Arlo said to Craig:
I agree, Craig. [That "the root of social activity is shared INtention, rather
than shared ATtention." ] 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.
dmb says:
I haven't read Tomasello but it sounds like a description of intersubjectivity
in its earliest stage of development, the seed that would eventually grow into
a common cultural space, a mental space, so to speak. It sounds like something
wolves and chimpanzees could do to some extent.
It's not exactly clear where to draw the line between biology and culture, as
in the case of the social level's twin engines, fame and fortune or celebrity
and wealth. Isn't the Alpha male in a wolf pack rich and famous in some sense?
The prettiest peacocks get laid more than the others, just as it is in
Hollywood or professional sports. Sorta, kinda. And how different from our
political debates is it, really, when chimps throw poop at each other? I guess
the difference really shows up in the fact that culture grows and evolves
whereas the social behavior of canines and primates is relatively fixed. We can
pretty well discern the difference even in the history of our species. Stone
tools were used for a million years before any innovations began and then - all
of a sudden - there was an explosion of new tool designs. And with that came
all kinds of new social behaviors involving ritual and art, or at least
decoration.
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
