[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[Horse]

Hi Mark

On 03/12/2010 22:08, 118 wrote:
> 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.

First let me say that I chose rape and murder because they are, as I see 
it, obvious examples of what you mean by dynamic biological acts and how 
they relate to the social level and not for either their emotional 
content or for means of hyperbole.
But here's the problem. You make a sweeping (and per MoQ incorrect) 
statement that a static social pattern should _never_
dominate a dynamic biological pattern, I give you a counter example and 
you then start trying to re-define what is biological, what is social etc.


> [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 any 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.

[Horse]
Rape and murder are defined at the social and/or intellectual level and 
refer to specific acts of a biological nature. Just because animals 
don't have concepts of rape and murder when they have sex and kill 
doesn't mean that certain acts of sex and killing by humans are not rape 
or murder. I did not mention pre-disposition as you seem to be implying. 
And whatever you mean by reality does not preclude specific violent 
biological acts which are defined as such.

>> [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.

[Horse]
Then please tell me what it is that laws against rape and murder are 
designed to deter and/or punish.


> [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.

Rape and murder are socially designated instances of biological acts of 
sex and killing. Sex and killing are biological acts and where these 
acts occur and how they are performed gives rise to the production of 
laws to deter and/or punish in the form of rape and murder laws. Rape 
and murder are instances of biological actions given certain conditions. 
To say that acts of rape and murder don't occur at the biological level, 
when this is exactly where they are defined to occur is nit-picking at 
best. So social level laws and definitions are controlling biological 
level instances of designated definitions of specific biological acts. 
And I could probably say it in a number of other ways, all of which are 
counter to your initial statement.

>
>> 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.

[Horse]
Rape and murder constructions or definitions are part of the social 
level. What they enclose and are meant to deter are biological acts.

> [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.

[Horse]
No logic twisting here - just using your words to illustrate your error. 
This is the problem when you try and re-define what is social and what 
is biological. You end up with logical inconsistencies as suggested.

> [Horse]
>> <SNIP>
> [Mark]
> <SNIP>  I don't want to get into why you consider rape to be a biological pattern.  This does not make intellectual sense.

[Horse]

The whole point of my initial statement was that rape and murder, as 
biological instances of socially defined acts, goes against your 
statement that social patterns should never dominate biological 
patterns. Clearly your statement is wrong.


> [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.

Not quite sure what you mean by simple evolution. Evolution occurs in 
different ways at different levels. Evolution as a concept (which can 
also evolve) refers to different instances in different contexts. But 
that's another subject.

>> [Horse]
>> 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.

Murder is a definition of a particular biological act of killing which 
distinguishes it from other terms which may or may not justify that act. 
There is no hyperbole involved here or emotional manipulation any more 
than there is when the concept of evolution is used to refer to the idea 
of change. To say that murder only exists at the social level is as 
inaccurate as to say that evolution only occurs at the intellectual 
level because evolution is a concept. That we don't have laws against 
evolution is neither here nor there. To say that I am using hyperbole 
because I don't agree with your initial statement is disingenuous at best.

> [Mark]
>
> 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.
This is not the only thing that the social level is about because if 
this were the case then any group of animals or other biological 
entities is a social pattern and this is counter to what the MoQ 
describes as social patterns of value and the social level. At a 
particular point in time humans were not significantly different to 
other animals, so at which point can a group of people be described as 
part of a social level or social level patterns being part of a group 
and what is it that distinguishes this group from any other group of 
animals. You are being far too simplistic here. A social level, as per 
MoQ, is much more complex than just a group 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.

And what is it that these definitions of rape and murder refer to? They 
refer to biological behaviour and their definition and the enactment of 
laws against them. So the rules of the social level are designed to 
constrain certain types of biological behaviours or acts. Social 
patterns are not meant to affect the means by which the biological level 
operates but it can and does regulate the behaviours by which these 
means are achieved. Sex and killing as a means to survival is one part 
of biological behaviour but where those acts are not for the purpose of 
survival they can and are (and should be in many cases) regulated by 
social patterns - i.e.laws.


> [Mark]
> 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.

Of course I don't think that. I was just trying to illustrate that what 
you are saying can be logically extended in such a way. The problem here 
is that your original statement manages to distort a particular aspect 
of Pirsigs MoQ in such a way that some take exception to it - myself 
included. It's not that I'm against extending and maybe correcting some 
parts of the source of the MoQ where it's necessary, but that in some 
cases, where you start with a motorbike you end up with a unicycle. 
Sure, you can still get from A to B but what's the point? That's how I 
see it and I think how a number of other folk on the list see it as 
well. Valid extension is fine - corruption is not

> 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.

No offence intended Mark but I think this example is fairly trivial in 
terms of the inter-relation of levels. I also have no problem with seat 
belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws. I think they're common sense. You 
get in your car, put your seat-belt on and take it off when you get to 
the end of your journey. What's the problem?

Also what's the problem with an example that involves emotion? I'll make 
sure I keep out the hyperbole and won't accuse you of supporting 
something that you obviously don't. But why not take an example that is 
more generalised than specific instances of a particular act. Let's look 
at what those acts are part of - i.e. violent behaviour.
Is it right for social patterns of value, such as laws, to dominate 
biological patterns of value which involve violence.

Look forward to hearing from you

Cheers


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