--- On Tue, 7/15/08, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 8:40 AM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arlo Bensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 2:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The
> Intellectual Level
>
>
> > [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.
>
>
> I'll check it out.
>
>
> >
> > [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.
>
> Arlo, all you write above is true, but it somehow does not
> feel correct.
>
> Maybe it's that the problem solving is at a much higher
> level, and much more
> abstract and much more deliberate. The MOQ tries to
> abstract a new
> world-view. That's big. Genomics might be another
> example. Putting a
> human on the moon was a monumental project. I'm not
> sure if purchasing an
> organic apple is really deliberate. Sophisticated? Yes.
> Deliberate. I
> don't think so. Most of what we do on a social level
> is automatic. At
> those times when a decision is necessary, it usually
> between common,
> taken-for-granted, culturally-approved options.
> There's nothing wrong with
> sophiscated, though. Anyway, that's my take on it.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> There's lots of examples. Women very easily can wear
> men's clothing in
> public. But for men to wear women's clothing still is
> not accepted. Well
> the Pope sometimes looks swell in a pretty white frock.
> And Pierce Brosnan
> looked great wearing a sarong in The Thomas Crowne Affair.
>
> My daughter, who is in the category newly christened
> Cougars, thinks I'm
> old-fashioned. But I'm concerned for my grandchildren,
> especially my
> granddaughters. With the media hawking role models like
> Paris Hilton and
> Britney Spears, I have a right to be more than a little
> concerned. Anyway,
> your awareness is appreciated.
>
> 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/
