Hi Magnus 5 Oct.you wrote:
> I better wait a few days before replying, otherwise you think it's > just "instant philosophy". ;-) Bo before: > > 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. I may fail your ideal demands, but if the animal "family" is a social LEVEL pattern then all meaning is gone.By "varying wildly" I mean that the biological level varies from plants to the said mammal organism and nowhere inside this level does the social level appear. I'm aghast what mess you create. Try to understand the level-as-freedom-from - the-previous level tenet, it's the core of the MOQ. > 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. About communism and capitalism I agree. You must read my posts before throwing yourself at the keyboard. > > 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. Meta-humanity, please elaborate. > > 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. Need we start in the kindergarten at each post? The inorganic and biological levels are definitely pre-human (human in the primate sense) and social value may have had a long sojourn in service of biology (ape and humanoid colonies) but as a Quality level it arrived with the Homo Sapiens. > 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. That saying is actually from a Norwegian folk tale. Regarding the term "love". In all languages it indicates something different (emotional) from the pure biological sexual drive (sensation) where a female in heat can't care less what male "serves" her, and the male is just as indifferent what female secretes the smell. > 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. About the social level out of the biological the MOQ is adamant, also that it was in biology's service protecting life. But somehow group mentality got out of biological control and the individual organism had to sacrifice its "lusts", for instance the sexual one. No longer could a male roam freely among the females, the human family, tribe and klan was established and as told before these more sophisticated social patterns (the Semitic type religions) are obsessed with controlling sex and women. > > 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. All organisms needs water but no animal societies spring up around water sources, they drink and wander away to satisfy other needs. About the social level being dependent on the biological, i.e. all societies consisting of organisms belonging to the species called "Homo Sapiens" is plain. > Both to stay alive, but more importantly to be born in the first place. True. Bo 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/
