[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

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...

Case addes:
How does "marriage" differ from reproductive behavior? "Marriage" is only
one cultural expression of reproductive behavior. The fact that humans can
express reproductive behavior in a social context, in such a variety of
forms, points to the plasticity of human thought. But the necessity to have
it expressed and in fact the limitations on the range of expression are pure
biology. The ritual elaboration and intellectual trapping we surround it
with are all for show. Our practices and our reverence for them are sheer
conceit. 

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}
The social structures you are talking about are pure intellect. All that
regulation of biology stuff happens throughout the animal kingdom. Why do
you think our way is superior? What does intellectualizing the process add
to its success?

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. 

[Case]
Since all language is analog and most thought is analogous where should we
turn for useful analogies? Scripture? Wise Men with saffron robes?
Philosophers? 

[dmb]
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. 

[Case]
See that wasn't so hard now was it?

[dmb]
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. 

[Case]
This is true as far as it goes. But where do you think language came from?
It evolved. It provides selective advantage. If it didn't it wouldn't
emerge. But your argument sounds a bit like a cheetah scoffing at slow
runners or a giraffe looking down on ground feeders. 

[dmb]
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. 

[Case]
Purely linguistic behavior in man dates back at minimum 40,000 years and
depending on how you read the fossil record perhaps 2 million years. It is
clearly a product of evolution. As I mentioned an interesting question is
the role social behaviors play in biological evolution. It would seem that
while it may have helped our ancestors survive that was about all it did
until 10,000 years ago. Before that it's significance was no greater than
spots on a leopard and less significant than a male cat's ability to lick
himself.

[dmb]
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.


[Case]
I didn't say they were I said they were intellectual.

[dmb]
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.

[Case]
We are communicators. If this were simply discussion of the relative role of
social behaviors in primate evolution, that would be one thing. But the
"whole different feel" business, what's that about? Chimpanzee social
behavior is not just grunting and kicking ass. It is fairly sophisticated in
its emotional content and range of expression from rage to ecstasy. Human
evolved in relatively small groups all that bully business just doesn't fly
in small groups. Everyone has to sleep sometime. And ethical infractions are
notoriously hard to conceal in small towns much less villages. Your view of
prehistoric societies is very limited. Those encountered on the North
American continent from the time of Lewis and Clark until Wounded Knee were
quite advanced. There is a wide range of possibility between chimpanzee
bands and prehistoric Americans if we but had worlds enough and time I'll
bet we could fill in the blanks.

[dmb]
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.

[Case]
I suspect tribal societies are actually more efficient in dealing with
bullies and moral transgressions than we are. Your fascination with the
death dealer would suggest as much. I am a sucker for a hot chick in tight
leather as much as the next guy but if her dad is sleeping in the hut next
door dreaming of marrying her off to his rich buddy down the river I
probably don't want to be the one putting a bun in her oven.