[MD] MOQ/BOC

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

On 2010-08-16 10:28, skutvik at online.no wrote:

> Magnus:
>> That's my kind of question. I just formulate it a bit more specific,
>> such as: If it's generally accepted that it is social value that made
>> people live in groups, specialize in different tasks, build villages
>> and even walls around them to protect them from the biological dangers
>> of the wilderness, Then why call the same things made by cells,
>> gathering into groups, specialize in different tasks, and build
>> protective shells around them to protect from biological danger,
>> anything less?
>
> The cell membrane = village wall comparison is flawed because the
> higher level is not about protecting against the lower. Social morals is
> about rising above - transcending - biology's "jungle" morals and every
> single social pattern is about disciplining one's (and other people's)
> biological instincts (for the sake of the common cause)  Unless one
> looks at things from the MORAL, VALUE, QUALITY perspective the
> levels will be a mess and the borders arbitrary.

Higher levels are usually not about protecting against lower, no. But in 
the case of early social development I think that's a crucial first 
step, otherwise the surrounding biological wilderness will devour the 
socially transcending inhabitants inside the wall. That's simply the 
wall's task, to protect the ones inside so they can specialize in their 
tasks, for the sake of the common cause as you say.

I have never lost track of the moral, value or quality perspectives when 
I investigate the levels. Can you point to the opposite?

> Dan's question:
>
>> If social patterns are not intellectual, how do we discriminate them
>> from other patterns?
>
> Non-plussed me. Where has he got the "social as intellectual" notion
> from. He does not speak to me so maybe you Magnus can tell - you
> say you agree with him.

Well, I didn't agree with much of his initial post, which is why I 
replied in the first place. But then he asked a very intriguing 
question, but it wasn't the one you asked about here. Let's see...

Perhaps it's the same conundrum John and I contemplated yesterday? Dan 
may assume that human intellect is required to initially setup a 
society? But if a society can just arrange itself, how is that different 
from biology?

As you see, I don't know what Dan meant either. Probably because we're 
simply too far apart when discussing the social level, or any level. 
That became apparent a few weeks ago when I had some questions regarding 
the comments in Lila's Child.

	Magnus