Krimel said:
Odd, it seems arrogant to me to assume that much of anything about us is
radically different than what we see in other species. We are a product of
natural selection and the same rules apply to us as to every other species.
Comparing our social manifestations to that of other species, looking at how
they arise from similar conditions and serve similar functions seems, what the
word I am looking for... natural. On the other hand assuming that we are unique
seems to me, what's that other word... supernatural.
dmb says:
The line between the social and biological is as supernatural and as the line
between biological and inorganic. To say human society is no different than an
ant colony or a pack of wolves is to reduce one level of reality to the simpler
one from which it emerged. Before you jump to conclusions, this is not to say
that there are no similarities or that we can't learn anything from them. I'm
just saying that explaining social behavior in terms of its biological
antecedents distorts the social behavior in question. It would be like
explaining biological reproduction in the terms of physics or chemistry.
Physics can illuminate biology but the fact is they play by different rules.
Obviously, Pirsig did not invent this distinction. The MOQ's levels add a
little something to distinctions that are otherwise already widely recognized
and employed, even in the way we distinguish between scientific disciplines.
Pirsig only adds to this by saying that the levels do not simply grow from s
imple to complex but rather they actually oppose each other in some way. There
is a qualitative difference, he says, such their differences can actually
create conflict. It's an evolutionary explanation of moral struggle. Among
other things, it's supposed to show what's underneath our notions of good and
evil, progress and decline, growth and decay. It's supposed to show how we can
be amateur philosophers and features of the food chain at the same time - and
what the differences are.
Plato was operating within the rules of physics and was a member of the food
chain. But if you say he was JUST a feature of the biosphere, you have
definitely left some important things out of your explanation. That's the
problem with reductionism. It reduces the object of inquiry to something else
and so effectively eliminates the subject matter in question.
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
