I read a reply saying that bee's aren't really social. I like to continue on
that and explain why the social/intellectual division seems strange to me. I
will use some examples from Searle to make my point and a really recommend
all MOQ'ers to read Rediscovery of Mind. I have in some instances changed
MIND to Quality and that substitution is interesting.
According to Searle the Mind is a function of the (biological) brain. The
brain stores unconscious patterns that can be brought up to the conscious
(intellectual) level. Some of our skills, like walking, are a part of the
"Background", we never consciously think of them (Static patterns ?). The
Background is learnt while we grow up some aspects of what later became
Background might at a point have been Conscious but when we learn them well
enough they become a part of the (unconscious) background. So the background
is all social conventions (And much more) , it is what makes the world
understandable and also what makes many of our statements understandable.
So what is that in terms of intellectual and social?? First our intellect
snaps something up, we learn. As beginners we might think about how we for
example play tennis. When we get to a professional level most things are a
part of that persons background (we never think about how, we just do). So
intellectual level becomes social, we NEED a conscious, intentional mind to
form the background so intellectual comes BEFORE social. In fact WE CAN'T
HAVE SOCIAL LEVEL WITHOUT HAVING A INTELLECTUAL LEVEL FIRST.
Since this makes intellectual patterns a intrinsic property of all social
patterns I have no problem with the MOQ notion that intellectual patterns
are more important than social. BUT Biological develops into intellectual
and that creates social. Can it be any other way ??
Best regards,
Anders
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan B. Marder [mailto:marder@agri.huji.ac.il]
Sent: den 7 oktober 1999 18:29
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: MD WALKING IS A SOCIAL SKILL
JONATHAN LEAVES THE INTELLECTUAL vs. SOCIAL DEBATE
AND MUDDIES SOCIAL vs. BIOLOGICAL
Hi all,
We all know what the biological level includes, right?
Well what about this:
Last night the BBC World Service reported the case of a human boy found
living among monkeys in Uganda - a real-life Tarzan. He was apparently
abandoned as a toddler and only found again 2 years later.
Not surprisingly, the child couldn't talk, but what really struck me was
that the child couldn't WALK either. This wasn't a physical problem,
since he quickly learned to walk after his rescue. It suggests to me
that the SOCIAL level has something to do with even the very basic
"biological" function of walking. and the whole distinction between
social and biological is blurred.
Comments?
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST