[Craig] Rather the reasoning should go: a) I is better than S b) :. to the extent that I dominates S within a system, that system is better.
Then the discussion can focus on the extent that I does/doesn't dominate S within a particular system. [Arlo] Exactly. There are maladies to allowing lower levels to dominate higher levels, and maladies where higher levels suffocate lower levels. The "key" is finding the right times and degrees the higher level should control. Consider S/B for a moment (instead of I/S). To what extent, and when, should a society dominate/control biological forces? One on hand, without social control, society runs the risk of breaking down if it allows biology to run unrestrained. On the other, too much repression results in a stifled society that begins controlling every aspect of biological behavior. My own opinion is that higher level patterns have moral obligation and right to control when their existence is undermined by lower level patterns, but when this is not the case, they should allow lower level patterns to function without coercion or control, in the interest of maximizing DQ. Take drinking, for a specific example. No social control at all would lead to, if nothing else, dangerous and lethal roads. Too much control takes us to prohibition. Finding a balance that allows people to drink as much as they want up to the point where their actions jeopardize social patterns. Its all about balance. 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/
