From: Kalkor (kalkor@kalkor.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 02:28:58 MST
[Scroll down to the bottom for the Kalkor reply...]
{Kirk)
precisely Brian!
Merely asserting that different CULTURES score tests differently is ONLY
making an observation.
Speaking to the nature of this anomoly is something different entirely. What
developmental domain is a priori predicate to higher social functioning in
that society?
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PHONEMES! (easy joedees, easy boy....have a scooby
snack) Lemme digress.
This is a recursive process, yes. but once ANY language evolves past a
certain critical minima, any cognition becomes just as easy as the next to
forward verbally or textually. And once forwarded and recorded, the
cognition enters that universal feedback loop of itteration and refinement.
This all depends on the aggregate performance of individuals. If the median
performance of the person in the cognitive domain enable such functioning
AND PROVIDED the person involved is motivated. Motivated, the person sees
sufficient reward either intrinsically or extrinsically to maintain a
immediately non rewarding behavior. Will the person have the perspective
necessary to effectively evaluate the benefits of long term study of any one
formal system or another? Will that person ennact or take on a scoffold that
serves the social domain in the cognitive domain?
Does that society provide social scaffolds that can be transferred by the
individual to other domains?
Is language such a predicate scaffold? On it's face, no. But ANY language
can be used to evolve a meta language. Whether or not a society has
developed such a scaffold is very easy to evaluate. It ONLY comes from a
systematic usage of the embedded morphology. Nacent constructions, however
couched in sophomoric allsusions to historical pretext that have no
predicate foundation in truth, seems to be the fashion. Such are the pride
of those who's overriding adulation at the novelty of finding themselves
with a higher level of cognitive performance than they were concretely aware
most recently. "I've got a new tool and I'm gonna make sure everyone sees
that I can use it better than they can" This last thought has become a
scoffold of that portion of human development centering around the period of
"sturmme and strange' ". The language is not the scaffold, the individuals
usage as couched form within the perspective of their developmental tier,
is.
The _______ is not the scaffold, the individuals usage as co uched from
within the perspective of their developmental tier, is. You fill in the
blank. Language, math, IQ; whatever.
The predicate language is no more a determinism to the capacity of an
individual to comprehend abstract thoughts than a piece of paper and pencil.
The persons ability to make associations of abstract nature depends on the
command of their native language, once that language has evolved past the
previously mentioned critical minima. I have observed first hand for nearly
a decade this phenomenon among the Philipine society. They have no native
words for abstract thoughts of math or psychological formalisms. They posess
crude efferent morpisms of "more" or "less" and "crazy" and "happy". But
they don't have "multiply" or "depression". The tagalog lexicon is
remarkable austere. Listening to them, natives that speak no foriegn
language, you will hear a great dispersion of Portugese, Dutch, and English
words. But for these people these words have no contexts outside of their
language, their scaffold.
The scaffold can be used to construct any abstraction once it is
sufficiently evolved.
For the Grecian Empire this was approximately 2000 BCE.
Sufficiently ambiguous so as to affrord maximum maleability. In a word,
esoteric.
(courtesy of Miriam-Webster online)
Main Entry: es·o·ter·ic
Pronunciation: "e-s&-'ter-ik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin esotericus, from Greek esOterikos, from esOterO,
comparative of eisO, esO within, from eis into; akin to Greek en in -- more
at IN
Date: circa 1660
1 a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone.
Designed for and by the specially initiated alone so as to afford themselves
a egoistic base of perceived power over those whom the choos not to
recognize as being initiated.
Can anyone tell me, for a yankee dime, if they recall any recent assertive
stances of perspectives that were predicated on self proclaimed "esoteric"
scaffolds?
Foolishness begets foolish language begets foolish scaffolds.
Multidisciplinary crosscultural studies reveal these sorts of trends. Is
this racist? To observe such behavior and bring it to the attention of
others, hardly. To call such observation and codification rascist is not
only purile, but juvenile. Indicative of an arrest in adolescent
development. And this arresting of development is also born of a social
predicate. Whether or not the person chooses to rise above this is a
personal trend in egotism.
Very interrelated. Very broad. Very Interesting. Very NON Esoteric.
Ya'll have a nice day now, ya hear.
Kirkasarus Wrecks
(/kirk)
[Kalkor]
I can recall a recent assertive stance of perspective that was predicated on
self-proclaimed "esoteric" scaffold.. however, I prefer not to mention it,
and in fact ignore it, in preference of this thread which you have created
that has so captured my interest:
Could the answer be language? Humans that are able to communicate to one
another their extreme emotional attachment will surely be more likely to
stick together "through thick and thin" than their unemotional counterparts?
Not sure why, but it just feels right....
I also know that in the few other species besides humans that I am aware of
that build strong emotional attachment: ie Geese and Wolves, when the mate
dies, the other dies without them out of longing or some other equally
tragic emotion, or becomes a social outcast, which surely does NOT
perpetuate the species...
Is this the biosocial precursor you seek? Extreme emotional attachment,
leading to communication (in whatever tongue) said attachment, creating a
self-improving love/attachment feedback loop that helps to ensure the
survival/nurture of offspring more effective than that of offspring raised
by clueless individuals?
This feels right to me, but you must also realize that I'm still operating
on Occidental notions of romantic love, and not on the emmirical evidence of
modern scientific process myself... Please enlighten me!!!!!
Kalkor
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT