Two quick points Arlo ... You said "But I still don't accept the genetic imprinting (my words) of social and intellectual patterns upon the species."
Ah OK. Well no, not fully formed imprints, but the "predispositions" as you go on to say, the patterns / meta-patterns that support patterns etc. And these are there in the biology because of previous social level behaviours. (So the previous social pattern isn't fossilized in all its glory in the future biology, but it does preserve traces / shadows, which reinforce the advantage on the next cycle, and so on.) You also said "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." Hmmm - need to wind my brain back to old discussions - but use of the word social behaviour here with social animals (and ants and bees ?) is not necessarily the same as Pirsigian social level patterns, is it ? (Surely we need symbolic communication and sharing of social patterns between the individuals - not just instinctive, biological , biochemical "social" behaviours ?) Or is it. This is why I always qualify these points with the self-other individual consciousness aspect. Anyway, as you say, the boundaries can be interesting without changing the overall understanding of the picture. I too have suggested the story is always fractal (when you go in the reductionist direction) - blogged a fair bit about that over the years. One of the reasons why "too greedy" reductionism eventually turns the whole story to dust. I'll look out for Tomasello. Did I mention I was reading Ian Gilchrist ? Not blogged a review yet, but the first half on right-left-right brain and mental behaviour development is as comprehensive as any I've seen. The second half I'm struggling with a bit - his take on how these aspects have framed different period in the history of western thought is less convincing (so far). But he's absolutely committed to left-brain rationalism being a contagious disease "of the western mind". Ian On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [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 > 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
