Hi Mark
On 02/12/2010 17:41, 118 wrote:
Hi Horse,
<SNIP>
So, I come to the example which you question below. The supposition is that
the biological level has a dynamic predisposition towards rape and murder.
No, the supposition is that there are certain biological behaviours
(such as rape and murder and many others) which are correctly
proscribed by the social patterns of laws. This does not mean that ALL
biological behaviours are proscribed or that the biological level is
pre-disposed towards rape and murder. You appear to be addressing
something I did not say. My question was in response to your statement
that no dynamic biological behaviour should ever be proscribed by and
social pattern.
I do not believe that this is a correct interpretation.
It seems that you may be responsible for the misinterpretation.
If anything, it is the social level that produces such things. The concepts of
rape and murder do not exist at the biological level.
But acts of rape and murder do. Laws against rape and murder are
designed to deter acts not suppress concepts.
The social level creates its own static patterns to guide social dynamic
behavior. While there is not a clean break between levels, the introduction of
a new purpose or paradigm creates the difference. This new reason for being
should not be conceptualized as a static restriction.
An act is different to a concept. The act of rape or murder is
proscribed by the Social level in the form of laws. Laws are static
patterns of value. The laws against rape and murder are social static
patterns designed to guide and prevent certain specific biological
patterns of behaviour - dynamic actions as you have described them.
Are you really saying that it would be more moral to remove social
impediments to biological behaviours such as rape and murder?
The development of a new level springs from the level below. For example,
the social behavior of family. If the primary goal (to use an
anthropomorphic concept) of the biological level is to exist through dynamic
alteration in response to the environment, then such existence may depend on
the building of a house.
The building of a house or group of houses would be a social pattern, as
per human social behaviour to stay warm and protected - the building of
nests, as per avian behaviour is to provide a place to lay eggs etc.
This house does not restrict the biological behavior, but enhances it. The
same could be said for laws against rape and murder.
So now rape and murder become enhancements to human behaviour and we
should remove these restrictions for a better life?!?
The static is dependent on the dynamic at all times. The same could be said
for the social and intellectual levels.
In the paradigm of evolution, once the static dominates, the species dies
off.
In biological evolution this - stagnation - may be the case in certain
circumstances, e.g. the changing of a habitat to which the biological
pattern is unable to adapt. It also provides stability during which the
biological patterns may thrive and grow whilst the habitat is also
stable. Stability and stagnation are not the same thing. Stable social
patterns enable biological patterns to thrive in many cases and acts
such as rape and murder undermine this social stability and result in
the destruction of biological patterns. Hence the need for many social
patterns to dominate certain biological patterns.
As an example, if the Christian doctrine of no premarital sex was
strictly followed, eventually non-Christian religions would dominate the
world.
Or there would be lots more marriages and lots of children within those
marriages and they would thrive and over-run the other religions. Islam
has way more strict laws against sex before or outside marriage and they
seem to be doing OK in terms of population.
In the same way, if the intellectual static concept of preventing
overpopulation were to be enforced, those populations would eventually be
replaced.
When a species multiplies to the point that it is unable to find or
create sufficient food and shelter it also dies. Preventing
overpopulation prevents this. Preventing overpopulation does not
preclude enabling sufficient population.
<SNIP>
The static has no power over the dynamic. This is the principle of the Tao
(to bring in another philosophy). This does not diminish the concept of
levels, it provides a slightly different paradigm perhaps.
Static social patterns do have power over biological patterns - both
stable and active - using various methods and some of these methods are
evolutionary - i.e. they have evolved in response to certain biological
behaviours and are stable.
Where does the Tao state or indicate that rape and murder should be
supported and laws against these actions should be removed as you are
suggesting?
Horse
Mark
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Horse<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Mark
This one caught my eye in your response to Arlo.
On 02/12/2010 04:31, 118 wrote:
[Mark]
Again I would have to equivocate. But, to provide you with an answer, I would
say that what is termed a static social pattern should never dominate a dynamic
biological pattern.
So would you say that it is wrong for a static social pattern, such as a
law, to dominate certain biological patterns?
F.ex. Laws against rape and murder (and let's not forget pillage and
plunder - always favourites in the old days!).
These laws (social patterns) are quite static, going back centuries, but
the acts they are designed to prevent are dynamic biological acts, in the
sense that I believe you are using the term.
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
