David M, Horse, I didn't see exactly which of Horse's words you were interperting David, but I think this is right.
Social = accepted on authority of others, by weight of numbers, "power" etc. Intellectual = questioning (and reasoning) before accepting. Trouble is questioning always starts and stops with "accepted" bases of knowledge and reasoning, so the two are never going to be entirely distinct. Probably the main emphasis - is doubtful until supported by reason / evidence / proof, on the one hand, vs accepted until "disproven". The trouble is still the bases for reason and "proof". Even the faithful (believers in authority) construct rational (looking) arguments to support their belief. (BTW - that's what leads me to conclude that our real problem is our "addiction" to that kind of reasoning, th logical positive meme, but I digress.) So, even social knowledge you may question "who, where, when" before choosing to believe - but that may not be intellectual reasoning. Even highly complex intellectual reason has some basis, that may not be amenable to "pure reason" (whatever that is). It's never gonna be black and white. Interesting Ian On 5/13/07, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Horse > > Useful suggestion. When our collective knowledge > (whether seen as divine in origin, ancestral or mythic in > origin) is put under questioning and suspicion then we > have a more deliberate and intellectual approach to > knowledge. > > David M > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Horse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 5:55 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] (MD] Collective intelligence > > > > Hi Folks > > > > Before we get into another pointless political debate about the > > wonderfulness of the magnificent individual versus the marvelous > > collective could we try and think about this maybe from a slightly > > better perspective - i.e. mine! :) > > > > The term 'collective intelligence', IMO, is probably a misnomer in terms > > of the MoQ as it, incorrectly, appears to conjoin social and > > intellectual patterns. > > It may be better to think of it as 'collective knowledge' which can then > > be placed at the social level as patterns that accumulate and persist > > over time within a social context. > > All learned behaviours and other forms of knowledge that persist from > > one generation to the next but are not transmitted by biological means > > can now be neatly placed in this holder. Anything from how to crack an > > oyster open to the mangled grunts that constitute primitive language can > > be included, as can more complex language and whatever other social > > patterns you choose to include. When this 'collective knowledge' becomes > > sufficiently ordered and complex emergent patterns will start to appear > > - for an example think in terms of how a city develops and persists over > > many decades and even centuries. > > Awareness and contemplation of these patterns gradually gives rise to > > ordering and restructuring which leads to intellectual activity and the > > emergence of the intellectual level. So just as the biological patterns > > of life are available to the social level, so the developing social > > patterns of collective knowledge are available to the intellectual level. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > Horse > > > > > > 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/ > > > > 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/ > 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/
