> [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?
Ron:
Didn't Al Gore create language? Or was that the internet, most higher
Forms of life communicate, who taught them? Language exists in most
Higher animal societies in most cases, it's how they survive and
evolve, in groups. Communication seems to be a base function of
biological life of which intellect is a highly complex advanced form.
Asking who started language is kinda like asking who started life.
Isn't this the sort of logic that goes against the MoQ grain?
An individual may influence the herd but it did not create the herd.
The process of Natural selection created social, the struggle for
Survival created language.
Some argue that the advent of agriculture was the first step
Toward complex societies and the dawning of intellect.
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/
