>> [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?
I didn't say that language created society. But are you saying that intellect is a "highly complex advanced form" of biological life, then I'd draw the conclusion that you are not arguing from a MOQ point of view. Of course the biological levels has to emerge as a base for the social and then the intellectual level to emerge but - well, you recognize this debate. > 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. Indeed the Dynamic Development of agriculture (the most fundamental revolution in the history of mankind before the industrial revolution) can be seen as a cornerstone in the development of the social level, but I was more interested in this individual business. And the heard business. By the gods, it's hard to think in terms of a time when people didn't view themselves as separate individuals - perhaps - but if we experiment with the thought, then we may conclude that up until this thought of a separate individuality emerged people there would be no intellectual level. No matter how much anyone manipulated symbols or how many languages they spoke. But when did this emerge? I don't believe that it was only in Greece, and perhaps it was way earlier, but one also has to separate innovations from inventions. (don't know if that figure of speach works in English, but for example the steam engine was invented in Alexandria in 100BC but no one used it, so it was only an invention, not an innovation. ) But.I think I am straying too much. Will return with all of this more structured. Thanks for your patience 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/
