Hi Bo
I better wait a few days before replying, otherwise you think it's just "instant
philosophy".
Magnus:
Then perhaps you can tell me what you think is wrong in my reasoning
from my essay? You stuck your head in the sand the last time (22/9).
------------------- snip -------------------------------
And about "former level's limitations", I wrote the below section
about that in my essay. I'd say your "escape from the former level's
limitations" is rather single-minded.
"When levels are compared, they are often seen as opposed to each
other. It's always this combat between the lower and higher levels and
the higher is always supposed to grab the moral victory. But no
thought have ever been given to how the higher level pattern got
started in the first place. For example the social pattern family
would never have been created without the biological pattern lust. But
even so, these two patterns are always described to be in direct
opposition to each other.
Family as a social pattern is dubious. Animals form families in the
most basic sense, at least the mammals necessarily do, but this
mother-child relationship is all biology and so is the male's behavior, it
often kills the the young before it mates with their mother (this varies
wildly of course).
But such reasoning takes us nowhere, except back into the fuzzy level borders
again. I'm simply not interested in discussing "families in the most basic
sense", and what "varies wildly". I want black on white what constitutes a
social level pattern and what not. And you ain't nowhere near that.
It's the same thing when you discuss whether communism or capitalism is this or
that. I for one can't even fathom how anyone could possibly put those two in
*different* levels. It's like placing a horse and a zebra in different levels.
Family in the human klan sense however is definitely social and here
the immense genealological system of kinship begins, something that
lead to ethnicity, f.ex. the Abraham tribe of Israel that became the
Jews, all nonsense in an objective intellectual view, yet most
important socially.
And here's your meta-humanity again. Metaphysically totally irrelevant
mumbo-jumbo. Probably closer to Ham's human-centric ramblings than the MoQ.
It's of course true that lust to another can destroy a family, but it
is often forgotten that this same lust also was the initial spark that
got the family started in the first place.
In biology there is no love, responsibility or guilt of "destroying families"
or anything, it's all about feeding and proliferating. On the Q-social
level - which is human - the control (struggle) with biology is most
clearly expressed as religion (Judaism, Islam and the old
Christendom) and their obsession with sex and nutrition (endless
prescriptions about decent dress, menstruation, animals that can be
used for food, method of slaughter)
The social level is *not* just human! The MoQ is *not* about only humans! You'll
never be able to understand what I'm talking about if you don't let go of that.
And I have no idea how your "answer" addressed the proposition above. I was
talking about lust and you claimed there's no love in biology.?? We have a
Swedish saying "Goddag yxskaft" which literally means "Hi axe handle" but is
used to convey a totally irrelevant reply to a question, which is what I got above.
Please try again. I said that the social pattern family is dependent on the
biological pattern lust. And you replied that the social pattern merely
suppresses the biological.
This is also true for all other social patterns; this is the biological
level setting the stage for the social. They all got started because a
biological urge happened to result in a socially valuable structure.
About society out of biology we all agree, but as soon as the social
level "came of age" it started to control its parent level. There were
other forms of social control thant the said, but all required the basic
realization of existence transcending the individual. "Saving for the
future", "the group's interest" and many more.
Wow, we actually agree on something. I just wish you'd understand that this is
true for all societies as well, not just human ones.
A city got started next to a creek because someone needed the water for
farming, then a hardware store came along to provide tools for the
farmer(s), and then I'll let Mark Knopfler continue with some lines
from "Telegraph Road" by Dire Straits:
Then came the churches then came the schools
Then came the lawyers then came the rules
Then came the trains and the trucks with their loads
And the dirty old track was the telegraph road"
Right, but this is a modern (intellectual) vision of how a community
grows, I don't really know what it is supposed to convey.
It's supposed to show how a biological need (the need for water), was gradually
converted into a society. I.e. no matter how much a society controls and
suppresses biology, it still depends on it. Both to stay alive, but more
importantly to be born in the first place.
Magnus
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/
