Hi Andre
On 2010-08-19 23:12, Andre Broersen wrote:
Magnus to Craig:
Do you see anything about self-sacrifice for the common good like ants do?
Andre:
Self-sacrifice for the common good? Goodness me. Ants thinking in terms
of 'common good' and even better: 'self sacrifice'.
I never said "think".
Magnus, they don't know their arse from a hole in the ground! Are you
serious?
Perhaps not, but they still sacrifice themselves for the common good of
the hill. Built-in or by free choice doesn't really matter, but of
course it's built-in in the case of ants.
But as I also said in the same reply, the fact that some behaviour is
biologically inherited doesn't mean that it is a biological pattern,
which is a reason why I sometimes use the "organic" name for that level
instead.
You seem to forget or rather bypass one of the 'conflicts' between the
biological and the social...the social has more freedom. The ant has
limited freedom to say or think! Do you really believe it is capable of
saying, well, I have had enough of this...enough of this
self-sacrificing, I am emigrating to Australia?
Of course not. The single ant is very statically linked to the anthill
of which it is a member. But the *anthill* has more dynamic freedom than
a single ant, *that's* what counts.
It wouldn't even dream of it because the ant simply is what it, is and
does what it does: anting. Pure, wonderful, lovely, unadulterated biology.
Tell that to a human being: I am (just) being human!!! And what a
fucking shit s/he'll get over this sense of being: to justify, explain,
rectify, rationalize, apologize, generalize, apostatize,and what ever
else you can think of.
When are us humans simply allowed to be-ing?
Not sure what you mean by that? Am I stopping you in some way?
I do think that the MOQ provides us with a means of arguing in favour of
all sentient beings. We have to learn to practice this, as the path is
narrow at present. We have to enable others to experience the liberating
effect of expanding their own reasoning...one by one...as Phaedrus has
shown us.
So Andre, listen now:
I don't deny the reality of the human perspective. That the social level
contains patterns like church, government and all that Pirsig says in
Lila. *But* when you do that, you do that from the human perspective
stack, and within that stack, there are no conflicts because you *can*
regard each human as a biological pattern. But when you leave the human
perspective stack and look at how that human came to be, a whole new set
of levels appears. They aren't really a new set, but I think the MoQ
allows you to focus on one context at a time, and within that context,
you have the levels. If you want more info about stacks, there's a
thread about that about a month ago.
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
