[John] But I'd like to point out that there are other descriptions besides intellectual and there is a direct and primordial relationship we have with nature as animals - before we start analyzing anything.
[Arlo] You move from "description" to "direct and primordial relationship". I'd say that "descriptions" are by its very definition symbolically encoded experience, and hence always socially-mediated. Yes, we have "direct and primordial" experiences, and the moment these are encoded into an abstract code they are immediately socially-mediated. [John] That when social and intellectual patterns violate biological ones, then they should be denounced or changed. This gives this seemingly "lower" level a lot more importances than it is usually accorded. [Arlo[ Agree. I've long argued that when society "regulates" biological value, and in doing so makes the claims that such regulation is required to prevent the destruction of society, the onus is on society to describe exactly how that pattern it is regulating would, if unregulated, destroy society. [John] "Not sure what that means" ??? My GOD man, do you never go outside and breathe the air and dig in the dirt? [Arlo] No, I am a detached mind who has never experienced biological sensation. :-) To be sure, John, I've never denied "we" experience the world through our biological sensations. Our "interactions with the environment" shape who "we" are, but they are not "us". And I should also point out that culture structures this as well, gives us the tools to reflect on that experience and see it in certain ways. [John] I don't know where you get that our interactions with the environment are as social beings. When I'm in the woods cutting down a dead tree to make something out of it, there ain't nobody to be social with. And btw, the only sound it makes is the one *I* want to hear. [Arlo] Just because you've walked away from other people does not mean you are no longer a social being. Your "thought" in those moments continue to be socially dialogic, the choices you make and the way you respond etc are all socially-mediated. [John] Arlo, Arlo, Arlo. I thought way back that we promised each other that neither would resort to trotting out the poor old dead platypus of the mind/body split. "The hardware in which we reside"? Tsk tsk. Why not, "The hardware AS which we reside". Probably closer at least. [Arlo] I'm only using Pirsig's analogy. If you think he was arguing a mind/body split, then you'll have to take that up with him. :-) The point is that our "body", our "biological boundedness" certainly structures the "thoughts" in our head, and we form very particular notions of identity as our "body" is interpreted by our culture. [John] Only as a dog? "Only"? Everybody here raise your hands if you haven't known some dogs with a lot more love in 'em than some people. [Arlo] That's a bit of anthropomorphizing. I'd be the first to say my dog "loves" me, but my dog has no concept or understanding of love. He lacks the rich tapestry of language, the myths, love stories, poems, songs, art, and all the cultural structures (including the very syntax of language) we have that shape and mold our understanding of what it means "to love". I'd also, and this goes in an interesting direction for me, suggest that your dog's "love" has a lot to do with the rudimentary "socializing" that it experiences with social humans. A feral dog, a stray who has had no human contact, would likely have quite a different response. [John] Describing the feeling was what language was invented for. Not the other way around. [Arlo] Even the first "pair" who agreed upon a symbol to represent "that" likely had different personal experiences than the others who came to see "that" with this symbol. And, over much historical time, whatever "primordial" experience or emotion that symbol pointed towards is now guided by the social language as a child assimiliates a culture. [John] OMG!OMG!OMG! That is like the exact opposite of the very point you started with! Thought is completely derived from society! That's where you planted your flag and here you are contradicting yourself completely. [Arlo] Not at all. Or maybe I've just not been thorough in my replies. If you read the archives, you'll see I've long argued that the "self" is a symbolic locus, deriving from the unique experiences of a biological organism operating within a social milieu. Humans are certainly unique. Don't buy into the propaganda that us "collectivists" think we are all clones. Language structurates, it does not dictate. It constrains as it enables, but it does not control or determine. 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/
