Very well Andre, I will accede to your request: John: I think you need to rethink your thought that I need to think about re-thinking.
Andre: I did and ask you to think again about re-thinking your thoughts about the necessity of your re-thinking. John prev: > > There's a big difference between hunger and starvation. When starvation > enters the picture, all procreation ceases. > > Andre: > Heya John, of course you are correct, but I was putting the difference > within the context of having a choice. You do not and within your context > (starve or procreate) one would do well to get one's priorities right > (within the same level) and get some energy before committing oneself to the > deed...I mean, there is (socially) nothing more lame than being determined > (as Axel Rose was by his ex) of being lousy in bed. > John: Did you mean Axel was too skinny to get it up? Could be. He sure was a mean-spirited bastard, when it came to women, from what I've heard. But mainly, I was trying to differentiate between biological drives and social. Sex is social, simply by the terms of agreement with other that must be created first. Ever watched horses breed? What I noticed most, is how careful the stallion is to get the mare in the mood, with tongue caresses and nuzzling. Even though his biological drive is powerful, without some socialization he's likely to get kicked in a place that puts him out of commission forever. John: > But Motherhood is a process, and it's primarily a social > process. Of course there are biological components of motherhood! As > there > are inorganic components of motherhood. But when we talk about what level > a > pattern is exhibiting, we should label it by the most sophisticated pattern > apparent. > > Andre: > Must insist John, we talk about the 'mammalian', nurturing process which I > think is organic, it is biological. As 'time' progresses this process > evolves into the 'weaning off', the 'socializing' process. Can we agree on > this? It needs to 'learn to follow closely' (your words). This learning is > social level stuff. > John: Ok. If by "organic nurturing process" you mean the production of milk by the mother, and the hunger of the young one, then I see your point and agree that those factors are the underlying biological patterns driving the two into a social arrangement. You'll also see a lot of messing around and missing, especially in inexperienced mothers, until the two get comfortable with satisfying these biological urges and this constitutes social learning. And of course I agree that the weaning is even more strongly socializing - although there too there is an underlying biological imperative on the part of the mother, who needs to get ready for the next breeding cycle. So all we mammals have these biologically driven urges and functions, but we must experiment a bit and create agreement in order to have these urges satisfied. Therein is the interplay between biological drives, and social learning. In much the same way, on the intellectual/social borders we have social urges to fit into the group, or stand out from the crowd and be noticed, that we use our intellect to satisfy. We think of smart things to say, or figure out what everybody else thinks and ponder how to concord. While the absolute experience in the moment is one, it's useful to abstract out which patterns are doing what. And underlying the urge to socialize, are biological needs for warmth, food and sex. So what I'm saying is, this way of relating to others emotionally, that mammals posses, is the kindergarten of the third level of being, and ignoring this commonality we share with the mammals, is ignoring the roots of our own sociability. Thanks much Andre, (social nice) It seems agree (intellectual) Take care, 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
