[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

Hi Horse,

Let me first say that you chose rape and murder to expand on the
levels.  I will try to keep the discussion within this framework.
However, the use of such examples is one of hyperbole, and tends to be
more emotional than rational.  But let's stick to logic.  I will
address your points below.

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:
> Hi Mark
[SNIP]
[Horse]
> 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.

[Mark]
My point is that rape and murder do not exist at the biological level,
they are social constructs.  Let's take the animal world for example
(bacteria are a little more difficult).  There is no rape or murder at
this level unless we want to anthropomorphize it.  As such, the
biological level is not predisposed to rape and murder, the social
level is.  This is an important distinction.  Each level creates it's
own reality.
>
>[Mark previously]
>> If anything, it is the social level that produces such things.  The
>> concepts of rape and murder do not exist at the biological level.
>[Horse]
> But acts of rape and murder do. Laws against rape and murder are designed to
> deter acts not suppress concepts.

[Mark]
No they do not.
>
[SNIP]
>
[Horse]
> 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?

[Mark]
Again, rape and murder are social constructs.  I am fine with having
laws against them.  You are confusing a social projection to the
biological level.  The levels are separated by purpose.  Rape and
murder do not exists at the biological level, only at the social.  As
such, the social level is controlling the social level.  I don't know
how else to say this.
>
[SNIP]
>
[Horse]
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes exactly, just like rape and murder are part of the social level.
They are social concepts, which have nothing to do with the purpose of
the biological level.  If one wants to create these distinct levels as
analogies, it is important to keep them separate.
>
[Mark previously]
>> This house does not restrict the biological behavior, but enhances it.
>>  The same could be said for laws against rape and murder.
>
[Horse]
> So now rape and murder become enhancements to human behaviour and we should
> remove these restrictions for a better life?!?

[Mark]
Well, that is twisting logic completely.  No, the laws against such
things are for a better life.  I think you would agree with this.
>

[Mark previously]
>> 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.
>
[Horse]
> 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.

[Mark]
Well I am glad you are bringing up the process for natural selection.
When I bring this up in terms of the evolution of Quality, I ask what
is the natural selection that is taking place.  I never get an answer.
 So, if Quality is evolving, what is the environment that it is
evolving into?  This is an important question in evolution that
everybody dismisses.

But, back to your paragraph above.  The evolution of anything requires
a dynamic play between that which is adapting, and that which is being
adapted to.  As nature would have it, both are continually changing,
and the environment is dictating the adaptation.  That which is
adapting must remain flexible.  What I am saying that any loss in such
flexibility causes difficulties and eventual death.  I don't want to
get into why you consider rape to be a biological pattern.  This does
not make intellectual sense.
>
[Mark previously]
>> As an example, if the Christian doctrine of no premarital sex was
>> strictly followed, eventually non-Christian religions would dominate the
>> world.
>
[Horse]
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, I knew it wasn't a good example after I had written it but left
it in there for the anti-Christians in the forum.  So, it is more
complicated than simple evolution, granted.
>
[Mark [previously]
>> In the same way, if the intellectual static concept of preventing
>> overpopulation were to be enforced, those populations would eventually be
>> replaced.
>
[Horse]
> 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.

[Mark]
Here I was not talking about world population, but the population of a
society.  It is well known that the hispanic population of the US is
growing and the white percentage is decreasing.  I forget what it is
like in England, but then again, that is a dreary place to live :-).

>
> <SNIP>

>
> 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?

[Mark]
Again you are being somewhat hyperbolic here, for emotional appeal.  I
have never said that either should be supported, NEVER.  I don't know
where you got that but I do not like where you are taking it in your
own mind.  Show me where murder is a biological pattern.

Static social patterns grow out of the biological level.  The
biological level is about survival.  The social level is about the
creation of groups of people.  For the biological level to survive,
the social level creates static patterns and laws.  It defines things
such as rape and murder.  It is not the other way around.  The social
cannot dictate to the biological level, it is a product of it.

Hope this makes sense.  But if you want to keep insinuating that I am
for rape and murder, then I do not see any reason to continue this.
This is about levels and their interrelation.  Perhaps you should use
another example which is less emotional.  How about seat belt laws.
Here we are dictating that the biological desire for freedom should be
constrained in a car.  I do not see the social aspect of this.  And I
don't want to get into jails and such.
>
>
[SNIP]

"Watch out where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow."
Frank Zappa, Apostrophe.

Mark

> 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
>