[Ian]
I just don't see Keller referenced much in the many brain development /
mental development texts I have read in recent years.)
[Arlo]
I suspect a large part of that is the absence of corresponding brain
imaging that was not available in her day. If one comes at the question
from a reductionist perspective, there is little Keller can offer, since
her own words can be discounted as data. But I would suppose, that if
the fossilization that you propose is there, there would have been
*some* social-intellectual development on her end before the moment of
her social awakening.
[Ian]
Clearly we wouldn't expect to see social patterns such as those
normalised in "civilised" society - but as soon as there is any
linguistic / symbolic communication involving "other" separate from
"self" - I'd expect there to be social level patterns emerging.
[Arlo]
Well, sure, animals have a sense of boundedness. I read an article once
on brain damaged rats that self-canabilized, so I'd wager that some
sense of me/not-me can be attributed to neural stimuli and biological
experience. Since we agree (I think) that we see social patterns
emerging among certain animal species (correlating with certain levels
of complex neurology), I'd have no doubt that man's bio-neurology would
support certain behaviors I'd call proto-social or whatnot; perhaps like
the chimp who nurtured a sick bird. Even a pack of wolves (IMHO)
evidences social behavior, so I'd expect our desert-island human, upon
being adopted by these wolves, to rise to the social level of those same
wolves.
[Ian]
I'm only really disagreeing about how neatly delineated the bio to
social boundary might (not) be ..
[Arlo]
I don't think its neatly delineated at all. I've long said the most
interesting points to me emerge as one zooms in on the boundaries. Was
it Krimel who likened them to fractals? This is why I find Tomasello so
interesting and enlightening, his work is (from a MOQ perspective) a
lens on that biological-social boundary.
But I still don't accept the genetic imprinting (my words) of social and
intellectual patterns upon the species. This really is, despite your not
liking his work, Chomsky's main foundation. Humans are genetically
predisposed to spontaneously develop language and intellect. It is fully
reductionist. And from a MOQ perspective, it seeks to eliminate the
social level entirely and make the hierarchy like: inorganic,
biological, intellectual... with "social" being a field of some sort in
which this just happens to occur (and often something to be resisted and
overcome).
You still didn't explain your thoughts on the nature of "fossilization",
whether the genetic imprinting (my words) is culturally dependent, or
species-similar, and if, just like we can with the genes for hair-color
and gender, we can (or could) do genetic studies to decode which genes
stand for what social/intellectual patterns?
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/md/archives.html
