From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 06 2004 - 20:30:17 BST
Arlo,
> 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.
Thanks. No need to pass on the studies. The evidence backs up your point.
> > 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.
OK.
> > 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.
OK.
> 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.
OK. But I maintain only individuals "think," not societies. What might be
called "collective thought" is simply a poll of individuals who happen to
agree.
> > > "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.
I think we basically agree with that we're nothing without society,
regardless of whether we wish to emphasize the intellectual or the
individual aspects of our nature.
Thanks for a challenging discussion. :-)
Platt
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 - 21:55:04 BST