Hi Mark
On 03/12/2010 22:08, 118 wrote:
Hi Horse,
Let me first say that you chose rape and murder to expand on the levels. I
will try to keep the discussion within this framework. However, the use of such
examples is one of hyperbole, and tends to be more emotional than rational.
But let's stick to logic. I will address your points below.
First let me say that I chose rape and murder because they are, as I see
it, obvious examples of what you mean by dynamic biological acts and how
they relate to the social level and not for either their emotional
content or for means of hyperbole.
But here's the problem. You make a sweeping (and per MoQ incorrect)
statement that a static social pattern should _never_
dominate a dynamic biological pattern, I give you a counter example and
you then start trying to re-define what is biological, what is social etc.
[Horse]
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 any social pattern.
[Mark]
My point is that rape and murder do not exist at the biological level, they are
social constructs. Let's take the animal world for example (bacteria are a
little more difficult). There is no rape or murder at this level unless we
want to anthropomorphize it. As such, the biological level is not predisposed
to rape and murder, the social
level is. This is an important distinction. Each level creates it's own
reality.
[Horse]
Rape and murder are defined at the social and/or intellectual level and
refer to specific acts of a biological nature. Just because animals
don't have concepts of rape and murder when they have sex and kill
doesn't mean that certain acts of sex and killing by humans are not rape
or murder. I did not mention pre-disposition as you seem to be implying.
And whatever you mean by reality does not preclude specific violent
biological acts which are defined as such.
[Horse]
But acts of rape and murder do. Laws against rape and murder are designed to
deter acts not suppress concepts.
[Mark]
No they do not.
[Horse]
Then please tell me what it is that laws against rape and murder are
designed to deter and/or punish.
[Horse]
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?
[Mark]
Again, rape and murder are social constructs. I am fine with having laws
against them. You are confusing a social projection to the biological level.
The levels are separated by purpose. Rape and murder do not exists at the
biological level, only at the social. As such, the social level is controlling
the social level. I don't know how else to say this.
Rape and murder are socially designated instances of biological acts of
sex and killing. Sex and killing are biological acts and where these
acts occur and how they are performed gives rise to the production of
laws to deter and/or punish in the form of rape and murder laws. Rape
and murder are instances of biological actions given certain conditions.
To say that acts of rape and murder don't occur at the biological level,
when this is exactly where they are defined to occur is nit-picking at
best. So social level laws and definitions are controlling biological
level instances of designated definitions of specific biological acts.
And I could probably say it in a number of other ways, all of which are
counter to your initial statement.
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.
[Mark]
Yes exactly, just like rape and murder are part of the social level. They are
social concepts, which have nothing to do with the purpose of the biological
level. If one wants to create these distinct levels as analogies, it is
important to keep them separate.
[Horse]
Rape and murder constructions or definitions are part of the social
level. What they enclose and are meant to deter are biological acts.
[Mark previously]
This house does not restrict the biological behavior, but enhances it. The same
could be said for laws against rape and murder.
[Horse]
So now rape and murder become enhancements to human behaviour and we should
remove these restrictions for a better life?!?
[Mark]
Well, that is twisting logic completely. No, the laws against such things are
for a better life. I think you would agree with this.
[Horse]
No logic twisting here - just using your words to illustrate your error.
This is the problem when you try and re-define what is social and what
is biological. You end up with logical inconsistencies as suggested.
[Horse]
<SNIP>
[Mark]
<SNIP> I don't want to get into why you consider rape to be a biological
pattern. This does not make intellectual sense.
[Horse]
The whole point of my initial statement was that rape and murder, as
biological instances of socially defined acts, goes against your
statement that social patterns should never dominate biological
patterns. Clearly your statement is wrong.
[Horse]
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.
[Mark]
Yes, I knew it wasn't a good example after I had written it but left it in
there for the anti-Christians in the forum. So, it is more complicated than
simple evolution, granted.
Not quite sure what you mean by simple evolution. Evolution occurs in
different ways at different levels. Evolution as a concept (which can
also evolve) refers to different instances in different contexts. But
that's another subject.
[Horse]
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?
[Mark]
Again you are being somewhat hyperbolic here, for emotional appeal. I have
never said that either should be supported, NEVER. I don't know where you got
that but I do not like where you are taking it in your own mind. Show me where
murder is a biological pattern.
Murder is a definition of a particular biological act of killing which
distinguishes it from other terms which may or may not justify that act.
There is no hyperbole involved here or emotional manipulation any more
than there is when the concept of evolution is used to refer to the idea
of change. To say that murder only exists at the social level is as
inaccurate as to say that evolution only occurs at the intellectual
level because evolution is a concept. That we don't have laws against
evolution is neither here nor there. To say that I am using hyperbole
because I don't agree with your initial statement is disingenuous at best.
[Mark]
Static social patterns grow out of the biological level. The biological level
is about survival. The social level is about the creation of groups of people.
This is not the only thing that the social level is about because if
this were the case then any group of animals or other biological
entities is a social pattern and this is counter to what the MoQ
describes as social patterns of value and the social level. At a
particular point in time humans were not significantly different to
other animals, so at which point can a group of people be described as
part of a social level or social level patterns being part of a group
and what is it that distinguishes this group from any other group of
animals. You are being far too simplistic here. A social level, as per
MoQ, is much more complex than just a group of people.
For the biological level to survive, the social level creates static patterns
and laws. It defines things such as rape and murder. It is not the other way
around. The social
cannot dictate to the biological level, it is a product of it.
And what is it that these definitions of rape and murder refer to? They
refer to biological behaviour and their definition and the enactment of
laws against them. So the rules of the social level are designed to
constrain certain types of biological behaviours or acts. Social
patterns are not meant to affect the means by which the biological level
operates but it can and does regulate the behaviours by which these
means are achieved. Sex and killing as a means to survival is one part
of biological behaviour but where those acts are not for the purpose of
survival they can and are (and should be in many cases) regulated by
social patterns - i.e.laws.
[Mark]
Hope this makes sense. But if you want to keep insinuating that I am for rape
and murder, then I do not see any reason to continue this.
Of course I don't think that. I was just trying to illustrate that what
you are saying can be logically extended in such a way. The problem here
is that your original statement manages to distort a particular aspect
of Pirsigs MoQ in such a way that some take exception to it - myself
included. It's not that I'm against extending and maybe correcting some
parts of the source of the MoQ where it's necessary, but that in some
cases, where you start with a motorbike you end up with a unicycle.
Sure, you can still get from A to B but what's the point? That's how I
see it and I think how a number of other folk on the list see it as
well. Valid extension is fine - corruption is not
This is about levels and their interrelation. Perhaps you should use another
example which is less emotional. How about seat belt laws. Here we are
dictating that the biological desire for freedom should be constrained in a
car. I do not see the social aspect of this. And I don't want to get into
jails and such.
No offence intended Mark but I think this example is fairly trivial in
terms of the inter-relation of levels. I also have no problem with seat
belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws. I think they're common sense. You
get in your car, put your seat-belt on and take it off when you get to
the end of your journey. What's the problem?
Also what's the problem with an example that involves emotion? I'll make
sure I keep out the hyperbole and won't accuse you of supporting
something that you obviously don't. But why not take an example that is
more generalised than specific instances of a particular act. Let's look
at what those acts are part of - i.e. violent behaviour.
Is it right for social patterns of value, such as laws, to dominate
biological patterns of value which involve violence.
Look forward to hearing from you
Cheers
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
