[MD] Social level for humans only

[John Carl]

Very well Andre, I will accede to your request:

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

Andre:
I did and ask you to think again about re-thinking your thoughts about the
necessity of your re-thinking.

John prev:

>
> There's a big difference between hunger and starvation.  When starvation
> enters the picture, all procreation ceases.
>
> Andre:
> Heya John, of course you are correct, but I was putting the difference
> within the context of having a choice. You do not and within your context
> (starve or procreate) one would do well to get one's priorities right
> (within the same level) and get some energy before committing oneself to the
> deed...I mean, there is (socially) nothing more lame than being determined
> (as Axel Rose was by his ex) of being lousy in bed.
>

John:

Did you mean Axel was too skinny to get it up?  Could be.  He sure was a
mean-spirited bastard, when it came to women, from what I've heard.

But mainly, I was trying to differentiate between biological drives and
social.  Sex is social, simply by the terms of agreement with other that
must be created first.

Ever watched horses breed?  What I noticed most, is how careful the stallion
is to get the mare in the mood, with tongue caresses and nuzzling.  Even
though his biological drive is powerful, without some socialization he's
likely to get kicked in a place that puts him out of commission forever.


John:
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> Must insist John, we talk about the 'mammalian', nurturing process which I
> think is organic, it is biological. As 'time' progresses this process
> evolves into the 'weaning off', the 'socializing' process. Can we agree on
> this? It needs to 'learn to follow closely' (your words). This learning is
> social level stuff.
>


John:

Ok.  If by "organic nurturing process" you mean the production of milk by
the mother, and the hunger of the young one, then I see your point and agree
that those factors are the underlying biological patterns driving the two
into a social arrangement.   You'll also see a lot of messing around and
missing, especially in inexperienced mothers, until the two get comfortable
with satisfying these biological urges and this constitutes social learning.
 And of course I agree that the weaning is even more strongly socializing -
although there too there is an underlying biological imperative on the part
of the mother, who needs to get ready for the next breeding cycle.

So all we mammals have these biologically driven urges and functions, but we
must experiment a bit and create agreement in order to have these urges
satisfied.  Therein is the interplay between biological drives, and social
learning.


 In much the same way, on the intellectual/social borders we have social
urges to fit into the group, or stand out from the crowd and be noticed,
that we use our intellect to satisfy.  We think of smart things to say, or
figure out what everybody else thinks and ponder how to concord.  While the
absolute experience in the moment is one, it's useful to abstract out which
patterns are doing what.  And underlying the urge to socialize, are
biological needs for warmth, food and sex.

So what I'm saying is, this way of relating to others emotionally, that
mammals posses, is the kindergarten of the third level of being, and
ignoring this commonality we share with the mammals, is ignoring the roots
of our own sociability.


Thanks much Andre,  (social nice)  It seems agree (intellectual)

Take care,

John .