[Will/mark] > To think that our social institutional level is somehow much more > than that > of bees and ants is a bit presumptuous. I'm sure they do > not think so. That they don’t think so (& are unable to do so) is part of the evidence why it is true. [Will/mark] > How is our social institutional level different? Is it because we > use more sounds, create more symbols? Build more complex buildings? > Create languages based on abstract concepts?
You’ve got part of the answer. But complexity is a symptom not the cause. Bees were making complex hives, when humans were making simple mud huts. What has allowed us to pass them by? Our institutions & ideas: language, mathematics, transference of knowledge, etc. [Will/mark] > Are these abstract concepts any different from smell or sight, which > are also an abstract interpretation of an energy of a certain > wavelength or a chemical of a certain structure. Yes, the former are 3 rd or 4 th level, the latter 2 nd level. [Krimel] > In fact Pirsig, mistakenly I think, asserts that the social level is > entirely human as well. > I think it was unfortunate that Pirsig termed the third level as > "social"… Or if he were really as up on anthropology as he claims to > be, he could have used ‘culture'. ’Culture’ doesn’t do it. Even bacteria are immersed in culture. ‘Institutional’ it is. [Ham] > The behaviors exhibited by bees or ants or people reveal nothing of > their thoughts or feelings. This can’t be right. This view leads to solipsism & nihilism. Craig 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/
