[MD] Social level for humans only

[John Carl]

Hey Andre,

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>wrote:

> John:
>
>
> Now I know we're talking  past each other.  Sex is closer to biology than
> social, and I already said food is the purest biological drive.  But
> MOTHERHOOD is quintessentially social.  It's really the birth of the social
> pattern - mammalian motherhood.
>
> Andre:
> I think you need to re-think this John.
> Sex IS quality biology, it is the purest biological drive. When hungry and
> being given the choice between..., ha,ha...oh my dearest me...fuck!! and
> we'll eat afterwards...if not you would have let your intellectual pattern
> overdrive the whole lot. And that is the last thing you should do when
> given, or presented with the opportunity.
>
>
John:

There's a big difference between hunger and starvation.  When starvation
enters the picture, all procreation ceases.





> John:
>
> But MOTHERHOOD is quintessentially social.  It's really the birth of the
> social pattern - mammalian motherhood.
>
> Andre:
> Motherhood is an intellectual concept. The act of giving birth is purely
> organic John. It is not the birth of a social pattern. It is the birrh of an
> organic pattern...to be whipped into 'shape', into a social pattern (and
> hopefully it'll develop some 'sense'...so it can, at least behave
> itself...socially).
>
>
John:

Well if we're talkin' concepts, qua conceptualization, sure.  It's all
intellectual.  But Motherhood is a process, and it's primarily a social
process.  Of course there are biological components of motherhood!  As there
are inorganic components of motherhood.  But when we talk about what level a
pattern is exhibiting, we should label it by the most sophisticated pattern
apparent.

Words on a screen are physical, inorganic properties, but because they
display intellect, we call them intellectual patterns, not inorganic.

Social behaviors in human mothers, horse mothers, cow mothers and whale
mothers all possess a commonality that points to a real congruence in
patterning.    I don't see how you can argue that.  Sure there are
biological reactions, but those biological reactions are between two
separate biological beings, learning how to relate socially.  Mom nuzzles,
nudges, and makes low gutteral noises.  Baby nurses, gets nutrients and
learns to follow closely.  This whole process is what creates the emotional
self - apart from the biological self that had no self-awareness in the
womb.

Seems so simple to me.

I think you need to rethink your thought that I need to think about
re-thinking.


John