comment below:
> "Societies" is used figuratively here as a more
> colorful word meaning
> "groups." If I had known it would be taken
> literally as evidence that
> cells belong in the social level I would not have used it.
> Maybe in a
> future edition it can be struck out. One can also call ants
> and bees
> "social" insects, but for purposes of precision
> in the MOQ social patterns
> should be defined as human and subjective. Unlike cells
> and bees and ants
> they cannot be detected with an objective scientific
> instrument. For
> example there is no objective scientific instrument that
> can distinguish
> between a king and commoner, because the difference is
> social. (SODV Note
> 49)
i don't quite buy it, with respect to bob and yourself and all. i think bees
and ants are examples of an overarching social principle that organises
individual units...if ya get my drift. whether or not the difference is in
dress or morphology.
aren't we talking of, at least, prototypic societies, with regard to bees and
ants? what of the collective consciousness of geese etc - birds that fly in
perfect formation - as one unit? what is going on there? doesn't that suggest
some sort of social/group mind?
Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search.
www.yahoo7.com.au/search
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
