[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Case]

Mark, Ian, Marsha,

This came in from Mark. It raised several issues so I have cleaned it up a
bit and added comments.

Case

Ian:
What things are called is indeed social, and the only way that  social
process can be changed is by intellect, MoQish intellect  naturally. The
catch we seem to be struggling with is that any kind of  intellect needs to
be "socialised", unless it is given some "elite  authority" simply by virtue
of being intellectual.

A knotty  one.
Can we ever "socialise" the precision needed?

[Case]
Who says that only the intellect can change social processes? Social
processes can be radically altered by the inorganic effects of storm and
quake, or the biological process of epidemic or changes in food supply. Or a
change in government or a single individual (see the disastrous effects of
the Reagan presidency). Only the intellectual? Certainly not.

Marsha:
If it were Goddess rather than God under consideration there would be no
discussion.  The concept would have been ridiculed and the religion
destroyed centuries ago.

Mark 19-01-07: Marsha raises the  question of the social force of Males.
Interestingly, Male social patterns do not socially define Female  within
their Male social patterns; Male regards Female as, 'other than'  Male.
Not-Mail.
This is close to sq stating that DQ is Not-sq.
Other than sq.

[Case]
The sex of deity and the role of the sexes is a function of a host of
conditions. Agrarian societies are more like to worship the goddess and
goddess figurines are among the most ancient religious artifacts we know
about. 

Regarding the role of the sexes as equal is a modern luxury. In the past
sexual roles were determined but the conditions of existence, the style of
food gathering, hunting and gathering, planting and harvest. Women during
periods of pregnancy, child birth and child rearing face different
challenges to personal survival than men and social roles evolve from these
differences. The only reason we can have discussions about the political
correctness of sex in social roles is because we have lessen the selective
pressures that previously determined them.

[Mark]
(Note: The Christian God has been reified as extra-worldly has it not, and
the South American emphasis on the Virgin Mary rather than Jesus also points
to a Dynamic 'other-world' view of God.)

So, here is a possible answer Marsha - Female is a Dynamic function while
Mail is a static function.

[Case]
What manner of rubbish is this "reified as extra-worldly"?

What society regards female as dynamic and male as passive?

[Mark]
(Note: the moq synthesises both as immediate experience reintroducing the 
divine into everyday life once more.)

[Case]
I thought the MoQ was supposed to oppose the divine. But even if it doesn't
how was the divine supposed to have been removed such that it need to be
reintroduced?

[Mark]
All levels of moq evolution share both Dynamic and static functions, so may
this be applied to Ian's question:
'Can we ever "socialise" the (Intellectual) precision needed?' (my insert).
Perhaps one way to go about it is to recognise D-function and s-function as
a parallel process.

[Case]
My understanding of this wooly headed view of dynamic quality is that at the
instant it begins to have function it ceases to be dynamic. 

[Mark]
One conclusion of this is to avoid Monistic institutional structures
(Monarchs) - always structure your institutions with both D and s
functions.
The British Parliament is structured as a parallel process with an upper and
lower house; the lower house is democratic and the upper house is life
experienced. Ironically, the structure of both houses was inherited from the
Church!
Perhaps Intellectual patterns require a demarcation between Dynamic
functions and static functions?

[Case]
I fail to see the irony here. Church governance was a social process that
had evolved over more than a 1000 years before the British parliament was
even considered. There is no mystery or irony in the adaptation of these
processes to secular rule.
 
[Mark]
What does the static function of Intellectual patterns look like?
Possible Answer: The whole symbolic static repertoire.
What does the Dynamic function of Intellectual patterns look like?
Possible Answer: The way the whole symbolic static repertoire is  arranged.

[Case]
Again would not that pattern of arrangement be static? I think this only
serves to illustrate the problem of conflating DQ and Quality. It is Quality
that is undefined not DQ. Here you are attempting to use DQ as the active
principle. I whole heartedly support your effort, BTW.

[Mark] 
Therefore, the social symbol of the whole symbolic static repertoire is the
Encyclopaedia.
The Encyclopaedia is half of the New religion; the other half is the
Internet.

[Case]
Aha, the geometric expansion of shared memory through technology. A powerful
idea, run with it, lad.

[Mark]
The Millennium dome in the UK should have been a massive free on-line
Encyclopaedia built and maintained for the benefit of Humanity instead of a
pile  of shit: That would have been an intelligent social symbol of
Humanities progress into the new Millennium.
The Encyclopaedia would contain free high resolution images and sounds of
the greatest artists and thinkers; snapshots of Earth's rich cultures and
Biological life. In short, a celebration of Diversity and Understanding - a
celebration of Evolution.

[Case]
But notice the trend in the opposite direction. The forced attempt to apply
a capitalist model for the distribution of scarce good to the regulation of
the exchange of good in infinite supply. Modern law does not seem to be able
to grapple with this. In the US instead of building a monument we seek to
appoint luddites to our courts and label jurists actually living in the 21st
century as activists.