[MD] Shouldn’t we be, like, revolting ?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

I better wait a few days before replying, otherwise you think it's just "instant 
philosophy".

> Magnus:
>> Then perhaps you can tell me what you think is wrong in my reasoning
>> from my essay? You stuck your head in the sand the last time (22/9).
>  
>> ------------------- snip -------------------------------
>> And about "former level's limitations", I wrote the below section
>> about that in my essay. I'd say your "escape from the former level's
>> limitations" is rather single-minded.
>  
>> "When levels are compared, they are often seen as opposed to each
>> other. It's always this combat between the lower and higher levels and
>> the higher is always supposed to grab the moral victory. But no
>> thought have ever been given to how the higher level pattern got
>> started in the first place. For example the social pattern family
>> would never have been created without the biological pattern lust. But
>> even so, these two patterns are always described to be in direct
>> opposition to each other. 
> 
> Family as a social pattern is dubious. Animals form families in the 
> most basic sense, at least the mammals necessarily  do, but this 
> mother-child relationship is all biology and so is the male's behavior, it 
> often kills the the young before it mates with their mother (this varies 
> wildly of course). 

But such reasoning takes us nowhere, except back into the fuzzy level borders 
again. I'm simply not interested in discussing "families in the most basic 
sense", and what "varies wildly". I want black on white what constitutes a 
social level pattern and what not. And you ain't nowhere near that.

It's the same thing when you discuss whether communism or capitalism is this or 
that. I for one can't even fathom how anyone could possibly put those two in 
*different* levels. It's like placing a horse and a zebra in different levels.

> Family in the human klan sense however is definitely social and here 
> the immense genealological system of kinship begins, something that 
> lead to ethnicity, f.ex. the Abraham tribe of Israel that became the 
> Jews,  all nonsense in an objective intellectual view, yet most 
> important socially. 

And here's your meta-humanity again. Metaphysically totally irrelevant 
mumbo-jumbo. Probably closer to Ham's human-centric ramblings than the MoQ.

>> It's of course true that lust to another can destroy a family, but it
>> is often forgotten that this same lust also was the initial spark that
>> got the family started in the first place. 
> 
> In biology there is no love, responsibility or guilt of "destroying families" 
> or anything, it's all about feeding and proliferating. On the Q-social 
> level - which is human - the control (struggle) with biology is most 
> clearly expressed as religion (Judaism, Islam and the old 
> Christendom) and their obsession with sex and nutrition (endless 
> prescriptions about decent dress, menstruation, animals that can be 
> used for food, method of slaughter)      

The social level is *not* just human! The MoQ is *not* about only humans! You'll 
never be able to understand what I'm talking about if you don't let go of that.

And I have no idea how your "answer" addressed the proposition above. I was 
talking about lust and you claimed there's no love in biology.?? We have a 
Swedish saying "Goddag yxskaft" which literally means "Hi axe handle" but is 
used to convey a totally irrelevant reply to a question, which is what I got above.

Please try again. I said that the social pattern family is dependent on the 
biological pattern lust. And you replied that the social pattern merely 
suppresses the biological.

>> This is also true for all other social patterns; this is the biological
>> level setting the stage for the social. They all got started because a
>> biological urge happened to result in a socially valuable structure. 
> 
> About society out of biology we all agree, but as soon as the social 
> level "came of age" it started to control its parent level. There were 
> other forms of social control thant the said, but all required the basic 
> realization of existence transcending the individual. "Saving for the 
> future", "the group's interest" and many more.     

Wow, we actually agree on something. I just wish you'd understand that this is 
true for all societies as well, not just human ones.

>> A city got started next to a creek because someone needed the water for
>> farming, then a hardware store came along to provide tools for the
>> farmer(s), and then I'll let Mark Knopfler continue with some lines
>> from "Telegraph Road" by Dire Straits: 
> 
>> Then came the churches then came the schools
>> Then came the lawyers then came the rules
>> Then came the trains and the trucks with their loads
>> And the dirty old track was the telegraph road"
> 
> Right, but this is a modern (intellectual) vision of how a community 
> grows, I don't really know what it is supposed to convey.

It's supposed to show how a biological need (the need for water), was gradually 
converted into a society. I.e. no matter how much a society controls and 
suppresses biology, it still depends on it. Both to stay alive, but more 
importantly to be born in the first place.

	Magnus