[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[John Carl]

Krimel,

I first evolved this particular shade of thinking, about a year ago in a
response to a dialogue with you.

So I'm damn glad to get some feedback, at last.  Be patient, there's a lot
to disentangle.

[John]
> I'd argue that the true aspect of social patterning takes a self/other
> realization that is more than instinctual or hardwired.  Every bee seems to
> react exactly like ever other bee, without choice.
>
> [Krimel]
> Many human to human interactions especially social ones are heavily
> hardwired, emotional displays and our responds to those displays in others,
> for example.
>
> It is not true that bees "react exactly like every other bee, without
> choice".


John:

Well you did notice the "seems to", dincha?   A range of variation in bee
behavior must occur, or there wouldn't be an evolutionary continuum of
different bees.  But they are all of a sameness within the hive, due to the
mechanics of their reproductive strategy in a much more marked way than
mammals with their sexy, dynamic choice-style reproductive strategy.  This
difference of degree is so great, that I feel it's proper and useful to make
a distinctifying cut between level 2 and level 3 patterning.

As to your first one, I've had a strongly held disagreement about that
assertion from day one.  I think it's an unexamined assumption, carried over
from our culture, without any real facts or evidence to back up the claim.

I'm talking about your statement that the reactions of humans are hardwired.
 It's hardwired to pick up and gun and shoot your wife for cheating on you?
 How does the complex decision process to buy, load, aim and shoot, come
encoded in dna?  Huh?

You could say that the reaction of anger, the emotion itself is hardwired,
but I'd point out that only the expression of the emotion is biological.
 The source, the creation of all emotion, is rooted in caring for a socially
defined self.  If we turned off all caring about self in a person, they'd
become automatons without affect, without emtional displays.  And the fact
is, these emotional displays that you claim are hardwired, are extremely
variable throughout cultures everywhere.  Inuits don't emote like the Scotch
Irish, who are different than Italians and Japanese.

It just SEEMS hardwired in a way, to the individuals confronting a differing
culture.  In that moment, it seems like the other person is reacting or
emoting "unnaturally".

But all emotions stem from 3rd level patterning, and while experienced with
biological affirmations, hunger, adrenaline, heart-pounding sweaty palms
"does she glance up at me and smile today?"  They arise from social
interaction and they express in social interaction.

Running from a bear is a social interaction.  This is true because very,
very rarely do bears chase humans because they are hungry.  Bears chase
humans because they are mad, defensive or defending territory.




> Not sure what choice adds but bees respond differently to worker
> bees and queens and to bee from "other" hives, same with ants. Slime mold
> respond to members of "other" colonies differently than to their own.
>
>

Your first four words here are the most instructive.  I believe you Krimel.
 You are not sure what choice adds.  Well let me tell you then.  Choice adds
Quality.  Without choice, there can be no Quality.

Of course, this gets back to the heart of the big issue.  Moronists don't
believe in choice, right?

We have this problem still.




> Social behavior and collective action is a biological strategy. It arises
> from and serves biological success.



I completely refute your anthropomorphic use of "biological strategy".
 Strategy, if anything is only intellectual.  And even simple matters such
as "cause and effect" are nothing except intellectual constructs.  Coupling
any intellectuality with biological puts us right back where you don't wanna
go.  I mean, calling it "intellectual design" wouldn't make you happy
either, right?

I've said before, I'm not a fan of the bottom-up hierarchical model, so oft
employed as "moqese".

The upper levels are much more creative of lower-level patterning, than
lower-level patterning spontaneously combusts into an upper.  Life takes
inorganic matter, and rearranges it mechanically and chemically.  Societies
form to protect and breed and bring more biological beings into the herd, to
train them, socialize them, and be successful at hunting prey, driving away
competitors and passing on a legacy.  Intellectual patterns take the reins
of society, and steer in different directions through the means of academia,
art and culture.  Everywhere, the creation on the lower level comes as the
result of some cause or action on an higher.

Now I know this sorta sucks, because it plays into the hands of theistic
conception by analogy, of the big mover in the sky, above it all and playin'
us all like cards.  But I think there is great value in "not going there"
due to problems in our culture from the type of people who think that way,
and how they're gonna construe.


 And honestly?  Hey, it's a choice, theism.   It's a pattern of value and
one that in many ways, got us to where we are today.  Kudos.  But is it our
only choice?  I mean, we have to see things as they are, but when we
conceptualize that beyond our realm, we're just playing games, right?

Sorry to get sidetracked... What's  the thread heading here?

Oh.  I'm not sidetracked at all.  I'm right on topic, without even tryin'.
 I am so cool.

 I'll just wind this aspect up.

I really respect something I read by Royce, the Religious Aspect of
Philosophy, about the important differences between religion and philosophy.
 He didn't put it in MoQ terms, he didn't point out an intellectually-guided
endeavor and a socially-guided one.  But rather, he delineated them in
individual experience, which we all share.  This is mostly what
 Philosophers do.

Philosophy has to be free of dogma, its the most important difference,
whereas religion is nothing without it.  Religion really is social, and
philosophy really is intellectual and individual.  Its the goal of religion,
to bind-together.   Ellul says re-ligere means just that, but he's french,
what does he know.  It sure means it in practice.   They both have their
roles.

Religion keeps us all on the same page.  We're giving out signals to one
another, that make it safe to co-exist with such dangerous animals in close
proximity.  Religion assuages this fear, this need.

Philosophy makes sure it's the right page.  Philosophy questions and probes
and looks for weakness and challenges.

You need both, I'm pretty sure, to make a successful society.

And if you throw out religion, what are you gonna replace it with, hmmm?  I
mean, humanity has basically gotten to this point, always with religious
underpinnings.  Throwing it out the window, the way we have, is basically
jumping off a cliff into the unknown.

I don't think you're gonna be such a fan of chaos, Krimel, when it's
hammering at your door with torches and guns in the form of hungry
mob/gangs.

John