Reply
In a message dated 11/15/98 11:03:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com writes:
ROGER AGREES THAT HE FORGOT HIS BRAIN!
>HI XCTO, let me guess........Xacto? Staples? Paperclip? :-)
its really a common name, close though (in the right aisle).
> XCTO writes:
<< I myself would say that Mind is the Symbolic Tool that is the first level
>of
> Social. My only reason is that it is not an object and I like to keep the
> split as two object levels and two subject levels; its an aesthetic thing.
> But my input is primarily to support the placement of the idea of mind as
the
> earliest governor of the biological level (and many of you (Roger?) may
>rethink your concept of Biological Mind because of it) and be a judge or
>intermediary of Biological Pattern conflicts. As such its been argued by
> many
> that it must be a part of the next higher level (which would be Social). I
> had presented the ideas of Vygotsky and Marx as theories that describe this
>as
>the beginnings of sentience (mind thinking not INTELLECT WITH CAPITALS) and
>social patterns (which they also say start as separate processes but later
>combine and interact). I think that this is the MIND that people have been
>using. I agree with the idea that this is just to clarify and not to add a
>level. >>>>>>>>
Roger:
>OK. I was extending the term to include frog minds and panda- bear minds.
>Maybe the right term here is brain? By the time we got 'em (minds) the
social
>level was upon us.....in fact I think their developments were necessary to
>each other.
> Roge >>
I want to clarify above...Marx didn't say that explicitly about separate
processes, because he was primarily in social/intellect levels. That was
Vygotsky, Ape Social Theories, Russian early childhood
behaviors,psychologists, and sociologists (Wundt, Thurnwald, Levy-
Bruhl,Kohler). But I want to take it a step further. To reiterate, social
behavior is a biological instinct. The Dynamic growth of Language as tool
developed with physical tools (biological and inorganic) were initial
precursors of the MIND that we were talking about. The ordering of Quality
uses of these tools brought about the use of symbols and abstract
uses(subjective use) of tools (objects). It might sound like it's the
beginning of the Subject/Object schism, but I don't believe it right
now...It's much too basic, just the mechanism, not the metaphysics. But very
important to the split, in my opinion.
Xcto (the shiny colorful alloy)
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST