[MD] Levels?

[gav]

comment below:

>  "Societies" is used figuratively here as a more
> colorful word meaning 
> "groups."  If I had known it would be taken
> literally as evidence that 
> cells belong in the social level I would not have used it. 
> Maybe in a 
> future edition it can be struck out. One can also call ants
> and bees 
> "social" insects, but for purposes of precision
> in the MOQ social patterns 
> should be  defined as human and subjective.  Unlike cells
> and bees and ants 
> they cannot be detected with an objective scientific
> instrument.  For 
> example there is no objective scientific instrument that
> can distinguish 
> between a king and commoner, because the difference is 
> social. (SODV Note 
> 49) 

i don't quite buy it, with respect to bob and yourself and all. i think bees and ants are examples of an overarching social principle that organises individual units...if ya get my drift. whether or not the difference is in dress or morphology. 
aren't we talking of, at least, prototypic societies, with regard to bees and ants? what of the collective consciousness of geese etc - birds that fly in perfect formation - as one unit? what is going on there? doesn't that suggest some sort of social/group mind? 



      Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search