> [Michael]
> All I'm saying is that it appears we have shown it quite clear that
> for a human "new pattern" social patterns layer onto the initial "new
> pattern" biological pattern. The social patterns we (you and I) have
> identified so far are those of the involved parents; biological
> mother, birth mother, biological father.
>
> [Arlo]
> Sure, and the grandparents, and family friends, and you could
> reasonably extend the social patterning a bit further. I'm agreeing
> with you, I'm just saying that drawing a line at "the involved
> parents" is somewhat arbitrary as well. Let's just say we agree that
> social patterns layer onto the biological pattern at some point,
> typically (I'd argue) at the time of awareness, and that these
> (often) strengthen with time.
MP: Arlo, absolutely. I don't in any way mean to "draw the line" at the
parents,
etc. The only line I would draw is the one at conception. The rest is layers
upon
layers. The parents are major initial layer-ers. That's all.
> [Michael]
> I hate to add a wrinkle in here, but I think it is worth asking
> before we move on if patterning of the "new pattern" can be said to
> exist in advance of conception...
>
> [Arlo]
> Ask it like this, let's say you and your wife learned she was
> pregnant. For the next few weeks you began the preparations, started
> that whole abstraction-potential stuff, maybe even picked out a
> name,
> talked to your friends about "your child", etc. Then let's say you
> learned that it was an error (lawsuit aside), that she never was
> pregnant in the first place. Ask, were those social/intellectual
> patterns that were created not real?
>
> Or, let's say an infertile couple plans for their child while
> undergoing fertility treatment. There is a host of social patterns,
> real patterns, that often exist independently of the biological
> pattern. But yes, with regards to this discussion, some lines have
> to
> be drawn somewhere, and I'd say that "conception" for the beginning
> point of the created biological pattern is likely the best pragmatic
> choice (for when the organism begins).
MP: Good examples. I think that settles it, conception is the earliest point at
which one can say the pattern begins. I think its worth adding only that once
that biological pattern begins, pre-conception patterns can come into play, but
those pre-conception patterns cannot be considered "new pattern" until the
biological pattern actually starts. Yes?
> [Arlo]
> YOU are making an assumption here, and
> that is those advocating the immorality of conception are advocating
> this on considerations of the biological patterns involved.
MP: No, I'm not. I made no such assumption. I am investigating what MoQ can
tell us about morality on this issue and am asking questions not making
statements. If you can't treat this as an investigation, and will keep falling
back
to defending a position, it is pointless.
> [Arlo]
> These are other arguments, to be sure, but the point is
> that you made a statement about what the MOQ would say ("there is no
> immediate and obvious immorality to preventing a pregnancy") based
> on
> an erroneous assumption.
>
> How on earth do you take offense at that? Really. I'm not sure how
> you read "personal opinion and bias" into that.
MP: You injected opinionated statements about why some people do or believe
certain things about morality. You may be right about "some" but your statement
more than implied "all" think this way. You are wrong. And if you were using
this
to make a logical point, I am asking that you stick to making logical arguments
instead of using opinionated statements (and then blatantly factually erroneous
ones) to make your point.
> [Michael]
> We (you and I) have managed, I think, a few simple, but significant
> MoQ isolations;
> 1) conception is the initiating point of the "new pattern"
> 2) biological patterning is the only initial patterning at and
> shortly after initiating point
> 3) social patterning comes into play rather soon, mostly in the form
> of "potentializing" by several specific factors: biological mother,
> birth mother, biological father.
> 4) as the new pattern progresses in time, lack of social patterning
> in no way diminishes or negates the biological patterning going
> on.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, again with three I think you are being overly limiting. The
> social patterning involves a web of people, maybe the ones you
> mentioned (maybe not always), but also other such as grandparents,
> friends, loved ones, other children, etc.
MP: I'm not *limiting* to those Arlo, I'm just getting STARTED with those.
We've
managed by my count four. We have a million to go. Its going to be hard
enough to do this, but it will be impossible if you keep jumping ahead or
imposing opinion not backed by a thorough vetting against what we've
accomplished.
I'm sensing this repeatedly with your responses. I am trying to take a step by
step approach. One step at a time. Latch each step. We've managed a few
initial ones, and those will stand as foundations for the next ones. But MAN.
You gotta open that mind to allow for the process to play out. You gotta stop
jumping ahead to what your opinion yells in your ear while we do this.
> [Michael]
> I'm asking if you would agree if based on what we have established so
> far it would be safe to say that MoQ morality would not have invitro
> as immoral simply because many initiated biological new patterns die
> off as part of the process of assuring one survives? Would you say
> that it is safe to say such a practice is not immoral in MoQ terms? I
> think so. And if you do, we have progress.
>
> [Arlo]
> We have progress if I agree with you? Hmm...
MP: Sigh. No Arlo. We have progress if *we* agree. If you do not agree with the
4 points then lets backtrack and discuss. Seems to me you agreed with each of
those as did I, that's why I listed them.
> Knowing
> the organism in your uterus is the result of a rape may cause the
> mother's socially patterning to be quite different than what it
> would be otherwise.
MP: Exactly. Socially, both parents impose patterning on the new pattern. Even
if its bad patterning. That's all I'm saying.
> My point is many times the father absconds, and has no
> interest or concern or investiture in the organism. While his
> absence
> may alter/effect the mother's behavior, the only social patterning
> surrounding that organism are those of the mother (and other
> involved, active parties- grandparents, neighbors, etc.)
MP: Yes, of course. My point is that you are weeks and months ahead of any
point in time in which we (or I am suspecting only I) are still discussing. I'm
only
days into the term of the new pattern.
> [Michael]
> A child will ask "who's my daddy?" and the answer is social
> patterning no matter who the daddy was.
>
> [Arlo]
> You just made a HUGE leap from an invitro organism to a socialized
> child. I can't speak for all adopted children, or children who were
> abandoned by a biological parent, but I'd say that the social
> patterning made by the parties involved (adoptive father, etc.) is
> what makes the child. Deadbeat dads can take credit for producing a
> biological organism, for sure, but in the evolution of that organism
> to "human" the play no part.
MP: Shit man. Yes, of course. Stop presuming what I'm saying or why I'm
saying it. What you say in apparent attempt at contradiction only proves my
point. Even a day into a pregnancy, the social patterning that is in place (a
rape,
a teen's mistake, etc.) almost immediately define that pattern. That is all I'm
saying. Yes, by the time the child says "who's my daddy" a quintillion other
patterns have come into play, this is obvious. But the simple fact is that
almost
immediately after the biological patterning begins, arguably the moment it
does,
so does social patterning. And while other patterning LATER (ok? LATER) may
completely cover over such initial patterning, such initial patterning can
still be
fundamental to the new pattern even as an adult. Yes?
MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."
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/
