[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/
