[Arlo previously] The basis for social patterns is, IMHO, "activity" (in the Russian sense; purposeful, agenic, semiotic, mediated). And the root, the carbon atom, for activity is shared attention.
[Craig] IMHO the root of social activity is shared INtention, rather than shared ATtention. Two people aware of each other watching a bird are not necessarily engaged in a social activity, but merely a biological activity. It only becomes a ritual if there is shared intention. [Arlo] I agree, Craig. I mentioned the definition caveat for "activity" to specifically include "purposeful" (which to me is "intentional"). And, I would think Tomasello (who's idea on "shared attention" I am using) would agree with you too. His description of shared attention includes "mutually recognizing the intentionality of the conspecific"; an academic way of saying that shared attention depends on recognizing that, like you, the 'other' is acting with intention. He uses the term "shared attention" as his ideas derive from mediated action, that "intention" requires something to be "acted upon", whereas he might say "shared intention" doesn't necessarily convey acting in the world. In any event (I can't speak for him, obviously), I would agree with your point here, and its a good one to make. But, I think he would say that two people watching a bird would be social if (1) as mentioned both recognize each other in that moment as intentional agents in the world, and (2) both recognize that they are sharing a social-semiotic reaction to the attentional 'object'. That they DON'T act together in that moment is overshadowed by that they COULD act in that moment. Like I said, I don't think we are in disagreement in substance, maybe just in terminology. 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
