[MD] Food for Thought

[Michael Hamilton]

DMB,

you said:
> Its not that I'm married to the term "opposition" and I'd
> exchange it for another if you insist.

I've just got emancipation on the brain at the moment. I'm reading
"Empire and Emancipation" by J. Nederveen Pieterse, and I like the way
emancipation ties in with the evolutionary opening-up to DQ in the
MOQ.

> But maybe that would just be a
> semantic paint job because it seems incorrect to exclude the notion that the
> levels are, at least sometimes, in conflict with each other. I mean, we are
> talking about different categories of values, that pretty much means that by
> definition the levels have different aims and purposes, or... different
> values. The names; inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, are the
> labels for those categories. So I'm just saying the distinctions between
> them can be discerned by examining how and where they conflict. This is
> where the differences are on display, so to speak. The difference between
> biological quality and social quality is easy to see in the prohibitions
> against adultry, for example. This is where we find the two in conflict with
> each other. The body "thinks" its the greatest thing in the world whether
> its happening with that body's wife or not, so to speak. But that sort of
> greatness is in conflict with the social level institutions of marriage and
> family. Those values are at odds with nookie on the side and that sort of
> physical good, especially if it's Kate Beckinsale on the side.

Mmmmmm. Agreed.

Homing in on "opposition" is handy for the distinguishing-levels
project. I think it's also handy to bear emancipation in mind, with
its DQ connotations, so we know what kinds of opposition we're looking
for.

> Michael said:
> Okay, ... how about the division of labour in primitive human societies?
> ...Such social organisation undoubtedly advances the survival of the
> species. One isolated human has less chance of meeting his basic biological
> needs than as part of a well-organised group. So society is a great
> biological strategy, but it has to mollify competitive biological instincts
> in order to achieve its aims. In the long run, emancipation is beneficial to
> the receding level as well as the emerging one.
>
> dmb says:
> I agree with all of that, except for the notion that society is a biological
> strategy. There is little doubt about the idea that social organization
> improves our chances for survival and generally makes it easier to satisfy
> to organism's needs. And I think its quite right to think of this as a
> liberation from the laws of the jungle. Nasty brutish and short, as
> whatshisname said. I just don't think its correct to think of the division
> of labor or the development of language and culture as a feature of
> biological processes.

Right, okay. I was interpreting "society is a biological strategy" as
"society is a good strategy for biological patterns", which we agree
on. But society isn't encoded in DNA, I guess. Even if it does get a
bit mixed up after a few millenia of social/biological co-evolution,
it's worth keeping the distinction between biological jungle-law
processes and social values.

> As I understand it, social values transcend mere
> instinct and brute force, those forces that rule herds and packs. Even at
> the rudimentary level of our primitive ancestors, I think its pretty clear
> we're talking about a very different kind of consciousness. I don't mean to
> disrespect the wolves. They are a freakin miracle, but they don't paint
> pictures of us on cave walls, you know? They don't tell their little pups
> scary stories about our big teeth.

I think we could say that the social patterns of value in a wolf-pack
are mainly in the service of biological patterns of value. I suspect
there might be a tiny bit of mollifying involved in maintaining the
group, but I dunno really.

> Anyway, this "mollifying" process is
> pretty much what I had in mind all along. In fact, I used that term once or
> twice already.

Yeah, I nicked it from ya.

> Normally I'd love to disagree but I just don't think there's much to go on
> here.
>
> Darn.

I might have some more contentious stuff gestating. 'Til next time!

Regards,
Mike