
> for the experience they were sharing. And in that moment, culture and
> selves were born. And this event was made possible by the long chain
> of evolution that set in place the neurobiological affordances and
> constraints upon which the recognition of the shared event, and the
> storage of symbolic representae was made possible.
>
> But, it makes soooo much more sense that there was this one lone man,
> who just decided to invent language, and then went out and taught it
> to others. Nevermind that if he had no language prior to inventing
> language, how'd he do it? No, you can stick with your I-B-I MOQ all
> you want, I'll take Pirsig's I-B-S-I.
[Chris]
Yes. Arlos reasoning is quite logical I'd say. But I wondered over the sense
of "Individuality" as such. Because I lean towards the interpretation that
the split between seeing the self and the world as one and the self and the
world as separate is the emergence of the intellectual level - however I
really don't think this can be accredited to the Greeks only, but that is my
job to prove later on - then this sense of individuality would perhaps not
be there at all when language etc developed. I mean, It is impossible for us
to think ourselves into a way of thinking such as one of not thinking about
thinking, but we may hypostasise that when events occurred that accelerated
the development of cultures, then the notion of "self" that later on became
so near-impossible to get rid of wasn't there. So what would this mean if we
think about the development of early cultures - the social level?
Regards
Chris
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/
