From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 06 2004 - 17:41:09 BST
Platt,
> That would make multi-linguists and multi-culturists much more creative
> that the rest of us. Any evidence that this is so?
>
Polylinguals have indeed shown to score higher on many cognitive tasks, and
other measures of "intelligence", from problem solving to symbolic logic. One
recent study showed that bilinguals have a statistically lower chance of
developing brain-related degenerative diaseses as they age (which is somewhat
tangental to this, but I point this out out of personal interest). I have
several studies I can pass on, which I will do when I return to my office.
> If the "filter" is as strong as you say it is, how do new ideas arise?
>
This "filter" (a word I don't like) is not just restrictive, it is generative.
That is, it makes certain things possible, just as it restricts others.
Language allows us to build, and statically latch ideas ("ratchet up", as
Tomasello would say). Thus, language both constrains and affords possibility.
So, DQ on the pre-semiotic or pre-intellectual awareness level "points" us
toward certain possibilities. But our intellectualization of that, our
orientation and response occurs through the social semiotic, and so is both
constrained (limited) and given affordances to representation and action.
> My position is that language and society "emerged" simultaneously and that
> symbolic representation (intelligence, intellect) is part and parcel of
society.
OK. With this I mostly agree. I'd word it differently (society "emerged" through
language, not parallel to it as your words seem to indicate), but overall, yes.
> What Pirsig is talking about in referring to the intellectual level is that
fairly
> recently intellect emerged to dominate society, and that a society that
> esteems the intellectual characteristics of reason and scientific inquiry is
> is at a higher moral level than a society that follows traditional
> religious teachings.
And "intellectual characteristics of reason and scientific inquiry" is a
function of both (what you call) individuals and the socio-cultural system. It
is not a function of one over the other. On the "intellectual" level, they are
dialectically related.
Both reason and scientific inquiry are properties of
> individual free thinkers, not the great unwashed who are dominated by
> religious beliefs, e.g., fascist-Muslims.
>
"Reason and scientific inquiry" are properties of (again, your word) individuals
and social semiosis. Or, more precisely, they are properties that emerge as
biological individuals participate in a social semiotic.
You are not a "free thinker", in that you cannot "think" outside of your
socio-cultural system.
> > "Individuals" devoid of a social semiotic will not engage in the
> > intellectual level at all. Do you agree or disagree?
>
> Agree because human beings devoid of language would not only not engage in
> the intellectual level but would not be human beings. Do you agree or
> disagree?.
>
Certainly I agree.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 06 2004 - 17:42:41 BST