[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

[dmb]
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.

[Mike]
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.


[Case]
I agree with much of what dmb say here. We should pay attention when the
levels seem at odds. But if you look at the various social patterns that
have evolve in nature and those expressed in human society there are
striking similarities. 

Some species/societies are monogamist. 
Some are polygamous.
Some are matriarchies. 
Some are patriarchies.

Typically for both the species and the societies environmental issues
determine the pattern that works. Among humans this diversity of social
expression serves the same function that it does for wolf pack or a bee
hive. It assures the survival of the next generation.

In evolution "oppositions" may be interesting to look at but they tend to
fall away. I find the similarities more interesting. 

[dmb saids:]
> 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 brutis
> 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.

[Mike]
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.

[Case]
But division of labor and development of language clearly are features of
biological processes. Division of labor is a property of insect societies.
Wolf packs show it too. Language find analogs in all kinds of animal
communicative behavior from honey bees to prairie dogs. It is seen to one
degree or another in our nearest living relatives. Chimpanzees communicate
socially with gestures and vocalization. There is evidence of coordinated
social behaviors in our most distant ancestors. 

There is some question about how and at what point human social interaction
begins to influence human evolutionary development but clearly it does. What
I am suggesting is that the intellectual level begins with language,
formally spoken and written.

Spoken language has been around a long time. Cave paintings dating from
30,000 years ago certainly suggest a spoken language. Rather than being a
liberation from the law of the jungle, societies are accommodations to it.

Language is of evolutionary significance because it is the beginning of
shared memory. It begins a process of accumulation, storage and transmission
of shared history, collective consciousness if you like, that culminates in
the present day with the internet.

The question isn't really is human society a product of biological evolution
but how and why did it change so radically with the invention of
agriculture? This is the point were ideas begin to have a large scale impact
on behavior.

[dmb]
> 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.

[Mike]
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.

[Case]
Human social patterns evolve in service to biological patterns as well.
Consciousness as dmb describes it exists only to the extent that is serves
biological ends. It seems to have produced tool use more than two million
years ago. I would suggest this flexibility of consciousness is adaptive
because of it gives selective advantage to those who have it. But it really
didn't affect much until about 10,000 years ago.

There are still scattered enclaves of people living similar lifestyles
today. Their numbers are dwindling but their majority status only became
threatened when people started taking notes.