opps, didn't mean to send that
--- On Tue, 7/15/08, Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Heather Perella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual Level > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 9:53 AM > --- 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/ 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/
