[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Case said:
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.

dmb says:
I understand what you mean and agree that there are striking similarities. 
But I'd argue that they only make for apt analogies. I mean, if bugs and 
animals aren't actually married then words like monogamy only describe 
reproductive behaviour and not a social arrangement. Nobody ever threw rice 
at a pair of fish coming out of a church and squirrels don't make promises 
about fidelity. At least, not the one's I know. The squirrels around here 
are total sluts. We're talking green eyeshadow on the females and speedos on 
the males. And they don't even swim!

Case also said:
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.

dmb says:
Well, the old function of procreation doesn't go away, of course. But the 
social structures like marriage and family are about making sure that 
happens within certain limits. This most vital biological imperitive is 
sanctioned and controlled by these institutions. Holy matrimony and all 
that. You know, many cultures even give it divine sanction and otherwise 
give it an eternal, cosmic dimension. This is a long way from rams slamming 
their heads together or birds signing their horny songs.

Case said:
>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.

dmb says:
Again, I think the similarities are striking enough to make these analogies 
sound and useful, but they are just analogous and not identical. The 
biological patterns remain even as social and intellectual layers are added, 
and the social institutions that have evolved did grow out of these 
biological structures. We still use those unconscious forms of 
communication, facial expression, tone, posture and such. Maybe we call it a 
vibe or and instinct or that unspoken language of the eyes. Whatever. We all 
know how animals talk on that level cause we are animals and we do it every 
day. But the spoken word as we know it is so much more highly manipulable 
and versatile than grunts and screams that comparing the two becomes 
implausible. Not the grunts and screams. They're comparable enough. In bed 
they're practically interchangable with growls and giggles and other 
expressive vocalizations, especially if Kate Beckinsale is involved, but the 
point is that great literature is entirely different from a howl, a growl or 
a squeak even if it emerged from that sort of thing. We need the voice box 
and the exceptionally articulate human tongue, the highly sensitive fingers 
to work a pen. All these biological abilities are harnessed and developed 
into something that transcends biology. Story telling, for example, is not 
about intimidating a rival or attracting a mate. They're not designed to 
help anyone find food, to alert others to pending danger or any of the other 
things that are accomplished by communcative behaviour in the wild. They are 
about transmitting values, morals, models of acceptable behaviour, 
depictions of amazing accomplishments, a sense of community and such. Here's 
where we have to stop talking about barking dogs and start talking about the 
formation of culture, of an intersubjective space, the comprehesion of 
meaning rather than just perception of sight and sound. I just don't see how 
it could be correct to say these realities, even the simplest of myths or 
stories in the most basic of languages, are biological. I mean, I think we 
know these various levels of communication exist from our own experience, 
no? Something like a growl will cause a physiological response so that we 
know what it "means" right away on a sub-verbal level. And it has a whole 
different feel , an entirely different set of rules. We dislike bullies 
because they are reverting to that old way of deciding who's boss, when the 
biggest, meanest dude was king. We put people in jail for that shit now, 
thank god, but we all know what its like from the playgrounds of youth, no? 
We all know what its like to send signals to members of the opposite sex and 
otherwise play that ancient game, no? (Kate Beckinsale springs to mind again 
for some reason) Anyway, either you know exactly what I'm talking about here 
or you have my deepest sympathy.

I gotta go. There's a squirrel on my back porch and she has that certain 
look in her eye. You know, like I'm nuts.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
WIN up to $10,000 in cash or prizes – enter the Microsoft Office Live 
Sweepstakes http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0050001581mrt/direct/01/