[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Case]

[Platt]
So a picture of a city or your HOG group shows American society? I 
don't think so, any more than a picture of a group of Apache tents 
shows an Apache society or a picture of my street shows an integrated 
society. A photo of a group of people by itself signifies nothing more 
than a group of people. You have to be told it identifies your HOG 
group or, in my case, my model sailing club group. But a picture of a 
herd of sheep requires no such extra explanation.

[Case]
It is well established that in animal social groupings, as low on the
evolutionary scale as birds, dominance hierarchies emerge. They are even
called "pecking orders." Within these often complex systems each member of
the society finds its place and establishes how it will relate to other
members of the society. We share this with birds for Pete's sake. To claim
that human societies just pop out of no where and should be considered in
isolation as a metaphysical level divorced and discrete from biology is just
silly. And as for taking pictures, check out the Discovery channel some
time.

> [Platt]
> Would Case and Arlo argue that atoms that combine to make a cloud are 
> a  society?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I would argue instead that "social patterns" are defined by symbolic 
> mediation  between the individuals of which it is made. Although the 
> human body is a  collective a cells, it is not a "social pattern",
> but an advanced biological  collective, just as the cell itself is a 
> biological collective. The levels  contain increasing examples of
> complexity, until at some point the jump is from "more complex" to
> "whole new thing".

[Platt]
So what has that got to do with calling atoms in a cloud a society? 
Where do you draw the line? When does a "collective" become a 
"society?" Do ants engage in "symbolic mediation?" 

[Case]
I agree with you Platt, symbolic mediation is not required in a social
group. (OK, there is the whole semiotic thing but I am not especially
interested in that.) In any case I do not think it adds much to the study of
social insects or flocks of birds. 

But Arlo is pointing to a concept that I believe subsumes the whole notion
of static levels: resolution. 

At what level of detail are we directing our analysis? If you wished to
study of how an individual water molecule interacts with its neighbors much
is gained by considering the static and dynamic properties involved. The
molecule itself is a static manifestation of a set of dynamic relationships
between atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. This static relationship reduces the
unpredictability of the individual atoms and allows new dynamic
relationships to occur among the water molecules. (notice that there is
already a shift in resolution from the atomic to the molecule level.) At the
molecular level the temperature (read: dynamic rate of motion) of the
unbound oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the air influence how the static water
molecules will interact with one another to form clouds. The speed and
direction of the wind are dynamic forces that influence the shape and size
of the clouds (yet another level of resolution)

You have all ignore the second part of what I said, so to quote myself: 
"And he is saying that the mental tools we use to analyze ethical issues can
also be applied to raindrops falling on our heads. There is a way of seeing
these things in the same light. By looking at the dance of static and
dynamic properties we get a clearer picture of any given situation."

I thought the whole point of metaphysics is to establish set of principles
that can be used at any level of analysis (degree of resolution). Physicists
are looking for a Theory of Everything. Such a theory will have to account
for the relationships between individual molecules, ants, primates and model
sailing groups. To me at least, looking at the static (predictable) and
dynamic (uncertain) properties at play at any level of resolution meets this
test. If you try this out on, say, your next trip to WalMart I believe you
will see a remarkable self similarity not only across scale but across
levels of abstraction.

So in short, yes, I think the same metaphysical principles that govern the
formation of clouds are the same ones at work in human social interactions.
They are patterns of static and dynamic quality. 

But I take issue with Arlo's statement: "The levels contain increasing
examples of complexity, until at some point the jump is from "more complex"
to 'whole new thing'."

I don't think there is ever a jump or ever a 'whole new thing'. I think
there are various "levels of resolution" to any analysis of anything.