Quote , DMB That's the problem with reductionism. It reduces the object of inquiry to something else and so effectively eliminates the subject matter in question. 2010/8/18 david buchanan <[email protected]>
Wel , this caught my eye , Dave, this sentence , it contains more than on first sight ,very interesting. Should make people think,i think. Adrie. > 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 > -- parser 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
