Hi Bo
On 2010-08-16 10:28, [email protected] wrote:
Magnus:
That's my kind of question. I just formulate it a bit more specific,
such as: If it's generally accepted that it is social value that made
people live in groups, specialize in different tasks, build villages
and even walls around them to protect them from the biological dangers
of the wilderness, Then why call the same things made by cells,
gathering into groups, specialize in different tasks, and build
protective shells around them to protect from biological danger,
anything less?
The cell membrane = village wall comparison is flawed because the
higher level is not about protecting against the lower. Social morals is
about rising above - transcending - biology's "jungle" morals and every
single social pattern is about disciplining one's (and other people's)
biological instincts (for the sake of the common cause) Unless one
looks at things from the MORAL, VALUE, QUALITY perspective the
levels will be a mess and the borders arbitrary.
Higher levels are usually not about protecting against lower, no. But in
the case of early social development I think that's a crucial first
step, otherwise the surrounding biological wilderness will devour the
socially transcending inhabitants inside the wall. That's simply the
wall's task, to protect the ones inside so they can specialize in their
tasks, for the sake of the common cause as you say.
I have never lost track of the moral, value or quality perspectives when
I investigate the levels. Can you point to the opposite?
Dan's question:
If social patterns are not intellectual, how do we discriminate them
from other patterns?
Non-plussed me. Where has he got the "social as intellectual" notion
from. He does not speak to me so maybe you Magnus can tell - you
say you agree with him.
Well, I didn't agree with much of his initial post, which is why I
replied in the first place. But then he asked a very intriguing
question, but it wasn't the one you asked about here. Let's see...
Perhaps it's the same conundrum John and I contemplated yesterday? Dan
may assume that human intellect is required to initially setup a
society? But if a society can just arrange itself, how is that different
from biology?
As you see, I don't know what Dan meant either. Probably because we're
simply too far apart when discussing the social level, or any level.
That became apparent a few weeks ago when I had some questions regarding
the comments in Lila's Child.
Magnus
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
