[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi Horse,

I understand the significance of what I posted.  It is not intended to go
against the hierarchical precepts of MOQ.  Instead it points to the
development of structure as we envision it with the levels.  Levels can be
seen as a result of a synthesis of the levels below, with a new purpose (if
you will).  So the biological encompasses the inorganic with the purpose of
building a self-replicating entity.  As such, the biological cannot dictate
the behavior of the inorganic, only make use of it.  The static creation of
the shapes of life is not a restriction on the dynamic behavior of the
inorganic.  The equally logical converse would be the restriction on the
forms of life due to the dynamic behavior of the inorganic.  The bonding
behavior of carbon would be such a restriction.

So, I come to the example which you question below.  The supposition is that
the biological level has a dynamic predisposition towards rape and murder.
 I do not believe that this is a correct interpretation.  If anything, it is
the social level that produces such things.  The concepts of rape and murder
do not exist at the biological level.  The social level creates its own
static patterns to guide social dynamic behavior.  While there is not a
clean break between levels, the introduction of a new purpose or paradigm
creates the difference.  This new reason for being should not be
conceptualized as a static restriction.

The development of a new level springs from the level below.  For example,
the social behavior of family.  If the primary goal (to use an
anthropomorphic concept) of the biological level is to exist through dynamic
alteration in response to the environment, then such existence may depend on
the building of a house.  This house does not restrict the biological
behavior, but enhances it.  The same could be said for laws against rape and
murder.  The static is dependent on the dynamic at all times.  The same
could be said for the social and intellectual levels.

In the paradigm of evolution, once the static dominates, the species dies
off.  As an example, if the Christian doctrine of no premarital sex was
strictly followed, eventually non-Christian religions would dominate the
world.  In the same way, if the intellectual static concept of preventing
overpopulation were to be enforced, those populations would eventually be
replaced.  The restrictions of carbon emissions (another example to promote
irrational discussion) will not prevent the societal and biological levels
from continuing, they would simply shift development to new places without
such static rules.

The static has no power over the dynamic.  This is the principle of the Tao
(to bring in another philosophy).  This does not diminish the concept of
levels, it provides a slightly different paradigm perhaps.

Mark

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> Hi Mark
>
> This one caught my eye in your response to Arlo.
>
> On 02/12/2010 04:31, 118 wrote:
>
>> [Mark]
>> Again I would have to equivocate.  But, to provide you with an answer, I
>> would say that what is termed a static social pattern should never
>> dominate
>> a dynamic biological pattern.
>>
>
>
> So would you say that it is wrong for a static social pattern, such as a
> law, to dominate certain biological patterns?
> F.ex. Laws against rape and murder (and let's not forget pillage and
> plunder - always favourites in the old days!).
> These laws (social patterns) are quite static, going back centuries, but
> the acts they are designed to prevent are dynamic biological acts, in the
> sense that I believe you are using the term.
>
>
> Horse
>
> --
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
> 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
>