[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[Horse]

Hi Mark

On 02/12/2010 17:41, 118 wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> <SNIP>
>
> 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.

No, the supposition is that there are certain biological behaviours 
(such as rape and murder and many others)  which are correctly 
proscribed by the social patterns of laws. This does not mean that ALL 
biological behaviours are proscribed or that the biological level is 
pre-disposed towards rape and murder. You appear to be addressing 
something I did not say. My question was in response to your statement 
that no dynamic biological behaviour should ever be proscribed by and 
social pattern.

>   I do not believe that this is a correct interpretation.

It seems that you may be responsible for the misinterpretation.

> If anything, it is the social level that produces such things.  The concepts of rape and murder do not exist at the biological level.

But acts of rape and murder do. Laws against rape and murder are 
designed to deter acts not suppress concepts.

> 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.

An act is different to a concept. The act of rape or murder is 
proscribed by the Social level in the form of laws. Laws are static 
patterns of value. The laws against rape and murder are social static 
patterns designed to guide and prevent certain specific biological 
patterns of behaviour - dynamic actions as you have described them.
Are you really saying that it would be more moral to remove social 
impediments to biological behaviours such as rape and murder?

> 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.

The building of a house or group of houses would be a social pattern, as 
per human social behaviour to stay warm and protected - the building of 
nests, as per avian behaviour is to provide a place to lay eggs etc.

> This house does not restrict the biological behavior, but enhances it.  The same could be said for laws against rape and murder.

So now rape and murder become enhancements to human behaviour and we 
should remove these restrictions for a better life?!?

> 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.

In biological evolution this - stagnation - may be the case in certain 
circumstances, e.g. the changing of a habitat to which the biological 
pattern is unable to adapt. It also provides stability during which the 
biological patterns may thrive and grow whilst the habitat is also 
stable. Stability and stagnation are not the same thing. Stable social 
patterns enable biological patterns to thrive in many cases and acts 
such as rape and murder undermine this social stability and result in 
the destruction of biological patterns. Hence the need for many social 
patterns to dominate certain biological patterns.

> As an example, if the Christian doctrine of no premarital sex was
> strictly followed, eventually non-Christian religions would dominate the
> world.

Or there would be lots more marriages and lots of children within those 
marriages and they would thrive and over-run the other religions. Islam 
has way more strict laws against sex before or outside marriage and they 
seem to be doing OK in terms of population.

> In the same way, if the intellectual static concept of preventing
> overpopulation were to be enforced, those populations would eventually be
> replaced.

When a species multiplies to the point that it is unable to find or 
create sufficient food and shelter it also dies. Preventing 
overpopulation prevents this. Preventing overpopulation does not 
preclude enabling sufficient population.

<SNIP>

> 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.

Static social patterns do have power over biological patterns - both 
stable and active - using various methods and some of these methods are 
evolutionary - i.e. they have evolved in response to certain biological 
behaviours and are stable.
Where does the Tao state or indicate that rape and murder should be 
supported and laws against these actions should be removed as you are 
suggesting?


Horse

> 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