[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

Mark, Ian, Marsha,

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


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.
 
Mark 20-01-7: Hi Case, This is so because food growth is anthropomorphised  
as a female birth - a Biological pattern. The point in history you refer to  
places Biological patterns central to social organisation.

Case:
Regarding the role of the sexes as equal is a modern luxury.
 
Mark 20-01-7: Abstract equality is an Intellectual pattern (Modern). Social  
equality is what i am talking about, and more specifically the subjugation of  
the female by mail social patterns. I have suggested the source of this  
subjugation as a Male static function's metaphysical inability to contain Female  
Dynamic function. You're not addressing this thesis Case.
 
Case:
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 20-01-7: You've still not come anywhere near the moq approach i have  
been following: Male static function, Female Dynamic  function.

[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"?
 
Mark 20-01-7: This follows from the thesis that the Female is a Dynamic  
function. Dynamic functions cannot be encapsulated by that which is less then  
them and therefore remain, 'other.'

What society regards female as  dynamic and male as passive?
 
Mark 20-01-7: Your society. This is discussed in Simone DeBouvoir's, 'The  
second sex.'

[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 20-01-7: Theists hoodwink people into thinking the divine is beyond  our 
world in order to maintain social authority within organised religions.  
That's why you have to go to church and perform their rituals and pay them  
respect and all that shit.
When you enjoy a painting the theists rush to tell you its quality was  
inspired from elsewhere; they are really works of a divine nature or God acting  
thru the chosen few.
The moq says, 'stuff that for a game of cricket, everyone is within DQ and  
as such no social pattern has authority over it.'
When i say, 'reintroduced' i should have perhaps said, 'reminded.' The moq  
reminds people that every sq patterns partakes of divine nature  (DQ)

[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 20-01-7: Woke up one mornin' - thought my baby'd been an' gone.
Sorry, but i did wake up this morning and thought of something i do not  
believe to be have been before explicitly stated in Lila regarding D-f and s-f,  
which may be true non-the less:
The relationship between parallel D-f and s-f is such that the D-f is  always 
evolutionary more advanced than the s-f.
When that is explicitly stated is looks bleedin' obvious, but i do not  
believe this Universal principle has been stated before now?
This is precisely why the D-f looks that way - because it is closer to DQ  on 
the evolutionary path.
It's a bit like sticking a Jet engine on Wilbur and Orville Wright's  plane.

[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 20-01-7: That was a by the by.

[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 20-01-7: I've noted your difficulty with the undefined nature of DQ  
before today and i have to say that i sympathise with you.
Please remember that a Dynamic function is not DQ itself.
The term Dynamic is being used in two different ways here and little  thought 
has been put into this.
Would it surprise you to hear that i tend to regard Dynamic functions as  
coherent sq-sq relationships?
This allows me to agree with you when you say, '...would not that  pattern of 
arrangement be static?' because strictly speaking all coherent  patterns are 
both static AND Dynamic at the same time: Note, the term Dynamic is  not being 
used here in the same way as in DQ.

[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.
 
Mark 20-01-7: I don't claim to be computer savvy, but i hear those who have  
an idealist view of the net wish to make it as democratic as possible by 
making  the net itself the server with each computer acting as an element in the 
whole  server?
In this sense it would be more like a brain.
You may know more about this Case?
I don't even know if this is feasible, but if it were so, would not the  
Genie be out of the bottle?
And if this is so, the organisation of the World brain would be a Dynamic  
function with static elements?
Love,
Mark