[MD] Social level for humans only

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Quote , DMB

That's the problem with reductionism. It reduces the object of inquiry to
something else and so effectively eliminates the subject matter in question.
2010/8/18 david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>


Wel , this caught my eye , Dave, this sentence , it contains more than on
first sight ,very interesting.
Should make people think,i think.
Adrie.




> Krimel said:
> Odd, it seems arrogant to me to assume that much of anything about us is
> radically different than what we see in other species. We are a product of
> natural selection and the same rules apply to us as to every other species.
> Comparing our social manifestations to that of other species, looking at how
> they arise from similar conditions and serve similar functions seems, what
> the word I am looking for... natural. On the other hand assuming that we are
> unique seems to me, what's that other word... supernatural.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> The line between the social and biological is as supernatural and as the
> line between biological and inorganic. To say human society is no different
> than an ant colony or a pack of wolves is to reduce one level of reality to
> the simpler one from which it emerged. Before you jump to conclusions, this
> is not to say that there are no similarities or that we can't learn anything
> from them. I'm just saying that explaining social behavior in terms of its
> biological antecedents distorts the social behavior in question. It would be
> like explaining biological reproduction in the terms of physics or
> chemistry. Physics can illuminate biology but the fact is they play by
> different rules. Obviously, Pirsig did not invent this distinction. The
> MOQ's levels add a little something to distinctions that are otherwise
> already widely recognized and employed, even in the way we distinguish
> between scientific disciplines. Pirsig only adds to this by saying that the
> levels do not simply grow from s
>  imple to complex but rather they actually oppose each other in some way.
> There is a qualitative difference, he says, such their differences can
> actually create conflict. It's an evolutionary explanation of moral
> struggle. Among other things, it's supposed to show what's underneath our
> notions of good and evil, progress and decline, growth and decay. It's
> supposed to show how we can be amateur philosophers and features of the food
> chain at the same time - and what the differences are.
>
> Plato was operating within the rules of physics and was a member of the
> food chain. But if you say he was JUST a feature of the biosphere, you have
> definitely left some important things out of your explanation. That's the
> problem with reductionism. It reduces the object of inquiry to something
> else and so effectively eliminates the subject matter in question.
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser