Just amongst "us girls" Arlo, that is patently not true ;-) BTW I like your "individuals within collective activity view" - I was using the usual shorthand of individuals and collectives, because I feel many are making that distinction when they say "individual". But in reality these things are matters of dynamic connection. You know I detest polarization - prefer fuzziness, until dynamic comlexity is actually understood - rather than mis-placed concreteness in over-simple ontology. (I would recommend people look at Alan Rayner's "Fluid Dynamic Inclusionality" - very poetic.)
All these discussion about what the self and "I" really are also blurring the concreteness of the individual. Ian On 7/15/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Marsha] > Maybe in an everything-is-connect-to-everything sort of > way. This battle between the collective and the individual seems a waste of > time. If the individual is an illusion, and it is, then the collective is a > group of illusions. > > [Arlo] > Absolutely. Which is why I've said many, many times it is never "individuals > v. collectives", that's just talk-radio blather. What it is is about > activity, the activity of "individuals within collectives". One theory I am > fond of is that of "Activity Theory", derived from the work of Vygotsky, > that looks at the interactive dynamics deriving from "individuals within > group using resources and constrained by rules working towards the creation > of objects". A common diagram of human activity is this: > > http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/symposia/symposium7/mcateer_marsden_files/image005.jpg > > Thus human interactions are "understand human activities as complex, > socially situated phenomena" (Wikipedia) rather than the polarized > "subjectivism" or "objectivism" of traditional Western thought. > > [Marsha] > The patterns in the Intellectual Level seem to function, as Peter has > suggested, more to solve problems by manipulating symbols in a more > deliberate manner. > > [Arlo] > I've suggested before that a good way to frame the social-intellectual > distiction is not in "symbol/no-symbol" but that the emergence of the > intellectual level stems from the time when wo/man started thinking about > symbols as objects in themselves. That is, certainly the social level is > bemarked by the advent of symbolic manipulations, indeed I'd argue that the > dialogic formation of symbol systems is the point of emergence of the social > level. But as our symbol systems evolved in complexity, wo/man eventually > began investigating symbols as objects of inquiry. We began "using symbols > to examine symbols". At the social level, wo/man agreed to term "blue" to > refer to certain patterns of experience. At the intellectual level, wo/man > asked "what is blueness? where does it come from? is it universal? is it in > my head or out in nature?" > > Thus I would not say its a "more deliberate" way of manipulating symbols, > social level symbolic use is also very deliberate. When I use language to > ask my grocery if he has any organic apples, I am manipulating symbols very > deliberately. When I think about the category "apple" and what it is, and > what it is not, and why, I am also manipulating symbols very deliberately, > its just that I've made "appleness", a symbol, the object of my inquiry. > Math is a great example. At the social level, wo/man first came up with > symbols to describe multiple occurances, such as "one" or "three". At the > intellectual level, these symbols ("one" "three") became > objects-in-themselves, abstracted from experience, and people were able to > build elaborate symbolic relational systems. That is, when "one" ceased to > be a modifer for "apples" (one apple) and became a real thing in and of > itself. > > You know, thinking about "wo/man" and the wife-totting pioneers of yore, > there are many examples of gender-patriarchy reification in language. > Consider that when addressing a group of males, one could begin "hey guys", > and when addressing a group of males and females one could begin "hey guys", > and even when addressing a group of females it is common to begin "hey > guys", but this is completely non-reversible. You could address of group of > females "hey gals", but for a mixed gender group or all male group this > would be taken as near offensive, if not ridiculing. But nearly everyone, > from males to females, adopts this convention as normal. > > > 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/ > 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/
