[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo]
> A picture of an ant colonly no more identifies the social relationship
> of ants any more than a picture of my HOG group identifies the social
> relationship of the humans. In the same way, a picture of a primate
> group does not show the social relations among the members.

Exactly. So much for your claim that a picture of a city shows a  
social relationship.  
 
> A camera can't identify social patterns of humans, ants, bees or
> primates. It can only identify biological individuals. Ants, obviously,
> have very primitive social analogues, primates more comples, with humans
> even more complex. But to say only humans engage in social patterns of
> value is quite erroneous, and (IMHO) weakens the MOQ rather than
> strengthening it.

IMO it strengthens the MOQ by emphasizing the exceptional qualities of 
human societies compared to any others we might wish to make 
anthropomorphic.

> I'd say, yes, ants engage in symbolic mediation, albeit at a very
> crude and primitive level. 

Is "symbolic mediation" the same as thinking?

> And, a "collective" does not "become a society". Societies emerged
> out of collective biological behavior when the level of complexity of 
> said collectives reached the point of utilizing symbolic mediation to
> regulate the individuals.
> 
> In the same way, intellectual patterns emerged out of collective social
> behavior when the level of complexity became great enough that a whole
> new level emerged. Where THAT line is, I don't know. I've been following
> the discussion, and it is quite interesting.

I take it you also disagree with Pirsig's description of how life 
emerged from the inorganic level beginning with the carbon atom? His 
version says nothing about collective inorganic behavior reaching a 
point of complexity where life emerged. 

Platt