Krimel, I first evolved this particular shade of thinking, about a year ago in a response to a dialogue with you.
So I'm damn glad to get some feedback, at last. Be patient, there's a lot to disentangle. [John] > I'd argue that the true aspect of social patterning takes a self/other > realization that is more than instinctual or hardwired. Every bee seems to > react exactly like ever other bee, without choice. > > [Krimel] > Many human to human interactions especially social ones are heavily > hardwired, emotional displays and our responds to those displays in others, > for example. > > It is not true that bees "react exactly like every other bee, without > choice". John: Well you did notice the "seems to", dincha? A range of variation in bee behavior must occur, or there wouldn't be an evolutionary continuum of different bees. But they are all of a sameness within the hive, due to the mechanics of their reproductive strategy in a much more marked way than mammals with their sexy, dynamic choice-style reproductive strategy. This difference of degree is so great, that I feel it's proper and useful to make a distinctifying cut between level 2 and level 3 patterning. As to your first one, I've had a strongly held disagreement about that assertion from day one. I think it's an unexamined assumption, carried over from our culture, without any real facts or evidence to back up the claim. I'm talking about your statement that the reactions of humans are hardwired. It's hardwired to pick up and gun and shoot your wife for cheating on you? How does the complex decision process to buy, load, aim and shoot, come encoded in dna? Huh? You could say that the reaction of anger, the emotion itself is hardwired, but I'd point out that only the expression of the emotion is biological. The source, the creation of all emotion, is rooted in caring for a socially defined self. If we turned off all caring about self in a person, they'd become automatons without affect, without emtional displays. And the fact is, these emotional displays that you claim are hardwired, are extremely variable throughout cultures everywhere. Inuits don't emote like the Scotch Irish, who are different than Italians and Japanese. It just SEEMS hardwired in a way, to the individuals confronting a differing culture. In that moment, it seems like the other person is reacting or emoting "unnaturally". But all emotions stem from 3rd level patterning, and while experienced with biological affirmations, hunger, adrenaline, heart-pounding sweaty palms "does she glance up at me and smile today?" They arise from social interaction and they express in social interaction. Running from a bear is a social interaction. This is true because very, very rarely do bears chase humans because they are hungry. Bears chase humans because they are mad, defensive or defending territory. > Not sure what choice adds but bees respond differently to worker > bees and queens and to bee from "other" hives, same with ants. Slime mold > respond to members of "other" colonies differently than to their own. > > Your first four words here are the most instructive. I believe you Krimel. You are not sure what choice adds. Well let me tell you then. Choice adds Quality. Without choice, there can be no Quality. Of course, this gets back to the heart of the big issue. Moronists don't believe in choice, right? We have this problem still. > Social behavior and collective action is a biological strategy. It arises > from and serves biological success. I completely refute your anthropomorphic use of "biological strategy". Strategy, if anything is only intellectual. And even simple matters such as "cause and effect" are nothing except intellectual constructs. Coupling any intellectuality with biological puts us right back where you don't wanna go. I mean, calling it "intellectual design" wouldn't make you happy either, right? I've said before, I'm not a fan of the bottom-up hierarchical model, so oft employed as "moqese". The upper levels are much more creative of lower-level patterning, than lower-level patterning spontaneously combusts into an upper. Life takes inorganic matter, and rearranges it mechanically and chemically. Societies form to protect and breed and bring more biological beings into the herd, to train them, socialize them, and be successful at hunting prey, driving away competitors and passing on a legacy. Intellectual patterns take the reins of society, and steer in different directions through the means of academia, art and culture. Everywhere, the creation on the lower level comes as the result of some cause or action on an higher. Now I know this sorta sucks, because it plays into the hands of theistic conception by analogy, of the big mover in the sky, above it all and playin' us all like cards. But I think there is great value in "not going there" due to problems in our culture from the type of people who think that way, and how they're gonna construe. And honestly? Hey, it's a choice, theism. It's a pattern of value and one that in many ways, got us to where we are today. Kudos. But is it our only choice? I mean, we have to see things as they are, but when we conceptualize that beyond our realm, we're just playing games, right? Sorry to get sidetracked... What's the thread heading here? Oh. I'm not sidetracked at all. I'm right on topic, without even tryin'. I am so cool. I'll just wind this aspect up. I really respect something I read by Royce, the Religious Aspect of Philosophy, about the important differences between religion and philosophy. He didn't put it in MoQ terms, he didn't point out an intellectually-guided endeavor and a socially-guided one. But rather, he delineated them in individual experience, which we all share. This is mostly what Philosophers do. Philosophy has to be free of dogma, its the most important difference, whereas religion is nothing without it. Religion really is social, and philosophy really is intellectual and individual. Its the goal of religion, to bind-together. Ellul says re-ligere means just that, but he's french, what does he know. It sure means it in practice. They both have their roles. Religion keeps us all on the same page. We're giving out signals to one another, that make it safe to co-exist with such dangerous animals in close proximity. Religion assuages this fear, this need. Philosophy makes sure it's the right page. Philosophy questions and probes and looks for weakness and challenges. You need both, I'm pretty sure, to make a successful society. And if you throw out religion, what are you gonna replace it with, hmmm? I mean, humanity has basically gotten to this point, always with religious underpinnings. Throwing it out the window, the way we have, is basically jumping off a cliff into the unknown. I don't think you're gonna be such a fan of chaos, Krimel, when it's hammering at your door with torches and guns in the form of hungry mob/gangs. John 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/md/archives.html
