From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 14:57:07 BST
Paul,
[Paul wrote previously]
> >Dynamic advances happen individually but
> >static latching requires patterns to spread out amongst others if the
> >advancement is to be maintained. Both processes are needed.
[Paul recently]
> Paul: But you accept that Newton, Liebniz, Darwin, Wallace and "who knows how
many others" are, nevertheless, in one sense, individuals, right? That is all
I'm saying. However, see below.
[Arlo]
Paul, I agree. I've been saying from day one that it is a emergent relationship
where society does not exist without the individual, and the individual does
not exist without society. Note: the "individual" at the biological pattern
level would exist without society.
The the two sides, ALL individual, ALL social, represent a false dichotomy, I
agree. I've tried in several posts to emphasize the value of the individual in
the MOQs evolutionary layers. But this is always met with the same "you don't
value the individual" retort. (What I don't do is "deify" the individual, no.)
That Liebniz, to use one example, was an individual who responded to DQ, was
able to remediate socially that experience, and have this experience statically
latched (via the social semiotic) is undeniable. Indeed, this is precisely why
individuals are valued in the MOQ; for their ability to repsond to DQ,
remediate that into static patterns that evolve the intellect and subsequently
society.
However, what I emphasize is that Liebniz did not act in any type of "individual
isolation". He had access to writings of many others historically, he had
access to lab aides and colleagues and peers by which he was able to "think out
with" ideas and propositions. He had access to artifacts (paper, chalkboards,
etc) that enabled him to work the way he did. And most importantly he had
access to a social semiotic langauge, imbued with historical voices and
cultural saliences that allowed him to respond to DQ in the way he did.
Liebniz, born on a desert island, who have just been another biological
pattern. "Liebniz" was the result of the internalization of a cultural mythos,
instilled with such cultural analogues as "Me", the "other", not to mention all
the compounded analogues that undergirded his society.
It is in this sense that we say "Liebniz the Individual" did not invent, but
"Liebniz in collaboration with others in a cultural milieu, that contains
voices past and present, culturally created artifacts, and a socially-derived,
culturally salient semiotic system" invented. It is only shorthand that I say
"Liebniz did anything". Some on this list see this a complete devaluation of
Liebniz. I disagree with that, and place that right there with your false
duality. Liebniz IS highly valued. He just did not act "alone" (nor
"objectively"). None of us do. Ever. (Well, outside of pre-intellectual
awareness and on the biological level).
To value Liebniz, and to ignore all the people who have historically worked
through a cultural language, evolving society and various material and symbolic
artifacts, his colleauges past and present, is a social custom that values the
"Me", that optical delusion of consciousness.
Mostly, I think we are in much agreement.
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 : Tue Jul 26 2005 - 18:42:40 BST