Bo > Social value > is not anything that "helps" biology rather tries to suppresss its "dog > eat dog" value.
> I wish I could, but that would leave the MOQ in shambles. [Dave] The problem is that as science moves on, particularly in the biological and brain sciences, the MoQ as it stands is already in shambles. Had RMP just named the levels and left it at that he would have been fine. He also wouldn't have been doing metaphysics. Unfortunately his broad and general rules, ie "discrete", "moral order", "in it's parent's service" etc. etc., start to break down as science finds phenomena which violate those hard and fast rules. As biological science has progressed under people like E.O. Wilson, who invented the field of Sociobiology, the whole paradigm of "dog eat dog" ,"competition is king" model of biology has been thrown out the window. Not completely but it more like 90% cooperation 10% competition instead of the reverse. So as science finds out more and more about symbiotic relationships and the importance of groups and group behavior in biological evolution social (group) behavior comes more and more into play. > Thus "reason > simply means the 4th. level, but this level is not primarily human, to > insisting on its human aspect is like insisting on the biological level's > carbon aspect. Admittedly, carbon is life's building block, but not its > value, likewise the human society is intellect's building block, but not > its value. Remember from LILA about "...Lila does not have value, > value has Lila". I seem to recall someone railing against RMP's "Zen statements" like, "Lila does not have value, value has Lila". > rather the [human] society > having reached a stage when a "leisure class" could spend their days > thinking i.e. let their intelligence roam outside the immediate needs, > this lead to questions about some reality beyond the traditional mythological >fundament, about an eternal, imperishable (objective) > reality independent of (subjective) opinion. Ok I see how your claims fit your argument. The problem is they don't fit reality or the MoQ. >[ZaMM 161] > To do that required still another backup into the huge area that relates both > metaphysics and everyday life...namely, formal reason. How is it that "formal reason" that RMP says I use in "everyday life" is not "human?" I somehow used this "formal reason" for nearly 50 years before I even heard about these Greeks with roaming intelligence. Clearly if my thinking had not risen to their level, the intellectual level, as you claim, then RMP is wrong to say that I used "formal reason" in my everyday life. But he's not! And you are! "Formal Reason" the power of the intellect to collect knowledge and manipulate it in numerous useful ways emerged long before Plato was a glimmer in his papa's eye. I sometimes wonder if most of problems of understanding reality are primarily created by people who read and write philosophy. >[Lila 51] > Henri Poincare, who asked, 'Why is the reality most acceptable to science one > that no small child can be expected to understand?' > Should reality be something that only a handful of the world's most advanced > physicists understand? One > would expect at least a majority of people to understand it. Should reality be > expressible only in symbols that require university-level mathematics to > manipulate? Should it be something that changes from year to year as new > scientific theories are formulated? Should it be something about which > different schools of physics can quarrel for years with no firm resolution on > either side? If this is so then how is it fair to imprison a person in a > mental hospital for life with no trial and no jury and no parole for 'failing > to understand reality'? By this criterion shouldn't all but a handful of the > world's most advanced physicists be locked up for life? Who is crazy here and > who is sane? Remember this? What your interpretation basically says is that until each and every human alive on this planet has risen to the level of intellectual capability of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle et al they: 1. Do not have an intellect. (ie the power to use reason) 2. Do not understand reality and have not evolved to the intellectual level. Boy, the MoQ sure has made great progress under your guidance. Dave 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/
